ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags drug scandals , Michael Gove , Rory Steward , Tories , uk politics

Reply
Old 10th June 2019, 05:27 AM   #81
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,940
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?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 02:33 PM   #82
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
So why don't we have three million addicts?



Since I'm not, why should I? Numerically far more people have their lives/health ruined by alcohol, but that's fine because... reasons. People even laugh and joke on Monday mornings about how drunk they got at the weekend.
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?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 02:37 PM   #83
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
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?
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.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 02:50 PM   #84
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,828
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Fair enough.

I will do my best.

1. Had someone else did what Michael Gove did, Michael Gove thinks they shouldn't be allowed to work as a teacher or similar.
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 by theprestige; 10th June 2019 at 02:53 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 02:52 PM   #85
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,828
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Twenty years is nothing.

A criminal conviction of any kind would bar you from many professional bodies, for example, accountancy, without your having to make a 'special application' asking for an exception (in other words, unlikely to succeed).

All sorts of barriers will go up.
We're not talking about a criminal conviction. I don't think we're even talking about a criminal confession.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 02:57 PM   #86
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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?
Re the highlighted: I agree.

I'm confused as to why you started with cocaine though?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
Once again you are banging on about alcohol...
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 03:15 PM   #87
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
Re the highlighted: I agree.

I'm confused as to why you started with cocaine though?


Once again you are banging on about alcohol...
Because the OP I was answering said, 'ah, but what about alcohol?'
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 03:33 PM   #88
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,626
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!

Last edited by Giordano; 10th June 2019 at 03:35 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 10:46 PM   #89
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,570
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
However, if that freedom of choice has a deleterious effect on others and the wider community, then nanny state has to step in.
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".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 04:10 AM   #90
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,474
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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?
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.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 10:08 AM   #91
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,429
Originally Posted by carrps View Post
I mostly know Rees-Mogg from Tracy Ullman's show. Is the nanny thing from her show or a more general meme?
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.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 10:10 AM   #92
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,429
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
It's ok to commit a crime if you don't get caught? I don't think Michael Gove would agree with you

He would if the crime was committed by Micheal Gove.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 10:33 AM   #93
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,281
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:45 PM   #94
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
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.
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.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:51 PM   #95
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,828
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
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.
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.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:56 PM   #96
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 42,851
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Whether or not recreational drugs should be legalised or not is a different topic. Cannabis is class C whereas cocaine is class A.
Do you ever bother to check facts? Cannabis is class B.

Not sure how it’s relevant to your argument either way, though.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20

Last edited by zooterkin; 11th June 2019 at 02:57 PM.
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 03:07 PM   #97
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Do you ever bother to check facts? Cannabis is class B.

Not sure how it’s relevant to your argument either way, though.
I wasn't aware it changed in 2006.

Quote:
As Home Secretary in Tony Blair's Labour government, David Blunkett announced in 2001 that cannabis would be transferred from class B of the Act to class C, removing the threat of arrest for possession.[1] Arrest would still be possible for distribution, however.[2] Reclassification had the support of a plurality of the public, with surveys at the time finding that 49% of British adults supported cannabis decriminalisation, 36% were against, and 15% were undecided.[3] The transfer eventually happened in January 2004, after class C penalties for distribution had been stiffened. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had recommended such a reclassification as early as 1979, a view endorsed by the Runciman Report[4] in 1999.

The change was designed to enable police forces to concentrate resources on other (more serious) offences, including those involving "harder drugs". The government stated that the reclassification of cannabis to class C had the desired effect, with arrests for cannabis possession falling by one third in the first year following, saving an estimated 199,000 police hours.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannab...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.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 03:30 PM   #98
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 42,851
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I wasn't aware it changed in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannab...United_Kingdom
It didn’t. If you read the page you linked to, it was 2009 that cannabis went back to class B.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 03:49 PM   #99
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,807
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Can I recommend a few books for you on the effects of the global cocaine industry? It is a commodity - albeit illegal - like any other - such as copper or grain - and nets the dealers in the trade vast sums of money. Anyone standing in their way is subjected to appalling violence.

It is detrimental not because you might get fined if caught but because of the serious organised crime. Surely you must have seen the movies of heavily tattooed individuals blasting the brains other creatively inked gringos.

The FBI spends a fortune trying to smash these rings.
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.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 03:54 PM   #100
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,196
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...achis-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/politic...ocaine-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."
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:59 AM   #101
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,622
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Come on, the guy lives in Highbury. There would have been no end of 'drug-fuelled dinner parties'.
*Checks property prices in Highbury*
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:25 AM   #102
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,319
Looks like Boris is going to win at a canter...
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 01:11 PM   #103
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,831
Unsurprising set of tweets about Boris Johnson's behaviour during the initial negotiations:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...094402049.html

Since then denied (but unconvincingly IMO)
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 12:04 AM   #104
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.