8 days into the trial of the plant and the state has brought in the circus. The state’s advocate, for whom I wish not to even validate by name, has displayed an appalling charade of idiocy.
Professor Nutt, a world leading scientist, has taken the stand to provide evidence in relation to the harms of cannabis. Presenting a comprehensive study relating the relative harms of almost all drugs, Professor Nutt faced a comical and quite frankly embarrassing cross-examination from the state.
The professor was visibly gobsmacked.
In what can only be called frustrating foolery, the state’s advocate began his interrogation of Nutt’s evidence. In rather ironic fashion, the advocate overtly extended a rude welcome to the professor. Questioning the professor with an antagonising tone, the advocate tried to direct the evidence into the arena of doubt. Continually pointing the professor to the irrelevance of his evidence in relation to South Africa and its contextual mitigations.
The professor was visibly gobsmacked. The line of reasoning the advocate presented was just absurd and at times outright contradictory. The state leapt from point to point picking out vacuumed examples with poor understanding of the facts of the matter. My favourite instance must be the argument over Nyaope, which I think most South Africans know to simply be heroin mixed with a variety of carriers, most popularly cannabis. As the professor politely tried to point out the simple scientific absurdity of ARV’s and cannabis morphing into some hybrid super drug, the advocate cheekily chose this point to cross the line. “You are wrong.” He stated.
All in all it seems our state is attempting to lose this case.
I almost dropped my grinder. The audacity of the man was unintelligible. At first I had put it down to antagonising tactics. He had set the standard from the start but this was too far. The advocate’s idiocy could only be trumped by his delusional grandeur. At each point, no matter how obviously flawed, he would pick on a single, often semantic point and claim victory at Nutt’s concession of frustration.
The advocate for Doctors for Life was next in line. An advocate with religious views and little to no respect for logic. Willis, the lawyer, was intent on discrediting the Prof. ensuring utmost disrespect. At one point after adjournment, Willis can be heard muttering what “a moron he (presumably Prof Nutt) is.” Not by any ration an acceptable display in the courts. Further, a lowly advocate, sporting religious views and most likely a secret love affair with Barry Ronge, advocate Willis is clearly out of his depth, resorting to demeaning squabbling to ease his pain of embarrassment.
I could write on end about how the advocate is the lowest version of human, how he is the cancer that society must remove should we ever want to progress, but ultimately his existence is pathetic in and of itself. His views are so absurd and his arrogance so apparent, it wouldn’t surprise me if he arrives at the pearly gates and is sent on his way with the rest of us non-believers, for if he was truly a god fearing Christian man, he would never act as such in his profession.
However in light of all this horror, Proffessor Nutt stood tall and audibly laughed off some of the more ridiculous claims Willis made. Nutt went as far as to challenge Willis on the evidence Willis presented as it was “Not peer reviewed”. Another laughable offense by the state. All in all it seems our state is attempting to lose this case, through employment of seemingly illiterate lawyers, to the backing of religious zealots, the state is clearly not putting up much of fight.