Alcohol, E, nicotine, cannabis .. and horse-riding

From www.dailymail.co.uk …

"It seems that Mr Wilson has clearly never met any real scientists. However, he does appear to possess a great deal of straw from which he is able to fashion crude simulacra of them." Article comment

Well, the story of the politicians versus the scientists is not abating, indeed various groups — like the Daily Fail — are whipping up their followers into a frenzy against reality, it seems. So let's look at the facts. In the same year that a few people died relating to cannabis mis-use, more than four times as many died connected to horse-riding. And many thousands died from smoking- and alcohol-related illnesses. So point one to the scientists.

But the government makes oodles of cash from taxes and duties on alcohol and tobacco. Indeed, without that income to the exchequer general taxation would have to rise quite a bit to replace them. There is also the argument that because so many people die from alcohol- and tobacco- related illnesses and accidents then — even though there may be some costs associated with their medical care — overall they 'save' government money by dying early: less money to be paid out of the pension pot. Which all means that governments aren't as keen as they probably should be to reduce, or even stop, their continued use.

Yet the 'less harmful' (but still illegal) drugs make no money for them. 'E' isn't taxed, cannabis pays for no new roads, and being against them is good publicity for the government; it makes them look 'hard' on crime. Even though the effects of these 'lesser' drugs generally make people less violent (a fight started by too much alcohol, you say?) and less likely to drive their car into a tree or a line of people at a bus stop.

Professor David Nutt was completely accurate in stating that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous to an individual's health than cannabis, and that horse-riding is more of a risk to your health than ecstasy. In his — unpaid — post as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs he told the Home Office this. When asked to provide evidence to the contrary he found none, and stated that fact. And then he did his 'day job' in talking about his findings.

Assisting a government in providing expert advice — and unpaid at that — is a task we need those with the relevant knowledge to undertake. And government should listen to that advice seriously and not pre-judge or demand a particular outcome.

And being an advisor is not a request to be muzzled.

ps. Daily Mail article includes blatant case of Godwin's law. Caveat lector indeed!

Secrets can be good for you

From www.timesonline.co.uk …

Ben Macintyre writes for Times Online on the history and reasons for keeping secrets. As regards the 10,000 people who kept the secret of Bletchley Park for all those years I note that the secrets I promised to keep whilst working for British Transport Police in the 1990s are still fully secure in my head!

A good day for democracy

From www.guardian.co.uk …

"Patrick did his reading, 250 people sang hymns outside – that's what democracy is about," he said. "My view is that freedom of speech is also the freedom to offend – once you start trying to limit [speech] on the basis that you find the view offensive, you start on a slippery slope towards dictatorship and losing your rights. That's why we staged the event." Peter Black, who arranged the Assembly reading with his Labour colleague Lorraine Barrett AM, said he felt that it had been "a good day for democracy".