Friday 18 November 2011

"Why is it only 'formers' who want to talk about drugs?"

Mark Easton provides the obvious answer to the question.

What's interesting is the list of 'formers' and 'exes', to which we could add Bob Ainsworth. And I suppose Professor Nutt, who became a 'former' as a direct consequence of not waiting until he was a 'former' before he said what he said.

9 comments:

Trooper Thompson said...

Not just formers - the future President of the United States also - that being of course Ron Paul.

Mark Wadsworth said...

TT, which is part of the reason why he'll never be President.

A K Haart said...

I think it’s deeper than Mark Easton’s political orthodoxy explanation.

Drug-users are seen as a potential threat because they may be less easily manipulated by propaganda. Smokers are seen in the same light, as natural rebels, which is why they are attacked so viciously.

Mark Wadsworth said...

AKH, that's the funny thing.

Tobacco smokers are by and large the most law abiding and normal sort of people. They'd only become rebels if it were made illegal. In a similar fashion, people who are addicted to prescription or legally available drugs are no particular threat to society or inherently criminal.

Booze on the other hand does have a tendency to turn some people into complete idiots.

Tim Almond said...

Food for thought on this: the two strongest western countries on this issue are the UK and the USA. France and Spain haven't fully legalised, but they certainly are further along the track than we are.

What if it's about the voting system? The US and the UK share a similar system, "FPTP". We know that the results of such a system are that the political message is tuned to the 30-40 somethings that live in provincial areas. The voices of young and urban people are ignored because they don't affect the electoral outcome.

Tim Almond said...

Mark,

Nightclubs became far more pleasant after people switched from alcohol to ecstacy.

dearieme said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063161/Abattoir-worker-23-crushed-death-dead-cow.html

Bayard said...

"What if it's about the voting system?"

I doubt it is. It's far more likely, IMHO, to be about Puritanism. If you recall the US was founded by a bunch of Puritans who left England because it wasn't Puritan enough. That's why the bansturbulary are so strong, they have support from across the political spectrum.

Mark Wadsworth said...

JT, B, maybe it is along voting lines, maybe it along religious lines... or maybe there is something about FPTP that particularly appeals to the Puritan mindset, so it's correlation not causation?

D, ta, I have posted.