Daly Mail - Government took so long to ban meow meow that dealers were able to stockp

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:27 PM on 12th April 2011

With reader comments

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376159/Government-took-long-ban-meow-meow-dealers-able-stockpile-drug.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The Government’s advisers took too long to ban the then-legal high mephedrone, allowing dealers to build up a stash of the drugs, they conceded today.

Professor Les Iversen, the chief drugs adviser, said they would need to act more quickly with the introduction of new temporary banning orders, aimed at getting legal highs off the streets as soon as they become a problem.

The first problems with mephedrone - nicknamed meow meow - were highlighted in September 2009, but the drug was not banned until March last year.
Click to expand...

But he also warned the introduction of temporary bans would place a 'heavy burden in terms of workload' on the ACMD and called for a research budget to be ring-fenced to enable them to carry out basic research into the effects of the drugs.

'It can be done on quite a limited budget, but someone needs to have a budget,' he said.
Click to expand...
 
No shit. There is always a grace period.. the DEA has to give at least 30 days before emergency scheduling as well.

You can't just say "ALL YOU GUYS ARE CRIMINALS STARTING.... NOW"
 
^ Yea I know what you mean, readers of the Daily Mail remind me of the people from my country (USA) that say we should just blow up the Middle East with nuclear weapons to win the War on Terror.
 
I am actually registered with the daily mail- I love seeing how many red arrows I can get and how quickly. I think my record was 278 in a couple of hours. ("Machine gun the royal family,bayonet the survivors,down the mine shaft with 'em,crate of dynamite to follow. The Soviet Model."). The Daily Mail has much less influence in shaping public opinion than it would have you believe.
 
^^^ LoL

Yeah I hate the DM, but I love reading the readers comments, a high % of them slag the DM off bigtime, enjoyable reading when bored.
 
I don't think the Daily Mail shapes public opinion, it just reinforces certain opinions like "See, drugs are evul", "All criminals should be hung from a building by their balls" or "Politicians are greedy assholes" (ok, that last one might be true a little). So the people who already have those reactionary, knee-jerk opinions feel validated: "At least the Daily Mail has honest journalist, not like those liberal fags at The Guardian". Nobody who doesn't already has those opinions isn't gonna turn around and think they have a point instead of facepalming at the stupidity.

This article is a good example. Instead of saying "Les Iverson wants quicker scheduling", a slightly more neutral title, they deliberately use a title that's implying any recreational substance needs to be banned straight away because they're all evil and death in disguise. (except alcohol and cigs ofcourse).

Also, I wonder how many of those red arrows come from Bluelighters and other people who read the Daily Mail for the lulz.

edit: read the article in its entirety now. It surprised me they didn't go with: "Les Iverson wants money to test whether new drugs can be legal"

I actually like what they're proposing. It seems to me they want a full year to actually asses the harms and risks of each drug instead of of just saying "Oh, it's supposed to be like MDMA, let's put it in Class A". If they're being going to act fair that is.
 
Last edited:
I'd also like what they were proposing if they were prepared to consider the possibility that a substance actually wasn't dangerous enough to be prohibited. From the noises they are making it doesn't look like they would ever consider not making a ban permanent. "Thou shalt not get high!"

I often post and do some arrow pushing on the DM too. I wish they would make it clear when they do or don't intent to publish any posts though. This time they have obviously not published any comments and if any of us spent our whole lunch break typing in our masterpiece then we would be disappointed.
 
Solide said:
I don't think the Daily Mail shapes public opinion, it just reinforces certain opinions like "See, drugs are evul", "All criminals should be hung from a building by their balls" or "Politicians are greedy assholes" (ok, that last one might be true a little). So the people who already have those reactionary, knee-jerk opinions feel validated: "At least the Daily Mail has honest journalist, not like those liberal fags at The Guardian". Nobody who doesn't already has those opinions isn't gonna turn around and think they have a point instead of facepalming at the stupidity.

This article is a good example. Instead of saying "Les Iverson wants quicker scheduling", a slightly more neutral title, they deliberately use a title that's implying any recreational substance needs to be banned straight away because they're all evil and death in disguise. (except alcohol and cigs ofcourse).

Also, I wonder how many of those red arrows come from Bluelighters and other people who read the Daily Mail for the lulz.

edit: read the article in its entirety now. It surprised me they didn't go with: "Les Iverson wants money to test whether new drugs can be legal"

I actually like what they're proposing. It seems to me they want a full year to actually asses the harms and risks of each drug instead of of just saying "Oh, it's supposed to be like MDMA, let's put it in Class A". If they're being going to act fair that is.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think all major media outlets shape public opinion. They decide what society feels, thinks, does. They decide who society votes for. They are the number 1 tool for mass brainwashing.
 
JJ-180 said:
The Daily Mail has much less influence in shaping public opinion than it would have you believe.
Click to expand...

yes!

its like someone with a big mouth who begins their opinions by say "well everybody knows... blah blah blah inserts hit here...."

doesn't mean that everyone does think those thoughts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top