"Drug adviser sacked for comments"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm
so...your adviser advises you. and gets fired. well done.
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
- Girls plot February and March European tour
- Spotifriday #25: This Week on DiS as a Playlist
- Daft Punk tour dates leaked, details inside
- New Interpol record due next year
- Little Noise Session at Union Chapel, Islington, Mon 16 Nov
- Various - Kitsuné Maison 8
- Digital Leather - Warm Brother
- Stereophonics - Keep Calm and Carry on
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
FOR FUCKS SAKE
ALL HE DID WAS STATE THE FACTS
I guess that's New Labour's idea of an 'advisor'
... somebody who tells you what you want to hear, or else! Kind of sums them up really. Eerie bunch.
So much for reason and rational debate.
rational debate:
NUTTY Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug advisor, must have been on the wacky baccy¿again!
Not content with last year's ridiculous statement that dropping ecstasy was only as dangerous as riding a horse, the Nutt has now declared that Es are safer than booze and fags are more of a danger to our health than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.
He wants to reclassify all drugs on a "harm" basis and in an academic sense he might be correct. But we are not talking about a society that is only confined to the lofty intellectual towers of a university campus.
We are talking about drugs such as coke and skunk that are causing havoc on housing estates across the country and misery to millions.
What kind of message does this send out to young kids?
At least with tobacco and alcohol we have safeguards in place and tough regulation on strength etc combined with health awareness campaigns.
And even if the nutty Professor is correct do we really want to have even more harmful drugs in society?
It's perfectly acceptable for Nutt to have these discussions in the cosseted world of academia but it is totally irresponsible for him to pontificate in public and in his position as Drug Tsar. He must be sacked immediately.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sun_talk/2705579/Drug-advisor-on-wacky-baccy.html#ixzz0VRUihlSc
IS THIS WOT OUR BOYS ARE OUT FIGHTING FOR??!!!
Did The Sun use the word 'pontificate'?
heh
by their own retarded logic that surely makes them ivory tower elitist academic scumbags
:D
The cosseted world of the Sun's editorial offices..
Holy shit
I just read that guy's full column... is it naive of me to not have actually realised how awful the Sun is?
yes!
in an academic sense he might be correct.
BUT DRUGS R BAD AND WE LIKE FAGS AND BOOZE
Nutty Professor?
In Relation To ottermagic's Statement.
Where do I start really? You tell me that " Mr Nutt's " opinion is academically correct but publicly wrong? Or by the governments standards wrong. I Am 18 Years Old Stay In Dumfries, One Of Thee Most Drug Inhabited Regions Of Scotland. And Yet I Have Not Seen Any Negative Results Of Cannabis. Yes I Do Beleive That Over Use Of Drugs Like Cannabis Could Result In Some Sort Of Mental Illness But I Also See That Overuse Of Alcohol Caused Liver Diseases As Such Does Tobacco Cause Lung Cancer, Much Greater Effect Than Has Ever Been Shown Of Cannabis, Causing Minor Symptoms Of Paranioa Etc... How Can You Even Contemplate That The Person In Charge Of Drug Advisory Have His Personal View On Such And Be Sacked Because Of What He Was In Charge To Advise? The Public May Be Afriad Of The Truth, But Only Because The Truth Was Not Portrayed Properly From The Start. How Dare This Labour Government Be So
Nutty Professor? Continued
Coneservative To The Situation. Who are they to sack a drugs advisor based on his public and personal opinion? Why have an advisor if you won't listen to him? I Am 18 Years Old And More Politically Correct Than Anyone Who Tries To See Through That Mr Nutt Should Have Ever Been Sacked. You Slimy Conservatives. I From This Point On Have No Faith In The Government Atall. Opinion Is The One Thing We Have, & To Punish (Sack) For It? Completly Astounding! Pathetic Miserable British Government! He had no reason to lie about whey he said... so why portray him as a lier. He was the head advisor for a reason, and when the going gets tough they sack him. All For One Thing.... " The Truth Hurts "
i think
you need to pay a little bit more attention to his/her post - it was quite obviously an excerpt from the Sun and even had a link to take to you the original article
FAIL
Sorry your correct well my statement continues on to the person who wrote the article
man, that's some horrifically unecessary capitalising right there.
basically, it's okay for really smart people to take drugs but not you, dear thicko readers
What a twazzock
Just saw this.
Consider my gob fully smacked.
This Labour government... man, they suck.
This makes me very sad and very angry
and tired
this is tragic
the drugs policy in this country (and most countries) is disgusting. cannabis certainly can cause problems, that's why i've stopped smoking every night. i made that change without any problems.
ecstacy should be made legal, it's miles less harmful than cannabis, just look at this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6474053.stm
also, this is a fascinating documentary about ecstacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjvNCijeYlI
I dunno
you can od or die from X. Rare admittedly but it does happen.
Weed doesn't do that.
as opposed to alcohol, which is legal and kills how many people year when they drink too much in a night ?
I didn't mention alcohol
I just disagreed alightly that X is miles less harmful.
this was on question time last night
lembit opik was sticking up for the nutty professor and shit
Yup,
and when asked about this on Question Time last night Politicians (predictably) were sprouting their usual party line shite, with John Sargeant (perhaps less predictably) also being a dipshit by arguing his point by suggesting that the whole country would turn into Gin Alley overnight if we so much as publicly considered changing the national drug policies.
Seargeant also threw his weight behind Tony Blair for EU pres. So having long lost all respect for Labour and the Tories, Seargeant also dropped in my estimations by quite a bit, based on that performance.
So, yeah, the newLabour cabinet have once again proved themselves to be a bunch of bells who are unable to actually formulate proper policies because they're too wedded to the power-wielding, fear-mongering Mail & Sun.
Can everyone please stop voting for the blues and the reds. At least to blow away the cosiness of the crap that has been passing itself off as government for the past 30 years?
Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
What a horrible bunch of cunts. Have they ever actually listened to what the drug advisors have advised, ever? I think Alan Johnson should be the one who loses his job for going against the advice of the UK's chief drugs adviser, bellend.
Correct decision, imho.
Guy might have a point, but he also has responsibilities.
Yup,
the war on drugs has been a roaring success and just needs one final push, eh?
You're just being contrary and coming out with something that's just wilfully oblique, and probably (possibly) not what you truly believe - you're better than that.
The most responsible choices would be ones that weren't wasting money, criminalising people unnecessarily, and missing out on revenue streams that could be better used to temper demand and treat abusers. The current policies are in place for all the wrong reasons - basically they're pandering to an uninformed demographic that is preached to by the power-wielding, fear-mongering Mail & Sun.
No, i'm not.
It was an ill-advised and irresponsible comment.
You could use stats to backup his point, sure, but i think a statement like that sends out the wrong message.
So it's wrong to inform people of fact?
is it wrong to encourage people to use hard drugs?
I don't think that's what he was doing
Heheh, encouraging people to use hard drugs.
Sounds like you're distorting things in the same way that Nutt criticised the government for.
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4204460#r4967425
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4204460#r4967471
the small minded response as always kiki - good work
in what world is supporting the illusion that prohibition is working the responsible thing to do?
Wow, good arrogance.
In what world is legalising drugs the responsible thing to do?
In what world
is going with what ranting newspapers tell you (using cheap emotional manipulation - REMEMBER LEAH BETTS) rather than the views of an expert the sensible thing to do?
By your rationale
alcohol and cigarettes should be banned.
'something about the nanny state'
I sometimes think that perhaps they should be; it makes sense.
When I read reports about alcohol being more dangerous than cannabis etc, the only logical conclusion is to ban alcohol as well - it is only for 'cultural' reasons that we don't. If alcohol were invented today i'm quite sure it would be banned.
In reality this won't happen of course, but that's not to say that it shouldn't.
but do you really believe that prohibition works?
As a side question
Do you think the government have any place to tell people what they can or cannot ingest in their private life? (Fatty) food, alcohol, cigarettes as well as illegal drugs all have varying detrimental effects on society, but from your perspective does the Government have any place in deciding which ones are ok, especially when you take into account the financial burdens of drug rehab (low), drug policing (high), alcohol policing + treatment (high), damage to society (high) and cigarette usage to the NHS (high)?
not to mention the billions thrown into organised crime because of the lack of regulation.
war on drugs has been going on for 40 years now. hundreds of billions of pounds spent on policing and prison and aid and whatever else
are we any closer to 'winning' this war?
people that i do not know have no moral right to tell me that i cant
eat a plant.
If you believe that they do have a moral right to stop me, then to me it sounds like you have nazi/dalek/stalinist tendancies, would allow me to reciprocate and tell you that you have no right to cote for a right wing party? (as these have a far greater chance of causing me ill than if you were to eat a plant)
i didn't advocate anything
i was just trying to suggest that suppressing scientific opinion is not the responsible thing to do.
personally i don't think the country is ready for legalization yet, but that's because the only people communicating with them on the subject is the hysterical voice of the media.
the government needs to commission a cost-benefit analysis of the war on drugs versus legalization and it needs to commission 5 year studies into cannabis, ecstasy and LSD. that would be the responsible thing to do.
also
whilst we're on the subject, where's your man on this issue? when he was an advisor to howard he supported the downgrading od cannabis to 'class c' but now he's leader he's back to taking the tough/hollow stance and attacking brown for dithering over returning it to 'class b'.
which of those decisions was the responsible one, or should i just assume that your answer will be 'they both were' followed by some bleating sounds.
'He described his sacking as a "serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government". '
What he should have said was: "Don't pay attention to what I was saying then - I was completely baked."
Remember, this is the party that promised evidence-based policy
Bunch of idiots. Lost what small amount of respect I had for Gordon Brown that time he sat on the GMTV sofa talking out of his arse about lethal cannabis, in order to justify reclassifying it to B.
The most depressing thing is, the next lot are going to be even less enlightened.
He may be an academician and he may be right
But you can't go around announcing what should be Gov policy. His job is to advise, nothing more - not throw his toys out of the pram because he doesn't get his way.
That said, the Gov are dicks for appointing him in the first place - there was no way they would ever have changed policy if his results didn't suit them, so they shouldn't have pretended that they might.
All this has done is to create another druggie martyr.
Erm, he didn't announce what should be government policy.
He accused them of devaluing and distorting evidence.
Erm, yes he did. But he also accused them of all the above.
"Earlier this week Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College, London, to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs.
The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.
In the past, he has also claimed that taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse.
The BBC's Danny Shaw said Prof Nutt had accused the government of using the classification system as a tool to send out an anti-drugs message, rather than to rate drugs in terms of actual risk.
If that was indeed ministers' intention then Prof Nutt said they should be honest about it, rather than pretend classification was based on real physical and mental dangers, our correspondent said"
I agree with most of the sentiments above in support of Nutt's position
I do think it is disgusting that they are ignoring science and basing what they do only on public opinion,
How annoyed would you be if you were asked to submit a report on drugs and then your employers wiped their arses with it.
Jacqui Smith really is a cunt
It was wonderful watching her squirm on Question Time. I don't care how ridiculous she thinks it is to state that horse riding is more dangerous than E; it sounds absurd to say that coconuts are more deadly than sharks but they still kill more people each year. Stupid reactionary bitch.
what just from falling on people's heads like?
blimey
Yup
Essentially, I'm arguing that coconuts should be banned. Or at least putting coconuts on things they might fall off should be banned.
and just to make sure we're sending the right message to the kids
Bounties are now a class A drug
These academics can sit doing all the dessicated coconut experiments they want
THEY DON'T SEE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT BOUNTY BARS ARE CAUSING IN COUNCIL ESTATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY
It comes down to this, who do you trust on the issue,
Professor Nutt who is a scientist by trade or Alan Johnson, a fucking postman?
Answers on a postcard.
I trust the Daily Mail and the Sun
I mean, they'd never lie to me - right?
the politicians can ignore the science in favour of public opinion if they so wish
that's their prerogative; they are politicians.
however, alan johnson really ought to admit that to him scientific fact is less important than public relations. if this debacle ends up being damaging/catastrophic for the government then they deserve it
mind you, i can't imagine a tory advisory group on the misuse of drugs consisting of many people who'd be likely to subscribe to professor nutt's educated point of view
It's not really public opinion
as much as it's tabloid newspaper opinion.
Plus public opinion (if it is against what was recommended) often stinks anyway, sometimes politicans have to try to change public opinion, not just respond to it. Otherwise we'd probably still be hanging people.
there was a piece on the guardian website
can't remember who it was by
anyway, it was complaining about the lack of strong politicians at the moment, the idea that on both sides you've got politicians who aren't ever trying to go against public/tabloid will. like you say, the public isn't right all the time, don't listen all the time. then again, something about iraq?
as much as I support the legalisation of drugs, this guy is a bit of a fool
1. popping an ecstasy pill once a week will likely lead to some after effects, if only a comedown. having one or two drinks every week won't. the drug top trumps doesn't appear to take account of this, or am i missing something?
2. He's an adviser. He advises. Politicians decide. He shouldn't have gone public and meddled in politics, however stupid they are. But he did, and so he isn't an adviser anymore.
Falling off a horse will likely lead to some after effects
if only a comedown
and if there was a rating system for sports, horseriding would count as one of the most dangerous
Of course he should have gone public
people are allowed to have consciences y'know?
if someone was consistently ignoring my opinion
i'd be tempted to use that position to speak in public, either as a warning to administration that they couldn't count on my silence under those circumstances or as a more public and dramatic alternative to being sacked.
and yes, you can't compare drugs in terms of quantity very accurately, but you also cant compare them in terms of context. you normally take pills to go out, under which cirumstances the alternative amount of alcohol isn't '1 or 2 drinks' - it's more likely to be closer to 8 or ten.
So let's ban alcohol as well then.
or stop beings uch a 'nany state' and let people do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others
instead of supporting a policy of prohibition that does in fact harm people and costs taxpayers billions of pounds.
funny how your supposed small government libertarianism goes out of the window on this issue. i dunno, maggie's main press guy was strung out on smack throughout the 80s, so i'd have thought you'd be a bit more sympathetic.
*'nanny state*
sigh
I'm not a libertarian.
Thanks.
you are for small government, right?
and the state keeping out of our private lives?
or are you, you know, a bit left-wing?
Personal drug use does harm others though
in fact it can wreck families. You can't make such a sweeping statement as you just have and expect to be taken seriously. Now we aren't a morally cohesive state, all that's left to guide people is the rule of law and threats. I bet in terms of what people are willing and prepared to do and get away with (legality aside) we have the most individual freedoms we've ever had.
there'd ba a lot less damage if heroin say was available on the nhs
where it's been trialled, OD and crime rates plummet and the public purse is better off. But it's too politically controversial to be rolled out nationwide, because people like you worry about 'families' without stopping to consider the suffering prohibition inflicts on those very same families.
precisely
no one's saying that there aren't a lot of negative, sometimes very negative, aspects of drug use, just that out right prohibition only makes the whole situation surrounding them infinitely worse.
dude don't people like me me
A member of my family was on heroin and saw their friend die because of it. I know I don't know all the answers but the government cannot be seen to give out the impression that it endorses drug abuse.
Nothing to stop them prescribing it on a case by case basis with stipulation that usage has to decrease or user will be cut off, that would actually be a good idea. However they'd have to be very careful as to how they played it to the media. Also you can't trial that and know what effect it has on encouraging other people to take up the drug, that would take a long long time to get decisive statistics on.
Now I support the adviser's comments, he must say what he feels is correct and right, it's disgusting that he got sacked for what he said, but legalisation of heroin and "lets stop this nanny state nonsense"...much too far!
But if diamorphine was legally available
perhaps that person may not have died...I presume they died of an OD?
It is probably the two drugs people would not all want legalised that cause the most problems currently, heroin and crack.
I don't know the technicalies of things like that thankfully
I don't think you can know that things would be better if this kind of stuff was legalised without knowing the specific problems that would crop up if it was to be legalised.
people can make a guess
there almost definitely would be problems. But we have bigger problems now arguably.
Wouldn't we need an epic war on the drug lords in the grower countries
in order to secure a legalised supply of the stuff? How many people would die attempting to create a situation where nice western businessmen were overseeing the production and selling of drugs?
Not really
we could just buy the opium crop in afghanistan.
This would also hurt the taliban, as they would have less income through this method.
and people are dying all the time anyway. 2000 people have been killed in Juarez this year alone because of drugs.
I bet it'd be a qhole lot more if we tried to seize control
of their livelihoods. If the taliban knew we were attempting to buy their opium crop wholesale or whatever, would would stop them stipulation demands or demanding a hugely overinflated price. Also we'd need to police it and so forth. Don't think that could practically happen.
then we'd grow it over the border
or we'd offer the poor farmers money for their crop thereby destroying local support for the taliban in a stroke
The political consequences of that can't be THAT
plain and simple.
what is the obsession with plain and simple?
it may well not be plain and simple, but it offers potentially great rewards, and the current situation isn't good anyway
factor in the turmoil
of doing a complete u-turn on policy and whatnot and the interim period will be be disaterous enough to negate the benefits of the new system unless the benefits were massive.
I just don't agree
what turmoil are you talking about?
Well the opposition will most likely see this as the best opportunity ever
to whip up the media into a frenzy and take the opposite draconian "the government are decadant smackheads" stance.
In this confusion many probablypretty capable politicians in government will see the new party line as political suicide and iwll step down leaving even more incompetant people in cabinet.
Meanwhile noone will really know if the policy will get reversed as soon as the government is ousted at the next election so some crazy here-say paranoids will be buying up massive ammounts of their drug of choice and whilst the change is occuring lots of people will get lengthy prison sentences which will be seen as two-faced given that the government intends to change the rules...the daily mail will sell 100 billion billion copies, and as soon as the law comes into force loads of people who have been in jail becoming bitter and angry and likely learning good ways to be criminals once they get out as up until now that will have been the only career path the state has left for them will get freed and yet more disaterous headlines for the government.
The opposition will get into power and spend TONNES of money reversing the situation the government had intended to bring about back to how we have it now with all the same problems still in place.
I don't see that happening though
especially the criminals bit...
What are they going to do then?
Keep them in jail for something that is no longer a crime? That's hardly fair.
i
It was a crime when they comitted it though
I dunno how many people are in prison for drug offences, but they are more likely to be in for trafficing, which would probably remain an offence
Ok
but then the argument that criminalising it is sending people to jail needlessly goes out of the window. Totally agree with you on regulating the stuff making it better quality and less harmful, that's pretty clear-cut (pun intended).
I think it's acceptable for us to both have opposing views on this as there is clearly some valid pros and cons on either side, no?
nope
my policy is drugs for schoolkids.
that didn't sound dodgy at all
he's wrong though
vast majority of people in prison for drug offences are there for possession or low-level dealing
low level dealing
isn't trafficing?
i thought trafficking refers to importing or exporting drugs
rather than just selling
nope
not as far as i know
this basically
and I fail to see how this is seizing control of their livelihoods...they want to sell their crops
Opium poppies are grown for research purposes in England
it is perfectly feasable to create a legal trade without unstable countries being involved. in doing so the trade would be lowered and prevented.
Do we have enough land to support the whole drug economy of this country?
Would people agree that's the best use of that land?
Will this be government controlled? If it's legal what's to stop private companies doing it if they comply to some regulatory standards? If so these companies will want to start selling their stuff abroad for larger profit. This will upset other countries with a less pro-drugs attitude. Gotta be SEVERELY damaging for international relations.
I failed to notice Holland being a pariah nation
or Mexico where drugs are being legalised.
and if drugs are illegal in country a, then companies wouldn't be able to sell them there anyway.
How much land do you think is required to grow crops? Not THAT much at all.
Yeah good point
hadn't really thought of that. Though is heroin legal in either of those countries?
mexico
it's not a pro-drugs attitude, unles syou want to concede you are pro-overdoses and gang warfare?
no of course I'm not
don't be silly.
and people / governments which want to decriminalise or legalise drugs aren't necessarily pro-drugs
EXACTLY
The Sun, The Mail, Labour, The Tories and all who sail in them are seemingly unable to debate the issue in a calm manner, and, in the face of rational debate, they resort to saying that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be an advocate of selling crack to schoolkids.
It surprised me that John Sargeant lowered himself to this level on Question Time last week. I thought he was better than that.
i doubt there's be much increase in heroin consumption if it was decriminalised/legalised
and those that did become addicts would be much safer. your friend OD'd i expect? well he almost certainly wouldn't have if the supply of heroin was regulated. Prohibition kills drug users. It enriches organised crime. It costs the taxpayer billions of pounds and throws thousands of people in prison. And it has comprehensively failed to arrest drug consumption. Time to try something new.
Not a pointed question at all
but why do you assume there'd be little increase in heroin consumption? I can never really figure where people get this idea from. Perhaps I am misinformed.
because I'd assume most people know heroin isn't really a good idea
and wouldn't run out to get messed up on it.
most people know smoking and drinking lots isn't really a good idea
I think most people know that taking lots of smack
isn't the same as drinking and smoking lots.
on your average council estate, heroin isn't too difficult to find
and in your average middle class twatfarm, cocaine is readily available.
yet most people don't indulge. not because of the law and the government that nobody has faith in tells them drugs are bad. they just don't want to and whether it was legal or not would likely not alter that decision for most - though not all - of them. we have no way of knowing for sure, but it's a reasonable assumption. but we do know for sure that prohibition causes crime and death. i'd rather a society where millions of people weren't criminalised and taxes were levied on drugs to provide treatment for addicts, rather than one where thousands of people languish in prison and addicts regularly die so politicians can look like they are tough on crime.
Subconsciously I bet it's almost entirely because the government tell them it is bad
government and media anyway, it influences their parents who are past the age of rebellion and probably quite paranoid and want to maintain a good social standing, so they are going to drill this into their children because that's what parents do.
Perhaps not so much on council estates, also I bet some of the fear that stops people and certainly stopped me is not wanting to get to know scary people with guns who want to fuck you up if you don't pay.
hey maybe you are right
but increased drug consumption is maybe a price worth paying. much safer drugs remember. and no men with guns. and far less old ladies being mugged. less HIV and overdoses. less money for FARC and the Taliban. Daddy won't be in prison and Mummy won't be on the game. seems preferable to me.
Well you have a point
I think a lot of people are pretty cautious to change the status quo unless they know for sure it will be a better outcome.
You have to wonder what these criminals will turn their hand to if drugs is no longer their forte. More people gun/people trafficking? (spelling?!)
Also good luck finding a government who think they can change the system around enough for people to be able to see the stable benefits within 4 years and so get re-elected?
Yes I am jaded, and yes ideologically you have a point.
i understand why he did what he did, i'm just saying he can't be surprised to have been sacked over it
and you are right about context, but perhaps this ratings thing needs to make it clearer. because most people feel that alcohol is less potent than ecstasy in normal circumstances. which it is is - you drink with dinner, have a pint after work, or whatever. or you drink to get pissed. instead of 'alcohol' maybe it should say 'bottle of vodka' or something.
I doubt that he's surprised
I would imagine that he knew such a reaction was very possible, but wanted to bring to people's attention just how much the government were ignoring the advice of experts that they have brought in. Johnson's whole argument seems to be that Nutt was 'campaigning against government policy', but I saw it more as him questioning why the government were paying no heed to the advice of the panel that they had set up in order to advise on such policy! If the laws are based on evidence of the wider effects of drugs in society, fine, but why not make that clearer?
There was quite a good piece in the Guardian earlier about such deals:
"The attempted deal is attractive and easy to understand. We live in a world where professional politicians have lost authority and trust, for many reasons. But others still have authority. By and large, we continue to trust people who have expert knowledge, be they soldiers, climate change scientists or academics. This is logical: if someone has been studying something for ages, or has professional expertise, they are more likely to know what they are talking about. So, without special knowledge of their own, politicians believe they will get credit for buying in some of that expertise and authority. In a way, that's what Brown did as almost his first act in office, by giving control over interest rates to a new Bank of England monetary policy committee. He was saying politicians aren't trusted on interest rates, so hand it to the experts. It was popular, it seemed to work well, and he has been trying to repeat the trick ever since.
The trouble is that independent experts tend to be, well, independent. They have minds of their own. They are accustomed to being outspoken in their areas of expertise. They also expect, when giving advice, that the advice will be taken. Now, however, they find they are entering a minefield criss-crossed by machine gun fire. It's called politics. There is pressure from hostile media looking for remarks to twist into a "crisis" or a "U-turn". There are the ministers themselves, desperate for good headlines and often thinking only a few days ahead, with no patience for patient advice. Politicians have become so worried about giving offence that they often recoil even from what seems (to the expert) commonsense and obvious.
Result? The minister finds that, far from buying in some outside authority, he has landed himself with a Frankenstein monster who needs to be put down. And the brought-in expert discovers that far from being listened to, he keeps being shouted at for mysterious "mistakes"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/01/advisers-policy-government-politicians-drugs
You're missing the point
He is not advocating the use of drugs or for the legalisation of drugs. He is merely stating the risks associated with drug-taking based on empirical data and evidence collected throughout this country (and probably other similarly developed countries too). He is then comparing the risks with another similar occurrence to give people a more understandable grasp of the risks involved. He is stating what his research has found. There is no opinion involved. His research might have concluded that taking aspirin is as dangerous as spinning around really fast but there wouldn't be an issue with that. You might question his methods, however they are free to read and replicate if you so wish.
Let's have a look at what happened in Portugal after they decriminalized all drugs:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
The uproar and outrage regarding this matter
actually has very little to do with drugs.
It's a nice retort to all the handwavers out there, though.
vikkers & fullerov, especially, have put in some stirling work in conducting a reasoned response to the folk who seem to think that the only possible options are;
a) do nothing (head in the sand)
b) get even tougher (or maybe even ban cigs & alcohol)
c) WHAT! YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD LEGALISE EVERYTHING AND HAVE NO RULES, YOU IDIOT! OMG, HOW CAN YOU SUGGEST SUCH A THING, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (©The Sun/Mail)
rather than accept that option c) is actually to carefully consider some forms of liberalisation, seeing as pretty much all the evidence available suggests it's worth looking into.
Labour have obviously lost the plot or are just scared to create a scene (er, oops!, on that one).
I find it more intriguing that the Tories, a supposedly 'hands off government' in waiting, are seemingly in support of the government's position of tightening things up. They don't seem to be wanting to tighten things up with regard to hunting, to choose another divisive issue as an example. Indeed, they have pledged to revoke the hunting bad.
Would it be fair to go as far as to say that this is often framed as a class issue, when, in reality, that isn't necessarily the case.
*sterling
*ban
given they have a leader who is known to have indulged in so-called 'hard drugs'
it makes it all the more silly that the Tories are pro-prohibition.
Just look at what hard drugs can do to you
They can turn you into an insufferably smug git!
Really? whats his poison?
ALLEGEDLY
Cocaine
so what are his opinions about it now?
or did he only try it a couple of times (i.e. not enough to get the lifelong bug for it)
he also smoked pot whilst at eton
he is going up in my eyes
if he has said that he did
no, he was outed by a fellow pupil
but he was pro the downgrading of cannabis when he was an advisor to howard. it's only since he became leader that he fully embraced hypocrisy and started attacking brown for not reclassifying it back to 'b'.
interestingly though, francis maude, david willets and oliver letwin have all confessed to smoking cannabis almost entirely without prompting.
so they have proved that they are likely to be at least, candid in their honest belief
in what they think is best, whereas cameron has not demonstrated that he will be candid ,and is probably more likely to go with 'what might be a vote winner'
also
it turns out that howard dropped the tory whip for the vote to downgrade cannabis and the entire front bench abstained from the vote.
i can't decide whether they are aware of the absurdity of the situation surrounding drug classification and choosing to play politics with it in the short term, or whether they simply have no plan whatsoever.
I think that the plan is probably to follow the advice
of the daily mail mindset, as determined by the editor and the people who analyse sales/marketing/pitching
or just ask Melanie Phillips ;D
The Tories have not pledged to revoke the hunting ban.
Thanks.
your leader
has promisedto give a free vote on it's repeal. that's pretty much the same thing.
Yeah, except it's not, is it.
It's just that, a free vote. If, as all the pressure groups say, 75% (or thereabouts) of the British people want to keep the ban then there should be no trouble in the repeal failing.
so you're saying that the vote will be put to the british people? (re 75%)
not to the mps? (who would be majority tory if the tories win next election)
If you don't mean that then how will the 75% of the public opinion be reflected in the mp's votes?
quite
tory majority = fox hunting repeal. your new mp's are all thatchers children - they'll be falling over themselves to roll this back.
the point is though, a tory government will not be immediately staging a free vote on whether or not a person should be able to grow and consume cannabis, but they will regarding a persons right to ride a horse and encourage dogs to kill something.
specialist interest groups rule eh? :D
Why do you think that?
Tory majority = a free vote. What's to say that all new Tory MPs will be in favour of repeal? Let's not forget that following the election there'll be a lot of 'non-traditional' Conservative MPs.
Unless of course you're going to start banging on about a class war that you lost 20 years ago.
"A recent survey by the Countryside Alliance
a pressure group, found that of 120 Tory candidates in marginal seats only one was against repealing the ban and he said that he would abstain on any vote."
i know the CA is a little biased on this issue but i feel pretty comfortable about telling you, your 'non-traditional' conservative mps, and you spineless leader to fuck off.
's a fair cop.
"pledged to revoke" doesn't describe the actual 'will table, and support a motion' pledge.
But the stated position on the matter and the claimed planned intentions of the Tory party re: hunting are clear. And hypocritical, IMO. Not that hunting is a massive priority of mine. It's just one example of where the priorities of the Tories lie (note: just cos I'm slagging the Cons on this issue, doesn't implicitly mean I'm supporting anyone else in particular).
I know its unrrelated, but its something thats always puzzled me
why do the americans always go on about freedoms to do anything that they want and that govs should not interfere (like with bearing arms) and that the freedom to do what you want is enshrined in the constitution etc.....so how come they arn't allowed to eat or smoke certain plants?
It seems baffling that any law could be introduced to punish people for eating plants, strikes me its a huge infringement of human animal rights........I can understand them being able to curtail/regulate economic activity(or marketing) related to this, but it cant be made illegal to eat a plant, unless you're like some sort of control freak
sorry to digress
but its the other aspect, that is overlooked by this whole debate and an area that can be overlooked when people start talking too much about 'advice for administration and normalisation of laws/regulations'
i.e. what can legislation be reasonably applied to?
obviously
I think it's ridiculous and quite concerning that a scientific advisor's been sacked for going against the party line. I think we can all agree on that.
That said, I disagree with his point that "alcohol and cigarettes are artificially separated from illegal drugs". He talks about a 'relatively small risk' of psychosis from cannabis - well, that's a risk that doesn't really exist with tobacco, and hence it's not really an artificial separation is it?
I don't know where I stand on the legalisation of cannabis, really. Both in terms of economics and social libertarianism I can see why it could be, but people really need to know that there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it's not as harmless as it's sometimes made out to be.
i don't think it's harmless at all. but i think prohibition causes more harm.
quite possibly.
I wouldn't disagree. I just think there's a danger in labelling it 'safer than alcohol and cigarettes', which might not exactly what Prof Nutt is saying but it's certainly a generalisation that gets bandied about quite a bit.
david nutt is a psychiatrist
that's his specialism. the area of drugs he is most qualified to offer opinion on is relationship between cannabis and psychological disorder.
and if we're talking about artificial seperations, tobacco can led to circulatory problems far more serious than the psychological ones associated with cannabis. cannabis can be baked or consumed through tea, tobacco can't (as far as i'm aware). i don't know what the comparison is in terms of addictive qualities but nicoteine is chemically addictive - i've not heard of THC having the same properties.
it seems to me that cannabis is far less dangerous than tobacco.
I think that if the gov does wish to regulate, or to catagorise druks into
a/b/c, then this should be applied to the economic activity of their supply, it would then make more sense to down grade or upgrade according to the harm it can cause an individual (cos self harm is not/should not be a legislative crime, see repealling of suicide illegality)
As it is, criminalising the users is a dull ignorant response, perhaps due to authorities frustration at failure to stop/regulate supply and other organised crime, but this should not be used to oppress and demonise sections of society, whilst not demonising other activities which can be just as (if not more) antisocial and physically damaging. For a government to appply illogical uneven legislation (based merely on tradition, or their own preference is like despotic random rule), this would not matter so much if it were only ruthless middlemen making loads of dosh that are repressed, but it is almost criminal to apply it to 'the people'.
Simon Jenkins weighs in
Once again our leaders just pass the buck on drugs
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23763739-details/Once+again+our+leaders+just+pass+the+buck+on+drugs/article.do
Decent article.
"Classification is not a political gesture but a criminological tool, supposedly based on evidence of harm to the brain done by different substances."
"This is not meant to "send a message" but to help judges in sentencing policy."
"Johnson thinks drug classification is about sending messages but that is not the law. If it was, he should surely put all drugs in class A and have done with it."
Pretty much sums up the idiocy of the Lab/Tory stance on this.
Exactly
Surely the damage that the production and trade of a drug, admittedly as well as the consequences of taking it, should be what influences criminal policy on it? Why should a drug which has very little part in international illegal drugs trade or social ills such as human trafficking/prostitution carry the same weight of punishment as those that do?
not to have this argument yet again, but the government is as responsible for organised crime and funding warlords etc
as the people who buy drugs. the government knowingly continues with the totally failed policy of prohibition for political reasons - they condemn people in columbia and afghanistan to violent deaths in exchange for votes back home. if drug users should take responsibility for the drug trade, so should the government for making the trade illegal in the first place.
and of course the sale of mobile phones and other consumer electronics should be prohibited as the coltan they contain helps fund a vicious war in the Congo, which is no less worse than the misery inflicted by the drugs trade.
.
It's not our government's responsibility to make the world a better place, only to protect the interests of UK citizens.
That might be the basis for your vote. It's not the basis of mine.
There are many issues where the UK government has responsibilities beyond the UK border, and the direct impact on the UK population.
Aside from that, "protect the interests" is a subjective phrase. Many would argue that it's in the interests of UK citizens for the UK to properly review the failed/damaging policy of 'war on drugs' in favour of a more enlightened policy, based on solid empirical evidence.
Perhaps but it's in our interests to keep half the world fucked up
the government will probably take an englightened approach to drugs when users do the same, which will be never.
1. You underestimate the benefits of social and economic equality.
Subjucation isn't in anyone's best interests. It's merely the result of fear, greed, and insecurity. It breeds resentment and war.
2. You underestimate the ability of the populace (with the aid of sensible, realistic constraints) to exercise moderation.
Smoking is legal, but constraints are in place (not prohibition) to mitigate the effects on society as a whole. Alcohol is subject to much looser regulation, and it's effects are subsequently much more pervasive. I see your chicken/egg argument, but our drug policy at the moment is sufficiently skewed for it to be virtually impossible for users to set an example.
On the one hand you're saying that UK Gov should "protect the interests of UK citizens". On the other, you say the people should set the agenda and the Gov will follow. Mixed messages there, as far as I can see.
I don't think it's mixed messages
but I'm less interested in this topic than I was the other day so I can't summon up the energy to justify myself, sorry. By all means take this as my position on the matter being untenable if you like, I have enjoyed this thread and has given me much to think about in idle moments.
I actually quite like Alan Johnson.
He'd have probably been a better choice for PM than Brown. He's not quite Eric Pickles but still a great man.
Secondly, how would people feel if some idiot or other in the public eye twisted stats to back up his claim that you're less likely to die drink-driving than you are as a result of being generally drunk in public?
I think i've pretty much won this thread. You lot don't know what you're talking about. Cheers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVCl5yVh5fo
Far from it KIK
to compare the chances of you dying 'drink driving' compared with being just 'drunk in public'
then you would compare 2 fractions a/b and c/d where
a) Time spent by the UK public drink driving
b) number of uk people who die when drink driving
c) Time spent by the uk public drunk in a public place
d) number of uk people who die whilst drunk in a public place
I suspect you were trying to suggest that Dr Nut has twisted statistics
although to do so one might apply similar fractions
a/b compared with c/d or e/f
where
a) amount of UK citizens who get stoned
b) amount of deaths of UK citizens due to cannabit
c) amount of UK citizens who get drunk
d) amount of deaths of UK citizens due to alcahol
e) amount of UK citizens who horse ride
f) amount of uk citizens who die due to horse riding injuries
since the value of 'b)' is zero, this makes it favourable (in terms of fatalities) to both other activities, whether you measure it inner cities or in countryside.
Perhaps you could explain how this form of statistical analysis is twisted?
The number of people who get stoned compared with getting drunk may be several times less but it is only one magnitude, and the number of people who have psychosis and behavoral problems on alcahol is also great.....in fact consider how many times you anti social behavoral problems from people being stoned compared with being drunk.....have you visited cities late at midnight?
The figures relating to alcahol deaths do not include figures for people killed as a result of alcahol influenced behaviour, they merely represent deaths caused medically by alcahol and its affect on the body.
They do not reflect behavoral effects such as bullying, domestic abuse, drunk driving, drunken assaults on strangers, attacks on medical staff in hospitals during 'the evening shift', ambulance and paramedics or even the police.
Alcahol causes far more behavoral problems (per head of abuser) than cannabis and also more deaths.
Nicotine seems to cause little behavoral nastyness, but smoking causes huge numbers of fatalities and health damage.
The statistics
More of an answer than kik's trolling in this thread deserves.
Unless he proves us all wrong and un-twists the stats.
sometimes i wonder if creaky is a teach by trade
his reply minds me entirely of a teacher using the facile humour of an idiot student to further illuminate the subject for everyone else.
Wuh?
so you think that i deliberately spell alcahol like that so that people will not suspect that i am an english teacher?
Fraid not...... I just don't know how to spell 'alcahol'...... or 'democrasy'.....or 'religeon'