Yes, here it is: Final and conclusive proof (how ironic - presumably Labour won't heed it) that Labour is completely and utterly out of touch with reality. A week after their abysmal performance on Question Time - courtesy of Jack-flounder-Straw - they've decided that the scientific community does not measure up to their standards for drug enforcement policy. You'll forgive me for staring in disbelief at the stupidity that they're displaying at this moment, but, well, it almost defies any sort of rationalistic processing. Just as the abject cannot be described by words alone; the idiocy on show here is both fantastic and frightening.
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, read a newspaper. No, I'm talking about the Hindenburg decision to fire the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs from his position as top advisor to the government on drug policy. "What kind of madness is this?" I hear you ask; but, no, do not fear, there is a 'basis' for this hilarity. Oh yes: When the top advisor was asked to advise on the reclassification of cannabis from C to B, he disagreed with the government. They are for the heightening of class, he is not. So, what did they do? Fired him. Seriously. The story can be charted using this rough paraphrasing:
"David, what do you think about making weed more illegal? I think we should, because I don't like it myself. I haven't read the studies, but, ya know, innate prejudices of an out of touch generation! I want your advice though!"
"I think it's a bad idea. All of the scientific evidence points to there being negligible chance of psychosis developing from use of weed. I also think there is an arbitrary division between alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs."
"Yeah. You're fired."
Now, normally I would spin some rhetoric your way; try to win you round to my thoughts, or I'd just present some insidiously altered 'evidence' to back up my claims, and you'd be none the wiser. This time, however, I have presented you with what happened. The advisor advised, and his advice was not the expected advice, so the advisor was fired for advising. Fortunately for all of us non-morons out there, there is still an element of sanity prevailing in the 2plus system we insist on employing.
Chris Grayling, Shadow home-secretary - a position dangerously close to becoming synonymous with 'mindless idiot' - denounced Prof. Nutt's "latest ill-judged contribution to the debate".
Now, as always, I like to take things that people say and decode them for what they really mean, so, here we go again:
"Latest" implies that the head of a council, dedicated to scientific research into the properties and effects of drugs, is at home to making decisions which would appear illegitimate to those in government. Given the context, however, all this does is reaffirm the stupidity of the decision. Think of it like this: The advisor has made a decent and well sourced claim about the dangers of weed; the government has said he's wrong, the Shadow government has agreed; the government is wrong; thus, the man has made a lot of right decisions. Sorry, Chris, nice try though.
"Ill-judged" doesn't say anything about the legitimacy of what he has said, just that he said it at the wrong time, and that he should never disagree with what the government has said. I'm sorry, but is this man completely insane? It's the same as saying: "Yes, you're right, but don't you know? We're the government, silly boy."
"Contribution" suggests that Prof. Nutt wasn't actually leading the idea. To downplay the only important piece of information as a "contribution" is rude and pathetic. Honestly: There are people paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to write this vitriol for the politicians, why can none of them do it properly?
So, yes, good try you guys, but, try again.
----
Just like last week's Question Time, the only person to come out of this debacle with even a shred of integrity is Chris Huhne. I don't know what's happened recently within the Lib Dems to empower them to start speaking out against the fucking lunacy that we're living under, but good on them! Ignoring my bias for them, surely any impartial person can see Huhne as the only person here with a decent head on his shoulders? Whilst the insecure knee-jerkers were busy flapping around in a huff, Huhne was busy stating what everyone was thinking:
"What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?"
Why indeed? It's madness.
It's about time the government stepped outside of themselves, and started to look at what they were doing and how it was affecting the country. This issue will never affect me - I never smoke the stuff - but it does frighten me. If they're willing to stare scientific fact in the face, and claim their obstreperous belligerence is more legitimate, what the hell else are they doing? Come on. The man's comments weren't at all insidious. Why is disagreement automatically nefarious? It's utterly ludicrous. Look how irate I am!
---
Speaking of hilarity within the government, according to the BBC, kids can do it better than the adults. Probably right, too. The young people infested the HoC earlier today for some kind of Youth Parliament tour, or something; apparently it went down a storm with them, and with the staff, AND the Speaker himself! Fabulous, eh?
But wait. These eleven to eighteen year olds are all for keeping tuition fees; against the lonesome better judgement of the Liberal Democrats - and even Labour at the moment. Sorry. But, what? That's the kind of vacuous tripe I'd expect from people who eat glass. Why the hell do you feel qualified to speak about an issue like that? Do these kids not realise just how much they're about to get ass-raped by going to university?
"Run by young people for young people, UKYP gives the young people of the UK, between the age of 11 and 18 a voice" - needs a clause comma.
Not a good thing. Young people are idiots.
No comments:
Post a Comment