[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Pierre

...The home secretary is the person elected by the people to make these decisions - not some jumped up "expert"

"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...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

... 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?

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

* Physical harm
o Acute
o Chronic
o Parenteral (i.e. intravenous harm)
* Dependence
o Intensity of Pleasure
o Psychological dependence
o Physical dependence
* Social harms
o Intoxication
o Other social harms
o Healthcare costs

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

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"

Originally Posted by Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

Letter to the Home Secretary

Dear Home Secretary,

I am writing to you about your decision to dismiss Professor David Nutt as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

It was the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that asked Professor Nutt to present his analysis at a lecture at King's College London in July of this year. Following the lecture Professor Nutt agreed to our publishing an edited version, which we did last Thursday. A copy of this publication, along with the press release, can be accessed on our website here. The publicity material for the lecture can be viewed on our website here.

In your letter to Professor Nutt advising him that you were dismissing him from his role, you wrote that his contribution went `against the requirements on general standards of public life' required by his position as chair of the ACMD. You went on to write:

`As chair of the ACMD you cannot avoid appearing to implicate the Council in your comments and thereby undermining its scientific independence'.

I would like to make it clear that Professor Nutt gave his lecture, and agreed to its subsequent publication, in his capacity as the Edmond J Safra Chair of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London. This is stated clearly in the original publicity and in the subsequent paper. Professor Nutt made some references to the ACMD in his paper as it was relevant to his argument. At no point did he make reference to his role as chair of the ACMD, nor did he give the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the ACMD.

I have to conclude that the public confusion between Professor Nutt's academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Academics who advise government should feel confident that they retain the freedom to act as independent researchers without the threat of political interference or undue pressure of any kind. It is in the public interest that you clarify your thinking on this matter and I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours,

Richard Garside
Director
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

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

Originally Posted by Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

During the emergency debate this afternoon the Home Secretary made a number of errors of fact. In particular:

1. Professor Nutt gave his lecture at King's College London on July 14, 2009 and not last week as the Home Secretary claimed. The Home Office sent representatives to the lecture at the time.
2. Professor Nutt did not attack the Prime Minister in his lecture, nor did he do so in his paper, published by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies last week.
3. The Home Secretary continued to confuse Professor Nutt's ACMD role and his role as an an independent academic. Professor Nutt gave his lecture and published his paper as an independent academic, not as the chair of the ACMD. The Home Secretary's suggestion that Professor Nutt should have cleared his paper with the Home Office prior to its publication is therefore incorrect and inappropriate.

Furthermore, the Home Secretary did not explain why an independent academic, speaking and publishing in a personal capacity as a Professor at Imperial College London, was dismissed from his chairmanship of the ACMD when he had not been speaking on its behalf.