![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingersWhich caught my eye and seem to be peripherally about the same thing:
www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/16/share-a-pint-or-glass-of-wine-to-drink-safely-says-expert
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/16/justice-secretary-hits-back-at-criticism-of-nitrous-oxide-ban
Wherein Professor David Nutt and Robert Buckland argue their respective cases. Of course Professor Nutt has the right of it; but that doesn't stop me rather liking my long slow death by Islay Whisky. Buckland's beautifully pompous speech on LBC (a UK talk Radio station) obfuscated rather than addressed Nutt's analysis and criticism:
"The trouble with these contradictory messages is that people, particularly young people, get the wrong signal from those in authority. Giving the wrong signal about dangerous drugs could lead to people’s lives being put at risk. We need to be absolutely consistent in our messaging. Our message is it is an illegal dangerous drug …There is a very good reason why that type of drug is prohibited and banned."
What is obvious is that Buckland doesn't know what he is talking about, never having experienced anything like an illegal drug. So his points are essentially legalese wrapped up as social ethics, disguising an essential misunderstanding; as one would expect from the Justice Secretary.
Obviously we need to legalise drugs. It goes on the list of things which are never going to happen.
For reasons, as the argot has it.
www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/16/share-a-pint-or-glass-of-wine-to-drink-safely-says-expert
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/16/justice-secretary-hits-back-at-criticism-of-nitrous-oxide-ban
Wherein Professor David Nutt and Robert Buckland argue their respective cases. Of course Professor Nutt has the right of it; but that doesn't stop me rather liking my long slow death by Islay Whisky. Buckland's beautifully pompous speech on LBC (a UK talk Radio station) obfuscated rather than addressed Nutt's analysis and criticism:
"The trouble with these contradictory messages is that people, particularly young people, get the wrong signal from those in authority. Giving the wrong signal about dangerous drugs could lead to people’s lives being put at risk. We need to be absolutely consistent in our messaging. Our message is it is an illegal dangerous drug …There is a very good reason why that type of drug is prohibited and banned."
What is obvious is that Buckland doesn't know what he is talking about, never having experienced anything like an illegal drug. So his points are essentially legalese wrapped up as social ethics, disguising an essential misunderstanding; as one would expect from the Justice Secretary.
Obviously we need to legalise drugs. It goes on the list of things which are never going to happen.
For reasons, as the argot has it.
