Government to crack down on evidence-based policymaking
Francis Sedgemore, Thursday 29 October 2009 at 11:05 UTC
Evidence-based policymaking is a bad thing. For one thing it restricts the freedom of government to react politically to media and public hysteria legitimate moral and health concerns arising from the widespread use of non-approved recreational drugs.
That is the only way a rational person, whether sober or stoned, can interpret the decision last year of the UK government to reject the advice of its own appointed experts, and reclassify cannabis as a class B controlled substance under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The weed, which has long been Britain’s second favourite mind-altering drug, had only a few years previously been downgraded to class C.
For this act of folly the government is now facing the Revenge of the Nutter. Scientists tend by nature to be stubborn, and this issue will not be allowed to rest, however much the politicians insist they are only acting in a precautionary way, in order to protect the Great British public.
“The government is clear: we are determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a whole.”
When used in sequence, the words “crack” and “down” are universally acknowledged to signify that an argument has been lost, but the loser really doesn’t give a shit. And doesn’t have to.
A similar linguistic combination would be “up” and “yours”.
Feed the writer! 
Thursday 29 October 2009 at 16:01 UTC
I mix in quite disparate social circles and find that a majority of people, if they have a considered view, believe drugs should be decriminalised. But a vocal minority shout down anyone who proposes this and the pols run scared. It would be great if this issue could be taken out of party politics and be subject to a referendum.
Thursday 29 October 2009 at 18:59 UTC
A vocal minority? Of the population, maybe, but it’s a majority of the political class… across the party lines.
Friday 30 October 2009 at 08:45 UTC
It’s a bit strange as most conspiracies of the political class against the popular will concern progressive issues, such as opposition to the death penalty and membership of the EU. Is this the sole example of the political class confounding the popular will by being less progressive than the electorate?
As I say, strange. I suspect that old villain, the Daily Mail. I wish we had a politician who had the guts to say boo to that particular goose – they might be pleasantly surprised.
Friday 30 October 2009 at 11:51 UTC
I think the problem goes a bit further than the Daily Wail. What I’ve noticed in recent years is a hardening authoritarianism on the part of the supposedly liberal, cultured bourgeoisie. And I don’t just mean the Julie Myersons of this benighted land, either.
Monday 2 November 2009 at 10:03 UTC
[...] not going to let this one lie. A new week begins, and the row deepens over David Nutt’s sacking as the UK government’s chief scientific advisor on recreational drugs, with home secretary [...]