Snivelling cowardice

The Independent On Sunday today splashed a typically over-the-top headline across its front page, apologising for the newspaper's previous stance on cannabis legalisation. It has decided, apparently on the basis of new evidence, that it was wrong to call for decriminalisation. Unfortunately, its argument falls down on numerous levels. Firstly, the medical evidence - yes, further data does seem to have come to light showing excessive cannabis use is more harmful than was previously believed - but so what? Adults should be allowed to make the choice themselves as to what toxins they put in their bodies, after being provided with as much information as is available. Furthermore, this seems to be the current stance with alcohol - are the Sindie calling for prohibition of that? And yet far more people injure or kill themselves or others whilst abusing alcohol than do under the influence of cannabis.
Secondly, they make the claim that stronger varieties of cannabis are more widely available than previously. Yet, if anything, this is an argument for legalisation, so that production can be regulated, and people can be fully informed about what they are taking - something that isn't possible when buying it illegally.
It would seem that the newspaper has taken this backward step more from moral cowardice than any other reason, and is falling under the puritanism of so many of the ruling class, believing that they alone should tell the rest of us how we can and can't spend our free time. For a further example of this, read the Observer, just about every fucking Sunday, when some half-wit will explain why everyone should give up alcohol/meat/sex/whatever, simply because they and Tarquin have, and have found their lives improved no end. The twats.

Respect, etc

According to a NOP poll, commissioned for a BBC television programme, Christians feel themselves "discriminated against". In what way? People don't respect them? Well, why should they - they believe in fairy tales, and will try to convince you that it's OK to murder prostitutes or blow up tube trains if their imaginary friend tells them to.
And there's always the suspcicion that they're a bit stupid - after all, they believe in some truly astounding things, contradicting all known physical laws, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. At the very least, this indicates their inability to think rationally and clearly about subjects.
Obviously, I wouldn't want people to think this applies purely to Christians - it applies equally to all theists.
But, whichever way it's posed, if they want people to take them seriously and treat them as rational human beings, they have to start acting like rational human beings. Which means being able to justify their beliefs through evidence. Unlikely to happen, isn't it?

More intolerant ranting...

Having been described as intolerant, I was planning to ask what's so great about tolerating things that are not merely stupid and plainly wrong, but also lead to great acts of evil. After all, philosophy has no requisite for tolerence - if it tolerated any idea at all, how could it progress? And, in a practical sense, why would it need peer-reviewed journals? But then I became irritated by yet another cretinous fuckwit crossing my path. In the supermarket. Standing happily in a queue, basket in hand, waiting for the cashier, I was asked "Are you in this queue?"
No, you fucking moron, I'm standing here with a basket, behind these other people in the line, for the sheer bollocking joy of it.
The man then compounded his idiocy by saying to the woman at the checkout, "I can't get used to the queueing system here". Why not? It's the same as every other fucking shop in the country - you stand in a line, and wait your turn.
I remember starting this blog as a small effort to save the world. I sometimes wonder if I still want to. I hate people. All of them. Twats, the lot of 'em. Including you. And me. Especially me.