Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
so...your adviser advises you. and gets fired. well done.
... somebody who tells you what you want to hear, or else! Kind of sums them up really. Eerie bunch.
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
by their own retarded logic that surely makes them ivory tower elitist academic scumbags
The cosseted world of the Sun's editorial offices..
I just read that guy's full column... is it naive of me to not have actually realised how awful the Sun is?
BUT DRUGS R BAD AND WE LIKE FAGS AND BOOZE
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
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 "
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
Sorry your correct well my statement continues on to the person who wrote the article
Consider my gob fully smacked.
This Labour government... man, they suck.
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.
also, this is a fascinating documentary about ecstacy.
you can od or die from X. Rare admittedly but it does happen.
Weed doesn't do that.
I just disagreed alightly that X is miles less harmful.
lembit opik was sticking up for the nutty professor and shit
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?
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.
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.
Sounds like you're distorting things in the same way that Nutt criticised the government for.
in what world is supporting the illusion that prohibition is working the responsible thing to do?
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?
alcohol and cigarettes should be banned.
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)?
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 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.
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.
What he should have said was: "Don't pay attention to what I was saying then - I was completely baked."
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.
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.
He accused them of devaluing and distorting evidence.
"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 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.
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.
Essentially, I'm arguing that coconuts should be banned. Or at least putting coconuts on things they might fall off should be banned.
Bounties are now a class A drug
THEY DON'T SEE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT BOUNTY BARS ARE CAUSING IN COUNCIL ESTATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY
Professor Nutt who is a scientist by trade or Alan Johnson, a fucking postman?
Answers on a postcard.
I mean, they'd never lie to me - right?
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
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.
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?
if only a comedown
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.
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.
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.
there almost definitely would be problems. But we have bigger problems now arguably.
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.
it may well not be plain and simple, but it offers potentially great rewards, and the current situation isn't good anyway
what turmoil are you talking about?
especially the criminals bit...
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
my policy is drugs for schoolkids.
not as far as i know
and I fail to see how this is seizing control of their livelihoods...they want to sell their crops
it is perfectly feasable to create a legal trade without unstable countries being involved. in doing so the trade would be lowered and prevented.
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.
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.
and wouldn't run out to get messed up on it.
isn't the same as drinking and smoking lots.
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"."
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.
actually has very little to do with drugs.
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.
They can turn you into an insufferably smug git!
or did he only try it a couple of times (i.e. not enough to get the lifelong bug for it)
if he has said that he did
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.
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'
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.
of the daily mail mindset, as determined by the editor and the people who analyse sales/marketing/pitching
has promisedto give a free vote on it's repeal. that's pretty much the same thing.
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?
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.
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.
"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).
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
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?
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 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.
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.
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'.
Once again our leaders just pass the buck on drugs
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Unless he proves us all wrong and un-twists the stats.
his reply minds me entirely of a teacher using the facile humour of an idiot student to further illuminate the subject for everyone else.
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'