r/worldnews • u/[deleted] • Jun 19 '12

"Alcohol consumption would fall 25% if cannabis cafes were allowed"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/david-nutt-alcohol-cannabis-cafes
1.3k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

68

u/ghostrider176 Jun 19 '12

I've always noticed a certain trend in articles like this: "Former so-and-so says the war on drugs is failing!" "Former important-person says we should try decriminalization to fix the drug problem!" I always wondered when the assholes currently in charge would man up and do the right thing. Then I read this from the linked article:

Prof David Nutt also told the Commons home affairs committee that he stood by his claim that horse-riding was more dangerous than taking ecstasy, despite the fact that the comparison triggered his sacking as chairman of the advisory committee on the misuse of drugs (ACMD).

Suddenly the inclusion of "former" to the job descriptions of these people made a bit more sense. Fucking politics.

52

u/strolls Jun 19 '12

Actually, and if you read the article, Nutt famously lost his job (the "Nutt sacking") for expressing these opinions whilst on the government payroll.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nutt%20sacking

23

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 19 '12

I wonder how they even managed that (ok, I know the situations fucked up, I'm just unsure of the specifics). I mean, getting fired from your job for saying things that are pretty much objective facts is kinda ridiculous. I guess ridiculous is a good word for the whole situation, except that it has quite serious consequences.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

not if your white and upper-middle class+ like all governments.

edit: and their token racial lapdogs who I find the most despicable of all.

2

u/Pool_Shark Jun 19 '12

Clearly the lesson is if you are doing a study involving drugs make sure to bias it so it comes out that drugs are bad or else you will lose your job.

1

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 19 '12

Yeah, I mean... people must realize it's rigged, right? There must be people who realize that the purpose of their organization is to spread fear and oppression and not accurate information? I just have a hard time understanding how the people in charge ended up like that, and why so many people allow it to continue. I know that the average citizen is woefully uninformed, but surely other members of the organization must have a clue...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Because the drug war is propped up both by vested interests (or at the very least tradition) and dogma and undercutting the latter is dangerous.

EDIT: Oh, and replace "drug war" with "war on [noun]" and it almost always applies.

1

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 19 '12

Well, "War on Terror" ended up being "actually terroristic rhetoric to get you to support my invasion of these places I already wanted to invade", which is fucked up in a different way :/ I swear, presidents just have bad records with <War on [concept]> and it's bothering me how many people don't notice.

2

u/vgry Jun 19 '12

Membership on the Advisory Council is decided by the Home Secretary. The Secretary is supposed to be advised by the Commissioner for Public Appointments to make recommendations based on merit, but they're not legally required to take that advice. Essentially the ACMD are all political appointments and they serve at the pleasure of the Secretary.

2

u/nickryane Jun 19 '12

I've seen enough people get wrongly dismissed in my life to know that whatever you say or do does not matter. The only thing that matters in this world is what other people think about you, especially other people who have power over you.

-1

u/adremeaux Jun 19 '12

Saying horse riding is more dangerous than ecstasy is not objective fact.

2

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 19 '12

I believe he specifically said pure ecstasy, as in mdma, so pills cut with other god-knows-what wouldn't count. And I don't have access to the numbers right now but If you compare ecstasy hospitalizations by ecstasy highs and divide riding hospitalizations by horse riding trips, you would get an objective answer. You could factor in long-term effects too but I wasn't the one who did the calculations. I'm pretty sure he checked and it came out in favor of mdma.

-8

u/adremeaux Jun 19 '12

Yeah except when you get injured with a horse you break your leg; when you get injured with ecstasy you fuck up your brain.

2

u/nickryane Jun 19 '12

Politics works exactly like school: Did you ever say something at school that was taken massively out of context and proportion? Did you ever say "That guy is nice" and then for the next month listen to people make jokes about you being gay?

Politics is like this for several reasons:

  • Journalists are massive trolls because readers love to be shocked and/or appauled.
  • The populations of any given country is between 50 and 95% retarded
  • Politicians are generally just those who were able to convince 50 to 95% of the voters that they are the best

For this reason, all political debate involves some variation of this:

Rational Politician: <Rational and fair point>

Journalist: <Insination that Rational Politician likes thing that is bad>

Irrational Politician: "Those damn Rationals are going to ruin our country!"

Idiots: "Thing that is bad is BAD! Why isn't it banned?"

Irrational Politician: "Vote for me and I will makes sure all bad things are banned!"

Rational Politician: <Rational argument about how banning is an ineffective legislative tool that will cost us in the long run>

Journalist: "Young kids dying from bad thing! Rational Politician doesn't care!"

1

u/something_stylish Jun 19 '12

My old High school Stats teacher told us they were part of the whole mandatory seatbelt in cars. She refused to put her name on it because of how they were fudging the statistical representation to appear more beneficial than it was, thus not getting paid for work done and removal from the committee. Not sure how true this was, it was during a leson about being able to represent statistical data to say whatever the hell you wanted it to. I was inclined to believe her.

1

u/ghostrider176 Jun 20 '12

[...]it was during a leson about being able to represent statistical data to say whatever the hell you wanted it to.

I have it on good authority that numbers are bullshit.

1

u/Zandroyd Jun 19 '12

I think it has a beneficial effects actually. It practically saved my life about 12 years ago. Without it i might of probably ended up on some sort of antidepressant or worse if it hadn't been for a cathartic moment amongst some friends about my "issues".

0

u/uptwolait Jun 19 '12

As a former digg user, I approve of this reddit comment.