Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

Proff. David Nutt is asked to step down in light of his comments regards drugs and the governments policies. I'm guessing the real issue is the fact Proff. Nutt publicly voiced the evidence that alcohol and tobacco are far greater risks to peoples health. But that doesn't suit the governments tax income!!! Guess the truth does hurt, eh Mr. Brown?

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Heh I was thinking the same thing.

Government: Hey we want your professional advice on drugs
Professor: Well, you got it wrong
Government: What!? You're fired!

Stupid government.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

At least he got off lighter than Kelly.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Well you see this government rather likes to appoint 'independent' experts to obediently confirm the official line. They don't take too kindly to people disagreeing with them though.....

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Actually, it was more like:

Government: Hey we want your professional advice on drugs, as we're trying to reclassify cannabis.

Professor: Well, we looked at it, and we think you were right at the last reclassicifcation when it was downgraded.

Government: Errm, could you please not look at the actual evidence, but rather at the message reclassification sends out? We really want to reclassify this stuff you know.

Professor: Bogof. I'm a scientist. I look at evidence. The evidence does not support your plans for reclassification.

Government: Oh well. We'll just ignore the scientific advice we sought from you and reclassify anyway.

Professor: Twerp.

Government" What? You're fired!

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

What people who agree with that 'expert' are saying, is that they personally agree with what he said. If an 'expert' disagreed with something on their own personal agenda, then I'm sure they would only be too ready to criticise that 'expert' and say that they were talking nonsense.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

But surely the government hire the expert for his Subject Matter knowledge - and should take notice of it.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I don't have any idea how dangerous certain drugs are. I do know that sometimes popular opinion can be wrong and this guy knows more than I do on a topic. You have to the fairly ignorant to just dismiss his views out of hand because it disagrees with a existing bias. If I had evidence that the experts view is open to disagreement than fine. That's not what happened here. They just want to overrule him because the view is not popular.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Just about summs it up.:dunce:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Doesn't "the view is not popular" mean that the "expert's view is open to disagreement"? I'm sure that for an 'expert' that has one opinion there is another that has the opposite or differing view.

If what is now known about Tobacco was know before, then it would have been classed as an illegal drug. It is only because Tobacco is so widespread in usage that it isn't.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

What a dumb move.... but what does one expect of Nu Labour?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

You're the Government. You're in the poo. Do you worry more about a) the tabloids and the opposition smearing you as 'soft on crime' or b) the facts?

It's noticeable that the prize tit Chris Grayling would have done exactly the same as a prize tit Alan Johnson on this one, they're both driven by the tabloid agenda, which is currently taking aim at the perfectly sound and sensible Dr. Evan Harris MP, presumably for having the temerity to take an objective, evidence based look at things*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...abortions.html

* and, more to the point, often adopts progressive positions opposed to the Catholic Church, which the Mail's appalling editor Paul Dacre is a prominent supporter of. The difference here is that Dr. Harris is actually elected - he's been active in recent weeks in the burgeoning movement to insert some sanity into British life around supporting science, exposing various forms of denialism, libel, freedom of speech etc. and a jolly good thing too.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Its been known since the 1930's/40's that tobacco was linked to cancer. But that has never stopped any government outlawing it, it just makes them too much damn money....

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Just legalise drugs for a start and then start to work on getting rid of the problem but that is far too sensible an approach for this or any other government to take. As for this government sacking him big shock as their past history shows how well they deal with differences of opinion to thiers doesn't it.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

i think that kind of attitude is rife in any establishment whereby there are those of an authoritive position and those who 'merely' comment. you'll always get a few who get a superiority complex and will try to shoot down anyone who thinks different to themselves.

It's just in this case, due to it being a MASSIVE money maker (ie, alcohol and tobacco), the government had 2 choices... sack him, call him wrong and try to belittle the facts he has aired, or agree with him and change all their policies on drugs / alcohol resulting in less revenue.

personally, I tend to agree that alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging than a lot of other illegal substances out there.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Wasn't the late Bill Hicks the first to point out the most significant difference between those drugs which are legal and those that aren't...namely, that the ones which are legal are taxed?

He also pointed out that no-one ever gets arrested for speeding on dope while driving - because as he observed, how can you? :) You never hear of positive stories of drug-taking, either, it's all 'drugs are bad, m'kay?' - ignoring the fact that the majority of great rock & roll was produced when the artists were off their heads on something illegal. "Jumpin' Jack Flash" being a case in point - the lyrics don't make any sense whatsoever, but it's such a rockin' track no-one cares.

"If you think drugs are bad, then do me a favour: throw away your CDs and records. All of 'em." - Bill Hicks

He was a wise, dangerous man - dangerous because he dared to speak what seems to be almost a criminal offence in the States (and here, too): the truth.


---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 ----------

Though it took 'em nearly 50 years to admit it! The research proving the link was suppressed - oh, very scientific!

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I don't think there's any science in all of this... just statistics!

If a drug is illegal why "classify on a scale"? Why "hard" and "soft" drugs? Why "A", "B" and "C"?

Just say they are illegal and send the cops in. Possesion and/or use a criminal act that won't get you sent off with a caution but with a criminal record and a fine/jail time.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Government is all about managing the livestock.

This is easier if most of 'em are bladdered and/or happilly puffing their lives away with the added bonus of making said Administration shedloads of cash in Duty.

In order to maintain the level of duty raised it is necessary to stamp down on alternative drug use as it discourages alchohol and tobacco consumption and thus decreases the amount of duty raised.

Governments who legalise and license alchohol and tobacco products are the biggest drug dealers. Anyone selling alchohol and tobacco products are just licensed drug pushers.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

If he was hired, then his job is to give advice not issue statements to the media, it's up to who ever hires him to decide whether or not to take his advice after all.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Drugs don't make the government any money so they'd rather just keep things how they are and rack up that tax money.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

from the BBC site:

In a letter, the home secretary wrote: "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD.

"I would therefore ask you to step down from the Council with immediate effect."

End quotation


kind of says it all really - it's basically saying, we don't want the facts to ruin our income!!

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Yep,you're gonna arrest over a million dope-smokers,and send them to prison,or fine them.... :rolleyes:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Let's get this right - they lost confidence in him and expected his immediate resignation. It's odd how they don't expect such standards to apply when the boot's on the other foot and the electorate have lost faith in them.. :mad:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

too true

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

This Government long ago lost what small bit of credibility it once had and they know it.

So nowadays they don't give a damn about how things look so long as they bully enough to get there own way.

Speaking of credibility, Jacqui Smith on Question Time seemed to have had a complete bypass fitted. I enjoyed every minute of watching her squirm. The only downer is she is still an MP and seems to have got away without paying back the £160,000.00 expenses she admits she blatently screwed over the system for. The only hope now is the Police Investigation. Hope she goes down for it. :mad:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I'm pretty sure that if it were you or I, it would be called 'Fraud'

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Yes - odd that the (then) Home Secretary didn't seem to know where her home was eh? :confused: Too busy counting all that cash no doubt.... :mad:

Don't hold your breath re the police investigation......

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Yeah I know you are right..but I can still fantasise about the idea. :cool:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Just as long as your not fantasising about Jacqui Smith I guess :D

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

OK. The government makes no money from drugs. If that was the reason they are banned, do you not think they would just legalise and tax them?

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

people will gorge on a couple of allowed pleasures. if everything were allowed, I doubt people would be that bothered by it all. take the English who go to Amsterdam as an example. They go crazy in the coffee shops, where as the Dutch around them are not too bothered about smoking a spliff. they can take it or leave it because it's always available.

If you control the content and the flow, then you have more power over the effects. like a water dam. all that water is there which we could just drink, but by directing and controlling the flow, it's much more effective at being useful in other ways at the same time (ie, creating electricity, increasing land area, etc.). In this case, tobacco and alcohol are seen by many as more a dependency than a recreational thing. their own dependency on the drug is hightened because they are effectively only drip fed those 2 'pleasures'. if there were more available to them, the appeal and in some cases, the need, would be much less.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

A fantasy involving Jacqui Smith is more commonly known as having a nightmare. :D

Speaking of nightmares I wonder who the sadist was that styled her hair and then convinced her it looked good. :D

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

The Nutty Professor hits back:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8335189.stm

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I can vouch for that having just come back. You'd be suprised the kind of people you see in there, from all works of life. Some wearing suits after work, others just socialising with friends - stopped off for a joint, a coffee and a catch up.

Thankfully we arent the average brits who go there as my friend is a smoker but has his own constant supply and we've been many times, but we did see many non-dutch idiots falling out the doorways on 'whiteys' who'd completely over indulged :rolleyes:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

My sister told me tonight that a woman gave her a lecture about fibbing about her youngests age to go up Big Ben, saying "I waited until all mine were 11" the bloody cheek, it was only Jaqui Smith, my sisters white lie didn't cost the tax payer any money unlike hers, still at least her blatent lies and theiving ways have cost her a seat in the Lords.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

About £3billion a year in Taxes. They will never outlaw smoking like drinking it brings in to much money in Taxes.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Not sure about that sadly..

Oh and do they have seats anymore... beds might be more appropriate for many of the inhabitants of 'the other place'... ;)

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

source

So science should be kept hidden away from the public. That way who knows if it disagrees with your policy.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

If they had their way Joe Public would only be spoon fed with the propaganda they wanted him to know.

You know, stuff like, you have the best health service in the World, you enjoy the best standard of living in the World, the UK taxes are the lowest in the World, our education system leads the World. :D

When I was a kid and the internet had not even been thought of this was the type of tripe we were fed and we believed it. How easy it was in those days to oppress and mislead the electorate. It's much harder these days but they still try it on at every opportunity.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I just find this whole thing absolutely fascinating, for what it says about our society as well as our politicians' and scientists' attitude to it.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I am confused? I would say it shows politicians' contempt for their responsibilities. I don't see what it says about scientists' attitude to society though.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Which probably means you share the scientists' attitude to the issue. ;)

There are a number of ways of looking at this, and to be fair, David Nutt and all of the various Labour politicians who have been wheeled out to address the issue over the weekend have acknowledged it in some form or other.

Nutt has made a scientific point, that in his considered opinion, based on his evaluation of the evidence, the illegal drugs he mentioned are less dangerous than some legal ones. Government policy, on the other hand, makes a political point, which by necessity takes in a broader view of the issue than cold hard scientific data about the relative toxicity of cannabis and tobacco, or ecstasy and alcohol.

The only thing that really makes me cross about this is our current administration's craven terror of honest, open discussion. Nutt should be free to have his say, regardless of what unpaid work he may do on behalf of the Government. It's not as if they've even bought his silence (which actually begs the question, can they really 'sack' him anyway, or can they merely decide not to ask his opinion any more?). The Government has made policy after weighing scientific evidence against the attitudes of society towards drugs. If that's what they want to do - and I believe that is the right thing for them to do - then they need to be honest about it.

Johnson could have handled this in a far more grown up manner. He could have acknowledged Nutt's views and then gone on to state that he believes there's a place in the debate for notions of shared community morality that sit alongside data about what is more or less harmful for an individual to ingest. But he didn't - instead he decided to play power politics, tried to slap his opponent down and in the process simply made himself and his Government colleagues look like they're somehow afraid of the truth.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

That does slightly contrast with the massive decline in smoking in recent decades *precisely because* of things like legislation, regulation, taxation and government health campaigns. Banning it I'm not in favour of, but you've got to admit that far fewer people are smoking and therefore presumably they've accepted the reduction in tax income in return for greater public health.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

It isn't just Prof. Nutt who has claimed, based upon his expert opinion and evaluation of the evidence, that the drugs he mentioned are less dangerous than some legal ones.

The ACMD itself (comprised of a wide range of experts in medicine, pharmacology, psychiatry, chemistry, social issues, legal & criminal issues, etc.) recommended, based upon their expert opinion and evaluation of the evidence, that cannabis should remain a Class C, and not be upgraded back to a Class B, due to it being less harmful than other Class B drugs. The Government ignored this expert advice, choosing instead to pander to puritanism & the tabloids.

The ACMD itself recommended, based upon their expert opinion and evaluation of the evidence, that ecstasy should be downgraded from a Class A to a Class B, due to it being less harmful than other Class A drugs. The Government ignored this expert advice, choosing instead to pander to puritanism & the tabloids.

Adding to the ACMD's past reports, there was also a report published in the Lancet in 2007, by a team of experts including Prof. Nutt and Prof. Colin Blakemore (then head of the MRC), along with contributions from people in various fields such as psychiatry, chemistry, pharmacology, forensics, police and legal services.

The study examined the current drug classification system and looked into the physical harm, social harm, and likelihood of addiction of twenty different drugs - including legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco as well as illegal drugs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rugsandalcohol

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...464-4/fulltext

The report's authors stated that, based upon the available scientific evidence and their expert opinions, alcohol and tobacco are actually more dangerous than cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy.

They also said that if alcohol and tobacco happened to be classed in the same way as illegal drugs, alcohol would be a Class A, and tobacco would be a Class B.

The study concluded that, of the 20 drugs they investigated, heroin & cocaine were the most dangerous. Alcohol came in at 5th most dangerous, 6th place went to Ketamine (currently only a Class C), in 9th place was tobacco, 11th place cannabis, 14th place LSD, 18th place Ecstasy.

[I believe it was the talk of drug rankings from this report which sparked off this whole thing recently]


We need a proper grown-up debate about what is actually more harmful, and how our current shambles of a classification system should work. But our political masters seem to prefer to just go, in the words of South Park's Mr Mackey "Drugs are bad, m'kay!". They want evidence to fit policy, when surely it should be the other way around.



Hmm, two members of the ACMD have resigned following Prof. Nutt's sacking:

Dr Les King, former head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336635.stm

Marion Walker, member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and clinical director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust's substance misuse service:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336884.stm


I wonder how many more will follow...

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Agreed. However I'd argue we're not going to get such a debate whilst the two sides involved are more interested in lampooning and caricaturing each other. Misrepresenting those you (presumably) disagree with as championing 'puritanism' isn't really grown up, is it?

You're right, the Government does seem to want the evidence to fit its policy, and that's a thoroughly awful way to carry on. However that doesn't mean we have to default to what you're proposing, which seems to be policy-making based purely on scientific evidence. You haven't even begun to address how you define 'harm' - at the moment you seem to be arbitrarily assuming that 'harm' consists of no more or less than what actually happens when you ingest a drug (whether legal or not).

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

A fair point :erm:


At no point did I say that "harm" should only be based upon what happens physically when you ingest a drug. I know that there is more to it than simply what you choose to allow to happen to your own body. And Prof. Nutt and co. know that too...

Prof. Nutt, and the ACMD itself did not simply look at "cold hard scientific data about the relative toxicity" of different drugs (& nor did the Lancet study I mentioned).

The ACMD's judgement that cannabis and ecstasy are less dangerous than currently classified, and Prof. Nutt & the Lancet study's judgement that they are actually also less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, are based upon more than just "cold hard scientific data about the relative toxicity".

The ACMD's Cannabis report, the ACMD's Ecstasy report, the Lancet study, Prof. Nutt's comments... all mention more than just actual physical harm or relative toxicity.

They looked at psychological harm as well as physical harm, they looked at addiction as well as physical harm, they looked at social harm as well as physical harm...

And alcohol and tobacco are, in the opinion of various experts in different fields, more physically harmful, more socially harmful, and more addictive, than cannabis and ecstasy.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Oh dear

It looks like this is backfiring tremendously.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

This point of view always puzzles me.

Firstly to smoke Cannabis you mix it with tobacco and then smoke it through an unfiltered spliff. Also I have never met anyone that smoked Cannabis regularly that wasn't a smoker anyway.

So to say it's less harmful than smoking is ballcocks it's at least as harmful and then with the possible affects it has on the brain I would say that it is marginally more harmful.

And in regards to the alcohol side of things, yes alcohol is an issue, we have many youngsters binge drinking. Would you rather have them a smoking cannabis? which would no doubt lead many of them to smoking tobacco too?

I think he was right to be sacked, he was employed to give his opnion, his opinion does not have to followed. he home secretary is the person elected by the people to make these decisions - not some jumped up "expert"

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Thats incorrect - you can smoke pure cannabis and many people do. In the coffeeshops in Amsterdam there are areas where you can smoke pure pot or a sectioned off area for mixing with tobacco. Needless to say the smoking ban is rather confusing there :rolleyes:

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Nevertheless, I fail to see how smoking "pure", and I presume unfiltered, cannabis is "less" harmful than smoking tobacco?

The only reason is the amount, I presume after two joints of pure cannabis you're not in any shape to do anything, let alone smoke a fag.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Lord Winston said it well earlier on News 24. Bascially:

1. The science points to tabacco being more harmful than cannabis.
2. If the government doesn't want to legalise cannabis (say for social reasons) then they should say so
3. The impression he got was that the government are trying to undermine the science.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Surely because it is the nicotine in tobacco that is dangerous.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Tend to agree although you don't need tobacco for cannabis smoking. The thing that the expert seems to be forgetting that the A B C system is meant to help courts decide sentences, not as a guide for which drugs are safer than others, personally I want all drug dealers to be dealt with harshly.

I mean what is he really saying, we have a problem with 2 legal substances, lets compound that by watering down punishments for others?

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

His scientific opinion. Alan Johnson is within his rights to ignore his guy and he is also within his rights to fire him on the grounds that advisers are not elected therefore not in a position to dictate policy. However the issue is why his advice was ignored, if it's because Alan Johnson has evidence to counter this guys expertise then fine. If it's because popular opinion has outweighed scientific reason then it is not fine.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Rat poison, Formaldehyde, Benzene and Hydrogen Cyanide just to name a few of the 4000 chemicals contained within a cigarette.

Nicotine in itself isn't extremely harmful, in fact its has some positive effects such as encouraging dopemine release.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Disagree with you there, I don't care what "scientific reason" there is to declassify Cannabis. I think it should stay a banned substance, and I'm sure many others think the same way. Therefore if he represents my will he will get my support.

That's the job of a politician, to represent the view of the people.

If he believes the majority of people think that way, then he is correct in his actions

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

lord winston is not above political accomadation. It's interesting he has Not opted for it in this instance.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

If that were true we would never get anywhere. The government needs to listen to evidence, do what is best for the country, and attempt to inform the public into how they made a decision.

It's of course true that if the people put forth a compelling case for remaining classified (such as social impact) then fine. It's seems a terrible way to run a country to do what the masses want irrespective of evidence.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Nicotine is actually one of the most toxic substances known, 60mg can kill an adult which is the same amount as in half a cigar, children are hospitalised all the time due to their disgusting penchant for eating butts.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

They are, for once

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Erm, he does sit in the House Of Lords...

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I know, but he is also trotted out as a "scientist"

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Yep I agree, but unlike most of the other substances its actually got some positives. Incidentally the strongest patch we prescribe is a 25mg one which delivers 25mg over a 24 hour period. In Oz, they sometimes treble this - but it depends on the smoker in the first place.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Why? The government couldn't find support for their decision to reclassify cannabis back to a class C drug. The experts employed to advice the government strongly advised against it. The police were happy not to have to deal with cannabis as well.

Populism was the main motivator behind the decision. On what grounds do people have to make cannabis a serious drug?

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

He is though.

The issue the government are complaining about here is that Dr Nutt is moving into the political arena. Its a bit hard to Lord Winston not to as he sits in the HoL.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

More to the point:

What's the purpose of having a drug classification system if it doesn't reflect the relative dangers of different drugs?

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Well exactly. There was no reason other than populism to reclassify the drug. That is no way to dictate drug policy.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Well exactly, he's a labour lord and is speaking out against the government, unless I misread your post. If he has a bias it would be against it.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Because science isn't the only factor here.

Say if you banned cigarettes and legalised cannabis purely on the science that cigs are more harmful than spliffs.

Suddenly you'll have a lot of upset smokers who are dying for a fag and will pay for it. People will then start smuggling cigs to keep up with demand. Before long large swathes of the public are getting drug convictions to support a habit that has run into decades and gang warfare has exploded on the streets.

Scientists are there to advise policy on drugs. They aren't there to set it. The final say always lies with the politicians who have to take in all factors be it medical, social, financial. The social and financial experts may be advising against the prohibition on cigs.


OK, you've lost me. What was the point you are making?

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I wasn't really making a point. Just saying that circumstances would suggest that in this instance Winston is being honest and should be listened to.

Or of course you could read all the research papers oneself but who has the time for that? I don't.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

The classification system isn't designed to tell you how harmful a drug is and the government found plenty of support for their decision to reclassify amongst the public. What makes these people experts, the amount of people they treat for addiction or the ability to read stats and do tests.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

An Education and experience as opposed to what they read I guess.

For example the advisor in question (whose creditability as an expert is in doubt):

I would rather listen to him than 'the public'.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

The public aren't stupid, I assume you are one of them on this subject. Nice example of his experience there, sitting in offices and giving lectures, wonder if he has ever treated anyone for drug addiction, no thought not, I doubt anyone with first hand experience would agree with him.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I doubt anyone with experience of losing people to lung cancer caused by smoking or alcohol poisoning would agree that those substances are better than cannabis. It is of course going to skew your overall perception of any issue if you have first hand, emotional, experience with it.

He is however an expert on addition and the effects of drugs on the human body. He constructed a list of all substances irrespective of their legal classification and found tobacco and alcohol, amongst others, were worse than cannabis. Hence he questioned why cannabis was reclassified against their advice. I think we know that the reason was nothing to do with public safety and was more to do with public perception of being 'tough'.

Incidentally I am a member of the public, one who is not an expert. I feel that people with a lot more experience and knowledge of the subject have a more valid opinion than my own on matters in which they are experts on. I don't want people like me deciding policy on issues I am ill-educated on.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

By first hand experience I mean those that actually deal with the effects of drug addiction on a day to day professional basis, not some one who sits in an office or lecture hall all day, they are the ones whose opinion I value and I am cetain they dont agree with the prof Nutt.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

" He is however an expert on addition and the effects of drugs on the human body. He constructed a list of all substances irrespective of their legal classification and found tobacco and alcohol, amongst others, were worse than cannabis. Hence he questioned why cannabis was reclassified against their advice. I think we know that the reason was nothing to do with public safety and was more to do with public perception of being 'tough'."


You can add to " The public Perception of being tough " with the fact that the Government get no profit from the dealer on the street corner or drug house or your local ice cream vender.
They would not soil their hands with such money, but they will have the excrement on their hands from the proceeds from tobacco and alcohol without a second thought.
Lets see how tough they are, lets see how much they care about the nations health, I will only believe it when they totally outlaw tobacco and alcohol, actions speak louder than words I am affraid.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

"Jumped up 'expert' " = Professor David Nutt, a medical doctor with many years of experience in medicine, psychiatry, and neuropsychopharmacology. Professor of Psychopharmacology at Bristol University. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Academy of Medical Sciences. Specialises in the research of drugs which affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety and sleep.

Current Home Secretary = Alan Johnson MP. Left school at 15. Trade Union leader turned Labour politician. Home Secretary since June of this year. Previous Cabinet positions include Health Secretary and Education Secretary.

Previous Home Secretary (when the Govt. ignored the ACMD's expert advice on ecstasy and cannabis) = Jacqui Smith MP. BA in PPE, plus has a PGCE. Teacher turned Labour politician. Home Secretary from June 2007 until June 2009. Resigned from the Cabinet after the "MPs' Expenses Scandal".


I know which one of the three I would trust to have the qualifications, knowledge, and experience, to discuss the relative harm of different legal and illegal drugs...

... but what is the ABC system based upon?...The relative harm of different controlled substances. That is the point. Or at least it is supposed to be.

Class A drugs are Class A because they are judged to be more harmful than Class B drugs, and so deserve a higher penalty.

Class B drugs are Class B because they are judged to be more harmful than Class C drugs, but less harmful than Class A drugs, and so deserve a higher penalty than Class C (but lower than Class A).

Class C drugs are Class C because they are judged to be harmful and in need of control, but are not as harmful as Class A or Class B, therefore they have a lesser penalty than Class A and Class B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_1971

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisor...isuse_of_Drugs


If drugs are not classed according to how harmful they are (to both the individual, i.e. physical harm, and to society, i.e. social harm), then how should they be classed, and what exactly is the point in having a three tier system? How do you decide whether a drug should be A, B, or C if it is not based upon physical and social harm?

Unfortunately we now seem to have a system which appears IMO to be based upon pandering to the tabloids & to Middle England (both of whom feed off each other I think), rather than based upon actual levels of harm, and so we have certain drugs in the same Class as drugs which are more harmful, which surely just confuses things. Why is ecstasy classed the same as e.g. heroin, crack, and crystal meth, when it is less physically harmful and less socially harmful? Why is cannabis classed the same as e.g. speed when it is less harmful? What sort of message does it send out to people?

And science is not the only factor looked at when the ACMD reviews a drug's classification. The ACMD is not just a bunch of doctors & chemists. And when they look at a drug's classification, they look at:


-----------------

As I mentioned before, Prof. Nutt is not the only one who has been saying these things. He is not a lone maverick. He is not some outspoken crazy. He is not calling for either the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, or the legalisation of cannabis and ecstasy. And he is not saying that cannabis and ecstasy are harmless.

The ACMD itself, after reviewing all the evidence, recommended that cannabis should have stayed a Class C drug, and not be upgraded to Class B, due to it being less physically harmful and less socially harmful than other Class B drugs.

http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publi...08?view=Binary

The ACMD itself, after reviewing all the evidence, recommended that ecstasy should have been downgraded from Class A to Class B, due to it being less physically harmful and less socially harmful than other Class A drugs.

http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publi...rt?view=Binary


And then there is the whole "drug rankings" thing I mentioned before, which seems to be what sparked this off:

The original Lancet report: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...464-4/fulltext

An article on the Lancet report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rugsandalcohol

Prof. Nutt's 2009 Eve Saville lecture on this subject (which sparked off the "Nutt Sack" affair), following on from the earlier Lancet study,

"Estimating drug harms: a risky business?" press release: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/es...ugharmspr.html

"Estimating drug harms: a risky business?" full article: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/op...drug_harms.pdf


I really think people should actually read the reports...


Also, from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies:

"Open letter to the Home Secretary from Richard Garside, director, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies"

"Errors of fact from the Home Secretary in emergency debate"

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Yes but that is almost exclusively medical criteria. There's far more too it than just the health. There's criminal, financial and social issues to talk about which the scientists are probably no more educated to talk about than me.

I don't like Alan Duncan but he had a point earlier when he said you have to take into account what the people want. Ultimately we put them there and where possible our views should be included. Unfortunately the middle-classes and tabloid-readers make up a larger voting demographic than the pro-cannabis lobby.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Again, you're belittling a very important constituency of opinion here. Whether you denounce them as Puritans or Middle Englanders feeding off hysterical tabloids, they are a sizeable chunk of the population and they are entitled to decide what is and is not allowed to happen in their communities.

We simply do not live as subjects to the kind of all-knowing State that decrees what we are and are not allowed to do based on the opinions of experts, no matter how highly qualified. That is not how the UK operates. The democratic principle that ultimately, it's the people who decide what's acceptable is woven right through our society and the systems that underpin it. It's even evident in the courtroom: a jury has the power to acquit a man no matter how strong the evidence against him. It is not possible to launch a criminal appeal on the basis that 'the jury was wrong'. The jury cannot be wrong. The British people acting democratically cannot be wrong. That's how it works.

Nutt is a member of our democratic society and was IMO entitled to his say before he was sacked. The Government has behaved disgracefully in sacking him and in being scared to admit that there may be more to drugs policy than carefully-conducted scientific studies. But ultimately, the Government rightly has the power to set policy in that way. We will judge them on this and all the other issues at the ballot box.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

As I said before, the ACMD is not comprised solely of scientists. And they do not solely look at the science regarding physical harm. They also look at social harm. They also look at crime and anti-social behaviour. Etc.

The experts consulted for the Lancet study were also not just scientists, not just doctors or pharmacologists, and also looked at more than just physical harm.


The reports are there for all to read.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

http://timesonline.typepad.com/scien...uidelines.html

Nutts comments conformed to government guidelines

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

There is a petition for Professor Nutt to be re-instated if people believe it can make a difference.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

LOL,David Nutt has treated people with substance abuse problems for years,you joker.. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

No? What else is it supposed to do then?The MDA is there to classify drugs by harm and recommend sentences according to harm....

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

Ok,so in your opinion Homosexuality was also wrong before it was made legal.....? ;)
You also don't like to be called and puritan and yet you wrote that drug use is a 'moral choice....' .How does that go together?

Also,you claim that 'the public' is in favour of this drug policy.... no,it's not!I speak to many people from all walks of life about this and most have had enough of our drug policies.
I don't claim that most people support legalisation,however I DO claim that most people agree that our policy,as it stands now,isn't working.


Let's face it,this whole squabbling between the government and the scientific community is just a place-holder for the real issue here,which is prohibition.I believe Prof. Nutt knows this too,but he didn't have the courage to say it.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I'm afraid this is what you get when you abandon absolute morality in favour of relative, localised community morality. The absolute morality that made homosexuality 'wrong' in our culture actually still says it's wrong. It's the non-absolute morality of our society that has changed. In that context - and that's the context I was using in my post - homosexuality was wrong then but is probably not wrong now. I say probably because I'm talking about public mores, not the law. There is no guarantee that acceptance of homosexuality is as widespread in our society as some campaigners would like us to believe. But that's another subject entirely.

It's interesting that you choose homosexuality for your illustration. Perhaps you believe it's a powerful example because you think everyone's opinion has completely changed and nobody would these days dream of speaking against it? Even if that were the case, all you're doing here is reading your own moral outlook back into history, which is a bit pointless because to do that is to completely ignore the context in which people were living. As I have said, in any discussion about the relative morality held by a community that does not particularly ascribe to any notion of absolute authority (i.e., God), all you have is what is right and wrong in the here and now.

Quite easily. You're comparing apples and pears here, so it's not surprising you're confused. Puritanism is one specific moral outlook. It is possible to have a moral outlook without being a Puritan. Of course Puritan has an alternative meaning, which is the one Matt used in his post, that of someone who is in some way obsessive about their morals. In that sense - as Matt conceded at the time - it was intended as a caricature of someone who opposes liberalising of drug policy. It's easier to argue down a caricature because you can pretend their point of view is somehow less valid than yours from the outset.

Ah, the age-old argument from personal experience. Well, I note at least that you're not claiming they all want policy to be liberalised. That's a start I suppose. It also begs the question, why did you mention it? Nutt, after all, clearly wants some restrictions relaxed. Do your contacts all want the same, or do some of them think that the current policy, which is 'not working' would be best remedied by being made more severe?

This sounds like an attempt to draw parallels between our current drugs policy and US policy on alcohol in the early 20th century. Interesting, but I've gone on long enough for now. ;)

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-cannabis.html


Government's chief scientist backs David Nutt on cannabis

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Its all well and good getting a petition up demanding that Proff. Nutt gets his job back, but lets face it. Would any of us take a job back from employers as corrupt, morally bankrupt, and terminally stupid as the current liebour government....

Personally if it was me, I'd go and see Alan, and tell him to stick his position up his jacksie. Then add that I just happen to have a large fencepost and a heavy hammer to help him ram it home....


[e] Mixed up Frank Field (one of a select few politions I actually respect), and the excreteable Alan Johnston....

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Professor Nutt has a guest editorial in New Scientist that's worth a read:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-on-drugs.html
Ironically trying to shut him up has the opposite effect of making people interested in what he has to say. Parallels with Government drug 'policy' there.

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

Some more have jumped.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8353685.stm

Re: Truth hurts, eh!?!?
 

I reckon someone's dosed the Brown Cabinet's favourite tea urn with a drug which induces self harm and a tendency to uncontrolled hole digging....