Hypocrisy Of The Highest Order?
News1 min ago
Hmmm.. Would he include Alcohol in this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bc7683023. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Alcohol is hugely harmful both to people's health and to society in general it is implicated in over half the violent crime in this country.
It's legal because it's been a way of life for thousands of years in this country if it were a new drug it'd never be sanctioned.
Professor Nutt knows all about the political impossibility of this - he's obviously decided to continue to "speak truth unto power" come what may
It's legal because it's been a way of life for thousands of years in this country if it were a new drug it'd never be sanctioned.
Professor Nutt knows all about the political impossibility of this - he's obviously decided to continue to "speak truth unto power" come what may
Whatever the merit’s of Professor Nutt’s idea, his suggestion that fines and disqualification from driving are “civil” penalties is misplaced.
These are sanctions normally only available to deal with criminal convictions. Both are considerable infringements into a person’s life and they can normally only be imposed following conviction. If an allegation is denied it must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt”.
In civil matters that come before a court the burden of proof is only “on the balance of probabilities” (that is, it is more likely to be true than not). I personally would not like to see fines or driving disqualifications imposed when an allegation has only to be shown to be only 50.1% likely to be true.
These are sanctions normally only available to deal with criminal convictions. Both are considerable infringements into a person’s life and they can normally only be imposed following conviction. If an allegation is denied it must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt”.
In civil matters that come before a court the burden of proof is only “on the balance of probabilities” (that is, it is more likely to be true than not). I personally would not like to see fines or driving disqualifications imposed when an allegation has only to be shown to be only 50.1% likely to be true.
Zeuhl, I disagree. I would put it to you by far the larger part of the UK population does not drink to excess and is not at harm from it. That is a wild 'Daily mail' type exageration, I am quite surprised at the pair of you.
On a Saturday night there are many at home enjoying a pint or two not on the street fighting and copulating. Its just they are not news.
On a Saturday night there are many at home enjoying a pint or two not on the street fighting and copulating. Its just they are not news.
I would similarly suggest that by far the widest section of cannabis and extasy users do not indulge to excess either and suffer no harm from it either.
I also cannot think of any cases of violent assult induced by over indulgence in either of these two drugs - not something one could claim for the demon drink.
I also cannot think of any cases of violent assult induced by over indulgence in either of these two drugs - not something one could claim for the demon drink.
The Nutty Professor is confusing his terms (and me), jno. He talks of “legal sanctions” (so what are illegal ones?). He talks of fines and driving disqualification as “civil sanctions” when in fact they are penalties usually only available in criminal cases.
“Drug users should face civil sanctions such as fines or the loss of their driving licence instead of criminal penalties.”
“...so legal sanctions will continue to fail. Some years ago, Portugal abolished this approach replacing it with civil sanctions such as a fine or suspending your driving licence.”
What I think he is advocating is decriminalising drug offences in much the same way as parking contraventions have been. This is all very well, but where do you draw the line between criminal activity and civil misdemeanours? Will somebody distributing Class A drugs on a large scale only get a small fine and a driving ban for a month? Is such activity to be reduced to the same level as overstaying your welcome on a parking meter? (In fact, come to think of it, the penalties for such misdemeanours are often in excess of those for possession of drugs, so maybe he has a point).
I’m sure the Professor has thought his idea through, but he has not explained it very well.
“Drug users should face civil sanctions such as fines or the loss of their driving licence instead of criminal penalties.”
“...so legal sanctions will continue to fail. Some years ago, Portugal abolished this approach replacing it with civil sanctions such as a fine or suspending your driving licence.”
What I think he is advocating is decriminalising drug offences in much the same way as parking contraventions have been. This is all very well, but where do you draw the line between criminal activity and civil misdemeanours? Will somebody distributing Class A drugs on a large scale only get a small fine and a driving ban for a month? Is such activity to be reduced to the same level as overstaying your welcome on a parking meter? (In fact, come to think of it, the penalties for such misdemeanours are often in excess of those for possession of drugs, so maybe he has a point).
I’m sure the Professor has thought his idea through, but he has not explained it very well.
well, he's probably not entirely up to scratch on legal terminology, especially if he's, er, studying drugs all day. But he's only suggesting possible principles, not drafting legislation, so we could cut him some slack. (That peculiar headline, Drug users 'should face penalties', doesn't exactly clarify matters.)
My guess is he's just saying there's no point in jailing people for taking drugs. If you're in the business of distributing drugs, yes, losing your licence could hurt - imagine the indignity of a drug lord having to take the bus, a bus he hasn't even been able to pimp. And you could argue that someone smoking a spliff in his bedroom is causing a lot less hassle than someone parked on double yellow lines. You can disagree with this, of course, but it seems a reasonable enough suggestion to put forward.
My guess is he's just saying there's no point in jailing people for taking drugs. If you're in the business of distributing drugs, yes, losing your licence could hurt - imagine the indignity of a drug lord having to take the bus, a bus he hasn't even been able to pimp. And you could argue that someone smoking a spliff in his bedroom is causing a lot less hassle than someone parked on double yellow lines. You can disagree with this, of course, but it seems a reasonable enough suggestion to put forward.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Tax Payers Funding Mp's Fuel Bills.
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
News7 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.