Saturday, 31 October 2009

Labour Manifesto by Goat Entrails Shocker

There was a time when Heliocentricity was punishable by death, suggesting that the Monarch wasn't divine would see your head separated from your shoulders whether or not you had dandruff and the Witchfinder Pursuivant roamed the country looking for witches to drown. Okay, I admit that I got that last one from Black Adder but you know the score.

We look back at previous generations and laugh at their foolishness at believing supersticious nonsense. We justify our ridicule of the Dark Ages with the widespread acceptance that fact based rationale is probably the best way to make sense of the world.

But maybe we have not progressed as far as our smugness lets us believe.

The Home Secretary says that he has lost confidence in a Professor who has simply done his job as a scientist and that is to state the evidence and produce findings based on the evidence.

When a fact based opinion is given to politicians and their first reaction is to wonder what the Daily Mail would think we are getting into dangerous territory. If we'd followed that practice in the 1930s we'd all be speaking German.

Instead it should be the Home Secretary that people should lose confidence in. The Labour Government is persuing policy based on nothing more substantial than the magic of the Wookey Hole Witch. The Prince of Darkness is probably grasping his planchette in his left hand as he consults his ouija board before giving Adam Crozier his daily set of instructions.

Even now I suspect Gordon Brown is thumbing through to the astrology page in the Daily Mail for advice on when to call the election. I await the next Government initiative to vet asylum seekers. Chuck them in the Serpentine and if they drown they can stay. Oops. Maybe in the current climate I shouldn't be floating ideas like that?

For all Gordon Brown's alleged high IQ, he and his cabinet have only proved themselves to be more and more intellectually bankrupt as the days tick by.

5 comments:

Adrian Windisch said...

Reagan was famous for consulting an astrologer, via Nancy his wife.

In Browns case no advice would help, whatever he does seems to be a disaster.

howard thomas said...

So,WAS, what exactly would be your take on the findings of the nutty professor.
Your answer in clear, unmistakeable, English would be good so that it can be clearly understood.
Are cannabis and ecstacy taken without harm , or what?

Was said...

Howard, the war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure by any measure. You don't have to be on one side or other of the legalise/criminalise debate to understand that.

Consuming cannabis, ecstacy, peanuts, water... are not without risks and no-one pretends they are, least alone the academics.

The statistics about skunk are distorted and left uncorrected by Government Ministers, mainly so that they can peddle the line that when they smoked dope at University it was a harmless recreation. The facts have been scientifically demonstrated that the strength of THC in joints in the sixties has not really varied up to the present day.

It seems an odd piece of logic where substances are being classed as illegal purely on the basis of how much pleasure people get from them, when the real categorisation should be because of the harm it does to society. It is not illegal to drink and drink quite clearly is harmful to the individual. But it is is illegal to be drunk at a designated sporting event, drunk and disorderly or driving whilst under the influence. Alcohol is a far more dangerous drug and kills more people than most of the illegal ones.

A rational and scientific approach to the problem is what is needed. Until drug problems are treated as a medical issue and not a criminal one there will be no progress.

A little more honesty and a lot less bullshit would go a long way towards reducing crime and the harm that drugs do to people.

howard thomas said...

Alcohol is quite obviously responsible for more harm than any of the illegal drugs---nothing ,I suppose, to do with the numbers of people that use it !
If you are trying to tell me that the strength of cannabis has not changed from the sixties, then I am surprised that you are unaware of the difference.
Most cannabis that is on the streets today is skunk which is many more times potent than the cannabis that was around years ago.
There was a good case for legalising the old cannabis which was a 'happy',relaxant,'love the world' sort of stuff, but times have changed!
Skunk is altogether a different animal that vastly increases the chances of a user developing psychosis and paranoia---to say any different is to evade the issue.
As well as that is the associated loss of memory ability , that no doubt goes unrecorded in many instances. This is permanent damage and is common to skunk users.
As for the war on drugs, I confess I haven't really noticed one ------Dealers deal----users use----and in the main they are left alone to do so. When dealers come before the courts they quite often escape with a non custodial sentence. That will never solve anything.
Much as I don't like the woman Jaqui Smith was quite right to reclassify cannabis to class 2.
Downgrading it to class 3 sent out entirely the wrong message!

On alcohol I suggest that it might be a good measure to ban fruit flavoured alcohol , which is quite simply pushing alcohol products at children.

Was said...

Howard, whilst the use of skunk has undoubtedly increased:
i) Cannabis use is largely self regulating... in the same way that people do not drink usually driink a whole bottle of vodka at the same rate they drink beer even though they could.
ii) Most cannabis on the streets is not skunk.
iii) The incidence of schizophrenia is decreasing in the population whereas according to the empirical evidence the "increased" use of skunk you claim should see it going up.
iv) In any case, the "war on drugs" has lead to it being more cost effective to see production of homegrown high concentration THC rather than the low yield imported resin.

The population itself is also rather schizophrenic when it comes to classification. They marginialy want cannabis upgraded to class 'B', yet are also against increasing the penalty for possession which legally is the only consequence of the change in categorisation.

And if you think that people will look at its classification and say to themselves "get behind me evil weed" then maybe that common sense you are legendary for has deserted you on this particular topic.

And no, I don't smoke dope so I have no personal interest in whether it is legal or not. But I can see bad science when I see it.

To carry on implying that alcohol is less damaging as you do does you no credit. Alcohol should be at the minimum a class 'B' drug using the same criteria.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence available on this subject. It would appear that the inquisition believe it to be heretical.

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/DAATOct2007.pdf