The battle is over, though the war continues. And thanks to the BCA’s poorly-considered legal action, the smart money is on our side.

It’s rather perplexing to witness the government admitting so openly that they 1) create and enforce policy based on nothing more than gut instincts and uninformed opinions, and 2) are in possession of instincts and opinions in direct contradiction to considered scientific evidence. And moreover, that they are so invested in these assertions that they must engage in peculiar twists of argument in order to keep them propped up against all the evidence, rather than graciously acknowledge the results and change policy accordingly. The result, our misinformation-based antidrug laws and propaganda seem to me to be taking on characteristics all too similar to rituals and traditions based on fear and legends instead of any rational base.

Prof. Nutt has written an interesting response in the Guardian, which highlights not only the massively overstated risk from cannabis, but also the incredibly biased way in which drugs are reported in the media. We’ve had the evidence of cannabis’ low-risk status for a couple of years now; I remember when the BBC first reported on Nutt’s Lancet paper in 2007 with its telling graph ranking drugs by actual harm rather than popular opinion.

I’m optimistic, however; more and more people are taking cannabis and discovering for themselves how absurd the tales spun by the government are, and I believe the pro-science angle this story has been given reflects on a population mature enough to being seriously reconsidering the rationale for keeping it illegal. America is ahead of the game on this one – the town of Breckenridge in Colorado recently voted to decriminalise cannabis; although a largely token gesture due to its illegality at a state level, it’s a posture that is gaining traction across the US.

Now pardon me for my naïveté, but I was not aware that broadcasting an illegal activity (and commenting on how trivial it is to commit) grants an immunity from the law. Of course, as he mentioned, they weren’t allowed to broadcast the song on-air, presumably as they’d be breaking the law, or encouraging others to do so. Er…

I’m keen to see the legal response to the deliberate blasphemous statement from Atheist Ireland in protest of this law.

RSPCA find toddler living with 30 rottweilers (26/04/2007)

A five-year-old girl was taken into care after police found her living in a bungalow with more than 30 rottweilers and boxer dogs.

Sussex Police said the animals were being fed dead rabbits and floors in the bungalow were filthy.

…

As dogs were being seized, three police officers, including one WPC, were punched and slapped, causing minor injuries.

A woman, thought to be the girl’s mother, was arrested on suspicion of assaulting the police. The 42-year-old was also arrested with her husband, 30, on suspicion of cruelty to animals.

Aside from the enormous picture of a Rottweiler staring the reader down, it isn’t such a bad article overall. It sticks to the facts and is to the point, aside from needless quotes from the neighbours remarking that, wouldn’t you know it, the dogs were noisy.

I want to come home mummy… (10/07/2009)

The recording begins with the sound of a child’s voice. It belongs to a little girl and she is clearly bewildered and distressed.

…

The recording – and dozens of others just like it – was made during a supervised meeting between the youngster and her parents after their daughter was taken away from them by social workers.

In contrast to the earlier article, this one is headed with a (more reasonably-sized) image of a little girl with her face obscured. And similarly, every other feature has been flipped 180° to align with the current working assumption; that the social services in the UK are so fundamentally broken that after 74 court hearings justice has failed, and a little girl and her loving parents are to be torn apart against their wishes.

After a lead-in of seven emotionally charged, informationally barren paragraphs we get our first of several rhetorical questions pasted in to cover the illogical leaps the article takes: “But what if social workers have got it wrong? In the light of Baby P and so many other scandals, it’s hardly impossible is it?”

I won’t trawl through the entire piece pointing out the logical flaws, and where emotion is used to patch over the gaps – that can be an exercise for the reader – but instead just point out how interchangeable the actors in the tabloid narrative can be. Take one ‘Won’t Somebody Think of the Children?’ piece, swap the goodie and the baddie, and instead of a forgettable slamming of some irresponsible parent, you have an apprently hard-hitting insight into the current problems in social welfare. Instead, what you really have is an unexplored problem, and an interesting example of how the current public opinion can entirely change the shape of a reported story.

Even for those crimes where suspects were actually put away, the scoring doesn’t seem to make much sense. “The prison terms cited represent the combined length of sentences” (bold in source) – so you’d expect crimes with more people behind them to score ‘higher’ on this metric, even if each individual involved received a somewhat lesser sentence. For the stated aim of giving a visualization of prison years per stolen sterling, this measure is useless.

As I said, not very important in the grander scheme of things, but just an example of the automatic, reflexive misuse of statistics by the media whenever a fancy graphic is desired.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading it, and I have no doubt I’ll hear about it if it’s struck a nerve or a chord with anybody.