The awesomeness of this knows no bounds.
Wednesday 20 October 2010
Thursday 7 October 2010
Laws often limit personal freedom, but often that limit makes perfect sense. For example, A 20mph speed restriction outside a school or the banning of smoking in public places are two laws that limit our freedom in order to protect the lives of the innocent. I have no argument with this, if you speed past a school and hit a child, you will live and the child will die. That is patently unfair and should be stopped. Equally if you smoke in a bar, you may live yet a non-smoking bar worker may well develop a life threatening illness. So while I don’t like the smoking ban, I struggle to put forward a reasonable argument for its removal.
We can see how the law can be used to prevent ones selfish actions from adversely affecting others. Indeed I would suggest that this is what the law is best used for. But it’s more difficult to justify a law when the only harm one is doing is to one’s self. Sky diving for example, is a relatively dangerous sport compared even to Rugby or Boxing, yet it is perfectly legal. I think most of us accept that we should be allowed to take risks, as long as we are reasonably well informed of the likely downside. If I throw myself out of a perfectly functioning plane, for fun, then it’s my own stupid fault if my ‘chute doesn’t open. No one else is harmed, I knew the risks before jumping and I can’t complain really if I end up a statistic.
A micromort is a unit of risk measuring a one-in-a-million probability of death (from micro- and mortality). Micromorts can be used to measure riskiness of various day-to-day activities. A microprobability is a one-in-a million chance of some event; thus a micromort is the microprobability of death. Mathematicians use the term Micromort as a measure of the likelihood of mortality resulting from any given action. Sky diving measures 17 Micromorts. So for every 1 million sky dives, around 17 will result in a death. Travelling 10 miles by bicycle measures 1 Micromort, canoeing for 6 minutes measures 1 micromort and taking 1 ecstasy tablet equals 1 micromort.
This long winded pre-amble brings me to my question, why is taking ecstasy illegal? And more importantly, why is it classified as a class A drug, when one has more chance of dying cycling to work and back every day, than you do from taking an E or two at the weekend. And what is the point of the costly police time and effort? Who are the law makers protecting here? And from what?
As so many people enjoy taking ecstasy at the weekends without any negative effect, the classification of the drug as class A could lead E users to assume that cocaine or Heroin are equally “safe”. After all, the government tell us they are equally harmful, they are all class A.. If as a regular user you know E does you no long term damage and that deaths arising are no worse than death’s arising from crossing the road, you could be forgiven for assuming Coke and Heroin must be the same, as they are all Class A!
That is a dangerous message. Taking cocaine has proven long term health risks and is heavily addictive- unlike taking E (side effects are a problem, but rare). Addiction to cocaine - and the funding of that habit- causes crime and family problems and therefore negatively affects others in a way that taking E never could. So why do the government send the message that the two are equally harmful?
The government’s inability to form legislation based on evidence is shocking. When their own advisor (Professor David Nutt) recently made a similar point, he was sacked. A lot of this is tabloid politicking and the fault really does lie at the spineless politicians and the shameful misreporting of science in the mass media.
Think of the time and money the Police must waste stopping people selling and taking E. Think of the quality of the E people are taking due to the fact that the government cannot control the quality of something that is illegal. Think of how many people move from E to coke and maybe even Heroin as they mix with the same dealers, and the message form the government is that these drugs are no different to each other!
If ecstasy were legalised it could be licensed. The quality could be controlled, distribution to minors could be controlled, real scientific studies could be done on the long term effects of regular exposure and people (the people that take it anyway) would not be funding gangs of organised criminals when they buy them. They could in fact be paying taxes into the exchequer, perhaps to find treatment centres for heroin addicts, by getting people off smack they would no longer need to burgle your house in order to pay the illegal gangs for the heroin they are addicted to. It’s a virtuous circle, one that escapes the tiny minds of the Daily Mail pandering MP’s.
Legalising a relatively safe drug does not send the message that all drugs are safe. Quite the opposite, it shows people that some drugs are relatively safe and others – the illegal ones- really are not. Lumping them all in together does nothing but cloud the issue. People should have the right to take risks with their own bodies; I think the government has a duty to tell people what those risks are, not to lie to pacify an ignorant minority of voters.
That’s what I think.. What do you think?
We can see how the law can be used to prevent ones selfish actions from adversely affecting others. Indeed I would suggest that this is what the law is best used for. But it’s more difficult to justify a law when the only harm one is doing is to one’s self. Sky diving for example, is a relatively dangerous sport compared even to Rugby or Boxing, yet it is perfectly legal. I think most of us accept that we should be allowed to take risks, as long as we are reasonably well informed of the likely downside. If I throw myself out of a perfectly functioning plane, for fun, then it’s my own stupid fault if my ‘chute doesn’t open. No one else is harmed, I knew the risks before jumping and I can’t complain really if I end up a statistic.
A micromort is a unit of risk measuring a one-in-a-million probability of death (from micro- and mortality). Micromorts can be used to measure riskiness of various day-to-day activities. A microprobability is a one-in-a million chance of some event; thus a micromort is the microprobability of death. Mathematicians use the term Micromort as a measure of the likelihood of mortality resulting from any given action. Sky diving measures 17 Micromorts. So for every 1 million sky dives, around 17 will result in a death. Travelling 10 miles by bicycle measures 1 Micromort, canoeing for 6 minutes measures 1 micromort and taking 1 ecstasy tablet equals 1 micromort.
This long winded pre-amble brings me to my question, why is taking ecstasy illegal? And more importantly, why is it classified as a class A drug, when one has more chance of dying cycling to work and back every day, than you do from taking an E or two at the weekend. And what is the point of the costly police time and effort? Who are the law makers protecting here? And from what?
As so many people enjoy taking ecstasy at the weekends without any negative effect, the classification of the drug as class A could lead E users to assume that cocaine or Heroin are equally “safe”. After all, the government tell us they are equally harmful, they are all class A.. If as a regular user you know E does you no long term damage and that deaths arising are no worse than death’s arising from crossing the road, you could be forgiven for assuming Coke and Heroin must be the same, as they are all Class A!
That is a dangerous message. Taking cocaine has proven long term health risks and is heavily addictive- unlike taking E (side effects are a problem, but rare). Addiction to cocaine - and the funding of that habit- causes crime and family problems and therefore negatively affects others in a way that taking E never could. So why do the government send the message that the two are equally harmful?
The government’s inability to form legislation based on evidence is shocking. When their own advisor (Professor David Nutt) recently made a similar point, he was sacked. A lot of this is tabloid politicking and the fault really does lie at the spineless politicians and the shameful misreporting of science in the mass media.
Think of the time and money the Police must waste stopping people selling and taking E. Think of the quality of the E people are taking due to the fact that the government cannot control the quality of something that is illegal. Think of how many people move from E to coke and maybe even Heroin as they mix with the same dealers, and the message form the government is that these drugs are no different to each other!
If ecstasy were legalised it could be licensed. The quality could be controlled, distribution to minors could be controlled, real scientific studies could be done on the long term effects of regular exposure and people (the people that take it anyway) would not be funding gangs of organised criminals when they buy them. They could in fact be paying taxes into the exchequer, perhaps to find treatment centres for heroin addicts, by getting people off smack they would no longer need to burgle your house in order to pay the illegal gangs for the heroin they are addicted to. It’s a virtuous circle, one that escapes the tiny minds of the Daily Mail pandering MP’s.
Legalising a relatively safe drug does not send the message that all drugs are safe. Quite the opposite, it shows people that some drugs are relatively safe and others – the illegal ones- really are not. Lumping them all in together does nothing but cloud the issue. People should have the right to take risks with their own bodies; I think the government has a duty to tell people what those risks are, not to lie to pacify an ignorant minority of voters.
That’s what I think.. What do you think?
Wednesday 6 October 2010
Prawn Mayo
A medley of Prawns and Mayonnaise
in whole grain granary bread
'shame I am the only one
who knows it's Mayo on my trousers
And not spurt from my head.
in whole grain granary bread
'shame I am the only one
who knows it's Mayo on my trousers
And not spurt from my head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)