Posts
I agree entirely, to say nothing of the libertarian argument.
Legalise please. Not part-way decriminalisation, but full on legalisation please.
Thank you
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Monday, 24 May 2010
Saturday, 3 April 2010
NHS Drug Budget: 21 Jun 2006: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)
My personal view is that the NHS budget for drugs should be cut. The amount we spend on drugs in this country is unsustainable and in times of trouble like this it should be looked at and not protected
Monday, 29 March 2010
BBC News - Mephedrone 'ban' government decision due
Not for the first time, media hysteria takes precedence over scientific policy-making.
Keep calm and take your time, don't rush to ban something as soon as the frenzied tabloids say so
Keep calm and take your time, don't rush to ban something as soon as the frenzied tabloids say so
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Professor Nutt and drugs policy
Labour list agrees with me that Nutt "was sacked by Alan Johnson for the mortal crime of telling the truth and doing his job."
"The important point here is that Professor Nutt's statements weren’t personal opinions but were based on scientific evidence" agreed.
"It also casts aspersions on the role of scientists in informing public policy if evidence-based approaches are jettisoned in favour of spurious morality judgements."
"Who will dare to give unorthodox evidence to ministers given the precedent set of job security depending on giving the ‘right’ advice?"
"before the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 there were 5,000 heroin users compared to the current 300,000 (so much for the success of prohibition)."
"All these points seem to be lost in the current debate; anyone who so much as suggests that we need a rethink on drugs policy is characterised as an advocate for handing out crack-pipes to school children and forcibly injecting heroin into the eyes of pensioners."
Aside from my opinion on drugs, i fully support using scientific evidence rather than engaging in political scare-mongering. I don't like everyone trying to be tougher than each other on Home Office issues
"The important point here is that Professor Nutt's statements weren’t personal opinions but were based on scientific evidence" agreed.
"It also casts aspersions on the role of scientists in informing public policy if evidence-based approaches are jettisoned in favour of spurious morality judgements."
"Who will dare to give unorthodox evidence to ministers given the precedent set of job security depending on giving the ‘right’ advice?"
"before the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 there were 5,000 heroin users compared to the current 300,000 (so much for the success of prohibition)."
"All these points seem to be lost in the current debate; anyone who so much as suggests that we need a rethink on drugs policy is characterised as an advocate for handing out crack-pipes to school children and forcibly injecting heroin into the eyes of pensioners."
Aside from my opinion on drugs, i fully support using scientific evidence rather than engaging in political scare-mongering. I don't like everyone trying to be tougher than each other on Home Office issues
Friday, 30 October 2009
Nutt Sack
Shame to see Prof Nutt has gone.
Finally someone trying to move drugs policy from scare-mongering to evidence. And he gets sacked.
It's a damn shame that so much Home Office policy is lead by a desire to keep the Mail on side rather than doing what's right
Finally someone trying to move drugs policy from scare-mongering to evidence. And he gets sacked.
It's a damn shame that so much Home Office policy is lead by a desire to keep the Mail on side rather than doing what's right
Thursday, 17 September 2009
drugs legislation
Now, i'm in favour of legalising at least some recreational drugs. I would put marajuana on the same footing as alcohol.
There's a bit in the Guardian disagreeing with me, so let's have a look through their arguements.
In attacking an advocate of legalisation, the piece is getting silly and bitchy:
"There are, it seems, no downsides to the government taking over the drugs market – just a road to unbroken harmony and state-sponsored highs."
it's worth noting how it starts, though that does not impact on the quality of the actual arguement. I won't go through the whole thing as it's long.
I don't like the way that the arguement is made, as it sounds more like a Daily Mail rant. Saying that legalisation will make doctors into dealers is silly:
"But who does the addict turn to when they want to come off the drug? Not the doctor to whom they are now linked, like the addict to the street dealer."
stupid.
i'm certainly not convinved by the arguement that "The effectiveness of a government-regulated drug trade is already evident in the alcohol-fuelled violence that plagues so many of our cities,".
Surely it's better that these people are seen as wrong uns, and can get treatment, is better than just leaving them to suffer in the dark.
If anything, it seems like the author would like everything less healthy than apples should be banned.
There's a bit in the Guardian disagreeing with me, so let's have a look through their arguements.
In attacking an advocate of legalisation, the piece is getting silly and bitchy:
"There are, it seems, no downsides to the government taking over the drugs market – just a road to unbroken harmony and state-sponsored highs."
it's worth noting how it starts, though that does not impact on the quality of the actual arguement. I won't go through the whole thing as it's long.
I don't like the way that the arguement is made, as it sounds more like a Daily Mail rant. Saying that legalisation will make doctors into dealers is silly:
"But who does the addict turn to when they want to come off the drug? Not the doctor to whom they are now linked, like the addict to the street dealer."
stupid.
i'm certainly not convinved by the arguement that "The effectiveness of a government-regulated drug trade is already evident in the alcohol-fuelled violence that plagues so many of our cities,".
Surely it's better that these people are seen as wrong uns, and can get treatment, is better than just leaving them to suffer in the dark.
If anything, it seems like the author would like everything less healthy than apples should be banned.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Ganga in Argentina
"The supreme court in Argentina has ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish people for using marijuana for personal consumption."
I'm with the Argentine Supreme Court on this. I would like to see marijuana on the same level as alcohol as i believe they are pretty much the same, except that one doesn't make you violent.
I'm with the Argentine Supreme Court on this. I would like to see marijuana on the same level as alcohol as i believe they are pretty much the same, except that one doesn't make you violent.
Quote of the day
Perhaps i'm not feeling well, but I find myself agreeing with (that twat) Guido Fawkes on two counts today.
Firstly, his quote of the day:
"Alan Johnson says…
“The connection between The Wire and Chris Grayling’s grasp on the problems of modern Britain is that they’re both fictional.”"
Second,
on legalising drugs and the futility of trying to fight them. "The biggest beneficiaries of drug prohibition are the crime bosses."
Now i'm off to lie down
Firstly, his quote of the day:
"Alan Johnson says…
“The connection between The Wire and Chris Grayling’s grasp on the problems of modern Britain is that they’re both fictional.”"
Second,
on legalising drugs and the futility of trying to fight them. "The biggest beneficiaries of drug prohibition are the crime bosses."
Now i'm off to lie down
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
