|
|
|
|
|
by vixen99
3498 days ago
|
|
Any possible considerations of the substantial arguments against your view seem to escape you. Moreover you pull the straw man trick by putting arguments in the mouth of dissenters to your view. This is an immensely difficult issue with strong arguments on either side; please don't trivialize it with airy condescension towards those seriously taking on board the consequences of decriminalization (for instance: http://www.dea.gov/pr/multimedia-library/publications/speaki...
and there's tons more). They are not idiots. |
|
Exhibit A is the sacking of Professor David Nutt, who was the most senior government advisor on drugs. His scientific advice contradicted government policy, so he was replaced with someone who would toe the party line. The Home Secretary did not consult the Science Minister on this decision. After Nutt's sacking, five other members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs resigned in protest.
The government has shown utter contempt for evidence on the harms of drugs. They have consistently rejected scientific evidence when it contradicts their political ideology. Their reasoning for criminalisation is facile and circular. An examination of the relationship between the Home Office and the ACMD shows this with absolute clarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt