Truth hurts, eh!?!?

[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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Matt D

And when they look at a drug's classification, they look at:

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.

Originally Posted by Matt D

<big snip>

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.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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.

[downquark1]

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

Nutts comments conformed to government guidelines

[punky]

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/

[Will21st]

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.

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

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

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Will21st

Ok,so in your opinion Homosexuality was also wrong before it was made legal.....?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[papa smurf]

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


Government's chief scientist backs David Nutt on cannabis

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....

[BBKing]

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

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-on-drugs.html

imagine being seated at a table with two bowls, one containing peanuts, the other the illegal drug MDMA (ecstasy). Which is safer to give to a stranger?

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.

[Derek]

Some more have jumped.

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

Three more government advisers have resigned after the home secretary's sacking of his chief drugs adviser Prof David Nutt, the BBC has learned.

[Osem]

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....