Quote of the week

Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation.  This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
27 March 2007

If only Prince told this to CC judges…..

On His Blog Andrew Sullivan links to interesting articles on the dangers of various illegal recreational drugs. He points to a new study that argues that one way to measure the dangers of various drugs is to examine how toxic the drug is at various levels. Can too much kill you? And how much is too much?

Money quote:

The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called “ecstasy”) and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or “roofies”) and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested.

I’ve found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.

Alcohol thus ranks at the dangerous end of the toxicity spectrum. So despite the fact that about 75 percent of all adults in the United States enjoy an occasional drink, it must be remembered that alcohol is quite toxic. Indeed, if alcohol were a newly formulated beverage, its high toxicity and addiction potential would surely prevent it from being marketed as a food or drug. This conclusion runs counter to the common view that one’s own use of alcohol is harmless.

When Gareth Prince went to the Constitutional Court to argue that his freedom of religion had been infringed because as a Rastafarian he was not allowed to smoke cannabis, the majority made much of the dangers of dagga. This evidence seems to suggest the judges were severely misguided. If dagga is not dangerous at all, why not allow Rastafarians to use it?

The other statistic that caught my eye in this extract is that 75% of adult Americans “occassionally” enjoy a drink. Only 75%? In South Africa, where drinking alcohol is a national sport, I would imagine its closer to 90%.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest