Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Unqualified politicians v. Experts

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
Story.

So who's more credible... Professor David Nutt with nothing to gain politically - or authoritarian populists (Labour, Tory, Jacqui Smith, Keith Vaz and every other careerist condemning the Professor).

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cocks, the lot of them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I love it who they employ experts to advise them on matters, but only if they they give the 'right' advice.

    Twats :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why the fuck should he apologise? what is it with these twats...Jacqui Smith needs a brain transplant
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hehe silly politicians.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is a definition of an expert someone we agree with?

    Because I know a lot of experts, who for example, think we should be doing more on GM foods, building nuclear power stations, expanding Heathrow etc.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flashman's Ghost wrote: »
    Because I know a lot of experts, who for example, think we should be doing more on GM foods, building nuclear power stations, expanding Heathrow etc.

    Perhaps they ARE the experts we ought to be agreeing with. :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, it's been clear for quite some time that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was stuffed full of liberals who want to legalise all drugs. I would have some more respect for them if they actually admitted to this truth.

    And this is coming from someone who wants quite a lot of legalisation to take place, before I get shouted down by the usual rent-a-gobs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lol sg is everything a conspiracy?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Well, it's been clear for quite some time that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was stuffed full of liberals who want to legalise all drugs. I would have some more respect for them if they actually admitted to this truth.
    Oh dear dear...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh dear dear...
    Terribly convenient of you to ignore the second part of what I said.

    I wonder why has nobody in this thread actually answered the actual question. Is taking ecstasy more or less dangerous than riding a horse - yes or no? I believe you've taken this drug before, Aladdin - care to tell us what you think?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I believe if 100,000 people sensibly rode a horse, and 100,000 people sensibly took ecstacy, there would be more casualties from the horse riding....This is including serious injury as well as death.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This poster seems to have calculated a decent estimate of the risk of death from horse riding and taking ecstacy. Either statistic indicates that ecstacy is a lot more dangerous than horse riding.

    I think professor Nutt is a tit tbh, creating a word for an addiction to horse riding (lolwut) and then comparing it to the use of a non-addictive recreational drug. I'd like to see how he calucated the risks but i'm sure his paper is far too tl;dr.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Terribly convenient of you to ignore the second part of what I said.

    I wonder why has nobody in this thread actually answered the actual question. Is taking ecstasy more or less dangerous than riding a horse - yes or no? I believe you've taken this drug before, Aladdin - care to tell us what you think?
    Well I don't have statistics at hand but judging the amount of people who take them every single weekend, and the many more who take them a few times a year, all without any adverse consequences, I'd say the risk must be on a par with such activities as horse riding, yes.

    And I should imagine is far, far safer than such activities as mountaineering- nor that you'd see any government minister rushing to ban that.

    And let's not even compare with some of the legal drugs such as smoking or drinking, because then taking ecstasy becomes a very safe alternative indeed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin you should see minimi's post or at least the reference:
    http://forum.liberalyouth.org/viewtopic.php?p=297644#p297644
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fair enough.

    But the only thing the doctor is guilty of is choosing the wrong sport. I am willing to beat my house that mountaneering is many, many times more dangerous than taking pills. I'm willing to bet far more people end up brain damaged through boxing than through taking pills.

    I look forward for such activities and many more that I'm sure would surface if researched a bit to be immediately banned as the reckeless evils they are.

    I would also like to to see some comparisons between ecstasy vs. cigarettes or ecstasy vs. alcohol.

    So the only pity is that the doctor didn't choose the right comparison. Having said that, I'd imagine the government would crucify any who dares to suggest a comparison of legal drugs versus illegal drugs and public debate about it. Far too many billions in profit at stake...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Studying politics for 4 years, I think it's safe to say politicians are absolutely clueless even in their own field of politics nevermind something like drugs. Idiots the lot of them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Studying politics for 4 years, I think it's safe to say politicians are absolutely clueless even in their own field of politics nevermind something like drugs.
    And it took you 4 years to come to that conclusion? :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    And it took you 4 years to come to that conclusion? :p
    :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    And it took you 4 years to come to that conclusion? :p

    :D

    Four years is a long time to come to any sort of conclusion about anything when there's a cheap and easy supply of booze. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.