Study of deceit
Here's the deal. A study -- you know, those things scientists do to try to ascertain the facts that do or don't meet their hypothesis -- is done.
The two rival hypotheses: that heroin is in itself harmful and will inevitably harm its users and that it is potentially harmful but its harm can be mitigated or augmented by situational factors.
The results: long-term users in the study are found to be able to use heroin safely. They have good jobs and generally good health.
The responses: the scientists' hypothesis is supported. The campaigners slam the study. "The message we would want to put out is that heroin is a very dangerous drug."
Hello? The message of the study is that it isn't always.
This is the problem that the rational always face. It doesn't matter how much support your position, which you have based on the facts and their consequences, gains because those that oppose it are basing their position on beliefs and supposition. It is an article of faith for antidrugs campaigners that drugs are in and of themselves harmful. This simply is not generally true. Study after study shows it to be false, shows that drugs are risk factors, not causes, generally speaking.
Yes, drugs are bad, blah blah. There's no future in being a smackhead. But if you base your campaign against them in lies, you look not like a concerned citizen but like a spoilsport, simply wishing others not to do what you don't want for yourself. What else is there to substantiate your position?
posted by Dr Zen @ 1:10 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home