In article , tvaerskaegg@aol.com
(Svenne) wrote:

> *From:* Svenne 
> *Date:* Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:29:33 GMT
> 
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Claude@aol.com
> (Claude) wrote:
> 
> 
> >> The ACMD threatened to resign en mass if their recommendations 
> were
> >> ignored the last time they got it wrong (from the Gov's pov). 
> >> Hopefully,nif they do recommend class C and are overruled, they 
> will do it.
> 
> >Excellent. Has it ocurred to you that is what HMG wants? 
> 
> It has certainly occurred to me.
> 
> And it also must be the first time I have ever agreed with you. It
> would be excellent.
> 
> If the government does go against the recommendations of the ACMD 
> and
> the ACMD resigns in protest, it will blow a gigantic hole in the
> governments and the prohibitionist sides credibility. Their talk of
> 'evidenced based policy' will bring about howls of laughter amongst
> those to whom it most matters, that is young people who come into
> contact with drugs. All warnings will be regarded as Reefer Madness
> scare propaganda, no matter what core of validity they might 
> contain. 
> 
> The authorities will be regarded as a joke who cannot be taken
> seriously, as they very largely are already.
> 
> Svenne
> 
> 
> 
Except that every member of the ACMD is replaceable. The ACMD is so discredited now,
that a substantial number of resignations (I know some who would stay) might be
healthy and good for it.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Claude@aol.com
(Claude) wrote:

>> If the government does go against the recommendations of the ACMD 
>> and
>> the ACMD resigns in protest, it will blow a gigantic hole in the
>> governments and the prohibitionist sides credibility. Their talk of
>> 'evidenced based policy' will bring about howls of laughter amongst
>> those to whom it most matters, that is young people who come into
>> contact with drugs. All warnings will be regarded as Reefer Madness
>> scare propaganda, no matter what core of validity they might 
>> contain. 
 
>> The authorities will be regarded as a joke who cannot be taken
>> seriously, as they very largely are already.
 
>Except that every member of the ACMD is replaceable. The ACMD is so discredited now,
>that a substantial number of resignations (I know some who would stay) might be
>healthy and good for it. 

I'm sure the government would like the chance to stack the ACMD with
Yes-Men and committed prohibition ideologues. And you might well
consider the ACMD to be discredited. But I think you are missing the
point.

There is a problem for the authorities in getting their anti drug
message across. They might well get Daily Mail readers to believe all
their wild scare stories and exaggerations, but those people are
already inside the prohibitionist camp and don't need scaring away
from drugs. 

The problem for the authorities is credibility with the people who do
matter, that is the people who do come into contact with drugs and who
are likely to use them. 

The government and the prohibitionist industry have low credibility
with them already. A large number of people who use and who come into
contact with drugs know that drug information from authorities cannot
be trusted and that what thay say cannot be taken seriously. A large
scale resignation by ACMD members would damage that already 
low credibility even more. The word would be out that the government
doesn't even take its own scientific advice. The experts told the
government that cannabis is not so dangerous, but the government has
its own agenda, it rejected expert advice and the experts resigned in
protest. The government are scare mongering liars. Don't believe them.

That word would not only be out on the street, it would be part of
reporting in the more liberal press. It would become a paradigm of the
drug debate. The official scare stories about the horrors of cannabis
would be even more easy to dismiss with a knowing laugh.

I would not necessarily regard reclassification to class B, or even
class A, as a bad thing. The law would be completely unworkable as
well as being counter productive. It would instantly create millions
of criminals and increase disrespect for the law besides damaging the
prohibition circus.

We would have the grotesque situation in which a large percentage of
the British population would, according to the government and the
Daily Mail, be criminals deserving of imprisonment for many years.
These millions of outlaws would regard the law as a joke and policemen
as their enemy.

That is truly surreal and worthy of lighting up a spliff in
celebration.

All Hail Discordia.

Svenne