Not one but two major rows
The row between the "Nutty Professor" and the red-faced home secretary is, surely, about more than scientific freedom of speech and the evidential basis for policy (something my colleague Mark Easton has written about here). It is also about the basis of drugs policy in Britain.
The Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs is not a purely scientific committee - it includes representatives of drugs charities, the police, social, health and education services as well as scientists. Its advice, therefore, may have science as its foundation but also takes into consideration other factors. Its critics claim that it is in the grip of a sort of "group think" which plays down the risks of drug taking.
Supporters of the philosophy of "harm reduction" argue that it is based on evidence that locking up drugs offenders and scaring young people about the impact of drugs simply has not and will not work. Opponents claim that this is an excuse for "going soft" on drugs and, in the longer term, creating the conditions for legalisation. They claim that the committee at first ignored and later downplayed the evidence about the link between cannabis and psychosis.
Johnson's anger with Professor Nutt stemmed from the repetition of his colourful assertion that more people die from horse riding than ecstasy in Britain - a claim he'd previously apologised for (saying he had "no intention of trivialising the dangers of ecstasy"). Johnson felt that Nutt was trying to undermine or re-write drugs policy which was rightly set by politicians. He feared that Nutt's words could and would be used to suggest that there was no need to worry about ecstasy, cannabis and LSD.
The row about harm reduction is the context in which the political debate exists. Clearly, they also respond to pressure from their constituents and the press not to appear "soft" on drugs. That's why Alan Johnson has the support of many Tories - his shadow, Chris Grayling, the former shadow Home Secretary David Davis and Iain Duncan Smith who has campaigned long and hard to highlight how drug addiction contributes to poverty. However, the Lib Dems led by Dr Evan Harris are firmly on the opposite side of the argument.
I've no doubt that the former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, is right when he argues that the real cause of this dispute was Gordon Brown's decision to promise to re-classify cannabis without consulting the committee and, it follows, while ignoring the evidence. Something, it should be noted, which David Cameron said he would have done too - only sooner.
So, Alan Johnson has stumbled into not one but two major rows. The first focuses on the freedom of unpaid scientific advisers to express their own views in their own ways about the science they study and to have their advice considered by ministers rather than dismissed before it's even been given. The second surrounds who forms drugs policy and on what basis it's drawn up.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Nick
This is a mess entirely of the Government's own making.
They have been advised time and time again in numerous areas of policy that saying they believe in "evidence-informed policy" while in practice wanting "policy-informed evidence" is a recipe for long-term problems.
Trying to fix the evidence to support the decisions you have already made then shooting the messenger is just bad politics, as well as bad faith and bad PR.
The only surprise is that it has taken this long to come to a head.
As I have said elsewhere, politics seems to be the most dangerous drug around at the moment!
Complain about this comment
A comparison of the risks of substance abuse with the risks of other threats to health and mortality is a legitimate pursuit of a scientist qualified in this arena. Not only should the debate be about other substances such as cigarettes and alcohol but about other activities including being admitted to hospital driving over-eating etc. It is an advisory committee and if the SoS does not like to hear what is said or he is not prepared to engage in an open debate he should scrap such committees.
We have had 30 years of more of Home Secretaries being tough on drugs so is it so wrong for someone to question whether we are getting the policy right? As for drug inducing poverty - yes it does happen but those addicted to hard drugs usually are at or near the bottom of the pile. It would do no harm if the Churches could offer their traditional opiate of the people - even if there is some 'self harm' as a result.
Complain about this comment
This argument goes straight to the heart of what is wrong with newlbaour; wrong with the government and wrong with the country...it has become impossible to make a reasoned argment that differs from their opinion without being fired.
That is not a democracy it is a symptom of an increasingly autocratic government that has lost touch with the people who elected it. (well, in fairness we didn't elect Gordon Brown, did we?).
The goevrnment has lost touch on almost every aspect of its economic, domestic and overseas policy because of the tin ears it has developed towards the slightest criticism; look at the newlabour apologists on these posts and they have become increasingly shrill. Listen to government ministers and they have become increasingly shrill. They knee-jerk and shriek their ways throught their final days in government.
It's a Greek tragedy of a government that has brought about its own destruction; its supporters left as a bizarre collection of proto-egalitarian types, banging progressive bongo drums. The working classes deserted the ship failing to understand the message as it became diluted and contradictory.
This is the end of a government and only the BBC and a few newlabour apologist seem incapable of recognising it. It has been a failure even by its own standards; no amount of shopping lists of new hospitals and schools built (all with our money) can make up for the bankrupting of our country by corrupt politicians and bankers they enobled.
Anyone can build a new house but can you afford to pay for it and to live in it? This is the simple question newlabour forgot to ask itself; they have built a welfare state way beyond what we cvan afford and invited all and sundry to take advantage of it. It's the biggest crime perpertrated against an indigent population for centuries. Yet they got away with shouting racist at anyone who disagreed; another gross intrusion into the lives of the average Brit, who needs no lecturing on the noble history of this country. We are one of the oldest hybrids on the planet and I for one need no hectoring on racism.
With any luck this resignation will lead others to question their allegiance to a morally, politically and financially bankrupt administration.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
But is there not a third argument which is about good governance with respect to the benefit of the public at large rather than making decisions solely for political gain which is a Nu Labour trait. Whenever a reasoned debate surfaces it is stamped out by bullying political tactics.
It is this stifling of debate that threatens to destroy democracy in this country. It is now perceived political wisdom across all political parties that a debate can only be held if the conclusions can be guaranteed to match a perceived political ideology or viewpoint.
There have been so many consultations and inquiries over the last decade that have cost millions with the end result of ignoring professional advice to then succumb to a lobbyist group wishes without sound reasoning to back it up. If politicians are trying to get back respect from the public they are going about it the wrong way.
Complain about this comment
Mods - there seems to be a problem completing the new registration process from this blog. I went to Andrew Neil's blog and was able to log-in there instead!
Complain about this comment
''Something, it should be noted, which David Cameron said he would have done too - only sooner.''
As many before have said,you are an apologist for New Labour. You spoil a well made argument by including a totally irrelevant dig at the Conservative Party.
Will you never learn?
Complain about this comment
This Government has moved Cannabis from B to C and back to B in the space of 5 years. Do they know what they are doing? If I was a user then I would have lost all trust in their ability to think through the scientific evidence in any kind of logical way. Sacking people because you disagree with them marks yet another stage in this Governments desire to remove all criticism.
Use of the term "nutty" professor fits in with the BBC's "Mock the Week" level of humour. Does it perhaps reveal which side the blogger is on in this dispute between Government and independent advisor?
Complain about this comment
Prof Nutt is factually correct in what he says but he words his statements so atrociously that I presume he WANTS the tabloid press to pick up on what he has said.
This is why he's been sacked.
He's a government ADVISOR, paid to give advice to the elected politicians who make the law. If they choose to ignore that advice its their perogative and if we don't like their decisions we can replace them in the next election. Nutt is clearly unhappy that the govt isn't doing exactly what he tells them too and is courting yet more media attention. While he is a very highly experienced expert on the chemial apsects of drug use on the human body he has no qualification whatsoever to speak about law enforcement or the economics of policing drug crimes.
I'd have sacked him too.
Complain about this comment
Is Allan Johnson unfit to be Home Secretary (as the suggested last week by a Parliamentary Select Committee)? [Probably not for those who do not wish to read on!]
The man is so obviously mentally enfeebled as not to be able to understand logical argument and is such a bully that all disagreements lead to resignations, what is his Permanent Secretary doing letting him make such a fool of himself and of our government?
This situation is however not new, or unique to Alan Johnson or the Labour Party - it has been progressively developing for thirty or forty years. Governments seem only capable of taking decisions that are in accordance with the views of the proprietors of the right wing press and this is what we get - rubbish inconsistent government based on nothing at all.
Complain about this comment
#5 Right click and open the link in a new tab. For some reason left clicking does nothing. Hope that helps!
P.S I'm using Mozilla. Explorer may work better or worse.
Complain about this comment
Its seems remarkably two faced in that they will sack someone who openly disagrees with their decisions and questions their policies, but refuse to do anything about someone who disagrees with the oppositions policies.
I notice the DPP didn't lose his job by venturing into politics.
Regardless of whether or not they were right to do it it shows a complete lack of consistency.
Is this now a banana republic?
Complain about this comment
The decision as to how to classify certain drugs should certainly take the 'science' into consideration, but this is not a purely scientific debate.
Illegal drugs have an impact on society as a whole, not just the people who use them. It is right that the final decision should be taken by an elected government. Experts can and should inform the process, but they have not been elected to make decisions.
The debate isn't just about how a particular drug can affect the health of the user (although that does need to be considered). The bigger picture includes the effect on society as a whole.
As to the science itself, the 'evidence' can be misleading. For example, it has been suggested that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy. But this ignores the fact that billions of people use alcohol every day. It is the abuse of alcohol that is the problem. Too much alcohol is certainly very dangerous. But if we compare this with ecstasy, any amount is potentially lethal. Perhaps those who want to legalise ecstasy should remember Leah Betts who died after taking just one tablet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4440438.stm
Complain about this comment
My God that was a struggle, whats going on? someones broken the registration process, i've just had to go through the lot about 5 times, not that they're even asking for anymore information its just exactly the same process as previously, for no reason.
Anyway,
The irony of the government ignoring the experts advice on drugs, is that large parts of the British public have bee ignoring successive Government's guidance (ie. the pointless classification system) for years.
Seriously, has there ever been any evidence, ever that anybody has ever decided against taking any drug because of how it was classified by the government.?
Also ,bearing in mind that in their 'spin king' days Mandelson and Campbell spent considerable amounts of time & energy trying to silence criticism of the government from legitimate journalists, and on the most memorable occasion, the entire BBC.
Why is anyone suprised that a government which is obsessed with spinning and managing the way information is released to the public, would resort to silencing its own advisors in this way?
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller - Perhaps those who wish to engage in hysteria should consider how many people have died from taking ecstasy since the tragic case of Leah Betts.
Is what some people do not realise (and I say this as a 24 year old who has never taken ecstasy), is that having what amounts to a totally arbitrary classification system is totally counter-productive, as it immediately criminalises and marginalises tens of thousands of young people who take this drugs recreationally every Saturday.
Young people do not believe the government lines "Drugs kill" and "Drugs ruin lives" because that is simply not what they see on a day to day, week to week basis. When the Prime minister of this country comes out and tells young people that "Cannabis kills", the legitimacy of anything the government says on drugs is utterly destroyed.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the advice DistantTraveller. The same thing happened to me.
This is yet another mess the government has got itself into. Do we now have a Laurel and Hardy government?
The sad thing is that one can understand both points of view. The comment from Professor Nutt about horse-riding was perhaps inapposite but there also continues to be failure at the heart of government anti-drug policies.
To my mind the ABC of drug harm is not very helpful in preventing drug use and abuse. Tobacco and alcohol need to be drawn into the same structure of harm as hard, soft and prescription drugs and the campaign focussed upon the health of the population at large. Perhaps issues of diet could be drawn into the same methodology but that might be over-complicating matters.
There is a difference between the careful use of inebriating materials and the addiction to the same, but how can one quantify that into a useable law?
The question as to why we set out to get inebriated also needs to be addressed. If someone becomes inebriated for whatever reason and behaves badly as a consequence, surely they need help rather than punishment? As for addicts on alcohol or the hard drugs, they should be given treatment rather than be sent to prison. Do we have a regime that successfully gets addicted people off drugs and booze?
Having said all that I wholly agree that constructing a simple policy which will be both successful and acceptable to what still remains a largely puritan population will be difficult.
Complain about this comment
13
Ave!
'Seriously, has there ever been any evidence, ever that anybody has ever decided against taking any drug because of how it was classified by the government?'
Or that anything the government says is of any note whatsoever and if it is it is probably some sort of lie or distortion or cover up or all three.
Complain about this comment
Is this new interface user friendly I ask myself?
No more than the government is I suppose.
Now it's taken so long to get registered, I've forgotten what the thread's about. Maybe I should have taken more cannabis, or e, can't be sure because my memory's shot to hell.
So, I think hoist by your own petard seems to be the mot juste here. A government that has spent 12 years using advisers to formulate policy and provide a smokescreen is suddenly becoming exposed to the real world, and it seems they don't like it. Shoot the messenger why don't you?
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson:
It is not shaping up to a good week for the Government
regarding its evolving policy...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
12, Distanttraveller
But if we compare this with ecstasy, any amount is potentially lethal. Perhaps those who want to legalise ecstasy should remember Leah Betts who died after taking just one tablet.
------------------
Not strictly true, the drug itself is no more harmful than any number of prescription drugs taken every day. The danger arises due to:
1) The amount taken, in order to have the desired effect dangerous quantities need to be taken (1 pill can be a large quantity for this particular drug).
2) Additional substances used to "cut" the pill. Can be anything from washing powder to rat poison.
Personally I don't feel any inclination to use substances to alter my perception (pass the whisky gov) but I am firmly of the belief that people should be allowed to poison themselves in any way they choose, it is not for anyone to decide what people may or may not do insofar as it effects only themselves. People will complain about the effect it has on families etc., but it has those effects whether legal or not, those who are inclined to take drugs will do so anyway and end up putting far more dangerous substances into their body as a biproduct. You also encourage a crime culture by banning people from doing things that effect only them, at which point others than those who choose to take the risk become effected.
Complain about this comment
I like a bit of passion in my politicians but we're seeing the wrong sort of passion here; I remember the very sad Leah Betts case of the mid nineties and it seems to me that Alan Johnson is reacting more like a father who has lost a daughter to a drugs overdose than like a Home Secretary
Complain about this comment
Allan Johnson and the majority of Ministers have been over promoted. How can a postman or a shop steward know everything about everything.
The political agenda regarding drugs and their usage is identical to the mainstream media agenda.
Advisors advise, politicians ignore!
Complain about this comment
#14 I mostly agree with you. A tiny number of people have died from ectasy and a relatively small amount from cannabis (it CAN kill, either by contributing to mental health problems or via its carcinogenic properties, however this isn't the debate and I've posted on that before)
Distanttravellers point is valid. If you drink one beer it will not kill you. If you take 1 ectasy tablet there is a tiny chance it WILL kill you, not least because you have no idea what on earth is in the tablet the dealer is selling you. Another thing to bear in mind is that many drinkers will have one drink and have virtually no intoxication from it. Because you drink doesn't mean you will drink until you get drunk. I haven't met many ectasy users who would be happy taking a dose of the drug that has virtually no effect. Likewise most cannabis users will smoke until stoned.
Complain about this comment
#20
Hmm. A surfeit of sentimentality perhaps.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, what an outbreak of hypocrisy in the media! Of course, any fool knows that government drugs policy should be science based. But it can't be, because of the red top hysteria that follows any apparent softening of the approach to drugs. People say things like "Remember Leah Betts, who died after taking one ecstasy tablet". That is hardly a scientific argument. Are you going to apply the same logic to peanut butter? Science is based on statistical significance rather than emotional impact. The media can't be bothered to report science properly because they think the message is too complex to get across, and besides, most journalists don't understand it. So they look for the 'human angle' which just poisons people's ability to make rational decisions.
We've as much chance of starting a serious debate on child protection (remember the "Sarah's Law" fiasco?) as we have on drugs policy.
PS 10 Peter_Sym
Thanks. It worked for me.
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson:
*It is also about the basis of drugs policy in Britain. *
It is time for an comprehensive review and adult like
discussion about....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Totally agree with 1. badgercourage. A mess of their own making.
Also with great respect Nick, I feel using the quote "nutty professor" is a tad tabloid and rather insulting to a man who commands great respect. In fact I cannot find any source for your attributable quote.
Johnson is just the latest in a long line of hapless home secretaries caught up in the political football of drugs classification which has been raging since the '70s. It's the way home secretaries handle the thorny issue which is enlightening.
Johnson has displayed woeful arrogance by sacking his top drugs expert for daring to do his job, speak the truth and speak his scientific mind. After all he could have easily stuck to his guns and just binned the advice.
Isn't this now a question of trust. if scientists are barred from the drugs classification debate, then who does the public believe? Who do they trust when trying to come up with an informed opinion? Home secretary Johnson or a respected scientist?
Where does that leave the supposed 'independence' of advice to the government?
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/johnsons-reefer-madness.html
Complain about this comment
I suspect alcohol ruins far more lives than cannabis, but would our "red-faced home secretary" allow that to influence his thinking?
Complain about this comment
If we just step back from the hysterical approach for a second, you can see how valid the riding a horse argument is, and by extension the whole idea of banning drugs becomes a bit ridiculous.
We are banning one type of dangerous thrill seeking behaviour, so why should we not ban all of them? Horse riding, parachuting, hang gliding, rock climbing etc., can just as easily lead to death, so why are they accepted, even encouraged? There is some kind of falacy in many peoples' minds that achieving a thrill by taking a substance is less "clean" than engaging in an outdoors pursuit, but this is really just a random and illogical thought process indoctrinated from a young age. One type of thrill is acceptable, one is not, but both are equally capable of wrecking a family. People may also allude to impact on health, but if we are legislating on this basis then any number of things should be declared illegal (starting of course with alcohol and cigarettes, then we can move on to chocolate, salt etc.).
I recognise that I have veered slightly from the point here, but there is a link. It is exaclty this type of knee jerk hysteria our home secretary is reinforcing here. "How dare you question that drugs are all bad, you're fired. We'll have no debate here."
(By the way, I should clarify that I neither a desire to abuse any substance or throw myself from an airplane).
Complain about this comment
Is it coincidence that you started a new thread about a governemnt problem and the BBC introduces malfunctioning technology changes?
I mean, by the time you've got through the technology you're faced with the dilemma of not knowing who to criticize, and then realise it doesn't matter, they're all equally to blame.
The government, because they've spent too much time creating focus groups, teams of advisore etc that they have never faced up to any issue based upon their own moral and gut instincts. If they had, they would never have got themselves into the whole issue of downgrading cannabis, as they did, under advice, and then had to backtrack and then enter into conflict with their advisors.
The advisors who, normally, have an axe to grind, or are too supine to fight back when their advice is ignored.
The people who have voted this misbegotten shower into roles for which they are totally unsuited.
Hopefully the forthcoming election will give them a chance to undo some of the damage they have caused by their previous voting malfunctions.
Complain about this comment
#14 Kyle Walkley
You say, "Is what some people do not realise (and I say this as a 24 year old who has never taken ecstasy), is that having what amounts to a totally arbitrary classification system is totally counter-productive"
It is always possible to argue that wherever a line is drawn, it is 'arbitrary'. People can often make a case that the line should have been drawn 'here' instead of 'there'. But does this mean we should never attempt to draw lines at all? Would society be better if we said 'anything goes'?
"Young people do not believe the government lines "Drugs kill" and "Drugs ruin lives" because that is simply not what they see on a day to day, week to week basis"
It is sometimes suggested that advising young people NOT to do something will actually encourage them to do the exact opposite. That is why rather than advise people not to take drugs in the first place, there was instead 'advice' about how to use drugs more 'safely'. But this actually gave people a totally false sense of security.
According to the theory, young people will always be rebellious, so there is no point in telling them anything! But this paints young people in a very poor light! Personally, I think young people have more intelligence than that!
Complain about this comment
27. At 1:08pm on 02 Nov 2009, TheBlameGame wrote:
I suspect alcohol ruins far more lives than cannabis, but would our "red-faced home secretary" allow that to influence his thinking?
-------------
Thats undeniable, because the number of acholhol users is an order of magnitude higher han that of drug users, the cost to society in criminal damage, criminal violence and NHS bills is also exponentially higher.
Increasing the drinking hours has certainly increased the problem, but the government seem unwilling to backtrack on that policy.
Anyway, as i read on another site, This government seems quite happy to ignore advice from its top military brass concerning the welfare of our soldiers in afghanistan (and thats about as 'life & death' as it gets at thesharp end of politics)
Why is anyone suprised that they also think they know better than their own scientists.
Complain about this comment
I note that Mr Brown is encouring Mr Karzai to move forward with a better form of government than he currently has.
This is in Afghanistan, which hasn't had a proper government in decades.
And where there was widespread electoral fraud in the recently contested election.
And where too many of our troops have died, supporting a corrupt government.
And where opiates are the cash crop of preference among the poor farmers (revance to the thread!!!)
And I suppose, since El Gordo persists with governing us because it's the "right" thing to do to provide continuity in getting us out of the mess that he got us into, we now lack the moral authority to insist otherwise.
Unfortunately its a truism in life that you reap what you sow, and somebody else always pays the bill.
Complain about this comment
As I see it the great danger is to education. This happened in the 1960s when government claims were recognised as so ridiculous that they were dismissed by potential users eager to get in the scene. A lot of highly dodgy drugs appeared on the street and people got into trouble. Sadly, good advice was buried under a pile of government dross where the reality and the propaganda were wildly disparate.
It doesn't take this fracas to tell us that alcohol and tobacco are greater dangers than cannabis, especially alcohol. Crikey, you need only walk through a town centre of a Friday night to realise that! Drunken violence denies many people a night out for fear of getting embroiled in something.
So how can a government expect to educate people on health and drugs? It can't. No right-minded person would take its message seriously. Look at the mistrust over the triple-MMR jab. You can't blame people - they'd only just been caught out over the mad-cow/CJD business.
Ah well, here was I hoping that legalising cannabis would herald the return of the quid deal. Shame...though it'd be more like a ten-quid deal after tax and duty.
Complain about this comment
@12 DistantTraveller
Sorry I am going to have to call your bluff in the Leah Betts story.
She actually died of water intoxication, if she had taken the ecstasy alone she may have survived. Drinking 7 litres of water in 90 minutes killed her.
Ignorance killed this poor girl.
What people need is information, and the best people to give us this information are the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs, not the Home Secretary.
Complain about this comment
#19 greatHayemaker
"You also encourage a crime culture by banning people from doing things that effect only them, at which point others than those who choose to take the risk become effected"
I think it's very difficult to make a case that it affects 'only them'. People who become addicted to drugs often commit crimes to feed their addictions. If the drugs were legalised, there is no reason to suppose the rate of addiction would go down. Furthermore, people can injure others whilst 'under the influence'. Long term health effects will still need to treated at the expense of the tax payer through the NHS and social services etc.
I don't think it is unreasonable therefore that society (through its elected government) should restrict certain activities that clearly DO affect other people.
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller, I couldn't agree more that 'young people' do have more intelligence than that, that is exactly why giving them messages which are at best disingenuous and not reflective of reality, and at worse blatantly false is not going to endear them to government advice.
Complain about this comment
The comment doing the rounds is correct... Advisors advise and Ministers decide. That principle is completely correct.
The problem is this.
PM Brown and Ms Smith decided before they heard the advice.
They could have said that even tho the evidence shows less harm from cannabis compared to alcohol, that is not a road down which we want to go, except that they did and then changed their mind.... typical.
There is another argument to be had here, California (a state with an economy similar in size to our own) has a £14 billion medicinal cannabis trade. Surely this would help to pay down some debt?
Complain about this comment
6. At 11:59am on 02 Nov 2009, myteam-0 wrote:
''Something, it should be noted, which David Cameron said he would have done too - only sooner.''
As many before have said,you are an apologist for New Labour. You spoil a well made argument by including a totally irrelevant dig at the Conservative Party.
Will you never learn?
----------------
Its hardly a dig at the conservatives, I heard Cameron making exactly the same coment on the news yesterday, he said it, he's obviously not embarrassed by it, why not report it?
Normally if the government is in difficulty you would expect the opposition to put the boot in. In this case Cameron has come out in support of the government ( i presume because the tories use the same demograpghic profiling as the government when it comes to assessing public opinion).)
The fact that the tories are supporting the governments actions is certainly newsworthy and, indeed has been mentioned here entirely in context.
There is no conspiracy.
Complain about this comment
Of course any system is arbitrary, but perhaps 'random' would have been a better description, the absurdity of placing cannabis into 'Class-B' is there for all to see.
A truly retrograde step in drugs policy to appease people with very little knowledge of the subject.
Complain about this comment
"If you drink one beer it will not kill you. If you take 1 ectasy tablet there is a tiny chance it WILL kill you, not least because you have no idea what on earth is in the tablet the dealer is selling you." Peter Sym.
That does miss one point. In countries where alcohol is brewed illegally, you DO read stories about 1 drink resulting in death. This is because the drinker had no idea what was in the drink the dealer was selling. Had the poor drinker been able to get alcohol, properly brewed, properly tested and regulated, it's massively unlikely that 1 drink would kill him. And supposing one person had an abnormal allergy and died from his drink, would be ban all drink because of that?
Complain about this comment
What is the POINT of an advisory body if the Government ploughs ahead with what it intended to do anyway? Why have the advisors?
Complain about this comment
Professor David Nutt was correct on his assessment of cannabis, but the cannabis laws are irrelevant to the pot smoker when those laws are being made by thieving corrupt politicians who get them endorsed in the Upper House by thieving, corrupt Lords as has been proved. Any slight chance New Labour had of getting into power again has just gone up in smoke. (I hope)
Complain about this comment
I believe that a more liberal treatment of drugs is needed. There are all sorts of personal freedom issues and it is typical of this 'Nanny knows best' Government that they are behaving in the way that they are.
There is, though, one aspect of the debate that I'm surprised hasn't been much discussed.
Were I to draw up a league of dangerous carnivorous animals (probably headed up by the Grizzly bear, followed by other bears and the big cats) I suspect that the Hyena would be quite low down the league.
Still wouldn't want to be locked in a box with one.
That something is less dangerous, doesn't mean it's safe.
Complain about this comment
#42
Drifted off a bit there at the end Pete.
A stoned silence?
Complain about this comment
#12. At 12:24pm on 02 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
"The debate isn't just about how a particular drug can affect the health of the user (although that does need to be considered). The bigger picture includes the effect on society as a whole."
= = = = =
Indeed, so why is there such a demand for drugs anyway, not just the illicit ones but stupefactives like alcohol? I personally don't want to anaesthesise my way through life. Apparently others do.
= = = = =
"As to the science itself, the 'evidence' can be misleading. For example, it has been suggested that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy. But this ignores the fact that billions of people use alcohol every day. It is the abuse of alcohol that is the problem. Too much alcohol is certainly very dangerous. But if we compare this with ecstasy, any amount is potentially lethal. Perhaps those who want to legalise ecstasy should remember Leah Betts who died after taking just one tablet."
= = = = =
The Leah Betts incident was tragedy indeed. But don't let's forget she was at her 18th birthday party and (though not reported) was likely drinking too. Believe me, taking any of the illicit drugs with alcohol is dangerous on many levels. Likewise, mixing illicit drugs - more so when you don't know what extras they contain. It can't be stressed enough. How can we get that message through?
And this is why we need better education. Scary ads on TV do nothing because the kids know that it just isn't like that (until they try to drink at the same time). We need an enlightened attitude toward prohibition and drugs. At least, if we can't legalise and control these drugs, honesty would be a considerable advance.
Complain about this comment
40, 41, 43, 44 You taking speed?
Complain about this comment
35. At 1:30pm on 02 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
#19 greatHayemaker
"You also encourage a crime culture by banning people from doing things that effect only them, at which point others than those who choose to take the risk become effected"
I think it's very difficult to make a case that it affects 'only them'. People who become addicted to drugs often commit crimes to feed their addictions. If the drugs were legalised, there is no reason to suppose the rate of addiction would go down. Furthermore, people can injure others whilst 'under the influence'. Long term health effects will still need to treated at the expense of the tax payer through the NHS and social services etc.
I don't think it is unreasonable therefore that society (through its elected government) should restrict certain activities that clearly DO affect other people.
--------------
I am not suggesting addiction rates would go down, not immediately anyway. But associated crime would go down for a couple of reasons. Firstly the prices would be lower because there would no longer be any risk to supplying them, therefore less theft to support it. Secondly, the dealers themselves would no longer make their living by supplying drugs, and since many of them are fairly unpleasnt characters, violence associated with them would fall.
But in the end, drug crime is not caused by the drug, it is caused by the people who take the drugs. I am not a huge fan of thinking that you eliminate drug crime by eliminating drug use. You eliminate crime by stopping people from committing crimes, ie. you police the streets and you lock up offenders. The vast majority of drug users are not habitually stealing to fund their habits, it is only a small percentage who do, so it is hardly reaonable to make laws specifically for the few who can not be trusted (and who incidentally will break the law in any case, so why bother).
I wonder what long term health effects you are referring to. Often the health effects of drugs are more short term (ie. overdose = death), but I think it is overly simplistic to say people who use drugs will cost the health service more. Those who cost the most are those who live the longest, the older you are, the more things go wrong with your body. Drug use will likely bring your health problems forward, but it won't necessarily lead to a higher overall cost. And besides, you would tax drugs in the same way you tax tobacco and alcohol, so you get a great deal of the cost back (on a net cost/ tax basis, obese people are more expensive to the NHS than smokers).
Complain about this comment
What is the point of having expert advisor's if you don't take any notice of their expert advice, and if their expert advice is wrong what were you doing 'employing' them in the first place - over to your Mr Johnson...
Complain about this comment
Having re-watched the 'Brass-Eye' series recently, so much of the current reporting on the News today sounds awfully close to parodying itself.....here are a few extracts from the 'Drugs' episode. Sharp eyed readers will spot the edit, without which the BBC wouldn't post it...
"People say that alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink!"
"Luckily, the amount of heroin I use is harmless, I inject about once a month on a purely recreational basis. Fine. But what about other people less stable, less educated, less middle-class than me? Builders for example. If you're one of those, my advice is leave well alone. Good luck."
"An overdose of heroin is fatal - in the short term. But there has been no research whatsoever into long term effects."
"If time's a drug, then Big Ben is a huge needle injecting it into the sky."
Complain about this comment
#8 -- The "advisers" including Professor Nutt are NOT paid.
Complain about this comment
#39 Kyle Walkley
"A truly retrograde step in drugs policy to appease people with very little knowledge of the subject"
I think that's a bit of a sweeping assumption! At best you could say there are strongly held differences of opinion.
On the one hand, there are people who feel (perhaps this includes you?) that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, irrespective of the harm they may be doing to themselves.
Then there are others who feel that personal freedom needs to be weighed against the effects on society as a whole.
As an example, it is not permitted to drink and drive; the reason is not simply the possible danger to the driver, but the possible (or likely) effect on others as well.
In the case of cannabis, there can indeed be long term health effects, including mental health, although the exact risk is a matter of debate. As Society has to pick up the bill (through the NHS and social services) it is not unreasonable for the elected government to place restrictions on certain activities which clearly DO affect others.
Complain about this comment
#48
Unfortunately Brown and his team think they know best. They tolerate these "advisory panels" to ensure they are seen to be going through the process but in the end as we know in so many areas the government just bullys its way on !
We need an election.
Complain about this comment
I'm personally not sure whether the oproblem is scientists or politicians.
Neither of them have over-much experieince of what the rest of us might call "real life". Scientists inhabit labs, whether in or out of academic institutions, whilst politicians inhabit a strange twilight world in SW1. Yes, I know I'm generalising, but so scientists and politicians.
Each of those groups would have us believe they are telling us the absolute truth, at least as they see it.
I'm minded of the fact that at the conclusion of WW2 half the german scientists went to work in the US and the other hald in Russia, and for the next 30-40 years engaged in the space race, nuclear weapons development and, who knows, biological weapons development - somebody did it. Kubrick, in Dr Strangelove, nailed it pretty well.
The point of this is to say that I personally wouldn't take the word of a member of either group that when the sun shines its day time and when the moon shows its night time. I think they ought to be locked in the room with some pills, syringes, loosely wrapped leaves and some mushrooms and only come out when they have reached a senslible level of agreement with each other. Meanwhile we can get on with the rest of our lives.
Complain about this comment
#34. Someone always tries to clame that Leah Betts died of water toxicity not the ectasy while glossing over the fact that ectacsy messes with the bodies ability to regulate its temperature and urinate (google or wiki SIADH). You also part quote what was said at her inquest:
by Professor John Henry, who had previously warned the public of the danger of ecstasy causing death by dehydration, "If Leah had taken the drug alone she might well have survived. If she had drunk the amount of water alone she would have survived."
If she's just taken the E she'd probably have lived. If she'd drank 7 litres of water she'd have lived. The two together killed her.
Claiming it was all the fault of the water she drank is like claiming that heroin overdoses don't kill you- its all down to the heart attack, or that dying after driving at high speed into a tree has nothing to do with the high speed and its the tree that does the killing.
#40. I totally agree, however in this country alcohol IS legal and people do not die after one drink because what they're consuming is actually meths so my statement that no-one ever died after one beer stands. I'm a firm believer that if most currently illegal drugs were state produced, properly quality controlled and sold (and taxed) via off-licences we'd have far less problems. However this isn't likely to happen and has little relevance as to whether cannabis is class C or B or ectasy A or B as either way it'll be of unknown quality and strength.
Complain about this comment
#47 greatHayemaker
"But in the end, drug crime is not caused by the drug, it is caused by the people who take the drugs. I am not a huge fan of thinking that you eliminate drug crime by eliminating drug use."
But if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, one could say anything and everything should be allowed. Would you say (as some do!) that guns don't kill people - it's the people who use guns who are the problem? The reason guns are illegal is to make it harder for people to get their hands on them. Obviously, determined criminals are still able to do so.. but would society be better if you could just buy one over the counter?
Complain about this comment
#45 Leah Betts hadn't consumed alcohol... she took 1 E and drank 14 pints of water. You can find her PM report online easily enough. At most raves you can't even buy alcohol, just water.
However if she HAD suffered a bad reaction between the illegal drug and booze it would be a powerful argument against the drug as these sort of 'accidents' are highly likely to occur and once you have a few drinks (or a few E's) any education is likely to be totally ignored anyway.
Complain about this comment
This whole story is really about the Government completely losing control of the news agenda. We have a Government in its death throws, it has lost control of the news agenda, the Civil Service and its advisors. It is a clapped out Government, bereft of talent and ideas - we should have had a General Election months ago!
Bring on the election now, so we can get a new Government with a fresh mandate to start addressing the serious issues affecting the country - not least, the massive and unsustainable fiscal deficit created by Brown.
Complain about this comment
This whole situation is stupid.
Why have advisors if you aren't going to listen to them?
Why have advisors if you've already made a decision yourself?
Why sack an advisor for having their own opinions?
The government shouldn't have just made the decision without consultation with the advisors or there should be no advisors and just let government policy dictate things, because you can't have both at the same time.
The sacking was outrageous, I agree to a point that the advisor shouldn't have brought politics in to it considering that he was only an advisor and not a policy maker but he has a right to voice his opinion and the public have a right to hear the views expressed by those advising the government.
Personally, I see this as a complete waste of time and money. Drugs are a problem but all these policies and advisors do nothing to solve the problem because they're easily available to those that want to find them.
Now I'll probably strike up a debate in all this by saying that, in my opinion, all these drugs should be legalised and taxed. A legal substance is easier to control than an illegal substance and you destroy the whole black market criminal aspects of the whole thing. If people want to waste their money on these drugs and take them then it's their own fault for whatever consequences they suffer.
I have never taken drugs and I feel I'm educated enough to easily make the choice that I never do want to take drugs. That has always been my stance and I would never have been convinced in to taking such substances unless they were physically forced down my throat but luckily that has never happened.
People will either listen and consider the facts realising that taking drugs is stupid or they will not listen and they will continue taking the drugs no matter what is said or done to try and convince them otherwise. Therefore, tax them and let's get those public finances back in shape.
How many people who campaign against drugs have been through the bad experiences?
They suffered the consequences and they learnt from the experience. To me, that's the only way forward, allow people to make their choices, suffer the consequences and learn from their stupidity.
Unfortunately, there will always be those that don't learn and the Treasury will be quite happy to keep raking in the income from them. After all, how long has there been an anti-smoking camp and although people have stopped there are those that continue doing it and the government are quite happy with getting those taxes in.
Now let's move on from this silly situation. I throw my support to the advisors, they should just all quit and then we can replace the entire lot of them with a Quango, now there's an idea.
Complain about this comment
I find your pun at the beginning a wee bit over the top Mr Robinson but obviously nutty did not form a word association with Johnston where it perhaps should have been applied. The said Johnston after his interview performance, has gone from Mr Sensible to Mr Angry in very quick time, and no doubt since he had ambitions of using the first dagger on MacCaesar will now at the first opportune moment become Mr Nobody. His handling of this situation displays all the skills necessary for being a postman plus the required amount of intransigence and dishonesty which made him a union chief and thence led him into the higher echelons of the Labour party where these obvious questionable talents are esteemed.
Complain about this comment
54. At 2:13pm on 02 Nov 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:
#34. Someone always tries to clame that Leah Betts died of water toxicity not the ectasy while glossing over the fact that ectacsy messes with the bodies ability to regulate its temperature and urinate (google or wiki SIADH). You also part quote what was said at her inquest:
----------
as i've said before, like many people from my generation i experimented with drugs in my 20s.
The spate of water toxicity deaths was largely down do ignorance of the effects of ecstacy within the 'scene' of the time. I remember being advised by experienced clubbers to make sure i drank loads of water - it was the perceived wisdom among clubbers at the time as the safest way to take ecstacy.
People now know better - i haven't heard of a water/ecstacy related death in some years.
An example of education making drug use safer over time?
Complain about this comment
Go to the doctor...get a pill. The society is full of drugs, many with warnings. It is about behavior. If you drink at the pub, that is fine, if you drink and drive, it is not. Good rationale. Addicted populations remain about the same small percentage of any population. Probably not going to change that. This is mainly foolishness based on morale judgements not science or social norms. Has been a waste of time, money and ruined many lives for not real reason other than laws were passed to make people feel good by severely punishing others for acts of possession. Self-flagalation did not end the plague either.
Complain about this comment
Legalise it...don't criticise it.
Complain about this comment
51
Fine, then lets also ban rugby, on account that anyone who breaks a bone must also be funded by the NHS.
No watching TV, because people who are watching TV might be effecting their eyes, and are certainly not exercising at that moment so they are at slightly higher risk of developing health problems associated with weight.
Lets ban drinking full stop, on the basis that someone who drinks is
more likely to drink and drive (infinitely so in fact).
Everything you do effects others in some way. Lets not descend to having our lives maanged for us completely.
Complain about this comment
Pop @ 23
"A surfeit of sentimentality perhaps"
exactly; we need to keep that out of the drugs debate (or any debate for that matter) if we want to achieve a sensible policy
Complain about this comment
Two years ago the BBC reported that while you can expect to have a serious motorbike accident once in every 7,000 hours, a serious horse riding accident happens once in every 350 hours.
Yet the common perception is that motorcycle riders (such as myself) have some sort of death-wish and Government slyly legislates, through increasingly difficult tests/bureaucratic hurdles, to get us motorcyclists off the roads.
Anecdotally, whilst I suffered a broken leg whilst riding a motorcycle as a teen-ager, my sister, a keen horse rider has suffered two serious riding accidents, once she cracked her skull when her horse bolted, desite wearing a hardhat, and the second time, again with another horse bolting, she smashed her jaw when she came off and destroyed various nerves in her mouth and has lost most senses of taste and the difference between hot and cold food.
Having seen at close quarters the very dark world of underground drugs, it is my view that all currently illegal drugs should be decriminalised and sold via chemists with the appropriate quality controls, taxes applied etc.
In parallel, the authorities should conduct brutally explicit anti-drugs advertising in the media, targetting the so-called hard drugs.
Drugs such as cannabis, at the appropriate strength, should be viewed as no more harmful than alcohol.
Just as alcohol induces some people to become alcoholics, then likewise cannabis may induce some people to become psychotic.
The libertarian view is that people must be free to chose how they live their lives, providing they are fully aware of the consequences of the choices they may make, for themselves, their families and their communities.
Complain about this comment
ghm @ 28
"By the way, I should clarify that I neither have a desire to abuse any substance or to throw myself from an airplane"
your point would retain its validity even if you did
Complain about this comment
#55
When guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns.
Put it another way - would you break into a house knowing that there was a good chance that the occupier could have a gun and use it?
No liberal let-offs for stiffs!
Complain about this comment
What on earth is the 'Nutty Professor' thing about? Are you saying that because he's a scientist he must be crazy, because everyone knows that science is really wierd? Is it meant to be a joke? If so, you should probably stick to the day job!
Complain about this comment
This government gave us 24 hour drinking and then put cannabis as a grade C drug. It now wants to back pedal and appear tough with a paid expert. What a joke.
Let's see if we can educate people about drugs but the tax take on cannabis could be huge so why not allow a small amount of trade in the business so we are progressive on this front. Bringing it into the open is the only way the problem can be tackled effectively
Complain about this comment
#34 King_Athelstan
"She actually died of water intoxication, if she had taken the ecstasy alone she may have survived. Drinking 7 litres of water in 90 minutes killed her"
It was probably a combination of the excessive amount of water AND the drug itself. According to a BBC report,
"At the inquest, Prof Henry said: "If Leah had taken the drug alone she might well have survived. If she had drunk the amount of water alone she would have survived."
The same BBC report says: "In Leah's case, excessive water consumption was exacerbated by the ecstasy causing her body to release anti-diuretic hormones, stopping a normal level of urination that could have saved her."
There are always going to be some people who wish to down-play the dangers of the drug. But however you look at it, Leah would still be alive today if she hadn't taken the ecstasy in the first place.
This tragic case also highlights the danger of giving misleading advice about how to 'stay safe'. Prof Henry was later reported as saying the original advice "was fatal".
A much better message would be "Stay safe by not taking drugs - because you're worth it!"
Complain about this comment
This is just another blunder from a tired 'lost its way' government.
Seeing the red faced out of control Johnson being interviewed yesterday just sums them all up.
The red light is showing. They need to stop everything they are doing for the more they do the bigger the mess they are creating.
Bloomers big and small are happening so frequently now we can't keep up. The PM appears but there is never anything credible about what he says.
The whole country is confused for we all know that the drugs problem is out of control but so is everything else.
So many U turns we don't know what is legal or illegal any more.
A democracy in chaos where half or even more of the present politicians are too busy preparing their CV's to be bothered.
Such chaos has never been seen in my lifetime and it is urgent that the tinkering stops and someone steps in to bring back some order now.
Complain about this comment
Before my time it's my understanding that there was a rather obscene law in place that made it and illegal and arrestable offence to attempt to commit suicide, and if you were caught before actually slipping off this mortal coil you could be put in prison. This is something that boggles the mind, for me at least, even now, because it works on the assumption that people do not own their own bodies, or their own lives, and have to be subservient to an external organisation first.
Thankfully, this rather ethically ambiguous concept has been condemned to the dustbin of history. The notion that the government can legislate and prosecute anyone for doing something to themselves is, to me, utterly absurd.
I'm not going to argue the specifics of certain substances over other substances, or pander to the hysterical types who want to ban everything, for me that isn't the issue at all. Governments continually use the line on the drugs issue that they're "saving people from themselves", and doing so by rejecting outright the verdicts of professionals who are actually knowledgeable on the subject for the sake of political posturing.
The issue for me isn't a case of preventing people from harming themselves - it's about the ethics of personal freedom. There is no ethical difference between alcohol, tobacco, and all the illegal or semi-legal substances out there, and anyone who claims there is is just being hypocritical.
The most surprising thing for me, however, is that this government is passing up an opportunity to make a policy that would not only be widely popular, but that also has an extremely high potential for tax revenue.
Complain about this comment
So, how's legalizing drugs going to work?
Will they only be for sale in Drug stores, chemists/pharmacists by any other name?
If so, will they only be on prescription? (Cue problems at the doctors)
If not, will they only be available at the counter?
Will there be security?
Is this going to impact other customers of the chemist?
Will there be a rise in crime related to chemists?
Has this been thought through?
Stupid question, sorry.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#63 greatHayemaker
One may take the view that you must either ban everything or nothing, but I am certainly not proposing that!
There are many activities which can be enjoyable, yet carry some risk. I certainly don't believe in the Nanny State or the absurd culture of 'health and safety' that seems to have evolved under this government - eg the ban on hanging baskets in Bury St Edmunds.
But opposing Health and Safety madness doesn't mean 'anything goes'.
You say "Lets ban drinking full stop, on the basis that someone who drinks is
more likely to drink and drive (infinitely so in fact)". Drinking isn't banned - but it is rightly subject to certain restrictions - eg, age, being drunk in a public place, driving etc.
What should be allowed or restricted will always be a matter of oppinion. But we need to be clear it isn't just about science - it's also about social acceptability.
You say "Lets not descend to having our lives managed for us completely."
Yes, I agree! But in a democracy, there will always be debate about where we draw the lines. Personally, I think having the debate (even if we can't all agree) is a useful exercise.
Complain about this comment
66. At 2:46pm on 02 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghm @ 28
"By the way, I should clarify that I neither have a desire to abuse any substance or to throw myself from an airplane"
your point would retain its validity even if you did
-------------
But Big Brother might be watching...
Complain about this comment
It doesn't make sense to ask: "Why does the government employ advisers if it's then going to ignore their advice?"
Advice can, by definition, be accepted or rejected.
You might as well ask: "Why have a government if all they're going to do is implement the advice of third parties?"
It's only a problem when advisers start throwing their toys out of the pram.
Complain about this comment
The odd thing is that I do believe advisors should advosie and those in govrenment should decide. (Of course they should make it clear on what basis they take decisions...)
I've today heard a number of eminent scientists disputing the assertions of Prof Nutt. They seem to be working in exactly relevant areas and withn the panel of advisors on drug classification, there does appear to be a split.
I rather wish Ministers had been a bit more selective when looking at the "evidence" of the man-made global warming theory. Like millions of others, I believe in climate change. (You'd have to be a fool not to, as climate chane is evident all around. For example, London isn't covered by ice...) But the rampant political herd is hell-bent on spending billions using the wrong label. They should say that poluttion is a bad thing, rather than clinging to discredited computer models.
What's the differene with Prof Nutt? He is one voice among several. Some other voices tell a different story. Governments are not elected to deliver policy or law based on "scientific" advice. They sometimes frame their decisiions in odd ways, but then, so do scientists...
Complain about this comment
70. At 3:01pm on 02 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
#34 King_Athelstan
"She actually died of water intoxication, if she had taken the ecstasy alone she may have survived. Drinking 7 litres of water in 90 minutes killed her"
It was probably a combination of the excessive amount of water AND the drug itself. According to a BBC report,
"At the inquest, Prof Henry said: "If Leah had taken the drug alone she might well have survived. If she had drunk the amount of water alone she would have survived."
The same BBC report says: "In Leah's case, excessive water consumption was exacerbated by the ecstasy causing her body to release anti-diuretic hormones, stopping a normal level of urination that could have saved her."
--------
The point i was trying to make in my earlier, confessional, post is that there is still a misconception that ecstacy gives you a raging,uncontrollable thirst which then results in people , such as Leah Betts drinking dangerous levels of water.
That simply isn't true.
During the 90s users were telling each other to make sure they drank loads of water because we thought it made taking ecstacy much safer.I was one of them. I'm fairly sure that whoever procured leah betts her tablet gave her the same advice - make sure you drink loads of water.
Thanks to beter education & scientific evidence people now know not to do this, which is why the number of ecstascy related deaths is so much smaller.
Which as i said earlier surely make ecstacy the perfect example of how better education about drugs makes them safer for everyone, whereas the 'all drugs bad' approach doesn't deter users, but can lead to them harming themselves through their own ignorance.
Complain about this comment
Haha, the BBC accusing an organisation of 'Group Think', now that's funny.
Are you on drugs?
Complain about this comment
The rise of postmodernism in the information age is being exploited by politicians like Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson. Johnson interprets legitimate scientific argument as "political lobbying" because, to him, scientific data and theories are just "opinions" or "guesses" that can be "correct" or "incorrect" depending on nothing more than the eye of the beholder. However, unlike mere political opinion, the scientific method is 1) self-improving and 2) acts to remove such personal bias. This way of thinking got us out of the religion-dominated dark ages. Incompentent, control-freak politicians shall surely put us back there.
A lesson from history is Lysenkoism. The science of genetics under Stalin was deemed to be "inconvenient" to the message the communist party was trying to deliver to the peasants working the farming collectives. Under the auspices of Trofim Lysenko, rank pseudoscience was officially endorsed by the Stalin w.r.t. improving agricultural yields, and genuine scientsts persecuted as though they were political renegades for daring to disagree. It can be argued that this policy led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peasants through resulting famine (not to mention the sacking/imprisonment/execusion of many scientists).
After Stalin's death, Lysenko was eventually outed as a fraud and died in disgrace. However, the cost to his country was dear. Are we in the UK prepared to vote for politicians who ignore all "inconvenient" science and persecute scientists merely for speaking their minds? Is it a good thing to expect scientists to abandon ethics, as Lysenko did, and only endorse science "compatible" with the political spin du jour? If this is deemed acceptable, then a repeat of Lysenkoism here is surely an inevitability. I'm sure ol' Gordon Brown would love the chance to extend his control freakery further.
It is time for a proper scientific debate on the merits of drug policy. To date, I have not heard a single rational argument against cannabis that cannot also be applied to legal drugs or even food that is "bad for you". I've heard all the nonsense about "dropping dead", "going schizo", "acting as gateway drugs", "the collapse of society" and so on, but not one of these is backed up by anything other than, "my friend/son/daughter" anecdotes. Yes, personal tragedies are linked to illegal drugs, and I sympathise with those who have lost someone close to them. However, dangers are also linked linked to fast cars, extreme sports, alcohol, smoking, eating too many burgers and so on. It's time to treat people like adults, not bed-wetting babies who need an all-powerful state to care for their well-being.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" (attributed to Ben Franklin)
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to get some NHS financials on the annual cost of treating patients with a)smoking, b) alchohol, and c) drug related problems. All three are harmful but government only seems interested in tackling c). I think that Alan Johnson's action in dismissing Professor Nutt was wrong and sets a very bad precedent.
Complain about this comment
#60 GoldCaesar. You may very well be right about education in relation to ectasy use reducing deaths, but if so its a very unique situation. What rational person would start injecting heroin or smoking crack knowing what the likely outcome of their habit will be? Yet many do.... people do very stupid things, especially kids who think they're immortal.
I actually sympathise with the govt over this:
They treated us like adults a few years by relaxing the licencing laws. Rather than being forced to drink up at 11 and everyone pouring onto the streets at once we could relax over our drinks and leave when we wanted to... it would make us adopt a european attitude to drinking. hahahaha.
We just drank more at the same speed, but rather than blame the adults who choose to drink like fish we blame the govt for changing the law.
Why should drug use be any different? If Johnson legalised E, cannabis etc I can guarantee that there'll be another few Leah Betts on the front of the daily mail and he'll be crucified for 'turning our kids into zombie junkies'. You only have to look at how many people use the phrase '24 hour drinking' too see my point. Only 300 establishments have a 24 hour licence. A few 24 hr supermarkets, some casino's and major hotels. The reality of '24 hour drinking' is that the pubs shut at 12 or 1 on a Fri and Sat night and the clubs that shut at 3 stay open till 5. Not so much '24 hour drinking' as 'an extra 2 hours'.... but that doesn't look good in the headlines.
Virtually everything thats wrong in Britain is down to people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions and frankly given how we behave with booze I don't trust us with anything more powerful.
On a related note I just realised how much 'spin' Nutt and some of his supporters are using. He rather naughtily blames people killed as a result of drink driving or in alcohol fueled fights as part of his 'alcohol death' figures, yet Leah Bett's death was 'caused by water'.... he's been around New Labour people for too long I think.
#67. So there's no breaking an entering in America? I'd happily break into a house if I though the homeowner MIGHT have a gun... I'd be awake, alert, have my own gun out, loaded and the safety off. Good odds against a sleepy, untrained homeowner trying to find their gun in the wardrobe. Its why we have 700 murders a year (mostly knives) and the US 30-odd thousand. Its a totally flawed argument.
Complain about this comment
11. At 12:21pm on 02 Nov 2009, sircomespect wrote:
Its seems remarkably two faced in that they will sack someone who openly disagrees with their decisions and questions their policies, but refuse to do anything about someone who disagrees with the oppositions policies.
I notice the DPP didn't lose his job by venturing into politics.
Regardless of whether or not they were right to do it it shows a complete lack of consistency.
Is this now a banana republic?
===
Judging by from this photo of the Foreign Secretary, yes it is!
http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/david-milliband-banana-415x275.jpg
===
Anyway, back on topic, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde:
"To lose one drugs adviser is unfortunate, to lose two is careless."
To lose three, well, a bit of a pattern emerging there. Will he sack everybody who disagrees with him?
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller wrote:
"As Society has to pick up the bill (through the NHS and social services"
This has got to be one of the most tired arguments relating to drugs.
If Cannabis was legally produced, under licence and sold to adults only and then taxed at a similar level to alcohol and tobacco it would generate billions of pounds of taxation that would easily cover the costs to the NHS and any other government agency that would be dealing with the effects of drugs.
We have all of these costs now but because of prohibition the profits are all going to criminals instead of going into the legal market and no tax is being generated to cover these costs.
Now, can you please tell me what harm I am doing to society by having a few spliffs at home with my friends ?
Forget about the what if's and deal with the reality, I am a grown man who has worked his entire life, has never hurt anybody, pays lots of tax, has never been in trouble with the Police and have generally tried to be a decent member of society so please, what exactly am I doing wrong ?
People like you are the reason we've got gangs ruining the country because you're too blinded by your ignorance and fear to be able to see the harm you are causing our society with this continued failure of a policy.
Prohibition does not work !
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
For me it just shows that government 'spin' is once again alive and well.
I was pleased to see that one commentator on the BBC put it in a nut-shell. They said it was like when Gallileo proposed that the Earth went around the Sun. He was persecuted for this because it didn't agree with the Christian Church's view at that time.
The same is here. A government advisor doesn't agree with government policy and so is sacked. Only the government is right - everyone else is wrong!
All hail the government - the fountain of all wisdom!
Complain about this comment
To be fair to NuLabour:
1.Horse riding is a pretty dangerous activity - it's a half ton herbivore with a tendency to panic, not a car with airbags.
2.The Tories were never any more sensible or sane on the topic of drugs than NuLabour.
That said, this does make them look like a bunch of ex union donkeys who've been promoted beyond what their competence/education would warrant.
It should not be the business of government to stop grown competent adults taking any sort of risk, they should merely make sure that we know the consequences of our actions.
We now have two generations of people who know know full well that police and politicians are either lying or mistaken when talking about illegal drugs, many assume the former and subscribe to conspiracy theories as a result. They assume if the government is lying about drugs then they must be lying about everything else - Iraq, the economy, the environment etc.
I reckon the politicians are sincere - they actually believe this rubbish they're talking.
When are we going to learn the lessons of alcohol prohibition in the US? When is a politician going to stand up in public and tell the truth? The "war on drugs" has been an unmitigated disaster having eroded democracy, funded our enemies, encouraged massive amounts of crime, and created a huge gulf between many of us and the police and politicians, (not to mention the media).
The "war on drugs" sharply underlines just how competent our politicians aren't. If they can get it so wrong for so long on a subject that teenagers know about, what else are they getting wrong?
Complain about this comment
#85. I totally agree. Two problems though: if cannabis was sold to over 18's only, taxed etc then within minutes we'd have someone buying it for a £1 a joint and selling it to schoolkids for £2 or £5 a joint. Just like with booze.
As to what harm am I doing society by having a few spliffs. Very little. But where does you spliff come from? In my town (Nottingham) most cannabis is grown in private homes rented in good faith to chinese gangs. The chinese bypass the electric meter and use illegal immigrants to turn the houses into cannabis farms and we've had a handful already burn to the ground (because of the dodgy electrics). The householder usually gets no insurance because the fire is a result of criminal activity.
Its a great reason to justify legal growing but at present your few spliffs are fuelling this sort of illegal growing
Complain about this comment
Home Secretary Alan Johnson has told MPs he sacked his drugs adviser because he "lost confidence" in Professor David Nutt's ability to do the job. My god, I wish it was that easy to get rid of this shower of ....
Roll on the election!!!!
Complain about this comment
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/people/cocaine-use-rife-in-the-media/5007133.article
Grotesque hypocricy from the BBC a la ZanuLab?
Complain about this comment
83. At 3:45pm on 02 Nov 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:
#60 GoldCaesar. You may very well be right about education in relation to ectasy use reducing deaths, but if so its a very unique situation. What rational person would start injecting heroin or smoking crack knowing what the likely outcome of their habit will be? Yet many do.... people do very stupid things, especially kids who think they're immortal.
---
Heroin & crack are in a different league to the substances Proff Nutt was sacked for discussing. I don't know why anyone starts down that road either, i suspect that if heroin & crack were'nt available those who use it would be trying to blot out the world through alcohol instead.
I suspect that in the case of a good 90% of heroin/crack addicts, the addiction is actual a symptom of something else. Such as the desire for total oblivion...
Complain about this comment
Advisors advise and ministers decide - this is a non blog.
Giant hayestacks- sorry to hear £1.20 a day is too much to take responsibility for your own health.
Complain about this comment
#87. Rather ironic that you criticise 'spin' then claim that "A government advisor doesn't agree with government policy and so is sacked. Only the government is right - everyone else is wrong!"
Nutt was sacked for criticising his boss (repeatedly) in the media, not for disagreeing with the policy. I strongly suspect that if I criticise my board members in the media (or even on a blog) I will also be sacked and it doesn't matter if I'm "right" or "wrong" in my opinions either.
My understanding of how the world should work is that advisors are paid to produce reports ADVISING what should be done and why and its up to elected ministers to choose whether to act on that advice or not. I can't remember Nutt ever being elected to any job with law making power.
Complain about this comment
Some years ago I was advised by a scientist that the baby born to a heroin addict was normal sized and normal.The baby born to an alcohol addict was undersized and afflicted by other problems.
I was also informed that passive smoking and its effect was grossly exaggerated to suit the political stance of the time.
I have no reason to doubt that scientist.
Complain about this comment
Well, a war on drugs is better than no drugs at all!
(Thanks Kurt!)
Complain about this comment
This is almost certainly an issue where the politicians are behind the curve, in that it is possible that the majority of adults in this country are in favour of decriminalising these drugs.
Or they would be if a suitably holostic argument was put to them i.e. in terms of the legalisation causing a large reduction of the underground market in these drugs along with the colossal profits that accrue to criminals dealing in this, plus a reduction in associated anti-social behaviour, linked prostitution, violence, burglary and so on. Plus increased tax income through the sale of these drugs and less hospitalisation/deaths of users taking drugs of unknown quality.
Indeed, one could almost argue that it is the authorities current stance on drugs that is criminal.
PS. Blogger U14147588 argues that chemists may not be the best place to sell these legalised drugs and I agree, for example, at the beginning of the internal combustion engine era, petrol was sold in tins via chemists. So it may be that another type of outlet might be more suitable for selling drugs which are currently illegal. But first the drugs need to be decriminalised.
Complain about this comment
Roll_on_2010
What planet does Mr Johnson live on?
One can only presume form his latest announcements that he has extended his prior lack of self belief (he indicated he was not up to the prime minister role some months ago) and is now declaring himself to be a fully paid up member of the Jacqui Smith Party - all members being 'not fit for purpose'
These newlbaour ministers are falling on their own swords faster than a falling on a sword thing.
Jacqui is saying she's not fit for the House of Lords (House of Cards, maybe). Miliband is considering a position in the graveyard of all political graveyards the EU; effectively ruling him out of either a leadership challenge or parliamentary newlabour politics. Now we have the spector of the Home Office minister saying the government's immigration policy is all at sea.
What a shower. There is no other word for these timorous beasties. But I'm afraid they are showing all the signs of any sports team with a rubbish capatin; morale disintigrates; the will to fight on disappears; self examination sets in and the game becomes totally unwinnable as the team descends into infighting.
Brown already has his place in history as the chancellor that sold gold, wrecked the pension system, taxed more than any ever before, spent more than any ever before, got less result htan any ever before, but he now adds to this list the worst leadership ever shown in this country.
How could anyone stand in front of a group of war veterans in France, all mourning their lost friends and colleagues sixty years ago and refer to the landings at 'Obama' beach. The answer is Gordon Brown; a man without style, class, shame or pity. Truly a boy in a man's job; but that's what you get when you choose as the party leader someone who played student politics.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
#85 General_Jack_Ripper
"If Cannabis was legally produced, under licence and sold to adults only and then taxed at a similar level to alcohol and tobacco it would generate billions of pounds of taxation that would easily cover the costs to the NHS and any other government agency that would be dealing with the effects of drugs"
So, are you saying it is OK for the state to exploit drug users for financial gain? Perhaps you don't think the misery that drug abuse can cause should be a factor?
According to a report by the Royal Collage of Psychiatrists on the subject of Cannabis and Mental Health: (see here)
"Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?
Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents."
The report goes on....
"Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26"
You say: "We have all of these costs now but because of prohibition the profits are all going to criminals instead of going into the legal market and no tax is being generated to cover these costs.
This sounds like the old "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" argument. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you might as well have no laws at all.
You say "People like you are the reason we've got gangs ruining the country because you're too blinded by your ignorance...."
I think hurling insults doesn't really advance your cause. You ask "what harm I am doing to society by having a few spliffs at home with my friends ?". Obviously I don't know if it is connected in any way, but you might want to consider the irrational outbursts of anger.
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller @ 99
You reference a report which states that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability.
Recent developments in genetics can unravel our personal genetic code, which means that we can, in theory, now be pre-screened for our susceptibility or otherwise to various drugs, including cannabis and alcohol.
Seems like a sensible first step to me before embarking on adventures of a drug orientated sort.
Complain about this comment
Leopards and Spots!
I believe Brown claimed at a meeting with what is left of his supporters that he would become a "listening" Prime Minister. I doubted it then and I completely discount it now. He has none of the attributes of even a middle-manager let alone PM. The problems are of his own making and perhaps even he recognizes that. He and his merry men should go as soon as possible.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym
I grow my own mate, one of the few benefits of being retired, so the Chinese gangs are nothing to do with me. If the industry was legalised this would never happen as illegal production would be more expensive and carry far more risk than legal production.
How many Moonshine factories do you see these days ?
I'm guessing your answer is none, I bet I can give a very good reason for that, everyone buys the legal stuff instead.
As for people selling it to kids, that's happening with alcohol and cannabis at the moment anyway, as far as I'm concerned it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure their children know the true dangers of all drugs, not just cannabis.
My children never touched drugs before their 18 birthday and only one of them has ever tried illegal drugs as an adult, I can say the same about my grandchildren too, only a couple of them have ever tried illegal drugs and they all waited till they were adults. I am convinced this is because our family have never tried to frighten them with scare stories but have instead given them our honest opinions as well as showing them the research that had been done into the effects of drugs.
Too many parents are cowards or hypocrits, they'd rather scare their children with lies than face up to the reality of the situation and then go on to cry about the results when their feeble efforts blow up in their faces.
In my experience, if you are honest with children and treat them as intelligent people they often respond in an intelligent way but if you treat them like idiots they tend to go out and act like idiots.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym
I don't think he did criticise his boss and he wasn't trying to make policy. If anything his boss via Civil Servants was trying to rubbish the experts report (and note the plural, this was the consolidated view of dozens of experts not just one) because it didn't fit comfortably with predetermined policy. The policy was predetermined by his boss's boss who quite falsely stated even before the report was issued that cannabis was a far greater danger than it is.
The fact that the professor stood up for the committee and the best considered view of the experts available is not interfering with policy! This is a national committee of experts who have a responsibility to the truth and society not just the minister.
The minister is certainly free to disagree on other grounds, explain those fully and argue why policy isn't going to run entirely congruent to the best available technical facts. There can and will often be other things to consider. What the minister and his boss cannot do though is misrepresent what the facts say and then claim that this is why the policy is as it is.
That is what has happened and now the politicians have the worst of both worlds. Their policy lacks coherent explanation and they have substantially alienated people whose advice they need.
After all we have the most technically illiterate government and parliament in the so called developed world. It's no wonder so many policies with a significant science and technology input look shallow and we slip further behind in our global position in their application when evidenced by this kind of incoherent incompetence from ministers
Complain about this comment
Developing the idea of unravelling your generic code to show your susceptibility or otherwise to certain drugs, one could visualise that the potential user would be compelled to sign a disclaimer and/or show proof of appropriate medical insurance before being able to legally purchase said drugs.
It is appropriate for society to put obstacles (not necessarily of the legal variety) in the way of somebody who may cause themselves self-harm through drug abuse but ultimately the user must decide for themselves if that is a path they wish to travel along.
Complain about this comment
Most of the arguments against are based on some study about a mental condition that a very small percentage of the population may have and that within that small population some additional risks are enhanced by drug taking. We make rules based on exceptions. The sticky part is with the different drugs and some are dangerous for the users in a greater degree. We accept a certain number of deaths related to automobiles every year, this is a societial decision. What we do know is that current policies do not work, have increased crime and required public expenditures to combat with little success. Drugs, like alcohol have been a part of societies for as long as socieities have existed. One would think that after 50 years of failed policy another approach would be advanced. Now if we could prove that all those bankers and MP's with oversight responsbilities had addled minds because of drug use, there might be a case for continued policy. If not, maybe things would have worked out better had they been.
Complain about this comment
#100 JohnConstable
"Recent developments in genetics can unravel our personal genetic code, which means that we can, in theory, now be pre-screened for our susceptibility or otherwise to various drugs, including cannabis and alcohol"
I don't know if current genetic tests would be able to accurately predict who would be particularly susceptible to the ill-effects of cannabis. But even if this were theoretically possible, to take advantage of this knowledge, one would have to 'licence' the use of cannabis to those who had a) agreed to be tested and b) received a negative result. This would obviously be very difficult to implement, and would certainly create an illegal black market. I'm not sure that would be of much benefit!
Complain about this comment
Re: DistantTraveller and Peter_Sym
Gents, please re-read my post @34.
Just in case you missed the point (and I did put the sentence on its own line), I will say it again...
Ignorance killed Leah Betts.
She didn't know any better, and didn't have the right information to make an informed decision about taking a known risk.
My indignation is really about how the story is covered, the poor girl has(literally)become the anti drug poster girl when simple information could have saved her life.
The papers whipped up storm of moral outrage without once giving any potentially LIFESAVING advice.
Ignorance kills more people than drugs ever could.
Just saying "Drugs are bad.....mmmm K", in your best South Park accent isn't helping, in fact it never helped.
Complain about this comment
100. At 4:54pm on 02 Nov 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
DistantTraveller @ 99
You reference a report which states that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability.
Recent developments in genetics can unravel our personal genetic code, which means that we can, in theory, now be pre-screened for our susceptibility or otherwise to various drugs, including cannabis and alcohol.
Seems like a sensible first step to me before embarking on adventures of a drug orientated sort.
---------
Theres a sort of chicken & egg thing going on with the 'does cannabis affect your mental health?' debate?
Certainly in many alcoholics accoholism is recognised as a symptom of a pre-existing mental health condition which manifests as the abuser tries to 'self-medicate' to alleviate their depressed state of mind.
I'd guess it might also be a similar with at least some of those cannnabis users who are eventually diagnosed with a mental illness later in life.
Mind you, i've had a quick scout about on the web and i can't find any scientific evidence to back up this theory so i may be talking rubbish.
Which at least i recognised. I wouldn't want to make the same mistake as Mr Johnson and ignore science completely because i think i know better....
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller wrote:
"So, are you saying it is OK for the state to exploit drug users for financial gain?"
Yes, they do it with alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, sugar and many other drugs already. To claim that Cannabis is any different is ridiculous, as can be seen by the vast wealth of research that has been done into the relative harms caused by different drugs.
"This sounds like the old "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" argument. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you might as well have no laws at all."
Yet another old & tired argument, if I steal something I am doing something wrong, namely depriving its rightful owner of something that belongs to them.
If I smoke a spliff I harm no-one but myself and am therefore doing nothing wrong.
Alcohol does far more harm to the individual using it than cannabis does, by your logic we should bring back prohibition of alcohol as well as introducing prohibition for tobacco, high salt foods, high sugar foods, high fat foods, cars, motorbikes etc etc.
The law should only ever be used to protect other people, doing harm to myself is my right & my responsibility.
"I think hurling insults doesn't really advance your cause. You ask "what harm I am doing to society by having a few spliffs at home with my friends ?". Obviously I don't know if it is connected in any way, but you might want to consider the irrational outbursts of anger."
It's not an insult, it's a fact.
The illegal drugs trade funds prostitution, gun running and many other forms of organised crime, those people, like you, who are in favour of prohibition are therefore responsible for the harm that it has caused to our society.
The fact that you're unable to come up with a straight answer to the "what harm" question also speaks volumes, just so you know, I've been smoking cannabis for decades, and I started when I was in my late teens while stationed in the Middle & Far East with the military.
I am now a very old man and even though I've been smoking regularly for over fifty years I have suffered no mental health problems and the only outbursts of anger I ever experience are when the government abuse the fine men and women of the British Armed Forces or continues to ignore the many veterans who have served this country with distinction, someone like you never has and never will cause any sort of outburst, other than mirth at your attempts to bury your head into the sand while pretending your preferred policy is somehow protecting our society.
Prohibition isn’t working.
Prohibition has never worked.
Prohibition will never work.
Some people like a drink, others like a smoke, and others like dropping a few pills.
To claim that one is worse than the other is merely a case of moral relativism and hypocrisy. Humans have been altering their state of mind for thousands of years and every single civilisation that has ever existed has had some form of recreational drugs. It’s not bad, it’s not going to destroy our society, it’s just drugs.
Complain about this comment
Nick has a political view that seems much more tolerant of the incompetence of politicians than Fergus does of the social consequences of the failure of the latest in a long line of failed Home Secretaries.
Could this difference be seen as going native with their respective reporting tribes?
The inability of politicians to adopt a rational approach is mind alteringly worrying.
It scares the bejebebels out of me to know that if they are getting this so wrong, (something I know something evidentially about) what the hell is going on with everything else I know less about.
They (the politicians) are clearly deluded.
They "believe" there to be good reasons to ignore and reject strong evidence.
The precendence for this in history is legion.
It's not for no reason that the Mental Health Act doesn't apply to members of Parliament.
Maybe "we" are a tad paranoid.
But, as Prof. Nutt (and some of his ACMD colleauges) know,
"Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!"
It can only be delusional thinking that makes someone believe that despite all the evidence they should keep on doing the wrong thing.
We have ample evidence of a collective, delusional mental set with the members of this government (I am a socialist and weep to write this), starting with Blair's hidden religiosity, and with their beliefs and behaviour over Iraq, WMD, Globalisation, Bilderberg, Climate Change, Credit Crunch, Banking, Free Market Economics,the abandonment of workers rights, and now the imprisonment of minor drug users and suppliers when their detention wouldn't otherwise warrant a caution, under the old classification.
Something is sickeningly wrong when a PM and 2 Home Secretaries can bully a whole country on the basis of their (deluded) belief system.
We all know the only way to stand up to bullies is to face their behaviour down collectively and not to allow them to isolate individuals.
Support Professor Nutt and his colleagues, or it'll be one (or all) of us next!
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller @ 106
You say that one would have to 'licence' the use of cannabis to those who had a) agreed to be tested and b) received a negative result.
We already run a system of this sort with respect to potential motorists i.e. we license them if they are capable of passing the various tests and also providing they do not have any pre-existing medical conditions e.g. very poor eyesight that would endanger themselves and/or others.
But in itself, these barriers of entry to the motoring world do not actually stop the determined potential driver from simply obtaining a vehicle and heading out onto the highway.
Similarly with determined potential drug users, they will find a way to do it whatever obstacles are placed in their path.
Complain about this comment
Personally I do not believe it matters what the Governments policy on drugs is, this is more about freedom of speech than anything else.
A Government may decide that any advice given by Nutt is not a policy they want to follow. However, they then cannot expect a person who believes the science shows certain results, to change his point of view when asked or interviewed. It would be kind of like someone who spotted say, something wrong in our health service and was sacked for saying so, against the Governments wishes.
Its a pity actually this is not an issue that will engage the public very much, because it goes the heart of Labour thinking. Which is, if Labour do not like the message they will silence you in one way or another. Unfortunately for them Nutt is not a man to go quietly.
Of course Alan Johnson looks totally inept and unworthy of his office. When I saw him on Sky he had completely lost the argument because he had lost control of himself.
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller: "So, are you saying it is OK for the state to exploit drug users for financial gain?" They already do! Have you not noticed that the government already taxes alcohol and tobacco highly?
"Perhaps you don't think the misery that drug abuse can cause should be a factor?" Much of the misery of drug abuse is exacerbated or caused by the fact that it is illegal. Alcoholism also causes misery, that is not an argument for prohibiting it, putting it's distribution into the hands of organised crime and abdicating any influence over quality and where it is sold.
Learn from the 20th century American prohibition of alcohol: When was the last time you heard of American whisky companies settling their differences with sub-machine guns?
Complain about this comment
#107 King_Athelstan
"Ignorance killed Leah Betts.
She didn't know any better, and didn't have the right information to make an informed decision about taking a known risk"
I don't think we disagree on your general premise. The question is, what is the 'right information'? As discussed earlier at #30, there is an assumption you shouldn't tell young people NOT to do something - because they will then do it anyway. But as I wrote earlier, I believe most young people have more sense than that, and can be persuaded by sensible logical argument. We can (and should) give the message that drug taking carries risks to long term physical and mental health. It can also be addictive. In some cases, it can be fatal.
Ignorance is certainly an issue as you say, but I think the answer is proper education. The best advice is not to take these drugs in the first place. But if we deliberately fudge the issue for fear of young people doing the opposite, we are not only insulting their intelligence, we are doing them a disservice.
Complain about this comment
General_Jack_Ripper 109
Actually my question is quite different, why do you have to do any of these things. Drugs alcohol or tobacco. I mean everyone likes the odd drink of wine etc. People these days seems to be looking for a crutch to get them through life, my question really is why.
I have never felt the need to indulge in any kind of drug to deal with my life. There are bad times there are good times, thats life really. People from the past lived much more difficult lives than we do these days, for instance those who went through World war I and II, why are people these days not able to cope.
Complain about this comment
The Government catagorises a death as "ecstacy related" if it is mentioned on the death certificate or on toxicology reports. If I popped a pill and minutes later got shot in the head, that would be an "ecstacy related" death.
Such meaningless use of statistics devalues the debate.
Complain about this comment
#109 General_Jack_Ropper
"Alcohol does far more harm to the individual using it than cannabis does....
Well, I suppose that's part of the ongoing debate! Alcohol abuse (ie regularly going over recommended limits) may be more dangerous than occasional cannabis use. But that isn't the whole story.
I certainly don't want to minimise the problem of alcohol abuse, but alcohol in itself need not be harmful if used in moderation. However, some illegal drugs are actually quite dangerous.
You say: "The fact that you're unable to come up with a straight answer to the "what harm" question also speaks volumes,..."
I think I did come up with an answer when I replied to you at #99. I quoted a report from the Royal Collage of Psychiatrists on the subject of Cannabis and Mental Health.
You say, "Some people like a drink, others like a smoke, and others like dropping a few pills. To claim that one is worse than the other is merely a case of moral relativism and hypocrisy"
To be fair, it's not just 'moral relativism' - there is surely room for discussion about the comparative problems caused by various activities. Not sure why it's 'hypocrisy' to point this out.
You say "Prohibition isn’t working.
Prohibition has never worked.
Prohibition will never work"
I think you are right that prohibition, on its own, cannot solve the problem. My own view is we also need better education - telling people about the very real dangers. I don't believe that decriminalising all currently banned drugs is the way to go - and there we will just have to disagree!
Complain about this comment
#111 JohnConstable
"We already run a system of this sort with respect to potential motorists i.e. we license them if they are capable of passing the various tests and also providing they do not have any pre-existing medical conditions"
I think a driving test is less problematic than a compulsory genetic test for those wishing to be licensed to use cannabis. A driving test, in theory, shows if the person has the ability to drive a car (but judging by some of the road users, it's clearly far from perfect!). A genetic test for 'cannabis tolerance' (if such a test existed) could at best show people who might have a problem.
"Similarly with determined potential drug users, they will find a way to do it whatever obstacles are placed in their path."
Yes, I think it would be unworkable. As you say, people would always get round it. The illegal black market would still exist.
Complain about this comment
"People from the past lived much more difficult lives than we do these days, for instance those who went through World war I and II, why are people these days not able to cope."
People used to be able to buy cocaine at Harrods in little kits to send to "our boys in the front-line" during WWI.
French soldiers were often incapable of fighting as they were off their heads on absinthe
In WWII, amphetimines were given to bomber crews on both sides.
Cigarettes were given out as part of pay.
Drunkeness was a common problem.
It wasn't all "knees up mother Brown and 'ows yer father"
Complain about this comment
#117 DistantTraveller
I suppose that's part of the ongoing debate! Alcohol abuse (ie regularly going over recommended limits) may be more dangerous than occasional cannabis use. But that isn't the whole story.
I certainly don't want to minimise the problem of alcohol abuse, but alcohol in itself need not be harmful if used in moderation. However, some illegal drugs are actually quite dangerous.
Whilst this is true, you've just committed the oldest fallacy in the book.
You've gone from cannabis to "some drugs". Lumping them all together is a great way of advancing an agenda of moral crusading from a position of seemingly honourable ignorance, but is a fundamentally dishonest way of dealing with the reality that all drugs are different and have different harm profiles.
It turns out that alcohol is worse than both cannabis and ecstasy. I can see you preparing your argument there that it's only the abuse of alcohol that's harmful when compared to any use of drugs, but that's not what the science says. Alcohol is more dangerous than most illegal drugs. End of discussion.
Is this a reason in/of itself to legalise them? Not necessarily, but please don't equivocate about known science, that makes you as bad as Alan Johnston, and personally I'd be very worried about anyone comparing me to a politician in this day and age.
Also, I'm sorry but the old line "I think you are right that prohibition, on its own, cannot solve the problem." is hilarious.
It's true I guess, but I would argue that history has prohibition cannot form a part of any "solution" at all, in fact the search for any "solution" is an exercise in utter futility.
Human beings like taking mind altering substances and have been doing so for as long as records exist (likely before, too). History shows us that they will obtain these by illegal means when legal means are unavailable. Strangely enough it turns out that when the law starts to cross into behaviour that large numbers of people don't consider bad, the law loses favour and is just not followed.
Scaring people out of doing drugs only works for as long as the real information can be kept under wraps. Education cannot work because, unfortunately, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the dangers of using some illegal drugs are so trivial as to be useless as a deterrant.
You're left with either campaigns of fear and total denial of reality, as exhibited by politicians, or telling people not to take cannabis, ecstasy or a variety of other things "because we say so".
Complain about this comment
97. JohnConstable
I agree with your comments but would like to expand on them.
Unfortunately, very few countries, Portugal being one of the few exceptions, are looking at this subject with anything other than (unwarranted) hysteria and using it for political point scoring. Cameron is no better than Brown in this regard.
All our drug laws do is put vast funds into the hands of gangs. They do not and will not stop drug use.
People who argue that they SHOULD is simply ignoring the fact that they don't. Any rational analysis would say that a change is needed. But WAIT! Decriminializing drugs make the country into one huge drug mecca?
Or would it? Report on Portugal's Drug Laws
I happen to think that they don't go far enough. Certain drugs that are known to be non-addictive and relatively low harm such as cannabis, in my opinion, should be legalized and sold, heavily taxed, to pay for societal costs like cigarettes and alcohol. But decriminalization is a logical first step.
Complain about this comment
115. Susan-Croft
You are making up a world that never existed. Being American, I'm more conversant with US drug usage and drug laws than British so I'll stick to those.
Until the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 which restricted distribution of opiates, including laudanum, and coca derivatives introducing criminal penalties, we had NO laws against drug use in the US. Opium often in the form of laudanum was the drug of choice for middle and upper-class Americans. The proposition that drugs are a new "problem" is entirely fallacious.
Cannabis was not outlawed in the US until the 1930s and many would say it was done entirely to give a new "drug" for about-to-be-laid-off prohabition enforement officers to work on. The first head of the American Drug Enforcement Agency and many of his men were former prohabilition officers.
LSD was first synthesized in 1938 but in the US did not become illegal until 1970.
And by the way, you might want to look at how well prohabition worked in the US. I suspect we should have learned something from that about how NOT to control drug use.
People always have and always will like to use mind altering substances. There is nothing new about it. Consider that one of the FIRST things people learned to make was alcohol. Blanket prohibition just plain doesn't work.
It makes sense to look at what may work and change policies that something that isn't based on hysteria.
Complain about this comment
This is the Home Secretary who said to the Home Affairs Committee: "I do not lie awake at night worrying about a population of 70 million", the Debbie Hirst/Avastin incident and now this. Stacking shelves, being a union leader and a postie. Aligned with the CPGB.
So. The view of a Brownian Sock puppett ideologue as against a professor.
I know who I believe and it aint the former postie.
Complain about this comment
Susan-Croft wrote:
"Actually my question is quite different, why do you have to do any of these things."
That would be simple, they can be fun.
Only addicts, who are a tiny minority of users, "have" to do any of them, everyone else who uses them just wants to do them. This may sound like playing semantics but it is a very important difference.
"Drugs alcohol or tobacco. I mean everyone likes the odd drink of wine etc."
So what's the difference between a glass of wine and a spliff ?
Sometimes I go round to a friends home and we enjoy a meal with a bottle or two of wine normally followed by a Brandy or a Whiskey. Other times I go to a friends and have a meal followed by a spliff or two.
The level of intoxication is quite similar so, what's the difference ?
If cannabis was legally available then there would be absolutely no difference.
"People these days seems to be looking for a crutch to get them through life, my question really is why."
People always have enjoyed altering their state of mind, it's got nothing to so with having a crutch for most people, it's just a bit of fun every now and then.
A day at Alton Towers riding all of the big rides will have a similar effect on your brain as taking some drugs yet no-one says people who go to theme parks are weak and in need of a crutch.
Going to a track day and riding or driving very quickly for a few hours can induce a very similar feeling to being high on cocaine or amphetamines. As can white water kayaking, rock climbing and other "extreme" sports.
"I have never felt the need to indulge in any kind of drug to deal with my life."
Really ?
So you don't wake up some days and think "I could really do with a tea/coffee" ?
And you don't come home from a hard day at work sometimes and think "I could really do with a beer/glass of wine/sherry" ?
And you've never drank alcohol at a funeral ?
If you don't or haven't done any of the above then I will be surprised.
"There are bad times there are good times, thats life really."
In my experience, drugs are best kept for the good times but in all honesty they have got me through a few very bad times without destroying my life or turning me into an addict.
"People from the past lived much more difficult lives than we do these days, for instance those who went through World war I and II, why are people these days not able to cope."
I don't agree, this is just my experience but I think life is harder now than it has ever been, especially for children. We may have had problems years ago but we at least had the feeling that we were dealing with them all together and had our entire community to support us. These days everyone is always so busy, live miles from their families and have very little support from their communities.
I would hate to be a child or young person today, the level of stress they experience just from school is unbelievable and they're constantly being demonised by the media while also treated with contempt by most of society.
As we saw on the HYS regarding the Youth Parliament, young people today can't do right for doing wrong, a couple of hundred children gathered at the Palace of Westminster to experience what it would be like to spend a day as MP's and HYS was full of people calling them hoodies, knife-carriers, gang-members, badly educated or the good old insult of being toff's or swotty middle class kids.
Instead of the nation coming together and applauding the efforts of these children and their teachers, youth workers and families the majority of people just moaned about it being a waste of time and money while also adding a few sly digs making all children out to be criminals just for good measure.
In all honesty though I think that very few drug users have a drug problem, they're not addicts, they're not ruining their lives or harming anyone (but themselves). It's just one of many activities that people enjoy doing every now and then and most users know and accept the damage they're doing to themselves and the users of illegal drugs just want to be able to buy their drugs in a legal way and would actually like to be able to pay some tax on them to cover the costs to the NHS, just as alcohol & tobacco users currently do.
Complain about this comment
I think the Home Secretary is smoking sumit!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
For Years and Years now we have been "Educating" just about everyone on the perils of the mis-use of illegal Drugs, and yet still to this day the problems that these illegal Drugs can and do cause people is very much available to be seen in every Town and in many back alley up and down the U.K.
On top of this we find that some People are drinking more and more Legal Alcohol then ever, fully aware of the dangers of Binge-Drinking, and also that taking more over the counter Legal Drugs, and the fact that over-dosing on ANY Drugs can kill.
I would have thought that along with the past body of evidents available, we have by now delivered any Messages on the Subjects of both Drugs, and Alcohol that is needed.
So, why carry on and on when those that don't want to listen, simply don't want to listen.
Do we really think for one minute that any Message given by the Government will now Work on the Subject of taking illegal Drugs, and Binge-Drinking, after now the many past relentless Years of trying, that has so far to-day failed to stop any mis-uses?
Complain about this comment
Given that the government refuses to accept that the prohibition of drugs just hasn't worked and fear it to be a vote looser (showing how out of touch they are). Research from scientists such as that mentioned by Prof. Nutt into the effects of cannabis and the social implications of the current drugs policy are clearly outlined in "Scotlands Future Form, Approaches to Alcohol and Drugs in Scotland (2008)" and in Simon Jenkins Guardian Article "The war on drugs is immoral idiocy" (3/09/2009). To mention a few.
Laws are created to reinforce social norms by the majority and lets face it the majority have at least tried cannabis, why is this elite unelected and thus unrepresented mob allowed to express very subjective personal, emotionally clouded decisions enforced on others?
The elections won't save us, only we can save ourselves...
Complain about this comment
The link between cannabis and psychosis is tenuous at best. Finding evidence for mental problems is tough and we find that psychiatrists often fail to agree on anything. Those that claim to have evidence for a link find the link with those people predisposed to psychosis anyway.
These are the facts as I see them. Ecstasy is not addictive at all and Cannabis is very mildly so. Nicotine is extremely addictive and Alcohol also (although one needs a longer time and lots of it). It's difficult to quantify the dangers of cannabis since it is normally taken together with tobacco, but we do know the dangers of ecstasy. A habitual ecstasy user is about 100 times less likely to die because of it than a habitual alcohol user.
Let me reiterate, if you drink, you are 100 times more likely to die because of it than if you take ecstasy.
Government allows tobacco and alcohol and yet does not allow ecstasy and cannabis despite the evidence that the latter two appear to be less harmful. It would appear that this is a political decision rather than one based on science.
Mr No Levels should at least be honest and admit this. He must also resolve the problem of the council. It cannot be independent if he sacks the chair for speaking out against him (unless you can agree that Hungary was independent during the cold war). We need independent councils who will inform the public when politicians are putting their own political interests ahead of the interests of the populace.
Complain about this comment
Nutty professor? Professor David Nutt – MB, BChir, MA, DM, MRCP, FRCPsych, FMedSci - nutty? You're going native Nick - whatever you say and whatever you do, you can't help putting your foot in it. Been hanging round these labour thickoes too much.
Johnson created this crisis himself - unnecessarily. He's misrepresented govt policy and the terms the professor signed up to, he's misrepresented the professors words, arguments, papers - see here http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/11/david-nutts-controversial-lecture-conformed-to-government-guidelines.html
Just an absolute mess, from beginning to end. The *facts* of drug harm really dont' matter - it's about science, and how science must be free or it is not longer science. You, Nick, are trying to trivialise and spin at the same time - small beer again eh? - and once again you're failing, you're missing the public mood, you're too close to the politicians and too far from the story. Nutty professor... good grief.
Complain about this comment
#120 Gothnet
"you've just committed the oldest fallacy in the book.
You've gone from cannabis to "some drugs"....... .......It turns out that alcohol is worse than both cannabis and ecstasy."
I think that is certainly part of the debate, but it is by no means agreed that alcohol is 'worse than both cannabis and ecstasy'.
Alcohol taken in moderation is not in itself dangerous - although alcohol abuse is clearly a major problem. The answer is surely to provide better education and to enforce restrictions on under-age drinking.
Cannabis also presents serious health problems - see this from The Royal College of Psychiatrists
You say "Human beings like taking mind altering substances and have been doing so for as long as records exist (likely before, too). History shows us that they will obtain these by illegal means when legal means are unavailable."
So, perhaps your answer is just to do nothing?
You say, "Education cannot work because, unfortunately, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the dangers of using some illegal drugs are so trivial as to be useless as a deterrant."
Well, that may be your opinion. With regard to cannabis, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. But even with smoking regular cigarettes, we know that people often think 'it won't happen to me'. Until it does.
Complain about this comment
#113 MattK
"Alcoholism also causes misery, that is not an argument for prohibiting it,"
Yes, and I don't think anyone is suggesting alcohol should be prohibited. However, there should be restrictions on under age drinking, and there also needs to be greater awareness of the dangers of drinking to excess. Part of the problem today is that it is considered by many to be perfectly 'normal' to go out and get drunk on a regular basis. It is particularly worrying that this seems to be increasingly amongst the young. There is often considerable 'peer pressure' to join in with others.
Complain about this comment
At one point in the not-so-distant past, Alan Johnson noted that he was 'this weeks Education Secretary', so we can probably assume that he is now 'this weeks Home Secretary'.
When will English people get it into their heads that our country has been incredibly badly run by these mainstream party politicians over the past few decades?
Which is the fundamental reason why we English are now in an economic hole.
Don't blame Americans - the rot started here in England decades ago.
It is now time for the English people to give some new politicians a chance.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for your open views JRMaclure and General_Jack_Ripper
Actually the answers were pretty much as I expected, excuses and reasons why it has always happened. That was not my question. The question was why do you need this prop to cope. There is no doubt that drugs and alcohol are more prevalent than in days gone by. Yes communities are more divided than ever before, however the excuse is it has alway happened is not really an answer.
I have to work from early morning anything from 5.30am to 6pm at night to make a career for myself, therefore any intoxication from the night before would be an impossibility for me. So I pose the question if I have ambition like this why is it so lacking in others who prefer drugs to work and I am therefore paying for those weaknesses in my taxes. The other question I have is there is no chance of smoking at work we are so busy and it is not allowed, so again I ask what is the reason people need a prop.
Complain about this comment
#133 Susan-Croft
"So I pose the question if I have ambition like this why is it so lacking in others who prefer drugs to work and I am therefore paying for those weaknesses in my taxes"
We can't always know how other people experience life or what situations they find themselves in. Some people face intolerable difficulties for all sorts of reasons and not everyone finds it easy to cope.
Personally, I wouldn't describe an inability to cope as a 'weakness'. I think it is more helpful to offer support where possible and to show compassion. For some. it may sometimes feel like alcohol or drugs can offer a 'quick fix', but all too often this becomes part of the problem rather than the solution.
But perhaps the real worry is those who simply fall into the habit of drug/alcohol abuse for no obvious reason other than peer pressure or boredom - because it's considered 'normal'. I think some people (not all) would respond to better information about the possible dangers.
Some folk here have poured scorn on the idea of better education - but I am sure that must be part of the answer. The other option is to give up and do nothing. My view is that we should try....
Complain about this comment
113 Sounds like you are addicted to work. That's your prop.
Complain about this comment
#73. At 3:21pm on 02 Nov 2009, U14147588 wrote:
"So, how's legalizing drugs going to work?
Will they only be for sale in Drug stores, chemists/pharmacists by any other name?
If so, will they only be on prescription? (Cue problems at the doctors)
If not, will they only be available at the counter?
Will there be security?
Is this going to impact other customers of the chemist?
Will there be a rise in crime related to chemists?
Has this been thought through?
Stupid question, sorry."
= = = = = = = =
If people (including the government) bothered to consider the potential side effects of some medicinal drugs their eyes would be opened indeed. They'd be worrying a lot more about the stuff the multinational drug giants get away with than cannabis.
Thalidomide is the famous one but there have been a few like that. Prozac is pretty dodgy and certain HRT drugs have been revealed for what they are in recent times: dangerous, the risk a mere statistic - fine until you're the victim and that might be years down the line when, alas, it is too late.
I rarely read the leaflets inside medicine packs but a line caught my eye as I was throwing it away the other day - Doxasozin (an alpha-blocker). One side effect is nightmares! And here was I wondering if it was a digestive problem or lack of relaxation because I started having the occasional nightmare!
What's worse is doctors can only do so much when prescribing multiple medicines. They're dependent on you reporting side effects - but when you're taking a mix of drugs, who knows what about the immediate or long term effects on your health?
That's before you start thinking about knockoffs brought into our pharmacies.
Complain about this comment
this has probably been said before but here goes. Brown knows best he said he would reclassify the drug so it was done. He says there are enough helicopters so guess what there are no more choppers. Heard him say that Karzai agrees with him.... What chance has anyone who does not agree with Brown?
Johnson may have acted badly but he was doing his masters bidding. He will also be in trouble for saying that they have been maladroit over imigration. Maladroit? what are they on....outright shambles more like.
Complain about this comment
The home secretary has totally done the right thing and got rid of a rather silly advisor who suddenly thought he was important when all he was was an advisor on a small part of policy..advisors advise and policy makers make policy..if people do not agree then resign from being an advisor and campaign for your thoughts...you cannot do both
Complain about this comment
Just listening to your piece on the 10 o clock news Nicholas....
I wonder who's pulling Johnson's strings... what an about face compared to the not losing sleep over 70 million quote.
If I didnt know better, I'd say he didnt know what he was doing.
That kind of insight makes him well equipped to be Home Secretary, eh?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
distant @ 134
I'm of a "legalise drugs" disposition (I think) and you clearly aren't but neverthless ... that is a very nice post
gave me a good feeling
Complain about this comment
Who would you trust? The Professor or the Postie? My money's on the scientific expert...Though the Postie looks like he might know a bit about alcohol...
Complain about this comment
#141 saga
Thanks!
Even if we can't always agree on how best to proceed, hopefully we can still aim for similar outcomes. We know that some people do use drugs on an occasional basis; they might say for them it is not a problem, claiming they could stop anytime if they wanted to. But for others it is a real problem, causing untold misery - for them, their friends and family. That's why I think legalisation is not the answer - it's best not to start in the first place. Similar problems are also very common with alcohol abuse. If people find themselves in that kind of situation for what ever reason, it can seem difficult to turn things round.
It's always easy to blame other people for mistakes they have made - but actually it's better to be kind and offer support.
Complain about this comment
DistanceTraveller 134
Thanks for you answer.
However I was not thinking of those that fall into drugs from a young age through peer pressure or those that have a real problem with drugs. I believe that your more education is correct for them and to catch them at as early an age as possible.
I was thinking more about those that abuse alcohol and drugs merely for recreation purposes and are aware of the dangers. We know a lot more work hours these days are lost through this problem and my question really was why do they do it. If we could perhaps to get to the bottom of this we may help a lot more in society to address the problem. The two answers I got were very honest and I am grateful for that, however it still left me with the question. What is so different or more difficult now in life, that makes people need to turn to drugs and such things more than they used to.
Complain about this comment
pdavis 135
I presume you mean me even though you got the wrong number.
That may very well be true, however it is better to be addicted to work then drugs I guess. Its a pity more people are not. I enjoy what I do. Anyone that believes in this day and age you do not have work long hours in the private sector, is living in a dream.
Hoever there are regular complaints these days about people turning up either not fit for work through drink, drugs, or both, or they do not turn up at all. This puts the pressure on other workers who do not engage in this kind of recreation. Getting to the bottom of why I would have thought was a good thing.
Complain about this comment
distant @ 143
"That's why I think legalisation is not the answer - it's best not to start in the first place. Similar problems are also very common with alcohol abuse"
indeed they are; far more common actually - if alcohol had been discovered last week and was just starting to do the rounds on the streets and in back rooms, it would get classified I'd have thought - still, the legalise drugs argument has a fair amount going for it in terms of pragmatism and even though I'm not one of these hard core "libertarians" I'm more or less convinced - maybe
Complain about this comment
Just a little thought or two.
If cannabis were made legal, sold in controlled outlets, and people bought it to smoke, then would they run foul of the anti-smoking laws? Also, what about the indirect spliff problem? If you've been in Amsterdam around some of the "smokers" cafes, you will know that it is possible to get affected by the amount of smoke that billows out. Maybe not directly or first hand, but it can make you feel strange if you hang around long enough........
Complain about this comment
Having given a little more time to this. It looks like the PM is always correct and if you don't agree with his view you are out. so why would anybody wish to act as an advisor when the decisions are already made.
I thought the parliamentary system led to government by concensus, in the last couple of years we have seen government by dictate, at total in ability to listen and a hectoring brow beating attitude if asked a question that is not liked.
Given the history it appears that the PM pushed the button Johnson jumped and professor Nutt left. This leads to another question why the change of heart over immigration by the said Home Sec. is the PM thinking to rewrite the history of this governments immigration policy?
If I recall his words correctly he was saying that the issues went back beyond 1997.....So the whole immigration debacle is now the fault of John Major?
Complain about this comment
145 Susan-Croft
Of course you are completely right, it is far better for yourself and for society to be addicted to work than addicted to drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. My point is only that it is easy to understand how dependencies arise, either through circumstance or personal disposition. What if, as many scientists would suggest, dependency were genetic? Would that soften your disapproval? Perhaps some people can no more help being drug addicts than others can help having red hair. Although if you pursue that line of reasoning to far you get into some sticky dilemmas.
I just feel that weakness, however irritating, deserves more compassion. But maybe it's that kind of statement which makes me a soft leftie.
Complain about this comment
85. At 3:51pm on 02 Nov 2009, General_Jack_Ripper wrote:
DistantTraveller wrote:
"As Society has to pick up the bill (through the NHS and social services"
This has got to be one of the most tired arguments relating to drugs.
If Cannabis was legally produced, under licence and sold to adults only and then taxed at a similar level to alcohol and tobacco it would generate billions of pounds of taxation that would easily cover the costs to the NHS and any other government agency that would be dealing with the effects of drugs.
We have all of these costs now but because of prohibition the profits are all going to criminals instead of going into the legal market and no tax is being generated to cover these costs.
Now, can you please tell me what harm I am doing to society by having a few spliffs at home with my friends ?
Forget about the what if's and deal with the reality, I am a grown man who has worked his entire life, has never hurt anybody, pays lots of tax, has never been in trouble with the Police and have generally tried to be a decent member of society so please, what exactly am I doing wrong ?
******************
What am I doing wrong?
You are regularly breaking the law!! That's what you are doing wrong.
Can you not see the irony of your previous words when you say you "tried to be a decent member of society".
Having said that, I am also of the school of thought that says all drugs should be legalised. Personally I don't give a hoot about people who wish to fry their brain or damge their bodies in other ways. It's their carcass, let them treat it as they wish.
What I am bothered by however, is the fact that so much crime is attached to the drugs trade.
I have been burgled four times by persons who were looking to fund their habit. I was one of the lucky ones in that the villians doing the burglary were well known addicts and were caught on each occasion.
There might be some weight in the argument that legalising drugs may encourage more people to be tempted by them. I actually don't think that would happen. There are people around now who mix with others taking drugs and in spite of the drugs being readily available are not inclined to take them. Why should that change if the drug was legal?
Again if drugs were legal, the only people affected by them would be the drug users themselves. At the moment many who are not involved with drugs are affected by the criminal aspect. To me this is as good a reason for legalising drugs as any.
Complain about this comment
#144 Susan-Croft
"I was thinking more about those that abuse alcohol and drugs merely for recreation purposes and are aware of the dangers. We know a lot more work hours these days are lost through this problem and my question really was why do they do it."
Perhaps it can be difficult to point to an exact reason as no doubt it varies from person to person. I think peer pressure can play a part for adults as well as children - people often feel security in 'going with the flow'. Also, most people don't start off with the intention of becoming addicted as they believe they will be able to stop. But addiction can easily creep up - in some cases quite quickly.
"What is so different or more difficult now in life, that makes people need to turn to drugs and such things more than they used to."
I think there have always been these problems, but possibly it has now become more 'socially acceptable' to use drugs or get drunk on a regular basis. Just looking at some of the replies here on this blog, there are obviously quite a few people who think drugs should be more freely available.
It's very sad to see so many young people abusing alcohol and drugs - also smoking cigarettes. On one level, they probably do know the dangers, but they think "it won't happen to me". Some experts appear to believe you should not tell young people not to do something, because they will then just do the exact opposite. Personally, I think it is better to give people reliable information and make sure they understand it could happen to them! Interestingly, some of the recent stop-smoking campaigns on TV have portrayed young children asking their parents to give up. If young people can be better educated, that's a good place to start.
Complain about this comment
pdavies65 149
I understand your point, however if it was genetic the problem would always have been with us in the proportion it is today. Every weekend and weekdays as well, in the past people would have been going out and getting blind drunk and popping a few pills etc.
I thought if we could identify the problems in our society we may be closer to the solution. Just legislating does not seem to be providing the answer nor does science. I do not know the answer, that is why I posed the question. I just feel it is sad that people are resorting to the misuse of substances to get by and I would dearly like someone to find an answer because the problem is growing.
I really did not think your politics figured in this, not in my thoughts anyway.
Complain about this comment
# 146 saga
"if alcohol had been discovered last week and was just starting to do the rounds on the streets and in back rooms, it would get classified I'd have thought"
Well, alcohol has been around a very long time! No doubt if cigarettes were invented today, there would be tighter regulation. I remember the famous Bob Newhart sketch with Sir Walter Raleigh explaining tobacco to Queen Elizabeth. (Can't find a link, sorry!) If you look at it like that, it is very strange!
"I'm more or less convinced - maybe"
Sometimes it's good to be indecisive. I think.
Complain about this comment
89. At 4:06pm on 02 Nov 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:
#85. I totally agree. Two problems though: if cannabis was sold to over 18's only, taxed etc then within minutes we'd have someone buying it for a £1 a joint and selling it to schoolkids for £2 or £5 a joint. Just like with booze.
As to what harm am I doing society by having a few spliffs. Very little. But where does you spliff come from? In my town (Nottingham) most cannabis is grown in private homes rented in good faith to chinese gangs. The chinese bypass the electric meter and use illegal immigrants to turn the houses into cannabis farms and we've had a handful already burn to the ground (because of the dodgy electrics). The householder usually gets no insurance because the fire is a result of criminal activity.
Its a great reason to justify legal growing but at present your few spliffs are fuelling this sort of illegal growing
--------------
Mr Sym, if you do not mind me saying so, you are confusing your argument. What you have just achieved is to make 2 resounding points for legalisation (my apologies if that was your intent).
Firstly, the chaps selling to the kids would still be on the wrong side of the law, no less so than they are now. Making an argument that says this law would not be enforcable is to start from a false premimse, canabis laws are hardly enforced now. If you legalise, you take the profit away from it, and allow enforcement to focus on the areas that really matter (ie. selling to kids) rather than casting a wide net over grown adults who should be allowed to do as they bally well please.
And then your argument that Joe Bloggs having a spliff at home is causing the criminal activities is logically falacious. Joe is the effect, not the cause, and the cause is eliminated when you make canabis legal. Because someone is choosing to indulge in a certain product does not make them responsible for the manner it is produced.
Complain about this comment
94. At 4:23pm on 02 Nov 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:
#87. Rather ironic that you criticise 'spin' then claim that "A government advisor doesn't agree with government policy and so is sacked. Only the government is right - everyone else is wrong!"
Nutt was sacked for criticising his boss (repeatedly) in the media, not for disagreeing with the policy. I strongly suspect that if I criticise my board members in the media (or even on a blog) I will also be sacked and it doesn't matter if I'm "right" or "wrong" in my opinions either.
--------------
Sorry if I seem to be picking on you.
There is a world of difference between someone employed by a private company and a publicly elected official. If the advisor feels strongly enough that the MP is doing his job incorrectly, we have a right to know, and he has a right, nay a duty, to tell us.
We are allowed to criticise our politicians in this country, believe it or not.
Complain about this comment
#152
The vast vast majority of people who drink, smoke a spliff or pop a pill or two are NOT a problem. They enjoy themselves doing it, cause no harm to others and carry on with their lives.
You seem to assume there must be something wrong with them, something lacking in their life to do it. Maybe they just enjoy it? You might as well ask why people enjoy a lovely meal rather than bland stodge. Why do people climb to the top of a mountain just to ski down? Why not just stay at the bottom?
Lately, I personally am revaluating the joys of getting drunk but for many years the experience has been a throughally enjoyable one.
You say you are sad that people need it 'to get by'. Maybe it actually adds to their lives? Like the delicious fattening dessert or the rush of the piste?
There are SOME for whom it does more damage than good. They may need help.
But for the rest of us, maybe it's the best way of living their lives.
Complain about this comment
93. At 4:18pm on 02 Nov 2009, balancedthought wrote:
Advisors advise and ministers decide - this is a non blog.
Giant hayestacks- sorry to hear £1.20 a day is too much to take responsibility for your own health.
---------------
Eh?
Complain about this comment
99
Distant traveller
I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place with your stance, and I agree with you on the effects of drugs. But you are saying that you want to take people's ability to decide for themselves away from them. Why should anyone have that right? We elect our politicians not to decide what we can and can't do to ourselves, we elect them to protect us from others, and to provide for our mutual benefit. When you start talking about protecting people from themselves you are into nanny stateism, which taken to its logical conclusion would lead to us having every part of our lives planned out for us.
I don't have a huge amount of faith in the people of this country to make the right decision, but it is up to the people to make their own wrong decisions.
Complain about this comment
Zydeco wrote:
"You are regularly breaking the law!! That's what you are doing wrong.
Can you not see the irony of your previous words when you say you "tried to be a decent member of society"."
I thought it was obvious from the question that I was asking that it was trying to get people to state what reason they can give for continuing with the current law.
Every drug user on here accepts they're breaking a law, what we're trying to point out is that it is a pointless law that is actually causing more harm than it is preventing while also having no victim.
So, I'll try again in simpler terms and we'll see if you understand this time:
If cannabis were not illegal, what harm am I doing smoking a few spliffs at home with my friends (who are all adults) ?
Forget about the harm I'm doing to myself as this is my choice and no different than the level of harm caused by alcohol/tobacco.
Forget the criminality, as this would be negated by the legalisation.
Forget children, I'm a pensioner and as such have different rights to a child.
Forget costs to the NHS etc as this would be covered by taxation.
So please enlighten me, what harm would legalised cannabis users be doing that is any different to alcohol or tobacco users ?
Complain about this comment
U14147588 wrote:
"If cannabis were made legal, sold in controlled outlets, and people bought it to smoke, then would they run foul of the anti-smoking laws?"
Only if they mixed it with tobacco, I've been to Holland since the anti-smoking laws came in and you are still allowed to smoke pure cannabis spliffs, pipes etc in coffee shops as long as it is not mixed with tobacco.
"Also, what about the indirect spliff problem? If you've been in Amsterdam around some of the "smokers" cafes, you will know that it is possible to get affected by the amount of smoke that billows out. Maybe not directly or first hand, but it can make you feel strange if you hang around long enough........"
The easy answer is to take some responsibility for yourself and not to be around people who are smoking or places where people go to smoke if you don't like it or don't want to feel the effect of second hand smoke.
No one is suggesting we allow the smoking of cannabis everywhere, there would be restrictions placed on where you could smoke so that, for instance, it would still be illegal to smoke around children, it would still be illegal to smoke while at work etc etc...
Complain about this comment
Andy555 156
I am not quite sure what the purpose of your post is. My post was that perhaps there is a need to identify the problems which lead to substance abuse. If you, as you are saying do not think there is a particular problem in most instances, I am not quite certain why you sent the post.
Most experts and the Government think there is a problem and it is a growing one.
Your analogy with people staying at the bottom of hill when they ski, I thought was a bit strange also. Are you saying then that drugs and drink are dangerous or not. Because obviously if you ski there is always a danger but if you stay at the bottom of hill you are safe.
If people just do drugs and drink in most instances simply because they like it, as in your other analogy with food, (though that seems to have its own dangers these days) why are the Government worried about it. Furthermore why are we carrying such people in the work place and why are we paying for them through our taxes when they develop health problems.
If you believe that developing a culture of drink and drugs is ok in society there is nothing I can say about that. However next time you come across a surgeon, an airline pilot or even a driver, who have taken either the night before or during the day of your operation, flight or possible crash in a car I hope you will be just as understanding.
Complain about this comment
145. At 06:29am on 03 Nov 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
pdavis 135
I presume you mean me even though you got the wrong number.
That may very well be true, however it is better to be addicted to work then drugs I guess. Its a pity more people are not. I enjoy what I do. Anyone that believes in this day and age you do not have work long hours in the private sector, is living in a dream.
------------
Come along Susan, that is very very subjective. It is a product of what society trys to indoctrinate into you that it is "accepted" that long hours of work are bad for your health. In reality of course, studies suggest that working more than 50 hours a week can have disastrous effects on your health. When I was working in practice, I frequently went past 80 hours a week in the hellish first months of the year, and I can tell you that had a drastic effect on my health and my life in general.
I think it was the good general who has said it best. If drug use is used during the good times rather than the bad, and if it is not a symptom of addiction, there is no harm in it whatsoever. People will point to those who sink from casual or recreational use to abuse, but it is scarcely reasonable to judge the whole of society on the exceptions.
Complain about this comment
147
Indeed, there would need to be strict laws about public use.
Its fairly easy to spot (or smell) after all.
Complain about this comment
greatHayemaker 162
Not so, most of my colleagues work long hours it is expected these days if you want a career in the private sector. The higher you climb the longer you work, fact of life I am afraid. I am not grumbling I have a job and that will be very precious thing in the future and I like what I do. Even in your time off you answer E mails etc.
Drugs and drink are a problem in our society, a lot of crime now is drug related and many young people get caught in this net of I only take it now and then. Sooner or later it becomes a problem.
Complain about this comment
#158 greatHayemaker
You say, "We elect our politicians not to decide what we can and can't do to ourselves, we elect them to protect us from others, and to provide for our mutual benefit".
I'm not sure you can separate these two things so easily. In order to protect us from others, there have to be some rules about what we can and can't do ourselves.
Politicians DO make decisions like this on a regular basis. This includes everything from planning regulations, speed limits on roads, recycling, paying taxes, etc etc. This is because almost everything we do has some impact on other people. That is why in a civilised society we never have total freedom. If I have a right to play my music very loudly late at night, this encroaches on your right to peace and quiet!
"When you start talking about protecting people from themselves you are into nanny stateism, which taken to its logical conclusion would lead to us having every part of our lives planned out for us."
Yes, I agree with you that we should reject the Nanny State - and I am particularly concerned about the pernicious culture of Health and Safety which often verges on paranoia. (See previous example about the dangers of hanging baskets!)
However, on some topics it is very difficult to make a clear dividing line between those activities which only affect the individual, and those that affect other people. Drug and alcohol abuse affect us all - not just the people using them. Also, we need to think about young people who do need protection from 'peer pressure'.
In the end, it always boils down to where we draw the lines. I understand that there may be differences of opinion about where the lines are drawn. However, I don't think the answer is to have no lines at all.
Complain about this comment
164. At 11:35am on 03 Nov 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
greatHayemaker 162
Not so, most of my colleagues work long hours it is expected these days if you want a career in the private sector. The higher you climb the longer you work, fact of life I am afraid. I am not grumbling I have a job and that will be very precious thing in the future and I like what I do. Even in your time off you answer E mails etc.
Drugs and drink are a problem in our society, a lot of crime now is drug related and many young people get caught in this net of I only take it now and then. Sooner or later it becomes a problem.
--------------
For some in our society drugs and drink are a problem. For many others, they are largely harmless and for recreational use.
I still work long hours, but thankfully the days of the 80 hour week are behind me. I can only ask you to take my word for the damage this caused me and those around me. In comparison, a glass of wine and an after dinner scotch are barely blips on the radar, as would be a spliff if such were my chosen drug.
To say that too many hours of work are lost to intoxicants is a not a way I would choose to look at it. I would say too many hours of recreation are lost to work. I do not live to work, I work to live. I am envious of anyone who feels differently, but I will never be one of those people.
Complain about this comment
165
I think we have a disagreement on what would constitute an effect on other people more than anything else.
You absolutely have the right to play your music as loudly as you like and as late as you like, provided you do so where it will not effect anyone else (maybe you have state of the art sound proofing, or live miles from anyone else). This is the exact same thing I am suggesting would be sensible and liberal with regards to drug policy. We do not outlaw people from doing things that will effect noone else. What we do do (sorry) is to outlaw the potential effect they will have on other people if they do not control themselves properly. You are advocating having one potential cause of criminal behaviour outlawed rather than the criminal behaviou itself (for this purpose, please presume when I refer to criminal behaviour I mean behaviour which will have a detrimental effect on others). There are any number of potential causes for criminal behaviour that we do not outlaw, the only reason so many accept that drugs are outlawed is due to passed down predjudice.
Complain about this comment
#167 greatHayemaker
You say "We do not outlaw people from doing things that will effect noone else"
I suppose that's debatable! Drivers have to wear seat-belts, motorcyclists have to wear crash helmets. (Perhaps the argument is that better road safety saves the NHS money, so therefore does affect the rest of society)
You now can't (easily) buy 100w light bulbs. Arguably this prohibition has been brought in to save the planet (although energy saving bulbs are quite environmentally unfriendly)
In almost anything we do, it's possible to make an argument that it does affect other people. It's a question of degree and judgement. Where we have gone badly wrong under this Labour government is they attempt to interfere in virtually every aspect of daily living, which is why we now have the Surveillance/Nanny State.
Apparently in the forthcoming 2011 census, the authorities will demand to know the sleeping arrangements in your own home. In the last census in 2001, they also wanted to know people's religion. 390,000 people (0.7 percent of the population) stated they were Jedi Knights. See National Statistics for 2001 census.
"the only reason so many accept that drugs are outlawed is due to passed down predjudice"
I'm not sure that's fair! Although you may not agree, some would argue that there are good reasons why dangerous drugs should not be freely available (see previous post #99 and the link to Royal Collage of Psychiatrists on the subject of Cannabis and Mental Health).
You may not agree with what they say and that's fair enough! In the end, it comes back to where we think the lines should be drawn - and there will always be differences of opinion about this!
Complain about this comment
This morning I listened to David Cameron back-tracking on the EU question.......the whole of our office was silent as it dawned on all of us that we had been well and truly conned by the Tories. Today he has become the greatest recruiting sergeant for the UKIP team. UKIP are the only people who are listening to the people of this country and have the courage to say that we will be a better country out of the EU rather than inside. Why is it that the politicians just carry-on with the EU regardless of what the people of this country wish. What particularly saddens me is that the next election is likely to result in a hung Parliament because of this single action by David Cameron.
Complain about this comment
I do not believe we should have laws enforcing use of seat belts and helmets. Ironically, such laws in all likelyhood increase the cost to the NHS, since they make death in an accident less likely, but do not prevent serious injury of other sorts.
The reason for the law on seatbelts at least should specifically be for the protection of minors, those who by definition have most of their decisions made for them. Adults should be allowed to make their own.
I am not going to look at your psychiatrists link right now, but I can assume it will be full of medical information about the effects of drugs none of which I would want to dispute. My only argument here is to say people should be able to do as they like insofar as the only person they put at risk is themselves. And I will never be convinced that the act of someone smoking a spliff, taking a hallucinogenic, even injecting heroin into their arm, has any effect on me. Subsequent actions or behavious might, but those behaviours absolutely must be seperated from the use of the substance in the eyes of the law if we are to consider ourselves to be in a free society. Some may develop addiction as a result of drug use, some may not. Some may steal as a result of addiction, some may not. Its seems incrediblely unreasonable and illogical to lump the all three groups: the user, the addict, and the criminal, into the same category just because they all have the 1st criteria in common.
We could extend it backwards ad infinitum, and make it a crime to merely have the desire to use drugs, or access to them. For me the dividing line is clear, black and white, unequivocal, you should be on the wrong side of the law only at the point where you have caused harm to someone else.
Complain about this comment
169. At 2:24pm on 03 Nov 2009, SANL wrote:
This morning I listened to David Cameron back-tracking on the EU question.......the whole of our office was silent as it dawned on all of us that we had been well and truly conned by the Tories. Today he has become the greatest recruiting sergeant for the UKIP team. UKIP are the only people who are listening to the people of this country and have the courage to say that we will be a better country out of the EU rather than inside. Why is it that the politicians just carry-on with the EU regardless of what the people of this country wish. What particularly saddens me is that the next election is likely to result in a hung Parliament because of this single action by David Cameron.
----------
Erm, think you got the wrong thread.
Complain about this comment
Further to my 170
I mean, do you see that we make the same distinction over alcohol? We allow people to consume it, even to excess, and it is only at the point they do harm to others that we punish them. Why on earth should we not adopt the same approach with other, less harmful drugs?
Complain about this comment
Nick I think you will have to look a bit further. David Nutt signed a letter for on behalf of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drug on the 31st March 2009 (see AMCD website) It contains these two paragraphs.
"I can confirm that the ACMD is minded to postpone further reviews of individual drugs currently in the classification system until such times as you request a review, or when we believe that there is a clear requirement to provide advice to you."
"You will wish to be aware that we are currently engaged in a process of developing the way in which we structure and assess the evidence that underpins the advice on classification we provide."
Since then, David Nutt has made two "colourful". statements unsupported by the 'process of developing the way in which evidence is structured and assessed to underpin the advice on classification" which Professor Larry Phillips of the London School of Economics was helping the Council with.
If Professor Nutt does not support the first paragraph then resignation, to enable him to speak out, should have followed. The Home Office in effect said no further advice, and the Council concurred.
The second paragraph points to the need for a transparent as possible way of leading to advice about decisions something everyone should welcome including I hope both Tories and Lib Dems.
Could I request a follow up to you blog Nick to give more background to what has been going on?
I would further add in a large Northern City:
On an average Friday night out, two thirds of club-goers and one in five bar customers take one or more illegal drugs
One in 20 bar customers took cocaine that night.
People on a night out in an entertainment area complain of constant pestering to buy drugs.
There have been complaints that drug dealer beat up people in a local park at night.
It goes without saying that the vast majority of visitors intended to or had consumed alcohol.
About one in seven of recorded assaults in the City occur in this entertainment area.
Complain about this comment
170 greathaymaker
#you should be on the wrong side of the law only at the point where you have caused harm to someone else.
you are on the wrong side of the law the moment you break the law, if people like you think that we can pick and choose any law we want to reject then whats the point in having any law at all.
Although you I come from opposite sides of the political spectrum I have always thought, although you've been wrong that you give a reasonable argument but your posts today are unbelievably juvenile.
the first thing is that Alan Johnston had no argument with Nutts findings his argument was that he went behond his position and decided to state policy of his own back and continued to wallow in hiself declared oposition to the government egged on by the story seeking media, so making his own position untenable, so he had to go.
Do we remember the idiot with the MMR drugs, look at the problems thats caused.
A little scenario for you, your sitting at home with the wife and Teenage children there's a knock at the door lo and behold its the kids favorite uncle, after some conversation you are sharing a bottle of wine and the children in the spirit of the occasion are having a small glass, uncle turns to your children and says, you shouldn't start drinking that you know you would be much better off smoking a spliff or taking a ectasy tablet, even heroin is better than that, your children turn to you and the wife and say , do you think thats what we should do? do you say yes listen to your uncle or do you as I would do show uncle the door with a swift kick up the backside.
Complain about this comment
I think professor nutt (fabulous name btw) was doing nothing more than protecting his own professional reputation. People knew he was a scientific advisor on drugs to the government. People knew that the governments policy was to reclassify the drug and would assume that this was based on scientific evidence. They would then assume that the governemnt's (and incidently the conservative's) reactionary policy was based on his views. His reputation would suffer in any scientific circles so he was basically forced to act to save his reputation.
People don't seem to realise that being a professor (or a lowly research scientist) is more about your reputation than the science you do. Reputation gets you funding and recognition. (if you think about it how often when you watch a documentary about scientific achievements do you hear about the scientist who really invented something but was not as good a self publiscist). That incidently is one of the reasons I left acedemic research.
John
Complain about this comment
#170 greatHayemaker
"I do not believe we should have laws enforcing use of seat belts and helmets. Ironically, such laws in all likelyhood increase the cost to the NHS, since they make death in an accident less likely, but do not prevent serious injury of other sorts"
GreatHayemaker!!!! You seem to be suggesting people would be doing their country a service by dying outright, rather than being badly injured! You don't really think that, do you?
"And I will never be convinced that the act of someone smoking a spliff, taking a hallucinogenic, even injecting heroin into their arm, has any effect on me."
I don't think any of us can be totally unaffected by what other people do... but even if it were possible, I'm not sure I would wish to be so detached from the well-being of my neighbours!
"No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee"
John Donne (1572 - 1631)
(Probably should be "No person is an island")
Complain about this comment
The problem is that you have high quality evidence from a group of experts on one side and the politicians afraid of looking soft on drugs on the other.
No goverment would want to be seen as being soft on drugs, though it's realistically the only way to deal with the problems drug abuse causes.
People are attracted to drugs, they make you feel good, hyper, chilled etc. people will always want to do things like that. Look at the amount of people that drink, smoke tobacco and drink cafine. Drugs are appealing, driving them underground will never work, look at prohibition in america.
There needs to be a legalisation of most drugs coupled with a real program of care for drug addicts and education for children. The more dangerous drugs should be kept illegal but have possesion decriminalised. Then you wont end up sending someone with a real problem to prison where their problem gets worse, or sending curious people to jail for making a bad choice.
Instead bring in a policy where being caught for possesion means you have to attend a course where you are assesed for adicition and educated or helped accordingly.
It would take money from criminals, create jobs for people who are basically career criminals at the moment and would probably reduce crime comited to feed an adiction.
If I'm allowed to go to my local off-licence and by enough alcohol to drink myself into a stupor for 3 days, why shouldn't I be able to buy some MDMA for a night out or some cannabis for a night in?
Complain about this comment
"147. At 08:58am on 03 Nov 2009, U14147588 wrote:
Just a little thought or two.
If cannabis were made legal, sold in controlled outlets, and people bought it to smoke, then would they run foul of the anti-smoking laws? Also, what about the indirect spliff problem? If you've been in Amsterdam around some of the "smokers" cafes, you will know that it is possible to get affected by the amount of smoke that billows out. Maybe not directly or first hand, but it can make you feel strange if you hang around long enough........"
Good point, the last thing you need to happen is someone in a traffic jam next to a coffee shop getting blearly eyed and sleepy while driving.
Still think the legalisation should be a seriously considered option. The govement could put a stupidly hihgh tax on most drugs (as with alcohol and smoking) and they'd be able to regulate the dealers/suppliers to insure that the drugs were as safe as they can be.
Complain about this comment
174
People like me? I have not broken any laws, pull your head out of your proverbial. I am arguing that the law is unjust and should be changed, not that the law should be ignored.
We have freedom of speach in this country you know (in theory anyway). If I believe something is wrong, I'm damned well gonna say so, and don't expect supercilious old sots to call me juvenile for doing so. I'm not going to read your post beyond the first couple of sentences, on the evidence of those you do not deserve to be heard.
Distant traveller, I don't think there is much more to be said. We are not far from agreement on most of the underlying stuff, we just reach different conclusions. Maybe I'm just not as sentimental as you, I have been accused of being cold in the past, and find it hard to deny such an accusation completely. Agree to differ, but a parting shot if I may. It is your view that is the one forcing others to behave in a certain way whether they agree with you or not.
Complain about this comment
176. At 4:03pm on 03 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
#170 greatHayemaker
"I do not believe we should have laws enforcing use of seat belts and helmets. Ironically, such laws in all likelyhood increase the cost to the NHS, since they make death in an accident less likely, but do not prevent serious injury of other sorts"
GreatHayemaker!!!! You seem to be suggesting people would be doing their country a service by dying outright, rather than being badly injured! You don't really think that, do you?
-----------
Just have to come back to this very briefly before I sign off to actually get today's work finished.
I was just pointing out the flaw in the costs the NHS more argument. I am not advocating people throwing themselves to their deaths so they don't instead incur costly to treat injuries, but the cost basis you are trying to apply can have some mighty strange extensions if you take it too seriously.
My point here, I guess, is that cost to the NHS has to more or less irrelevent in this type of discussion.
Complain about this comment
grandantidote wrote:
"you are on the wrong side of the law the moment you break the law, if people like you think that we can pick and choose any law we want to reject then whats the point in having any law at all."
But this is the whole point of greathaymaker's argument, namely that recreational drugs such as Cannabis should not be illegal.
He's not encouraging people to break the law but to change it so that a relatively harmless activity that millions of adults currently engage in would not be illegal.
To state that we can't pick and chose our laws is naive in the extreme, the government spend every day changing our laws by either adding or removing existing laws or by modifying them to fit in with the wishes of the people (in theory anyway).
That's why fox hunting is now illegal, the government introduced a new law and the legal status of that particular activity was changed.
Prohibition is still a relatively new law and was only introduced in its various forms throughout the 1900s, a hundred years ago adults could legally buy and consume Heroin whenever they wanted too. Incidentally, back then there were about 300 registered addicts, after several decades of Prohibition there are now over 40,000 in the UK.
We could, and should, repeal the Prohibition laws and this is the very point of many of the arguments above.
Laws are not permanent, almost every law we have has been modified since its introduction and many activities have had their legal status changed several times.
Complain about this comment
#179 greatHayemaker
You write: "Agree to differ, but a parting shot if I may. It is your view that is the one forcing others to behave in a certain way whether they agree with you or not."
Of course, with any legislation there will always been winners and losers in the sense that not everyone will get what they want!
As an example, on a personal note, I don't believe in Bus Lanes. It is my belief that they cause congestion, and hence more pollution. Also, one must ask, why should users of public transport have preferential treatment over car drivers who pay exorbitant taxes for the privilege of using their own vehicle? Also, modern cars with catalytic converters produce far less pollution than diesel-fume-belching busses! Unfortunately, I am out-voted on this one.
Such are the swings and roundabouts of democracy!
Complain about this comment
I dont think Legalising cannabis and ecstasy and taxing them will solve anything. Alchohol and Cigarettes are legal and you still get criminals selling them illegally, Sometimes dangerous fakes. If you regulate the strength of cannibis you'll still have criminals selling stronger stuff. Also other naughty drugs will appear to take their place.
We have enough trouble with legal drugs already will cigarettes alchohol and angry pills. Do we really need anymore?
Complain about this comment
179 greathaymaker
#I'm not going to read your post beyond the first couple of sentences, on the evidence of those you do not deserve to be heard.
I'll bet you did through old chap,
Whats that about free speech! you don't have to be an old sot to tell you your being juvenile its open to everyone sorry you sensitivities made you blind to other peoples opinions of you views but I only have one word for that old chap, Tough.
Complain about this comment
153 distant traveller
#I remember the famous Bob Newhart sketch with Sir Walter Raleigh explaining tobacco to Queen Elizabeth. (Can't find a link, sorry!)
yes that was a great sketch I have tried like yourself to find it on old records but to no avail, I think it went along the lines of a telephone conversation with sir walter, he was asked what he had brought back from the new world he replied I have a load of leaves, to which Elizabeth says, leaves Wal, and what are we going to do with them Raleigh replies , well you roll them up and you set fire to one end and suck through the other, It makes you cough though, to which Elizabeth replies I should think it would Wal. and on it went for some twenty minutes, among my old friends if someone comes out with some thing that surprised him we all say "I should think it would Wal.it is probably very unfunny coming from me but Newhart was the master at these sort of sketches. Hullo Modder Hullo Fader being another one. great stuff.if you do find the link please let me know, I would love to here it again.
Complain about this comment
181 buck turgidson
#But this is the whole point of greathaymaker's argument, namely that recreational drugs such as Cannabis should not be illegal.
He's not encouraging people to break the law but to change it so that a relatively harmless activity that millions of adults currently engage in would not be illegal.
Haymaker went a lot further than that he included E's and heroin in his piece.
#To state that we can't pick and chose our laws is naive in the extreme, the government spend every day changing our laws by either adding or removing existing laws or by modifying them to fit in with the wishes of the people (in theory anyway).
Nothing naive about it, its your interpretation, thats naive, of course governments change laws everday thats part of why they are elected
we elect them, but you can't have everyone making their own laws.
He also said that it does'nt matter if someone breaks the law because they should only be accused of breaking the law if it harms someone, so I guess we can get rid of thirty mile per hour in built up areas and then if we run a child down then we have broken the law but if the kids can manage to keep out of the way of fast moving cars then their lucky and the driver can feel happy that he hasn't broken the law, is that what he was saying?.
Complain about this comment
#185 grandantidote
Re Bob Newhart, Sir Walter Raleigh explaining the use of tobacco to Queen Elizabeth
Although I can't find the original, here is someone else performing the sketch. See here.
This definitely helps put the great tobacco debate into perspective!
Complain about this comment
What our country appears completely failed to try is to install the sense of self preservation. This is why we have so many lemmings getting hooked to traditional narcotics, silly addictions like glue sniffing, new exotic mind altering substances, risk taking on railway lines, . . .
Drug policy should not concentrate on banning specific substances through law & enforcement but through attitudes of self preservation.
It is simple. No demand, no trade!
Complain about this comment
Johnson has not improved his reputation in this matter. To think that he was meant to be the great hope for Labour; desposing the mad king Gordon and leading Labour to an unlikely fourth term. He has turned out to be just another inept home secretary in long line of incompetents.
Complain about this comment
Its critics claim that it is in the grip of a sort of "group think" which plays down the risks of drug taking.
...is that like the 'group think' which affected bankers analysis of risk - or does it mean the 'group think' which allowed MP's to abuse expense claims and play down the risks and consequences if it went wrong?
Seems to me, critics say 'group think' only when it's not the group they are in.
How can you unwind the web of hypocriscy?
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
44. At 1:46pm on 02 Nov 2009, AndyC555 wrote regarding #42:
Drifted off a bit there at the end Pete.
A stoned silence?
Are you refering to the gap that was not there yesterday Andy. BBC Cut backs i think. Cameron agrees with Labours approach and Brown said today he will never go soft on cannabis but i repeat that the cannabis laws are irrelevant to the pot smoker when those laws are being made by thieving corrupt politicians who get them endorsed in the Upper House by thieving, corrupt Lords as has been shown (like Brown Blair ,Smith, Cameron and all those who were only obeying their "let's rip them off" rules ). Many who have smoked dope and probably still do the same now behind their tax payer funded second homes. Lets hope the pot smokers and other groups get together for the next election and vote both of these Parties out for good . The state of Britain today is after all down to them. If it is illegal for a Bankrupt politician to be an MP how come these two parties(cartel)are allowed to owe the banks Multi millions without the banks ever making them bankrupt. As a matter of interest in Spain you can grow up to six plants yourselves legally and possess up to 2 ounces for personal use. Wouldn't this solve the problem as NOBODY would buy it if everybody was allowed to grow their own for free. But no doubt the USA will inform it's EU underlings it wants us to change that under the Napoleonic Law we will be forced to abide by. This law is the opposite to ours in that EVERTHING is deemed illegal unless OK'ed by the state. Not just drugs but Herbal treatment, Political Parties etc'. Everthing will have to be approved. Really big Brother. Watch Ian R Cranes "The truth Injection"
Complain about this comment
when will mps learn,the British public want the truth told to them nothing more nothing less,Iraq,wmd,springs to mind,now this another expert ignored,what ells has been hidden,i would like to know.
Complain about this comment
why cant we follow the dutch system?
Complain about this comment
wheres my comment?2.18 pm now 3.30pm,,and am licence payer,is this what you call a short delay
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS