Quote of the week

As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
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