UKC

Following yesterdays release of transcript for his lecture.. http://bit.ly/4FDC9k

Another bad day after Mandy's crappy anti-piracy stuff.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

Article from guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sac...

It doesn't suprise me at all that polititians are acting on the information that they want you to believe and not the true facts of the situation. Nor does it suprise me that David Nutt has been sacked for speaking the truth. Polititians deal in lies and anything but lies does not sit well with them.

P.S. I do not use.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

And reverting cannabis back to a Class B drug is bad?

Gets my vote.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: drugs are bad mmmkay

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: smoke pot? ...check your knot.

I don't disagree that drugs are bad but to say that some fairly easy to control (taxable) drugs are safer than hard to control (non taxable) drugs is a tad hypocritical when they clearly aren't.

If you want my opinion, which you may or may not, then all drugs should be legalised but controlled and taxed. However, if you suffer ill from your drug of choice, say for example, lung cancer from smoking tobacco then the medical costs are yours to cherish. Education not legistration.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: if the scandal-hungry media hadn't hyped it as 'are you saying to parents that should tell their children that ecstasy is better than a friendly pint in the pub'..... All he said was the amount of harm, in total, was less from illegal drugs than widespread legal ones. FFS!

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

seems like a sledge hammer to crack...

In reply to thin bob:

I think ecstacy better than a pint is a no brainer, lol

In reply to The Lemming:


"..A fully scientifically-based Misuse of Drugs Act where drug classification accurately reflects harms would be a powerful educational tool. Using the Act in a political way to give messages other than those relating to relative harms undermines the Act and does great damage to the educational message.."
-Nutt et al.

Well, couldn't have said it better meself..


Just annoys me that the gov seems to not favour informed opinion and prefers to take its own dumb decisions. Not personally interested in drug classification (since alcohol is legal!). Mandy's stupid anti-piracy stuff yesterday (why should we be bothered about piracy that is in the main of USA based movie companies?) and now this

In reply to smithers25:


Yup, I'd sort of agree with that. Legalised, controlled and taxed. Also, I'd say in a 'perfect world' that if folks want to pursue a lifestyle that consists of taking drugs then it's their choice.

Problem being that such a drug taking lifestyle doesn't fit well with a regular job hence crime is associated.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
Sounds to me that Nutt suffers from an over inflated ego. A clash of science over a little common sense. Just because alcohol and tobacco might be pretty bad, it doesn't necessarily follow that ecstacy and cannabis should be legalised because scientific opinion says it may be less bad. Why not legalise murder in the uk? it kills less people than driving cars.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

lol

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: People commit crime to fund an array of social pleasures. Not all crime is drug related. White collar crime is on the rise and I'd bet my bottom dollar they don't do it to feed a habit.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

Are you serious, thick or trolling?

In reply to Removed Userysingo: It is pretty easy to morally justify banning murder. How do you morally justify banning people from taking some drugs and not other ones?

In reply to The Lemming:

What will/has it achieved?

Why stop there? Why not make cannabis class A, alcohol class B and climbing class C? Might as well for all the good it will do.

In reply to David Martin:
All of the above.

In reply to The Lemming:

Bad (and good) doesn't really come into it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6474053.stm

Hypocritical maybe.........

In reply to David Martin: If you make climbing class C it will become cool then all the kids will be down with it. We could get ASBO trad.

In reply to tom.e:
I'm not trying to morally justify banning anything. I'm just trying to get my thick head round the argument that because alcohol is legal, it follows that cannabis and ecstacy should be legal.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

Did you read http://bit.ly/4FDC9k ??

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

anything that involves a person doing something to themselves should be up to the individual no matter how wierd others may find it unless it is serious self harm - even then maybe.

When your actions affect others law should come into play (and I don't mean if your ma gets upset cos you had a spliff).

You may argue that drugs cause crime which affects others but thats not really true.

Rich

In reply to smithers25:

Good point. I do think we should have a try at "Legalised, controlled and taxed". After all, it can't be any worse than the current situation (can it?).

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

If you want to read a really compelling argument for legalising everything - but why it hasnt happened politically - read "High Society" by Ben Elton.

In reply to Richard Morgan:

omg! I smell a 'Libertarian'

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
Yes I did.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

I've been waiting for this!

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

In reply to Richard Morgan:
Thanks for the lecture. I don't subscribe to anything you said. I'm merely interested in the legalising argument and the egos involved.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
Glad I gave you the chance to shine. Well done.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

Sorry, wasn't personal! If anyone had mentioned 'common sense' I would have hit 'em with that quote! I don't agree with some of Nutt's thinking re psychosis and cannabis anyway.

Neil.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

I just think it was daft that ordinary decent people could get a criminal record simply for smoking a spliff. That's why using cannabis on an occasional basis should not be a criminal offense.

In reply to AlisonS: only on an occasional basis? What about medical use?

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
Apology accepted. Besides Einstien got other things wrong too.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

Wasn't supposed to be a lecture - just my 2 penneth - this is a forum right?

Rich

In reply to Richard Morgan:
Thats true, but you appeared to be attribting an opinion to me that I dont hold. I object to that. Feel free to air your own opinions, or even call me names if you wish.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: just to lighten things up a bit

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ecstasy-is-mental%2c-says-drugs-c...

and yes, I have had a wee spliff

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

lol, no you're alright

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:


shoot on sight.
its the only way to be safe with them.

In reply to Removed Userysingo: The evidence is out there on the streets. The guy with sick in his beard and cuts on his face saying blurggghfffffffffffuxssssyerrrrraargh doesnt have a spiff or e problem. At least he's paying tax on his white lightning.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
Moving away from a debate on legalisation or not of drugs and looking at what has actually happened with David Nutt;
He has been employed by the government to investigate the drugs issue in this country and has been subsequently fired for making his recommendations public when they don't coincide with popular government policy.
I wonder whether the blame for global warming being based on carbon emissions is a similar case. Methane from livestock is a major contributor as a greenhouse gas but raising the price of meat through punitive taxation to reduce consumption would be desperately unpopular whereas placing the blame firmly on the doorstep of carbon emissions provides an opportunity to weight punitive taxation towards the middle classes, which gives the impression of being a far more socially responsible government policy and will generate more revenue whereas doing the right thing may be to push the developed world towards a vegetarian diet, reducing methane emissions and going part way to combatting obesity into the bargain.

In reply to pdufus:
I see, it's just a tax thing then.

In reply to teflonpete:


the IPCC made recommendations far beyond just carbon emissions, including addressing methane in agriculture.
governments have been, rightly, criticised for being very selective on which proposals to put into place but i doubt it has been raised up as a large issue on the grounds they have enough of a fight on their hands about the proposals being actioned let alone the ones being ignored.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

That's not the argument. The question is, why is it class B in the first place? What purpose does upgrading serve when doing so undermines the law, when it confuses the concept of classification and when it probably impinges harm reduction and education? And what purpose does it serve that those in posession now face increased prison terms?

The legality of alcohol is nothing but a tool to highlight the idiocy of increasing the classification.

This is so pathetic, cant belive lsd is a class a drug even thou research after research shows it to be far less harmful than alcohol or coke (b listed).

In reply to David Martin:
Explain why classification would impinge on harm reduction and education. Increased penalties serve no purpose other than an attempt to deter, as far as I can see, the law can sometimes be a bummer like that. It makes no difference to my life, but I am interested in the debate. It seems to me that alcohol is a tool used to prop up the whole of the legalising/declassifying argument.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

Regardless of how cannabis is classified AB or C or even declassified, folk will continue to partake - in the pub, at the crag, at dinner parties, at clubs, at gigs and during "Deep and meaningful" teenage and student conversations - it has been thus since the 1960's (thats 50 years ago) and will continue to remain so. Some of us will grow out of smoking it with age.

At least 2 US presidents admit to having smoked, both Clinton and Obama.

And I love the Obama clip on Youtube "Of course I inhaled - thats the whole point isnt it"?

Around cannabis at least - the law is an utter arse. Potentially criminalising many decent otherwise law abiding citizens who contribute to society.

Legalise it and get rid of the low grade health risk shite and gangster elements.

PS I havent partook for quite a few years, but I am fully supportive of folks rights to indulge if they so wish.

In reply to David Hooper:

PS Look at the power and money that the prohibition of alcohol allowed the gangsters in the USA.

It is only criminals who benefit and profit from the illegal status of drugs.

In reply to teflonpete:

My gosh, you've hit the nail on the head there, Teflon!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I have to big up teflonpete also.

I certainly know from my shopping bill that it's a lot cheaper when I don't buy meat.

From my own knowledge, I still find it absurd, that saturated fat is literally added at one end of the food chain to enrich poor processed foods, and at the other end, it is pulled out by surgeons.

When this total crap isn't taxed fairly, how can fruit and veg green grocers properly compete?

That, or you die from heart disease. You eat the shit, you live by it .

I have been seriously considering my old green grocer for a knighthood recommendation. When you measure the lives must have he saved over the years he's been working, it's a lot more than some celebrity fly by night supposed charity worker.

In reply to The Lemming:

Hence your user name?

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

There was some debate on the radio this am about horseriding being more dangerous than ecstacy - the bit I heard went something like this

Interviewer " what would you say to Leah Betts parents (died after 1 e)".
No nonsense science dude "what would you say to the parents of a child killed by a riding accident" ?

In reply to smithers25: I hear ya.

In reply to Paz: "saturated fat is literally added at one end of the food chain to enrich poor processed foods, and at the other end, it is pulled out by surgeons"

Great quote !

In reply to various: I'm rather disappointed by some of the poorly conceived opinions on here. It would help if people actually read Prof Nutt's full text then they wouldn't appear as complete idiots.

The issue of relative 'risks' and 'harm' to individuals and society is VERY pertinent to climbers and mountaineers. As climbers we engage in objectively unnecessary and risky activities that collectively result in direct costs to society in general and to taxpayers specifically. Kids are still left without parents whether it is an avalanche on K2, lung cancer or a heroine overdose that kills their mother.

If it is logical and sensible to ban, or at least discourage use of recreational drugs on the basis of the cost to society, then it is equally logical and sensible to discourage other risky activities. If we want to take our 'risks' whether that is climbing, drinking or riding motor bikes we shouldn't be too judgmental or hypocritical about other 'risky' activities.

We badly NEED a logical and reasoned debate about risk. Unfortunately in the UK that appears impossible. We seem perfectly unconcerned that every year 2,500 die on the roads, 1,000s die from alcohol related causes but in the event of a train crash, a teenager dying during an outdoor activity or a death from ecstasy use there is a massive 'outcry'. Although the debate is currently about cannabis, I would rather not have a Government that makes ill-considered media driven knee-jerk decisions especially when the press this year is full of stories about 1000's of people being 'rescued' from the UK Mountains.

Despite the fact that I think Professor Nutt's supposedly ground breaking 2007 work on the relative harm of differing drugs is rather superficial it is telling that there has not been any robust academic rebuttal of its major conclusions. I had thought the recent changes in Scottish licensing laws, serious discussions about minimum pricing of alcohol and more controls on tobacco sales had heralded a more considered political outlook on the wider public health issues, unfortunately this current episode seems to indicate otherwise.

As a final point I think it will be very interesting if Professor Nutt's suggestion of applying a robust multi-criteria decision making approach to the analysis of the drugs issue is taken forward. It would certainly provide a transparent basis to move the debate forward.

In reply to Mark Stevenson: "We badly NEED a logical and reasoned debate about risk. Unfortunately in the UK that appears impossible."

Spot on IMO. For some reason we have delegated Risk Assessment in this country to the media.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

Its a votes thing

In reply to pdufus:
?, you have perplexed me.

In reply to Removed Userysingo: Call me a cynic but I see most government policy being driven by how many votes they can get out of it rather than what's good for the nation. The Nutt issue and it's wider implications of the countries health is a classic IMO. No politician is going to get votes as things are by saying that e and cannabis are less harmful that alcohol even if it's true, especially if this suggests a u turn on current policy.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
The outdoor activity business in the uk generates a huge amount of income and tax revenue per annum from instruction, retail and local tourism and provides a livelihood for a large number of people. I dont think it is a
fair argument to draw a parallel between the risks involved in outdoor activities and the cost to society of recreational drug use. Admittedly it is very difficult to quantify but a 1991 study in America put the cost to society of heroin abuse at around 17 billion dollars 40% of which was primarily for the treatment of HIV and mental disorders, 40% reulting from associated crime and the rest in lost productivity and the treatment of addiction. In addition, I dont think that we in the uk are unconcerned about the number of deaths on our roads or the number of alcohol related deaths. I dont understand why you should believe that.

Hahahahahaha!!! NUTT-SACKED!!!

In reply to Removed Userysingo:

I reckon Mark was pretty spot on actually.

>Admittedly it is very difficult to quantify but a 1991 study in America put the cost to society of heroin abuse at around 17 billion dollars 40% of which was primarily for the treatment of HIV and mental disorders, 40% reulting from associated crime and the rest in lost productivity and the treatment of addiction.

But that is for Heroin and not all drugs. Heroin is a bit different from most other recreational drugs and you could certainly have a sensible debate about legalising at least some of the recreational drugs.

In reply to Removed Userysingo:


And alcohol had a cost of 168 billion in 1998.
apart from that the figures you give are around when the drug is illegal. If it was legalised carefully eg not making it available down the local off licence but through a small number of specialists then all of those costs could be directly attacked.
Take HIV, at present charities already try and promote needle exchanges and the like be far easier to do if legal.
By making it boring, and bureaucratic to deal with, i would also guess a lot of its initial appeal would vanish.

In reply to dissonance:

Possibly, but that said, legality hasn't made alchohol unappealing to many.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: another backward step..
what do cops and judges have to say?
maybe we'll catch up with california some day..
youtube.com/watch?v=RDKarCeC_Ic&

In reply to teflonpete:


true but then alcohol doesnt really have any restrictions around where it can be sold and still retains the illegal appeal for under age kids as well.

In reply to teflonpete:

This is the real crux of the issue, but as usual people start arguing about the drugs policy rather than the wider implications. What the government are really saying is that they will only employ "independent" advisers who toe the party political line, and if their work has findings that inconvenience the government they should be expected to avoid any scientific impartiality, shut the f*ck up and suppress their findings. This is very, very dangerous for public debate.

Another aspect is that the government are more concerned with simple slogans than allowing individuals access to information. Again, I find that rather sinister.

Finally, by again shooting the messenger, one is drawn irresistibly to the David Kelly case. Fortunately nobody has died this time, but by again choosing to attack the messenger and not the evidence this government's colours are revealed.

In reply to subalpine:

On July 1st 2001, Portugal decreed that the purchase, possession and use of any previously-illegal drug would no longer be considered a criminal offence.

Overall drug consumption appears down - government statistics suggest a 10% fall.

The crime rate has reflected this.

In reply to MJH: <But that is for Heroin and not all drugs. Heroin is a bit different from most other recreational drugs and you could certainly have a sensible debate about legalising at least some of the recreational drugs.>
I agree, I mention heroin merely because Mark mentioned it in his post and drew a parallel between it's risks and the risks associated with outdoor activities. I find it muddled and rather ludicrous to make such comparisons. Rather like Nutt arguing that ecstacy use can be compared to horse riding. I'm just not sure that there can be a sensible debate until such worthless comparisons are left out of the equation.

In reply to dissonance: <And alcohol had a cost of 168 billion in 1998>
I'm not coming at the debate from a standpoint where I condone the problems associated with alcohol use. It's just another parallel that people instantly jump on as soon as the drugs debate begins. We need to get away from that.

In reply to teflonpete:

worth a read...

http://www.newscientist.com/special/blueprint-for-a-better-world

It's a travesty that Johnson, Smith et al don't consider the bigger picture.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
>> The drugs aren't really important in this case. It's the fact that HMG hired him to look into something & then fired him when his findings weren't what they wanted to hear.
At least he is luckier than Dr Kelly who was hired by HMG to look into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When he said that he reckoned there weren't any he was found dead in a field.

In reply to Richard Morgan: At what age,if any, should smoking cannabis
be legal?
Is it o.k. for 12 - 15 year olds - because if it isn't legal for this age group then many users will still be criminalised.
Just because something is less dangerous doesn't make it safe.

pmc

In reply to baron: same as alcohol, but without the advertising shite?

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: thats bull****. The fact is that taking drugs fits with not having a job, not the other way round. (I dont)

In reply to mockerkin:

Exactly. We also had a report into exams being a waste of time for young children (can't recall the name & details) which was rejected out of hand.

Why bother to pay people who know their stuff and then reject their findings? <- rhetorical

In reply to tonanf:

tell that to the coke-heads in the city etc..

In reply to tonanf:

Simply not true.
It is the case for heroin users but many, if not most, cannabis and cocaine users are in steady employment.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

Thank god somebody with an informed scientific opinion has finally spoken out against the bullshit surrounding drugs legislation.

That Rosy cheeked Alan Johnson has clearly been drinking, what a fool.

In reply to mockerkin:

Pretty standard behaviour in the private sector as well. I know a few consultants who've been let go pretty abruptly when their report hasn't been to the commissioning company's liking and others who have subsequently been employed with a rather more, shall we say prescriptive brief. Everyone has an agenda, be it government, company or individual. Perhaps the error was not looking at the record of the person you took on rather more thoroughly.

In reply to subalpine:

I think his point was if you don't have a job, taking drugs fits quite well. That isn't to say if you DOo have a job then taking drugs does not fit with employment.

What someone does from 5pm to 9am is their own business if it harms no one else.

In reply to toad:

The point here is that the government has a duty to protect society from substance abuse related harm.

By forming policy that ignores the scientific evidence they are quite deliberately inflicting harm on society.

This story animated me sufficiently to write a piece for my blog.

http://gavinmacfie.blogspot.com

In reply to David Martin:

trouble is that illegal drugs do harm someone else..

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: I've served on panels with members of the group.

The fundamental problem is the power of tobacco and brewing lobbys in Westminster.

In reply to subalpine: 'trouble is that illegal drugs do harm someone else..'

...trouble is that legal drugs (also) do harm (to) someone else...

eg Domestic violence and alcohol and drug consumption all map to each other very closely

In reply to Nigel Modern: i guess the question is would less harm be done if certain drugs were legalized? i would say yes, as would may cops and judges..
youtube.com/watch?v=RDKarCeC_Ic&

In reply to teflonpete: 'It is the case for heroin users but many, if not most, cannabis and cocaine users are in steady employment.'

It may be the case that most heroin users are in employment...in the early stages anyway, before they are using daily and some research indicates the 'problem heroin users' may be the minority of 'all people who ever try heroin'. I say 'may' because it is difficult to be sure of absolute numbers. I'm not saying that using heroin is safe btw, I think it is a very dangerous drug to dabble with.

The most addictive drug is almost certainly not heroin but nicotine. I believe the second most 'addictive' (in the sense of being difficult to stop, once dependent) are the legal drugs the benzodiazepines.

In reply to subalpine: The legalisation one is very tough...I am not against it in principle but nobody has worked out a system of handling decriminalisation which a enough people (academics, police, healthcare etc) believe would work.

In reply to subalpine:


Legal drugs: tobacco. over 100,000 deaths from smoking related diseases in the UK per year

Passive Smoking is one reason that smoking is the workplace eg pubs has been banned as workers would be in an environment where they have to breathe other people's smoke...


Alcohol - about 8,500 deaths per year. I think that figure is purely from medical reasons, and not from the relatively small number of people who are beaten up, stomped on and otherwise battered to death by people who lose all sense of restraint because of drunkenness. Or killed by drunken drivers...

But there are hospitalisations every weekend in pretty much every town and city as a result of pissed up lads (and lasses) out of the town with the intent to get pissed up.


Just for the record, since someone way up the thread mentioned it, number of road deaths per year is somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000.

A tiny amount compared to deaths from "legal drugs".

||-)

In reply to toad:
"Perhaps the error was not looking at the record of the person you took on rather more thoroughly"

Was that said tongue in cheek or even cynically? I hope so. It could be an error by HMG or company board, but as long as they keep hiring independent experts who come up with the findings that they don't want to hear they will soon be reduced to using puppets. The media will notice that & their honesty will be questioned, hopefully.

In reply to subalpine:

Yes indeed.

After decades of failed drug wars its time to stop wasting resources and try something new based on reality instead of political spin and propaganda.

In reply to teflonpete:

I'm not sure if cocaine and cannabis are in the same leauge, but you probably didn't mean that.

Like alcohol, the dark side of cannabis can be pretty dark I think, from personal experiance and seeing what it's done to friends of mine over the years, most of whom have sorted themselves out again, but it's cost them a few years of thier lives, while they've got straightened out again. In my opnion cannabis is a funny drug because it can have affects on somebody very subtly so they don't really notice, and other people probably don't, and they can gradually become less effective and motivated, which can be the same for drinking I guess, though one friend developed schitzophrenia after smoking a lot of dope and some skunk, and used to have a 'blip' every november for a few years, but that seem's to have stopped, i've not heard of alcohol being linked to schitzophrenia or something similarly serious. Mostly going on persosnal experiance I think cannabis is a little bit worse than alcohol, from how it can fiddle with the mind in a way which alcohol doesn't seem to, alcohol seem's more like 'bleargh' when you're drunk, and 'ouch my head' the next morning, and cannabis is a little bit different, it seem's to be able to change how you think when you're not stoned anymore, but not permanently as far as I know. I'm pretty much teetotle by the way, appart from at xmas and birthdays occasionally, incase it affect's how my post come's across.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:

no offense but there are a tonne of stories about a friends who smoked too much weed and went weird every november.I have some myself, what we dont know is would they have flipped every november anyway, you cant rerun their lives to find out.

These stories aside the decision must be made by those at the head of the field. The psychologists, pharmacists, neurologists and specialists in the field have decreed alcohol as one of the most damaging based on several levels of damage grading (ie) social, neurological, physical, addictive factors etc

Also, if your teetotle how do you know so much about the dark side of cannabis?

In reply to the real dr gav:

I'm on the same side of the debate as you and would advocate decriminalisation across the board but surely in terms of governmental duty there is another side to this in that they are elected to broadly represent the wishes of the electorate. There can be little or no doubt that the British public are overwhelmingly against going down the road of liberalising drug policies at the moment so there is arguably a long uphill struggle to be won by debate and persuasion before society is ready to go forward on this. The government could certainly indulge in their own brand of harm minimisation by at least ditching the ludicrous and discredited Bush war on drugs rhetoric and dissociating themselves from all such nonsense. I'm not optimistic on this one

P

In reply to jazzyjackson: trouble is, if smack was freely available, i would be in the queue, as would many others who realise how f*cked up our society is..

In reply to subalpine:

sorry I dont understand your point

In reply to subalpine:

WTF!!

In reply to Paul Atkinson:


The british public have never been given the benefit of the whole picture on these substances from which to put together informed opinion.

The layman without motivation to do his/her own research has only horror stories and propaganda.

The govt will never ditch the war on drugs. Even after this latest outrage in scientific freedom of speech.

Like you say I think there is little cause for optimism here although for a brief moment I too believed common sense may have gained some momentum after decades of stupidity.

Alan Johnson is on the ropes on this one, he sounds like a recorded message when questioned on it, fool.

These are dark days as our liberty is more and more restrained. SO refreshing to see we are not alone.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:



exactly, this is not the forum for admitting your latent love of smack.

In reply to The Lemming:

Maybe those who support locking people up for victimless crimes should be made to pay more in taxes to pay for their incarceration (plus loss of tax revenue for supporting the black market).

After all keeping people in jail is costly and if you think they've done nothing wrong why should you have to pay taxes to keep them there?

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:


Most people who take drugs are not addicts and certainly don't turn to crime to fund their drug taking.

After all probably most of the top climbers take, or have taken drugs, at one time or another. The quest for adventure doesn't necessarily start and stop with climbing for many people.

Climbers are far more likely to commit crimes to support their climbing habit than their drug taking. So the same logic could be used to make climbing illegal.

Drug crime is primarily associated with heroin. But even here it certainly not the case that all heroin addicts commit crime to fund their habit.

Addiction and resultant crime are, at least, partly a result of class and facing a life with few decent prospects rather than just the drugs themselves.

In reply to stp: Most people couldn't give a toss what other adults get up to as long as it has no direct negative effect on said people.
They do get a bit miffed when children are affected and/or poor people end up stealing to support their habit. (This presumes that more affluent people can afford to buy drugs with their own money.)

pmc

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
i want the finest smack, and i want it now!
maybe it would get me off alcohol..

In reply to jazzyjackson:

No you can't rerun thier lives to find out, but there are quite a lot of studies which have found a correlation between smoking cannabis and mental health problems and or schitzophrenia, and current medical advice is for anybody who start's to have preculiar thoughts or beliefs to stop smoking it straight away, the medical person on TV speaking at the time ment peculiar thoughts or beliefs to mean things like being persecuted or monitored in some way, such thoughts or beliefs can also be a symptom or a part of schitzophrnia.

There is no direct link proven, but there are correlations as mentioned above which have been found between cannabis and schitzophrena in studies carried out in a few different countries, and it 'can' fiddle with some people's minds so they experience peculiar thoughts similar to those experianced by people suffering from schitzophrenia, and in some people possibly act as a trigger for them going onto develop the condition, hence the medical advice to stop smoking it if such thoughts or beliefs start to occur.


Alcohol can be very damaging I agree, but it isn't comparing like with like to compare cannabis while it's illegal with alcohol while it's legal, untill cannabis is legal they can't both be accurately compared in thier impacts on society, for now it's an unknown. Cannabis may turn out to be less harmfull overall, or it might be difficult to tell, i'm just pointing out that it has it's negative points.


I havn't always been teetotle, and I have some first hand experiance, but thankfully not of schitzophrenia.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:


A freind once summed it up very well; "drink gets you out of your head; dope gets you into it"

In reply to subalpine:

Really? How so?

In reply to David Martin:


Really? How so?

Try running a meth lab, if the place doesn't blow up you'll die of cancer from the solvents.

In reply to David Martin:

Try living next door to a canabis farm. Friend of mine almost had his house burned down and after the raid it transpired it was mostly run by children - victimless crime my arse.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

very true but this has little to do with the debate, Thats indirect.
If all rcreational substances were legal there wouldnt be any meth labs.

Same with ramshackle bad contructed amateur Cannabis farms.

In reply to toad:

it is nice to see kids getting off their backsides and doing something constructive. good on 'em - there should be grants for this sort of thing!

In reply to David Martin:

A quick trawl of the net around some NGO's will bring up plenty of reports on how being locked into a cash economy reinforced by less than scrupulous purchasers (illegal crop or otherwise) isn't a particularly great situation to be in. I've always loved this myth about these happy third world peasants producing this lovely organic crop and being hard done to by "the maaaaan man".

Back to the OP; what surprised me most was that an unpaid advisor gets sacked for giving his take on the data. Why the hell haven't the government got more paid scientific advisors that can be more easily kept on message. Sloppy all round.

In reply to Soren Lorenson:

>Why the hell haven't the government got more paid scientific advisors that can be more easily kept on message.

LOL, why do they have advisors at all if they don't want to hear what experts say? Why spend money on experts when they ignore them, after all a polititian who has never done a real job in their life knows better than anyone else how things should be done.

Postman till got into union and politics, really good grounding in life;

http://www.alanjohnson.org/?page_id=20

In reply to sutty:

Alan Johnson should have his own show, hilarious seeing him spout bs about something he clearly doesnt understand. Whats not so funny is that he is our Home Sec : (

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan: The scientific evidence might well conclude that these drugs are less harmful to health than alcohol or tobacco. But the evidence available also suggests that they a lot more harmful to society as a whole. I don't think tobacco drives crime in the same way as cannabis for example. (The response to that is very predictable, so don't bother).

Its also a fact that if alcohol was discovered today it would be outlawed, its just too late to get rid of it or ban it now. That doesn't mean we have to permit everything because alcohol (and tobacco) are the baseline.

In reply to cragtaff:

Part of that could be because they're not legal though, as a country we won't really know where we are unless or untill they're legal. While drugs are illegal it is funding crime to buy them, so there is a strong argument for not buying them, which I guess is inescapable and also a shame if it criminalises users, and maybe small time dealers who are just funding thier habits. It might be best overall to legalise some of the illegal drugs.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to cragtaff:
as a point of order, it is worth noting that several of the members of the advisory council are from the police force - the council doesn't just consider the health effects of drugs.

In reply to toad:


I see. So what do you think would happen if cannabis plantations were regulated and run by non-criminals?

In reply to mockerkin:


After committing suicide..

In reply to cragtaff:

And on the "harmful to society" scale, where would you place the following:
1. Being imprisoned for possession of a plant
2. Losing your drop because of a conviction for possession of a plant
3. Providing gangs with an income source so lucritive it is worth warfare for
4. Creating an ilegal "aura" around potentially dangerous substances that serves to encourage teenage use
5. Prevented users from knowing exactly what their substance of choice is composed of.


Alcohol did though. When it was prohibited in the US in the early 20th Century.


Wrong on both counts. Of course its not too late. But why would it be banned, and what would that acheive (given the present day world example and the US in the 1900s)?.

In reply to IainRUK:


Irrespective of the cause of Dr. Kellys unfortunate death, it is a matter of record that Dr. Kelly was put under incredible pressure for not being "on message". If they want advice they can get advice, what it isn't is policy. That's their job and a they should be man enough to stand by their own decisions.

In reply to Soren Lorenson:

Absolutely right - a Govt does not have to heed the advice given to it (though if they don't then they should be prepared to explain why). As you say Govt should make policy. What they shouldn't do (as has happened in this case) is seek to silence advisers when those advisers do not agree with Govt policy.

In reply to the various: If you haven't previously seen the relative risk table in http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/newcombe.htm (about 4+ screens down) then I would very much recommend you ALL look at it.

This article and risk table pre-dates all Prof Nutts comments by many years but I think is still an extremely useful and thought provoking reference. The risk ratings are clearly broad estimates rather than exact, but it still provides an excellent foundation for debates on risk.

From my point of view, it's quite simple, if you are happy to freely accept a level of risk in one activity then you have a very limited MORAL basis for either criticising or attempting to control others who wish to undertake less risky activities. That applies both at a government and individual level.

Equally, if the level of risk is deemed unacceptable or too high then all practicable steps should be taken to reduce it, or reduce participation in that activity. This is certainly the case for many of the risks listed where there is ongoing Government action, but it does seem that there may not be sufficient prioritisation on the highest risk areas.

For example, the article would suggest that arresting one heroin dealer will save as many lives as arresting 100 ecstasy dealers or 10,000 cannabis dealers. Whilst that might not be entirely true in practice, it certainly suggests that a drugs policy that focused most intensively on reducing heroine, methadone and barbiturates use would save the most lives.

Especially now where the Government is 175 Billion pounds in debt, it must have policies that are targeted and cost effective. With regard to drugs, that can only be achieved by the sort of debate the Professor Nutt has been trying to stimulate.

In reply to David Martin:


Exactly, Banning and making war on drugs has got us nowhere, in fact we are going backwards.
Dont ban things, understand and educate.
When you ban things you criminalise massive portions of society.

So we keep legislating and banning more and more, what will society be like in 50 years when politicians dont heed scientifically founded advice?

George Orwells 1984 springs to mind. Not as melodramatic as it sounds. This is the route we're going down.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

I thought this paragraph from the Guardian article was interesting:

"In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs."

I thought Professor Nutt was trying to give the public a clear message about the dangers of different drugs.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:
>>> I don't think tobacco drives crime in the same way as cannabis for example. (The response to that is very predictable, so don't bother).

>>I don't know who first posted that idea, but as the poster seems to know what the predictable response will be, it suggests that he/she has experience of these things.

In reply to mockerkin:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2151456

In reply to IainRUK:
<< Even that verdict was questioned after witnesses said his body had been moved.

In reply to Timmd:

isn't that partly the point of taking a psychedelic?

Its understandable how the government are so touchy on this subject because under their tenure binge drinking has got really bad. I suppose they don't like more attention drawn to it, as if you can ignore it. I heard a surgeon say that for most of his career liver damage by alcohol was an old man's disease but over recent years it has become mostly young men and notably women in their twenties and even teens. Parliament is far too cosy with an alcohol industry that is out to exploit our misery; weakness; inhibition; sexuality; need to fit-in or any other way it can increase profits. We have to care about this because we all have to put up with the stupid and often violent behaviour that results, the blighting of our streets and the damaging impact on police and NHS resources.

In reply to Neil Kazimierz Sheridan:

i'd be so impressed to see a government actually grasp the nettle of drugs issues but i don't think it's ever going to happen. as a result, folk will keep taking drugs and gangsters will continue to make big money. this needs to be dealt with head on, but it would be political suicide to do so. after all- they've spent decades scaring the shit out of the non-drug taking citizens with the 'just say no' campaigns etc while alienating the yoof with mis-information. if they were to look at radical solutions they'd have to admit to folk that they've been bullshitting everyone with the war on drugs.

the government has been receiving advice from those who work with drug users for a very long time, all of which has been ignored because radical solutions would be too much of a political hot potato. some elements within the police force would like to see drugs handled differently. frontline treatment staff also. advisory groups periodically plead for a re-think on policies, but to no avail. david nutt certainly isn't the first and he won't be the last. in the 90's i witnessed harm reduction drug projects run by good people being hung out to dry by local authorities because they couldn't risk being seen to be condoning use. it's all about being seen to take a hard line against the drugs menace. kid fall through the net/ end up in jail/ die as a direct result of society's inability to deal with the phenomenon of abuse honestly and directly, opting instead as we have for demonising, criminalising and doling out punishment. we have let vulnerable people down and continue to do so. shame on the policy makers for their cowardice.

personally i think our policy makers have blood on their hands. but who cares about a thieving smack addict? easier to criminalise a marginalised, desperate individual and say "well we told you drugs were bad so it's your fault"... which is SO not dealing with either the social problems that drive problematic use in the first place, nor helping the individual get their shit together. i've seen 2 people die as a result of drink and drug abuse, both of whom were in my opinion suffering from mental health problems which were then exacerbated by sinking desperately into cycles of addiction.
to demonise them was utterly counter productive and they were both dead before hitting 30.

we ALL suffer as a result of this feeble, hypocritical approach to an ever growing problem.

early morning rant over- i'm away to the hill before i get flamed.

In reply to Mick's Daughter:
I thought Professor Nutt was trying to give the public a clear message about the dangers of different drugs.
>> Young lady, don't you realise that THEY don't want us to think.

In reply to don macb:
>

Certainly not from me. Very well said.

In reply to don macb:

I totally agree with all this.
The "War On Drugs" has always been an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person and the fact that almost nobody in the public eye can admit it says a lot about our society and the toadying wankers who represent us.

In reply to Timmd: Sorry Tim, but the world is a bit larger and more diverse than the UK. The Netherlands ring any bells?