11 February 2009

Good Risk vs Bad Risk or Good Aids vs Bad Aids

Jaqui Smith has recently trotted out the Good Aids / Bad Aids argument in response to a comparison between the risks of ecstasy use and horseriding.

"The government's drugs adviser last night apologised for saying that the risk in taking ecstasy was no worse than in riding a horse."

The comments, made by the academic in a scientific paper, have attracted other criticisms. Here is one from the Spectator,

"I agree entirely with Prof. Nutt's comments. What he didn't point out is that horse riding has high developed safety structures (helmet, saddle harnesses etc...) whilst ecstasy is entirely unregulated (tainted, random dosages etc..) The truth is ecstasy is probably a hell of a lot safer than horse riding, but the lack of government regulation makes it as about as dangerous as jumping on a horse. The real issue is how this will be explained to the public through the media. Cue the Telegraph wheeling out bereaved mother. And there in lies the crux, people accept her view that ecstasy killed her daughter and should be banned. If her daughter had died horse riding and demanded that that be banned, surely: "The poor dear's been driven mad by grief and doesn't know what she's talking about" oh well." Penned by a commentator called Oliver Lewis.

The arguments against the war on drugs and its legitimacy have been aired many times and in many places.

However, as an excuse to extract money from taxpayers; as a means of adding value to national currencies, and as a means of funding covert wars, the policy has been a massive success.

It looks as though the policy will continue in Blighty for some time, yet.

Background Reading Narco Dollars by Catherine Austen Fitts. Keep a look for the following picture:

NYSE Chairman Richard Grasso with a FARC Commmander

No comments:

Post a Comment