Truth hurts, eh!?!? - Page 5

downquark1 · 02-11-2009, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

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

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

superbiatch · 02-11-2009, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

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.

**Damien** · 02-11-2009, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They are, for once

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?

punky · 02-11-2009, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

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

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.

danielf · 02-11-2009, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

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?

**Damien** · 02-11-2009, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

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?

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

downquark1 · 02-11-2009, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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.

punky · 02-11-2009, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

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.

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

downquark1 · 02-11-2009, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

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

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.

TheDaddy · 02-11-2009, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

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.

**Damien** · 02-11-2009, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

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):

Quote:

Professor Nutt studied medicine at the University of Cambridge, graduating in 1972 and completing his clinical training at Guy's Hospital in 1975. He worked as a clinical scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary from 1978 to 1982. From 1983 to 1985, he lectured in psychiatry at the University of Oxford. In 1986, he was the Fogarty visiting scientist at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in Bethesda. Returning to the UK in 1988, he joined the University of Bristol as director of the Psychopharmacology Unit. In 2009, he then established the Department of Neuropsychopharmacology and Molecular Imaging at Imperial College, London, taking a new chair endowed by the Edmond J Safra Philanthropic Foundation.

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

TheDaddy · 02-11-2009, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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'.

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.

**Damien** · 02-11-2009, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

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.

TheDaddy · 02-11-2009, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

snip

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.

02-11-2009, 16:39

" 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.