Friday, November 23, 2007

Take That upset the MAD

Howard Donald's fairly balanced suggestion that the legal provision of mild cannabis would be more beneficial than the availability of strong alcohol has created a storm of squawking from anti-drug campaigners.

Donald observed:

"Cannabis should be legalised. I know it's a touchy subject. But if more people went out stoned than drunk - which a lot of people are on the weekend - I think there would be less fighting, less trouble and less violence."

Which, you'd think, would be an interesting viewpoint to engage with.

Not, of course, for Mothers Against Drugs:
Spokeswoman Gail MCCann says, "Anyone who tells you cannabis is perfectly safe is talking rubbish. It can cause psychosis and paranoia.

"I'd like Take That to see the work we do and ask if they'd like to donate some of the millions they earn to drug treatment."

But Donald didn't say that cannabis is perfectly safe - he said that having legally available cannabis might lead to less alcohol-fuelled violence on British streets. Which is, of course, a totally different proposition.


2 comments:

James said...

Isn't she borrowing George W Bush's trick there, attacking a point by answering a completely different (and handily indefensible) arguement? Next time you see Bush speak, watch how long it is before he says something like "Some people say we shouldn't give any money to child healthcare" (i.e. "Nobody has ever said this, but it makes the cuts I'm about to announce sound better than what these fictional people are demanding")

Rachel Summers said...

True James..though really, the Republican Party in general have been employing that tactic for a while (and the voters/media let them get away it).

The inane refusal of many anti-drug campaigners to debate based on the actual facts at hand is something I've run into a great deal myself...I got practically hounded off a Placebo forum for daring to advocate marijuana legalisation (_Placebo_ for Bob's sake, think about that). The teenyboppers there pretty much used the same techniques as MAD, recasting my reasoning as though I'd said something far different and then bludgeoning the evil straw-man to death.

The attempted guilt-trip is amusing: "I'd like Take That to see the work we do and ask if they'd like to donate some of the millions they earn to drug treatment." Donald and company would be well-justified in _refusing_ to donate to this group or anyone with a similar agenda.

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.