Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
We need a proper grown-up debate about what is actually more harmful, and how our current shambles of a classification system should work. But our political masters seem to prefer to just go, in the words of South Park's Mr Mackey "Drugs are bad, m'kay!". They want evidence to fit policy, when surely it should be the other way around.
|
Agreed. However I'd argue we're not going to get such a debate whilst the two sides involved are more interested in lampooning and caricaturing each other. Misrepresenting those you (presumably) disagree with as championing 'puritanism' isn't really grown up, is it?
You're right, the Government does seem to want the evidence to fit its policy, and that's a thoroughly awful way to carry on. However that doesn't mean we have to default to what you're proposing, which seems to be policy-making based purely on scientific evidence. You haven't even begun to address how you define 'harm' - at the moment you seem to be arbitrarily assuming that 'harm' consists of no more or less than what actually happens when you ingest a drug (whether legal or not).