SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
UK Home Secretary Theresa May is continuing a trend of ignoring science advisers when it comes to drug policy:
Home Secretary Theresa May and her statutory advisers on drug policy look to be heading for a showdown over government plans to deal with so-called "legal highs". Some members of The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are understood to be furious that they were not consulted on proposed legislation for a blanket ban on psychoactive substances. The relationship between the ACMD and ministers in various governments has long been strained. There have been sackings and mass resignations in the last few years, amid claims that expert scientists were being bullied and ignored because their advice didn't coincide with government policy.
Questions are now being asked as to whether the ACMD is being edged out of the drugs debate - 44 years after a Conservative government set it up to ensure science rather than politics dictated policy. In the House of Lords yesterday, a number of peers demanded to know why ministers had not asked the ACMD's opinion before drawing up the controversial Psychoactive Substances Bill.
"It is actually a legal requirement set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that the ACMD must be consulted before alterations to the Act or new legislation is brought in," Labour peer Lord Rea told the House. "Instead, a specially appointed expert panel was set up by the Home Office. I can only suggest that this was done because the opinion of the ACMD is often not exactly welcomed by the Home Office".
The principle which underpinned the drugs debate in the UK at that time [in 1971] was the longstanding and broadly accepted view that addicts were ill and required treatment rather than punishment. Known as the "British system", ministers felt a medical science-led approach was preferable to US-style prohibition. Roll the clock forward four decades and the government view seems to have turned around entirely in responding to the threat from so-called "legal highs". The bill to outlaw NPS prohibits everything "capable of producing a psychoactive effect" unless it is specifically exempted - and there are concerns that the proposals are being introduced without proper consultation with health experts.
A blanket ban on psychoactive legal highs with prison sentences of up to seven years was featured in the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the Queen's Speech.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:27AM
Paint this as fascism, or whatever you want
I'll paint you as an authoritarian scumbag who desires 'safety' more than allowing people to exercise their fundamental liberties; to me, you're no different or less cowardly from people who support mass surveillance because they're afraid of terrorists. Your priorities indicate you'd be better off in North Korea than in any country that claims to be free.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:11AM
I think you have been trolled. I am not sure that it is possible for a thinking person (and they must be to reach this site - it is not popular) to reach those conclusions with today's readily available information. I do not even think that the politicians who seek to enact prohibition legislation believe their own comments about this. I suspect, strongly, that they say those things because their goal is control.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @12:58PM
Sadly, no. Please read this book to understand why: Bob Altemeyer - The Authoritarians (free download)
Drugs that make you afraid or aggressive, such as alcohol in many cases, are useful: the political leaders in a police state are adept at channelling that fear and agression to their own means and ends. They are much more skilled in this type of manipulation than you'll ever understand. Not everyone is as smart as you!
Drugs that make you relaxed or contemplative, are dangerous: a population that wonders "is that policy really necessary? why can't our leaders chill out a bit?" is a danger to a fascist police state. Besides, who's going to do the fighting for the "right cause"?
There once was a Loesje poem (Loesje poems are usually 1-2 lines long and used to be posters made by an art collective in Arnhem) about war:
"What if it became war
and no-one wanted to go?"
Now THAT's a nightmare for fascists. Both leaders and their followers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:25PM
KGIII I misread your comment and will shut up now.
That'll teach me to stay off the chocolate..
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:32AM
I was wondering why you were mostly agreeing with me but had started with the premise that I was incorrect. It is all good. I make mistakes - usually enough for the both of us. If it helps we can blame it on my writing style and the resulting lack of clarity.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @12:33PM
A population drug-idled and addicted is hardly a population able to take advantage of fundamental liberties. If you believe in some kind of Randian "freedom", I'm surprised you have gotten through life.
Wrt mass surveillance -- how does drug prohibition --ie policing dangerous substances-- equate with it? The government (especially the UK government) bans things all the time-- guns, media that offends people, types of alcohol, etc. I'd hazard a guess you're all right with banning at least one of those in practice.
And, wrt to the other guy saying "troll": are you that encapsulated in a bubble/hugbox, you can't imagine anyone legitimately has a differing point of view to you? I think all those gewg posts have given you a false impression of the world.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:33PM
A population drug-idled and addicted is hardly a population able to take advantage of fundamental liberties.
That's their choice. It isn't your place to send government thugs to take away their liberties whilst claiming to be protecting their liberties.
And that's nonsense, anyway. Can drug addicts exercise freedom of speech? Yes. The freedom to control their own bodies? Yes. Privacy rights? Yes. There are no rights that drugs stop you from exercising, and even if there were, it's ultimately your choice whether or not you want to take advantage of them.
Wrt mass surveillance -- how does drug prohibition --ie policing dangerous substances-- equate with it?
It's the same mentality that safety is more important than freedom; that we should act like worthless cowards and surrender our liberties in order to be more 'safe'.
I'd hazard a guess you're all right with banning at least one of those in practice.
I'm not fine with banning any of those, because I'm not a freedom-hating authoritarian.