A Catholic school in Bury has banned pupils from receiving the Cervical Cancer vaccination. It claims it isn’t in the position to do so; governors worry that side-effects can include dizziness. Some pupils must worry that the side-effects of cervical cancer can include death.

The decision just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t on the overt fundamentalist grounds other groups tried to stop the vaccinations; the Vatican came out for the vaccine. Their complaint seems centred solely on the grounds that pupils might faint; despite reassurances from doctors and the unavoidable fact that the vaccine can prevent a deadly disease. Do they have no sense of proportionality?

Why we weren’t all going to die on Wednesday:

See also: point 9.

(Hat-tip: Two Doctors)

No. A Fellow of the Royal Society argues that we should; Michael Reiss believes it to be self-defeating to dismiss pupils who really feel that a god created life. And he’s right, up to a point. We shouldn’t refuse to discuss creationism; you’ll not persuade someone of a point of view if you won’t speak to them.

But beyond that, he misses the point. We shouldn’t teach creationism as a legitimate, scientific point of view; because it’s not, and it doesn’t claim to be. The theory states that a divine being literally created life, the universe, and everything. As such, it’s explicitly based in faith, both in a god, and a theory. It isn’t an empicically tested hypothesis, as inclusion in a science lesson would suggest.

And yet that’s how it’ll be taken; children expect what they’re taught in a Science to be demonstrably true. Far from challenging creationism, encouraging Science teachers to include it in their lessons will simply lend it the perception of fact. We should teach pupils about creationism, and the debate that surrounds it - but in RS, along with every other belief system based in faith above empiricism.

Professor Brian Cox on yesterday’s LHC experiment:

“Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat.”

Well, quite. Since when did an experiment involving minute particles equate with one involving the creation of a black hole, requiring as the latter does the energy of a collapsing star?

(Hat-tip: AVPS.)

Barack Obama on cannabis:

“I inhaled, frequently. That was the point.”

Excuse me while I marvel at the refreshing honesty over drugs. And snigger childishly…

Fuck yeah, Britain rules.

If only I was a nationalist so I could enjoy this properly…

I haven’t commented as yet on the Embryology Bill going through parliament at present. Dale’s take, however, pushes even MadNad’s for vacuousness.  It screams to be screamed at.

Let’s begin with:

This isn’t going to be a long post on the whys and wherefores - you can get that elsewhere, but I think anyone who writes on a public platform should say how they would vote on these issues if they had the chance.

Then why are you posting? There’s little point in expressing an opinion if you’re not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever.  I am, frankly, not interested in simply what someone thinks - I want to know why they think it.  How can you engage with a simply statement?  There’s no reasoning to go over, no debate. Nothing worth listening to.

Dale says, “You can get that elsewhere.”  He’s right.  I can.  Why should anyone bother coming to him for any of it, then?

Actually, the refusal to explain here seems more to disguise the irrationality of his objections. Observe:

On human-animal hybrid embryos I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I would vote against them. The whole concept fills me with a slight sense of horror.

I’m sorry?  You’d vote against them because they make you feel…squaemish?  Wow.  Never mind the advances in research the human-animal hybrids could bring.  Never mind that this research could eliminate diseases which are generally assumed to make people very squaemish.  Never mind that this could actually help people.

No.  It fills you with an unexplained “sense of horror.”  It must therefore clearly be banned, because we always ban things which make us feel a little ill, no matter what good they do.

Oh look.  The House of Commons just voted against the ban.  336 to 176.

I always thought the concept of ’saviour siblings’ must be something which involved a mutual support pact involving Wendy and Douglas Alexander, but it appears not.

Droll.  Will you tell us the one about the chicken and the road next, Iain?  That’d be side-splitting enough to disguise its complete and utter irrelevance to the post.

I have slightly more sympathy and understanding of this, but there is something about it which makes me profoundly uncomfortable,

“Something?”  That’s hardly specific, and doesn’t get any more so.  Without any explanation of what that something is, surely it translates as: “I don’t know why I’m arguing this, but I have this gut feeling which flies in the face of everything tangible and rational that can be said - so I’ll go with it, naturally…”

I accept that medical advances have brought untold joy to parents who might otherwise never have conceived, and further medical advances have saved untold hundreds of thousands of lives.

So, in practical terms, you agree it’s a wonderful thing?  Yes.  And yet, and yet…

And yet, I can’t reconcile and inner belief I have that tampering with natural human science in this way is wrong. I don’t have religious beliefs, but there’s still part of me which agrees with religious teachings on this issue.

He accepts that this research does much good.  He accepts, in short, that there’s no material reason why the research should be rejected - but his own squaemishness, again.  He objects not because of the sadness or pain it might bring, but because of an, “inner feeling,” for which he provides no rational explantion.

How do you even begin to refute that?  An irrational inner feeling will remain an irrational inner feeling, with no explanation which can be targetted and dealt with.  Perhaps it’s best to keep it on a purely practical level, and ask what precisely is wrong with, “tampering with natural human science”?

Nature does not care about humanity, either way.  It is not a living entity, does not have emotions or feelings, and simply cannot care.  It is indifferent because it is unthinking.  Only we care if we live or die - and if it’s by tampering with that uncaring natural science that we do live, what’s the problem?

We would be nowhere if we didn’t.  Disease is natural - aren’t we interfering with natural human science when we take drugs to treat it?  Pregnancy is sometimes the natural consequence of unprotected sex - aren’t we interfering with natural human science with contraception?  Certain advances have only been possible through tinkering with the apparent natural state of affairs.  “Natural human science,” has yet to provide a solid reason why we shouldn’t do so.

The 20/24 week abortion debate has illustrated all that is wrong with political debate in this country. Pro-Choice supporters have railed against the 20 weekers, accusing them of being totally anti-abortion, which in some cases may be right, but certainly not all. And some of the 20 weekers have failed to recognise that there are actually arguments on the other side which need addressing.

This much is true, and a fair point.  The debate has been hijacked - by both sides.

What I do not understand is that the Conservative front bench has now put down an amendment on 22 weeks, for reasons no one has quite been able to explain. Frankly, it’s a fudge. Either you believe in the status quo, or you think the limit should be much lower. This amendment smacks too much of the lowest common denominator.

This does seem odd.  Could it be tactical?  There have been amendments tabled up and down the abortion timeframe, from 12 weeks to 22.  The idea is to get the desired change by looking like a sensible average; the 12 week limits proposed add to the illusion that change is necessary, while making the 20 week amendment look nice and liberal.  Abortion limits thus get cut without the cutters being seen as vicious anti-abortionists trying to crush women’s rights.

Now, back to the bullshit:

I unreservedly back 20 weeks and I make no bones about the fact that I would like to see it lower than that. Virtually every other European country has a limit of between 12 and 14 weeks.

Your point is?  That a law is the same in lots of places does not mean that it is right.  Virtually every other European country drives on the right side of the road - let’s switch, it makes sense by Iain’s rule.

Each law needs to be assessed by its own merits, not an international consensus.

Their abortion rates are much lower, so is the level of sexual activity among under age teenagers.

And that, of course, must be linked to lower abortion limits.  It could have nothing to do with better sex education schemes, lower ages of consent (15 in France, 14 in Germany and Italy, 13 in Spain), different cultures and attitudes (sex before marriage is, I’m told, frowned upon in most traditionally Catholic countries, and abortion even more so…) - or any one of the other factors which play a role in people in different countries getting pregnant at different rates.

Nope, it must be the high abortion limit over here.  That damned permissive society, letting those damned randy teenagers fuck and fuck and fuck like rabbits.  Give them an inch and they’ll forget their condoms!

It is a proven fact that foetuses can survive at 20 weeks - not all, but some do.

It’s also a generally accepted fact that women who abort foetuses do not want the child.  There’s a choice.  You can let a scarcely living, almost certainly non-sentient cluster of cells die - or allowing it to grow up, potentially unloved and unwanted.  Some mothers will love the foetus if it survives, yes.  But some - many, perhaps - won’t.

It’s a horrible choice, but surely it has to be made?

If you live in an area with a hospital with superb neo-natal facilities the survival rates are obviously much higher than if you live in a catchment area without one.

Absolutely correct.  But what’s your point?  That surely has more to do with the debate on postcode lotteries rather than abortion.

Finally, though, a note of reason:

It’s on occasions like this that Parliament should come into its own. Although I have reasonably unchangeable views on the abortion limit, I would genuinely like to have listened to the full debate on the other two areas before finally making up my mind. I suspect many MPs are doing just that.

At least he concludes on something we can agree on.

This just gets better and better…

When you are behaving in a fashion more right wing than David Blunkett it surely must be some indication that you are in trouble. Jacqui Smith scotches all respect that I had for her by sadly falling in line with my general comment concerning the ascendancy of the “Blair Babes” into cabinet: I would be delighted to have women in the government, just not those women.

Where there is a clear and serious problem, but doubt about the potential harm that will be caused, we must err on the side of caution and protect the public.

Says she.

Apparently the problem is neither clear nor serious enough to have inspired the expert committee enlisted to investigate the matter to recommend her proposals. Worse still it seems not to have occurred to her that the public just might be capable of protecting themselves. How exactly the continuing legal status of tobacco and alcohol can be justified {if the crashes that kill not only the drinkers but innocent bystanders to their excess is not “Clear and serious” then what, pray, exactly is?} yet a drug which studies have shown highly conflicting findings over {some, for instance, even show a reduced incidence of lung cancer amongst potheads} clearly has to be very, very illegal.

Thankfully the police aren’t going to bother following what the government says. Another group you’d do well to stick to the left of.

This article was first published in July 2007. It is made available online here as part of Scribo Ergo Sum’s backdating process.

---

Cannabis.Whatever you just thought upon reading that word, discard it. No prejudge. Read the rest of the article imaging you’ve never heard of it. I’ve always hated the term ‘exposé’ – it conjures up an altogether far too pretentious and arrogant image to make me comfortable with it. So I’d call this an article of information - not least because of the large amount of people who already know the facts I’m going to set out.Let’s start somewhere near the beginning of the study of cannabis. When the CIA studied it as a potential truth drug during the Cold War, they discarded it as not fitting for their purpose, concluding, “It may be stated that, generally speaking, the reaction will be one of great loquacity and hilarity.” Their own playful assessment stands in stark contrast to the policy they would later enforce.

The National Commission on Drug Abuse (who submitted their report to Nixon – at his own request - whilst the American Government was considering whether to criminalise cannabis) concluded that, “Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem.” The report concluded that cannabis should remain legal. The Nixon administration ignored this advice.

Moving to modern times and our own country, the most recent scientific British report placed cannabis 11th dangerous of 20 drugs listed, behind alcohol at 5th and tobacco at 9th – drugs rated not only on danger to the taker, but also criteria such as possible danger to society, potential for dependence etc. In addition, the 2005-6 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee noted the following things, expanded upon below:
- Although cannabis had “real and significant” effects on mental health, “the consumption of cannabis is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient, cause for the development of schizophrenia”.
- [They] have found no conclusive evidence to support the gateway theory.

To explain some of the reasons why Gateway Theory has been discredited – though I know of two studies which support it (both of which have been challenged over flaws in methods), most do not and the facts remain that the vast majority of cannabis users used alcohol and/or tobacco before any illegal drug (thus making them equally viable for ‘gateway’ status) and that the vast majority never actually move on to hard drug abuse.

On mental illness, a 2001 report on the link between cannabis and psychosis written by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, “suggests that cannabis use does not cause cases of psychosis that would not otherwise have occurred.” I suppose any substance that could trigger latent psychosis obviously cannot be said to be entirely safe, but by the same rationale, one would make nuts and other common allergy causers illegal – around 200 Americans die of food allergy each year, which is 200 more per year than die of cannabis poisoning, which is yet to claim a victim in recorded human history.

In fact, cannabis is, by virtually every medical and social standard, extremely safe. It is not (contrary to popular opinion) physically addictive to any significant degree – being less addictive than caffeine, nicotine or alcohol. Unlike alcohol, which is a factor in around 70% of peak A&E admissions, it rarely leads to violence or property destruction.

On the relative dangers of legal and illegal drugs (in addition to the earlier point that no-one has ever died of cannabis poisoning – it is simply not toxic enough for anything but an almost inconceivably colossal overdose to be lethal), in the USA in 2000, around 17,000 people died because of illegal drugs. This includes overdose, suicide, motor-vehicle related deaths etc. Assuming the estimated 3 million heavy users are the only ones who use illegal drugs in the country, that’s a death rate of 0.57%. In the same year, tobacco had a death rate of 0.725%. So, even assuming the worst-case scenario for illegal drugs, they are half as lethal as tobacco. The death rate for illegal drugs, obviously, would decrease further should they become legal, because of massive decreases in impurities. Again, just as obviously, cannabis is but one (and one of the safest) illegal drug among many and the study also points out that death rates for alcohol can be as high as 1.47% for ‘harmful drinking’, defined as up to 6 drinks for males, 4 for females. How many readers consume that many on nights out, or even nights in?

Surely, though, despite all this evidence, cannabis should remain illegal? After all, it would never have been made illegal in the first place (and continue to remain illegal) unless it really was dangerous. Going back to the start of the article, however, we have one American organisation dismissing at least the short-term effects of cannabis as nothing to worry about, while another conducts a study on the drug and concludes it should remain legal.

Again, bringing the research back to our country and the present day, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (advisors to the British Government) “found no statistically significant correlation between the Class of a drug and its harm score,” and that, “The current classification system has evolved in a systematic way from somewhat arbitrary foundations with seemingly little scientific basis.” It concludes that, on the basis of harm, “alcohol would be classed as B bordering on A, while cigarettes would probably be in the borderline between B and C.”

So, the scientific study and prevailing scientific opinion (both, as noted, at the origin of drug prohibition and in the present day) believes cannabis is safe enough to be legal, but what are the dangers of actually implementing its legalisation? Well, not many. You may not agree with the idealistic moral view that every person has the right to do whatever they wish with their own bodies, so long as they harm no other individual, but practically, the arguments for legalisation are, if anything, more compelling.

Holland has a lenient stance on cannabis and other drugs, so you’d obviously expect drug use to be quite high there. Which it isn’t – percentage consumption is less than America and 7th in Europe. The theory that legalising cannabis severs ties to hard drug use also finds confirmation in the Dutch model – where hard drug usage is one third of that of the UK. Of course, even such strong correlation is not absolute proof of causation, but it is hard to see how the legalisation of cannabis could make hard drug use worse, given the Dutch model and the fact that many drug abusers attribute their hard drug usage to being able to buy heroin from the same person they bought cannabis off.

Legalisation would all but eliminate the criminal drug market, leading to safer drug use through regulation, a colossal reduction in crime rate and subsequent resource freedom (simple reclassification of cannabis saved over £1million in police wages alone during the first year). Prohibition (of which 75% of budgeted money is spent enforcing the laws, not treating abuse) does not work, on any criteria of judgement. Illegal drug use is more prevalent than ever and drugs are easier to get. Drug use is higher than pre-prohibition times, and heroin (the most dangerous illegal drug of all by a large margin in the aforementioned British report) is 600 times cheaper than pre-prohibition days.

The facts contained in this article demonstrate that prohibition is not working, nor was it ever a valid legal response to the case of cannabis. I’ve tried to pull up short of simply voicing my opinion that cannabis should be legalised, but if you read the article objectively (remember what I asked you to do at the very start), it’s hard for me to see how you could conclude anything different. Please discard any prejudgement and look at the facts – numerous scientific studies and those in positions to advise Government on drugs policy all conclude that cannabis is much safer than people generally think, much safer than currently legal drugs and either implicitly or (often) explicitly endorse its legalisation.

We could just turn farmers into breeders, right?