Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Well, firstly, and most obviously, there were far more women than there are drug users. This makes it easier for reasons I shouldn't have to explain.
|
says whom?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Secondly, it is a "bigger issue", that is to say, more people cared about it, it had higher billing on most people who wanted to change it "lists of things wrong with society"
|
no.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Thirdly, it was far easier for the people who make decisions to empathise and sympathise with. They all at least knew women, most of them loved women I would imagine. People in power today do not use drugs and I doubt they associate that much with those who do.
|
no.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Fourthly, the media (or at least the tabloids) are ridiculously anti drugs, I cannot believe there was not a decent amount of support for the suffragette movement in the media.
|
they were much more anti women having the vote (the british library can supply your research needs here)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Fifthly, there had just been the biggest war the world had ever known, society had a greater feeling of solidarity, and women had recently proved they could work as well as men in the factories. This highlighted the absurdity of the law.
|
no.
(example: 'the treatment of women during the second world war')
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Sixthly, drug users are a hidden group, women are not. You do not know which people use drugs but you can tell pretty easily which people are women. This made it easier for people to support it as they could more easily relate it to their personal experiences and contacts.
|
why are they hidden?
do they hide because:
a) they selfishly indulge, take drugs and break the law (and pray that they don't get caught)
OR
b) they can't be bothered to even try changing the law