UK will no longer seek 'scientific advice' in regards to their drug policy.

[Quackers]

Sounds like an open door to homeopathy and other quackery.

Excuse me?

 

[Takhisis]

You're not the only quack around here, Quacks.

 

[Xanikk999]

Politicians are only usually willing to accept scientific advice if it doesn't conflict with their political beliefs.

One example of this would be the adamant opposition to accept climate change is happening by republicans and their refusal to go along with any legislation that would help the environment if it somehow hurt big business or required raising taxes.

 

[Bill3000]

I don't think there needs to be a mandate. It's useless in the first place because if the only way to get[/] a minister to listen to advice is to legally require him to hire a panel I don't think he's going to be all that attentive to what they have to say. Second, the panel is diverse but has either been rendered irrelevant or never was. I mean, I'm sure you'll agree that a Neurologist probably would be more useful in discussing policy on LSD than a dentist.
But is there really this problem of Ministers needing to be forced to have advisory boards? Isn't forming advisory boards one of the key responsibility of ministers, and the ability to form good ones one of the key distinction of good ministers? If that's true, why do we have laws that apply a one-size-fits-all solution to how the Minister is to receive advice?

Then the solution is to overthrow the government and make it a technocracy instead.

 

[Traitorfish]

Politicians are only usually willing to accept scientific advice if it doesn't conflict with their political beliefs career prospects.

Let's not attribute these guys any more sincerity than we have to, eh?

 

[GamezRule]

Good one!