David Nutt speaks a lot of sense a lot of the time
Just a shame that the government are fucking spacktards when it comes to how they've treated him.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:30, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

If you get involved in politics you have to play the game.
If he didn't want to he shouldn't have taken them up on their offer.
It's srs bsns can't go running away crying if people aren't nice to you.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:33, Reply)

Bollocks.
If the main issue is that the game is broken then it is absolutely your responsibility as an advisor to point this out. Anything less is intellectual cowardice.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:36, Reply)

You're meant to bring that up in private not in the media.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:44, Reply)

he probably did, wasn't listened to so pitched for wider support

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:45, Reply)

Because ... ?
He was an expert advisor to a government that made a big deal about open government and evidence-based policy making. How dare he make public statements based upon his expertise. What a shit.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:46, Reply)

If I go to a meeting here and say "doing things that way will be a waste of money"
then don't persuade them enough to change their course, I shouldn't go crying to the papers.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:47, Reply)

You do come and bitch about it on here though

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:49, Reply)

Yeah but you cunts aren't in positions of power.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:51, Reply)

Again ... because ... ?
The decisions and decision-making processes of government should be transparent. If you don't agree with the way decisions are made then you have a responsibility to involve the fourth estate.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:51, Reply)

I'm with Dr Shambo here
I would argue that the man knows more about drugs & effects of them than Government, yet they ignore his research.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:41, Reply)

because they know the public wouldn't support anything that made them look "soft on drugs"
which i though was a problem after too many lines, but still.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:42, Reply)

I think that premise is not as true as it once was.
Think of all those stoners that would vote for pretty much anyone that promises to legalize drugs. When you're talking about 25% of 18-35 year olds having smoked weed in the last year, there's plenty of votes in that.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:46, Reply)

Yeah.
Stoned teenagers are famous for voting.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:47, Reply)

Maybe they would be if they had that sort of incentive.
I think the point that has been made for years that appearing "soft on drugs" is electoral suicide is no longer the "fact" that it used to be and that there will be both good and bad consequences from that sort of policy decision.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:50, Reply)

We just rejected a move towards proportional representation.
Under the current fptp system, the government is effectively chosen by a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:52, Reply)

a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders The Daily Mail
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:57, Reply)

That's true if there isn't major swings in seats.
I think a controvertial policy like full reform of drug law could change things in previously safe seats.
And lets face it, it's a issue that nearly everyone has either been affected by or has an opinion on.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:58, Reply)

Can you give me some examples from the past fifty years where it hasn't been true?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:59, Reply)

1997

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:02, Reply)

how was Blair's government not elected by a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders
again, exactly?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:07, Reply)

Because it was a large group of reactionary middle-englanders

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:18, Reply)

It wasn't really, though, was it?

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:33, Reply)

I mean, the number that voted for him
was at least a factor of two smaller than the number who didn't.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:34, Reply)

See, what is happening here is you are each defining your own terms for 'large group of reactionary middle-Englanders'
Just thought I'd mention it...
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:37, Reply)

+ 2million votes from 1992
Torys got about 5 million less votes.
I don't think that change in voting behaviour could be called small.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:37, Reply)

I don't think you've quite got the point of this conversation.
I'm not for a second arguing there wasn't a huge swing. I'm just saying the government is still chosen by a relatively small group of middle-englanders regardless.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:47, Reply)

No need to be quite so patronising.
In 1997, 182 seats changed hands, nearly 28% of the total. That's not dissmissable as middle england deciding the parliment, that's over a quarter of MP's being chucked out.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:54, Reply)

It doesn't really work like that, though.
it requires a frightening small number of people to swing a close seat, so a very small number of people actually made a difference. You're right that there was a large swing in voters, but becuase of the system we use, the actual large swing in seats that made a difference was caused by a very small number of voters, relatively. I mean, you could probably work it out but I'd be astonished if the swing voters that changed seats added up to much more than half a million or so.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:00, Reply)

Surely every election can theoretically be won on one vote.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:08, Reply)

yes, but our system allows a government not wanted by the majority
to be placed in power by the actions of a minority.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:10, Reply)

Are you on crack?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:27, Reply)

I am
*grins*
( girlinthehole, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:38, Reply)

I can't imagine either of the two major parties' loyalist supporters backing that sort of change though

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:54, Reply)

Just slip in "full independant review of UK drug policy, with binding recommendations to be put before parliment"
as part of the manifesto and I don't see a big problem with the majority of supporters.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:57, Reply)

Unless the papers get hold of it in which case it will be reported as:
'Tories want to feed your children and pets heroin on the NHS'
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:58, Reply)

You might have some objections to that word "binding" from anybody who has even the slightest clue about our constitution and parliament.
Apart from that ... yeah.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:58, Reply)

Well the word that follows it is recommendations
I was thinking more that every recommendation had to be discussed openly in the house or something.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:00, Reply)

So you've redefined the word "binding" then?
Good work, Humpty.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:27, Reply)

words mean different things depending on the other words around them.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:28, Reply)

Now would probably be a good point to take a deep breath and admit that you shouldn't have used the word "binding".

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:29, Reply)

But that might distract from all your effort from changing the point.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:38, Reply)

Except the polling station is in the opposite direction from the all night garage.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:48, Reply)

hahaha
they should make the voting slips all shiney
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:50, Reply)

This is true
However, public opinion should never influence the decisions government make. Especially not about something important, like drugs policies.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:46, Reply)

Why do you hate democracy AA, WHY!!

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:49, Reply)

I'm simply referring to the fact that 90% of the general public are fucking idiots who'd rather watch reality TV than pick up a book.

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:50, Reply)

watch?
Be on?

Masturbate to?

Come on man, don't make us guess like this.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:52, Reply)

Fuck, edited.

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:53, Reply)

Did we abandon representative democracy when I wasn't looking?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:49, Reply)

Yes.
Most of us weren't paying attention though, so don't blame yourself.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:51, Reply)

Fucking heroin.
It's all rosey while you're fucked and then BAM! you wake up to autocracy.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:53, Reply)

They should put pictures of this on the packaging to scare people into not taking heroin

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:54, Reply)

autocracy Dundee.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:05, Reply)

As all Dundonians know
That is the time to take more heroin.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:07, Reply)

It's always time for more heroin in Dundee.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:09, Reply)

In Victorian times
Dundee cake contained at least an ounce of opium per pound.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:28, Reply)

Funny, because these days the exact same ratio can be applied to Dundonians themselves.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:31, Reply)

It's not so much the government as the general public

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:42, Reply)