Should I be jailed for breaking the law?

[Mr Bojangles]

It's OK to break the law if that law is wrong and immoral.

 

And, in fact, I do consider myself to know more about drugs and the issues surrounding them, than the government does. Recall that several professionals employed as advisors to the govt on drugs, have been sacked when they gave advice the govt didn't like, or, resigned, when the govt ignored their advice.

 

The govt is actually pretty thick when it comes to drugs.

Can we assume that you must have at the very least a doctorate and a fellowship with a medical professional body?

[onewheeldave]

Can we assume that you must have at the very least a doctorate and a fellowship with a medical professional body?

 

You can assume what you want- in this case you'd be incorrect.

 

You do not need a doctorate/fellowship to make up your own mind.

 

And, IMO, you certainly need neither to come to the conclusion that the goverments 'war on drugs' is utterly insane.

 

Though, as I mentioned before, the goverment advisors whose professional advice didn't tally with with the government wanted them to say, and who resigned/were sacked, did possess the necessar qualifications-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm

 

Who is best placed to understand the reality of drug use- a qualified professional drugs advisor, or, politicians?

[Halibut]

Can we assume that you must have at the very least a doctorate and a fellowship with a medical professional body?

 

No, and nor should you need to - it's clear that the government has decided it knows better than the scientists. They sacked Dr David Knutt from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for having the temerity to tell the truth about drugs.

 

Among other things Knutt pointed out that taking ecstacy was a great deal less dangerous than riding horses dangerous. The government didn't like it.

[Mr Bojangles]

You can assume what you want- in this case you'd be incorrect.

 

You do not need a doctorate/fellowship to make up your own mind.

 

And, IMO, you certainly need neither to come to the conclusion that the goverments 'war on drugs' is utterly insane.

 

Though, as I mentioned before, the goverment advisors whose professional advice didn't tally with with the government wanted them to say, and who resigned/were sacked, did possess the necessar qualifications-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm

 

Who is best placed to understand the reality of drug use- a qualified professional drugs advisor, or, politicians?

I think I understand now.

 

The governments of just about every civilised country, and their medical advisors, are totally wrong, and druggies know their stuff.

 

I'm waiting to feel that 'Eureka' thing, but it's just not coming.

[Mr Bojangles]

No, and nor should you need to - it's clear that the government has decided it knows better than the scientists. They sacked Dr David Knutt from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for having the temerity to tell the truth about drugs.

 

Among other things Knutt pointed out that taking ecstacy was a great deal less dangerous than riding horses dangerous. The government didn't like it.

Interesting. Are you as great an advocate of horse riding as you are of the taking of illegal drugs?

[onewheeldave]

The thing about threads like this is that, when it comes to most people who believe drugs should remain illegal, is that, putting forward facts and arguments to the contrary, is highly unlikely to do any good, because most of them are not at all open to reason.

 

Anyone who's good a decent grasp of the reality of the 'drugs on war' knows that it's not actually a complicated issue: the 'drugs on war' is manifestly and obviously insane.

 

The vast majority of the harm attributed to drug use, is in actuality, a direct consequence of the anti-drugs laws.

 

Virtually all the 'arguements' in support of demonising drugs and drug users, are based on prejudice, knee-jerk emotion and have no basis in rationality.

 

Does anyone know of any organisations that are actually trying to do something practical about this- rather than just trying to convince people who are incapable of being convinced?

 

Clearly, the attempt to tackle the problem by pure debate, is failing, has been failing for some time, and, will likely continue to do so.

[onewheeldave]

I think I understand now.

 

The governments of just about every civilised country, and their medical advisors, are totally wrong, and druggies know their stuff.

 

I'm waiting to feel that 'Eureka' thing, but it's just not coming.

 

It was you who seemed to think that some kind of professional expertise and relevant qualifications are necessary to come to a valid conclusion on the drugs issue.

 

If you look at the link I posted (and the other links on the right side of that page) you will see that the goverment has totally ignored such advisors (and sacked some of them)- so, clearly, our govt is not interested in professional considered advice. Neither is the American govt.

 

What is it that makes you qualified to judge that the opinion of politicians is superior to that of professional drug advisors?

[Mr Bojangles]

It was you who seemed to think that some kind of professional expertise and relevant qualifications are necessary to come to a valid conclusion on the drugs issue.

 

If you look at the link I posted (and the other links on the right side of that page) you will see that the goverment has totally ignored such advisors (and sacked some of them)- so, clearly, our govt is not interested in professional considered advice. Neither is the American govt.

 

What is it that makes you qualified to judge that the opinion of politicians is superior to that of professional drug advisors?

That's easy enough, I just accept that the democracy we vote for is the only fair form of governance availabe to us, and we can't have everything our own way.

 

Don't forget, the drug issue is a highly emotive one and the odd rogue senior advisor among many sensible individuals isn't really an issue.

 

Better to ask the next bobby you come across what his views are on illegal drugs if you don't like the government view.

[Halibut]

 

Better to ask the next bobby you come across what his views are on illegal drugs if you don't like the government view.

 

Large numbers of frontline oficers and even the occasional chief constable believe the current laws are unhelpful and would wish to legalise or decriminalise cannabis.

[onewheeldave]

That's easy enough, I just accept that the democracy we vote for is the only fair form of governance availabe to us, and we can't have everything our own way.

 

Don't forget, the drug issue is a highly emotive one and the odd rogue senior advisor among many sensible individuals isn't really an issue.

 

Better to ask the next bobby you come across what his views are on illegal drugs if you don't like the government view.

 

It's not just the odd rogue advisor- at least 4 are mentioned on this page-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm

 

(did you follow the link?)

 

And there's plenty of police officers who think some, or all, drugs should be legal and regulated, including some high ranking officers who have gone public on their views.

 

(After all, police are in a good position to see the sheer amount of harm caused by stupid drug laws, and, who understand how much police time is wasted that could be spent tackling crimes that actually matter).

 

The fact that you accept democracy is a bit of a strawman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

it's entirely possible to support democarcy and oppose irrational goverment policies.