...does what it says on the tin. Drugs.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25 |
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Then again, I'm clearly on the science-and-facts side of the policy debate. When I suspected Professor Nutt might have over-egged the pudding with his claim about ecstasy versus horse-riding my immediate reaction was to wonder how large a dose of ecstasy was safer than how much horse-riding for what demographic and where the evidence was. (-8
This article, by contrast, made my blood boil. It might even be actionable libel against almost every individual scientist in the country. Hmm…
(no subject)
Also, where the author rushes in and quickly disclaims "Oh no, I'm not blaming the holocaust on British scientists. I'm just saying that it's the same sort of thing. But nowhere near as bad, of course!"
(no subject)
(no subject)
S.
(no subject)
Where is the line drawn? Can I libel:
- Daily Mail journalists
- Daily Mail journalists with "A" "N" and "W" in their initials
- "people like A.N. Wilson"
- "A.N. Wilson and his ilk"
- "A.N. Wilson, Harold Shipman and Robert Mugabe"
…?(no subject)
If you make it plain who you are talking about but then claim in court that you never specifically used their name, just their initials, the judge will rightly give you short shrift.
S.
(no subject)
Returning more specifically to the Nutt issue; while he might well be right that ecstasy is less damaging than alcohol, that is only so in isolation and while prohibition remains. The problem with ecstasy is that it is a to harder drugs, and alcohol pretty much isn't. That may well be a further argument against prohibition.
(no subject)
There's the argument that ecstasy consumption gets you into contact with dealers which gets you into harder stuff but a) this is a product of prohibition and b) from the edges of this world I've had contact with, the kind of people end users buy ecstasy from aren't going to be handling much harder stuff. I'd guess cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamine would be their general stock.
(no subject)
What I was trying to get at was your (a), hence my . Because of prohibition somebody who does something like ecstasy is more likely to meet up with people who do or distribute slightly harder drugs, even if their actual dealers only supply cannabis, ecstasy or amphetamines. Then if they move up the chain...
I've drunk alcohol all my adult life and I've never had anyone trying to sell me drugs on the back of it. However, I understand that somebody who does the milder drugs is more likely to be targeted by dealers of harder drugs.
Going off on a bit of a tangent, where I don't quite follow the argument of alcohol being more damaging than ecstasy is the addiction factor. I believe I'm right in saying that ecstasy is addictive, but I've certainly never found that alcohol is. I know that some people have a problem that way, but I've suspect that is not a problem with the alcohol per say, but a problem with the person's life and they are using the alcohol as a coping mechanism.
Whatever, the whole subject is complex.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
soleprimary* policy guidelines "follow best scientific advice" and "increase social justice", but suspect that it would be unelectable because it's so obviously opposed to the interests of the big media (and other special interest) groups....*there are some circumstances where best scientific advice isn't available and you therefore have to choose some other means :)
(no subject)
S.