I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,697
I have no idea what Vixen's argument even is. People should have their careers ruined for taking certain addictive substances... because they're addictive?
Leading UK politician 'took cocaine'
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Alcohol is probably one of the most damaging drugs in the world in terms of liver damage, fatal accidents, early death, mental impairment etc., etc as per WHO.
Just because cocaine is bad, you can't argue, ah, but what about alcohol. you haven't mentioned that?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I believe in freedom of choice. However, if that freedom of choice has a deleterious effect on others and the wider community, then nanny state has to step in. There was a documentary tonight about the government in a bid to discourage sales of cider priced at £2.41 for eight litres has imposed a minimum price per unit in Scotland where it now costs £11. Hospital doctors are delighted at seeing fewer cirrhosis and hepatitis C. So there is a fair case for introducing it in England as some people will drink excessively if they can afford it.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
2. A lot of people who aren't Michael Gove went to jail for what Michael Gove did and Michael Gove thinks that's right[/quote]
TheDon's original claim was that a poor person who confessed to having taken cocaine twenty years prior would be ruined.
I'm still waiting for an explaination of how that would work.
So far you've managed to get to the point of claiming that someone in a particular position of trust (which is a different thing than a particular economic "class") might find their employment prospects are limited, if they make such a confession, if Michael Gove allegedly gets his way in this matter.
---
What I'm actually looking for is a plausible scenario or (ideally) documented instance where a "poor person" confessed to drug use 20 years prior, and had their life ruined for it.
I understand that the theme of this sidebar is Michael Gove's hypocrisy. I'm not interested in belaboring that point. He's a hypocrite, fine, whatever. I'm interested specifically in the details and plausibility of TheDon's claim.
Please consider Gove's hypocrisy to be fully accepted by me. Please don't feel any need to continue on about it. Please, if you can, explain how TheDon's original claim is supposed to actually work. If not, that's fine too. (But please don't substitute more talk about Gove's hypocrisy in place of answering the question I actually asked.)
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
We're not talking about a criminal conviction. I don't think we're even talking about a criminal confession.
p0lka
Illuminator
Re the highlighted: I agree.
I'm confused as to why you started with cocaine though?
Once again you are banging on about alcohol...
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Because the OP I was answering said, 'ah, but what about alcohol?'
To me it seems simple:
1. Questions of hypocrisy aside, it doesn't make any practical or moral sense to greatly limit or even ruin the career of someone who committed a "crime" 20 years ago that damaged themselves much more than society as a whole, had equal or more medical than legal implications, and which was actually quite popular at the time. In fact many people were enamored of it enough to try it due to accounts of its use by Freud, Coleridge, etc.
2. Although cocaine is definitely addictive (at least at a psychological level), kicking it is not nearly as difficult as kicking opioids. I personally know of many people who "played" with cocaine in the 1970s enough to develop an addiction, yet were able to undramatically kick it on their own and not use it at all since. I gather crack is much harder than cocaine to kick and opioids the hardest, with the highest relapse rates (although new drug therapies do help immensely even for opioids). I have zero problems trusting former cocaine users who have gone 20 years without use. I am more cautious as to former opioid users, but that would require me to know how long they have been illegal drug free, plus their current situations, in some detail before extending my trust.
3. Saying this does not deny that cocaine has ruined some people's lives. But do we as a society wish to add even more to this toll, to now also ruin the lives of those who used cocaine but escaped its direct dangers and have been 20 years in the clear?
4. Okay, what of the hypocrisy? Well yes, to me it is his aggressive, deceitful hypocrisy and willingness to punish others for the same mistake that he made that renders Gove completely ineligible. Absolutely disgusting and reveals how morally bankrupt he is!
1. Questions of hypocrisy aside, it doesn't make any practical or moral sense to greatly limit or even ruin the career of someone who committed a "crime" 20 years ago that damaged themselves much more than society as a whole, had equal or more medical than legal implications, and which was actually quite popular at the time. In fact many people were enamored of it enough to try it due to accounts of its use by Freud, Coleridge, etc.
2. Although cocaine is definitely addictive (at least at a psychological level), kicking it is not nearly as difficult as kicking opioids. I personally know of many people who "played" with cocaine in the 1970s enough to develop an addiction, yet were able to undramatically kick it on their own and not use it at all since. I gather crack is much harder than cocaine to kick and opioids the hardest, with the highest relapse rates (although new drug therapies do help immensely even for opioids). I have zero problems trusting former cocaine users who have gone 20 years without use. I am more cautious as to former opioid users, but that would require me to know how long they have been illegal drug free, plus their current situations, in some detail before extending my trust.
3. Saying this does not deny that cocaine has ruined some people's lives. But do we as a society wish to add even more to this toll, to now also ruin the lives of those who used cocaine but escaped its direct dangers and have been 20 years in the clear?
4. Okay, what of the hypocrisy? Well yes, to me it is his aggressive, deceitful hypocrisy and willingness to punish others for the same mistake that he made that renders Gove completely ineligible. Absolutely disgusting and reveals how morally bankrupt he is!
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Assuming that your premise is true, you are still exhibiting politican's logic. It goes like this:
- Drug use has a deleterious effect on others and the wider community and something must be done about it.
- Prohibition is something that can be done.
- Therefore we must prohibit drug use.
Worse, even when it is demonstrated that prohibition is not only ineffective but it exacerbates the problem and introduces new problems, we have become so addicted to this strategy that the argument then becomes "But we can't relax prohibition - it would send the 'wrong' message".
BTW in case you haven't spotted the flaw in politician's logic, it goes like this" All cats have 4 legs - my dog has 4 legs - therefore my dog is a cat".
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Because it's hypocritical to rail against recreational drugs when far greater damage is done by alcohol, and cigarettes, for that matter. Moreso when we know that most of the damage relating to recreational drugs is due to their illegality, not the drugs themselves.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Rees-Mogg had a Nanny as a child, she was kept on and actually went campaigning and knocking on doors with him when he ran for Parliament, when asked about it he supposedly said 'No-one would have raised an eyebrow if I'd brought my valet' (but I haven't been able to confirm this). His nanny is now raising his children.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Depends on your starting premise, a major difference is that one is illegal one is not therefore someone can base their opinion on the matter of legality not harm.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Whether or not recreational drugs should be legalised or not is a different topic. Cannabis is class C whereas cocaine is class A.
If tobacco was discovered today, I am sure it would be proscribed.
Can't really ban alcohol as drinks can be fermented naturally in so many ways (it's not grown as a crop, unlike the opioids, cocaine, heroin, tobacco, cannabis, tea, coffee).
I don't see anything hypocritical in my drinking tea or coffee and frowning on cocaine and heroin.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I think that's usually a cop-out, though, unless legality is explicitly the question being considered.
I think most of the time, it's more rational, and more responsible, to form opinions based on what you think should be permitted, and why, rather than on what is currently permitted. Forming an opinion based on what is legal seems like a lazy appeal to authority, rather than a rational attempt to discover good policy.
Do you ever bother to check facts? Cannabis is class B.
Not sure how it’s relevant to your argument either way, though.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I wasn't aware it changed in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_classification_in_the_United_Kingdom
The point being made is that medically some drugs are more harmful than others. I know cannabis has been shown to have a harmful affect on some individuals but generally it is not considered dangerous.
Cocaine is another kettle of fish. Cocaine addicts have been know to gouge their own eyes out. It can cause heart attack or stroke. Paranoia and mania (on a more intense and magnified scale than cannabis).
To say that Gove taking cocaine was only wrong in the legal sense is so misconceived IMV. Leadsom with her 'I smoked a joint at uni' seems tame in comparison.
It didn’t. If you read the page you linked to, it was 2009 that cannabis went back to class B.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
It's really very simple. When you make something -- eg. cocaine, alcohol, cannabis -- the trade in that commodity will be taken up by criminals. The most violent and ruthless of those criminals will push the others out of the trade.
I'm not a citizen of the UK, but I would prefer a politician who said he violated drug laws because they are idiotic, and would work to change them, over one who went the, "It was a youthful mistake and I'm sorry" route. I wouldn't disqualify either of them, if I otherwise thought they were fit for the office for which they are running. Users are not responsible for the bad acts of the criminals in the drug trade. If anyone other than the criminals are responsible, it's the legislators who deal with drug problems by prohibition, which never solves the problem and creates a lot more on top of it. It is an approach to drug use that never has worked, and never will work.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Where did he "take" it to?
Serious answer, at least for the U.S.
The head of the public defenders office here in S.F. recently dropped dead:
https://missionlocal.org/2019/04/the-painful-lessons-to-be-learned-from-jeff-adachis-autopsy/
"Sadly, it won’t make a difference for Adachi either way. His autopsy was released late last month; his cause of death was pinned as “acute mixed drug (cocaine and ethanol) toxicity,” thereby ensuring “cocaine” was featured in every subsequent headline.
And cocaine is … a hell of a drug. You see that in a headline and you don’t even feel the need to read further. Don’t do cocaine, kids! Simple as that."
And absent the dropping dead part of the story there's more than a few politicians - even fairly well regarded politicians - that have got caught up in blow:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...blow-10-politicians-linked-to-cocaine-107030/
"Former Rep. Charlie Wilson
Wilson, a Republican from Texas, was alleged to have used cocaine on three occasions in 1980, once in Las Vegas and twice in the Caymans. Noting “jurisdictional problems,” the Department of Justice also concluded that there was “insufficient admissible, credible evidence” to charge Wilson."
Serious answer, at least for the U.S.
The head of the public defenders office here in S.F. recently dropped dead:
https://missionlocal.org/2019/04/the-painful-lessons-to-be-learned-from-jeff-adachis-autopsy/
"Sadly, it won’t make a difference for Adachi either way. His autopsy was released late last month; his cause of death was pinned as “acute mixed drug (cocaine and ethanol) toxicity,” thereby ensuring “cocaine” was featured in every subsequent headline.
And cocaine is … a hell of a drug. You see that in a headline and you don’t even feel the need to read further. Don’t do cocaine, kids! Simple as that."
And absent the dropping dead part of the story there's more than a few politicians - even fairly well regarded politicians - that have got caught up in blow:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...blow-10-politicians-linked-to-cocaine-107030/
"Former Rep. Charlie Wilson
Wilson, a Republican from Texas, was alleged to have used cocaine on three occasions in 1980, once in Las Vegas and twice in the Caymans. Noting “jurisdictional problems,” the Department of Justice also concluded that there was “insufficient admissible, credible evidence” to charge Wilson."
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,681
*Checks property prices in Highbury*
Unsurprising set of tweets about Boris Johnson's behaviour during the initial negotiations:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1139067505094402049.html
Since then denied (but unconvincingly IMO)
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1139067505094402049.html
Since then denied (but unconvincingly IMO)
Perhaps in more general cases but in this instance it's quite different. Gove was in charge of the justice ministry, his job was to see that those that broke the law faced justice, so in this specific instance one could be of the opinion that cocaine should be legal but also believe that those who are meant to uphold the law should do so themselves.