Truth hurts, eh!?!?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Chris

Misrepresenting those you (presumably) disagree with as championing 'puritanism' isn't really grown up, is it?

A fair point

Originally Posted by Chris

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).

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.

[danielf]

Oh dear

The home secretary faces the threat of more scientists resigning after sacking his chief drugs adviser Prof David Nutt for his comments about cannabis policy.

Two members of the drugs advisory panel have quit in protest and others are to meet to discuss their next move.

It looks like this is backfiring tremendously.

[Pierre]

Prof Nutt was sacked on Friday after using a lecture to say that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

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"

[superbiatch]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by superbiatch

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

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.

[punky]

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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"

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?

Originally Posted by Pierre

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"

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.

[superbiatch]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

If it's because popular opinion has outweighed scientific reason then it is not fine.

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

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by superbiatch

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

They are, for once

[punky]

Originally Posted by downquark1

lord winston is not above political accomadation.

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