Friday, 30 October 2009

Nutted

Very good riddance indeed. We need a single class of illegal drug, with a crackdown on the possession of drugs, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so on. Within a context in which each offence carries a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or of 15 years for life. How do you think that you can get this? By voting New Labour? By voting for a Cameronette of either, if determinate, sex? By voting, of all things, Lib Dem? Make alternative arrangements.
at

12 comments:

  1. Postman Pat30 October 2009 at 18:14

    Warming to Alan Johnson?

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay30 October 2009 at 18:20

    Perish the thought. He tried to destroy the Catholic schools. But +Nichols saw him off, and was elevated accordingly.

    Johnson is right about this, though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JJGM30 October 2009 at 18:49

    And we should also think about limiting sale of alcohol to people over 30. Much more harmful to the fabric of society than ciggies and at least as harmful as cannabis.

    But I suspect that my campaign for Prohibition would attract few votes. Rather like your views on so called recreational drugs will not endear you to the good folk of North West Durham.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay30 October 2009 at 18:54

    Don't you believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Consignia30 October 2009 at 22:06

    In what way was Professor Nutt's claim that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis inaccurate?

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Lindsay30 October 2009 at 23:38

    In every conceivable way. It's the oldest line in the book, and it's rubbish. Even were it not, it would still not have been his place to say such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Consignia31 October 2009 at 09:03

    OK, so on the one hand we have the opinion of a renowned expert in pharmacology who has devoted a great deal of his career to researching the actual (as opposed to alleged) effects of various chemicals upon the brain...

    ...and on the other we have a highly opinionated blogger with (as far as I can see) no practical knowledge of the subject at all, but who is nonetheless confident enough to assert that the former's views are "rubbish" without providing any supporting evidence.

    Hmm - which one of those has more credibility, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Lindsay31 October 2009 at 14:41

    "Renowned" only among other cannabis activists, which is all that these people ever are.

    The fightback has started. You have picked the wrong side.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Postman Pat31 October 2009 at 14:45

    I think Conisgnia will find that it is also the opinion of the Home Secretary.

    ReplyDelete
  10. David Lindsay31 October 2009 at 15:34

    Quite.

    And of the Prime Minister, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Consignia31 October 2009 at 21:43

    I've scoured Alan Johnson's CV, and can find no evidence of any scientific background or any especial interest in the subject. The same goes for the Prime Minister - so my point remains essentially unaltered.

    Also, if Professor Nutt is so self-evidently incompetent and indeed notorious, why was he retained as a government advisor on this extremely delicate subject until last week? Can it perhaps be the case that he only writes "rubbish" when it happens to be something that contradicts the government's (and the Daily Mail's) ideological position? In which case, why bother having an independent scientific advisor at all?

    I also assume that Professor Nutt didn't give his services free of charge, so perhaps Mr Johnson can explain why our money was apparently wasted in such a profligate fashion?

    ReplyDelete
  12. David Lindsay1 November 2009 at 12:10

    You assume wrongly. He wasn't paid a penny. Talk of "sacking" is gravely misleading.

    ReplyDelete