Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
So there could possibly not have been a better week in which to have launched the new party group "Lib Dems for Drug Policy Reform". Please, if you want your anger channeled into a useful cause, go have a look, sign up, and ensure that the Lib Dems are the party of the "big three" who dare to take this debate forward in a responsible way.
Challenging the existing "war on drugs" mentality of drugs policy does not mean supporting or promoting drug use. It simply means dealing with it in some other way than treating everyone involved as criminals. Joining LDDPR does not mean you want to see the streets full of doped up multi-substance abusing drop outs. It simply means we want to see a sensible and responsible debate about other approaches. Especially in the light of evidence from other countries - such as Portugal - that have recently shown that a less criminal policy approach and a more health policy approach can both reduce harm and overall consumption quite significantly.
Expert body after expert body over the past decade has challenged the prevailing classification and criminalization based policy, both those produced by government appointed advisors and external groups such as the RSA. All have been comprehensively ignored or even ignobly trashed by government. This is a complete dereliction of duty on the part of government. Either drugs, or the current system of dealing with them (whichever side of the fence you sit on) cause great harm, including serious illness and death, and the "war on drugs" contributes to misery and death in communities around the world, including here.
For the government to have ignored suggestions that might mitigate these appalling effects of the drug trade and the way we police it, is for them to say "we're putting public opinion before lives". Or "we are happy that some people die so long as we look macho". It is an utterly immoral stance. If this is indeed a "war" on drugs, then those who make such immoral decisions, as government ministers consistently have, are the "war criminals" in this war, and must face justice for their actions.
Earlier this month Margaret Godden and I steered a motion through South Central regional conference to call on Federal Policy Committee to ensure that drugs policy is amongst the first things to be reviewed in a new round of policy work. We did not wish to disrupt preparations for a General Election with what can be a contentious issue. Following Johnson's disgraceful behaviour however, for which I assume the entire cabinet has some collective responsibility (at least nobody has demurred so far), I think we should be taking a much more forthright line immediately. This immoral government has handed the last shreds of so called "evidence based policy making" to us on a plate for all the public to see.
If you excuse the pun, Johnson and his ilk need a good "nutting" and the sooner the better.
Here are some stories that may be on related subjects, based on the tags used in this post:
|
Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||
Comments
Would have signed up, but unfortunately there appears to be nowhere on that site to sign up yet... they probably shouldn't have had the site go live til they'd put some content on there...
Ditto. There's only a "get free updates by email" box but I think that is fo rthe general party updates,
Actually both - if you put your details into the "get free updates by email" boxes and click "register" it takes you to the sign up form for the site. The same form is available from the "Keep in touch" link in the navigation menu.
It is confusing. Ewan was trying to fix it. Personally though, it's a year now since I bought "ldap.org.uk" for "Lib Dems Against Prohibition" and still haven't done anything with it - so Ewan has at least got something up and going and should be supported.
Appears to be working okay this end; looking forward to some sensible comment and debate on the subject, hopefully with some sound scientific rationale behind it and far removed from the tabloid-driven "drugs are bad, mmmkay" hysteria. It's all the more needed now. Cheers for the heads-up.
David Nutt on increasing the links between Big Pharma and mental health treatment:
http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/29/3/88.pdf
And some interesting stuff on Big Pharma and Prozac promotion in which you will find him under the "Academic Stalking" link:
http://www.healyprozac.com
Far from being dismayed as to why this "independent" person has been sacked, I am rather more puzzled as to how such a well established corporate expansionist ever got taken seriously by Labour in the first place.
Rather like having Alfred Kinsey on a youth committee and then complaining when he starts on about abolishing the age of consent because paedophilia is harmless as his scientific research shows.
Still can't say I'm too surprised to see you coming out in his support. Profits before People!! That traditional Liberal cry
Alan, have you *read* anything Jock's ever written? "Profits before people" is about the last thing Jock would support.
I happen to think the evidence points to SSRIs as being dangerous, and think Nutt is being dangerously wrongheaded in that pdf you linked about commercial trials, but those aren't things directly related to the job he was doing.
Whether Nutt should have held the job in the first place is one thing. Given that he did, however, he shouldn't have been sacked for giving what appears to have been an honest opinion based on the merits of the case.
Andrew Hickey's last blog post... Belated Michael Jackson Tribute ? Covers Problem MP3s.
I have read a fair amount of Jock Coats in my time. He may not mean to be supporting profits before people but the outcomes of his way of thinking decidedly are. It was the essential tenet of Classical Liberalism that the economy must thrive irrespective of the human cost. The market would winnow out wheat from chaff. The results of such thinking can be found in Dickens.
Are you really saying that Nutt's judgement in one case should not be taken into account when thinking about his other "independent" statements. The issue here is how much he is/was being paid to downplay the dangers of certain drugs to further the aims of corporate expansionism. About how safe clinical judgements are if driven by profiteers etc. Can we really trust anything the Pharmas have to say via their spokesmen (like Nutt?) on safety issues?
If Nutt is wrong on Prozac et al, then how wrong is he on everything else? If he seems prepared to try and bury evidence in relation to Prozac, what other evidence would he be prepared to bury?
Personally I am amazed he got away with his double dealing for so long.
Post new comment