PM Glass Box for Friday
Don't be scared. PM's boss, Joanna Carr is editing the programme this evening and she will be looking at your comments. As you know we discuss what was good/bad/ugly in the programme when we meet in our glass box in the newsroom at 6pm. Jo will look at what you've had to say after that.
All the best,
sequin
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Absolutely brilliant and topical Glass Box. Well done!
Complain about this comment
I think this may be a McNickle special ...
Complain about this comment
Great Glass Box! David McN. I presume? Eddie will be present tonight in spirit if not in person.
Complain about this comment
Great pre-Halloween Pictures....And, Thanks to Joanna and Carolyn for their after the show analysis...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Here is someone who is really concerned about our planet .
Makes you think doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
Good picture!
David McN, the new David Bailey ?...
Complain about this comment
I heard Hilary Clinton on the news, which you might be covering tonight, with the line that al-Qaeda and the Taliban "are part of a syndicate of terror." Who else is in this syndicate? Sounds like another "axis of evil" phrase to me.
"Syndicate of Terror." Surely that's a more appropriate decriptor for US, Britain and Australia.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is mine. I have been absent because I wasn't allowed to post due to someone messing up my ability to do so. The czar and I have had several nice chats about it. I have had to change my name to return as I couldn't (apparently) remember my date of birth.
Complain about this comment
SG 6, Yes, we both used Olympus OM1 cameras. Even my digi is Olympus.
Complain about this comment
In response to the CWU call for more strikes, I wish to tell the CWU that I am going on strike this Christmas and refusing to send any cards. All relatives and friends will be contacted by telephone. I am sure the posties will appreciate having to carry less weight in their sack.
Complain about this comment
Love the photo!
Complain about this comment
An oficionado of kitsch!
Seems even chief advisers aren't allowed an opinion in the newLaboor brave new world. Let's not look at facts eh? What is the the politicians are so worried about with cannabis? The lobby trying to convince them it causes psychosis is tiny with very little evidence, and the overwhelming scientific evidence as well as anecdotal evidence of a majority of the general public is that is hugely less harmful or dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and this is what the Professor has stated. Are politicians concerned of lost votes? I would have thought legalising it would gain votes, and right now they need all the votes they can get.
He also asked for a sensible, adult debate, no chance of that.
Complain about this comment
8. davmcn :-) Know what you mean! An Olympus man huh? I have an E-1, first ever pro SLR digital, and still the best according to a lot of users. It's even totally waterproof including the lenses as a video on youtube shows. Wish I could remember the page.
Complain about this comment
Man talks sense about drugs; man gets sacked.
Cos prohibition is working so well, presumably.
Complain about this comment
There's an element of risk in stepping outside and doing anything, the DofE scheme is slightly enhanced, and princey was totally correct, young people do like risk, extreme sports are based on it, the secret is in being professional about it and minimising the risks. If health and safety get their teeth into it, it'll end up as a certificate in macramé.
Complain about this comment
All this fuss about the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference. And just when the science of global warming is being comprehensively demolished.
Complain about this comment
These pirates off the coast of Somalia seem to be remarkably decent people: hospitable, allowing home phone calls in the first week. Britain and US could learn a lot. Perhaps they could be offered a couple of seats on a UN advisory body and help the world agree a new 'code of conduct.'
Somalian Pirates: setting new standards in detainee treatment.
Complain about this comment
Pretty hostile interview.
Carolyn seems to have the same problem with evidence as Johnson.
Complain about this comment
16. Frank_Davis - don't be silly. No one is going to rise to the bait, so you may as well think of something else to post.
Complain about this comment
Jo the Editor,
You (BBC/BBC Radio) need a different nomenclature for 'developed countries' and 'developing countries.' It's easily mis-heard, particularly on radio. How about Ded countries and Ding Countries?
Complain about this comment
David Nutt is quite right about cannabis being less harmful than horseriding. I doubt if he's right about cannabis and ecstasy being less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol, since the research into the latter is such poor quality, and driven by exactly the sort of moral fervour that Nutt says should have no place in objective science.
Complain about this comment
#16. Frank_Davis
And just when the science of global warming is being comprehensively demolished.
Who's doing that? It'll just create more pollution.
Complain about this comment
Deeply depressing misunderstanding form Carolyn in the difference between evidence and opinion.
Complain about this comment
Why is this government so afraid of the truth? Instead of trying to control people why is the state afraid to give people the facts and allow them to make up their own minds?
This is the behaviour of a control freak and I'm sure I'm not alone in hearing the same weary mantra 'We want to send a clear message'. We do not want a nanny or gesture politics and drugs are not the only example.
Professor David Nutt, rational people support you!
Complain about this comment
Great listening to Norman Cornish.
Professor Nutt made his point based on sound scientific evidence and was subsequently sacked. Scientific evidence and politics do not always sit easily together. How many people die from alcohol abuse each year and what are the social cost associated with alcohol? The last time I was in a casualty ward on a Friday night the costs looked pretty high.
Complain about this comment
By reclassifying cannabis the government sent a clear message to young people. The message was as follows:
“The government attitude to drugs is biased, prejudiced, subjective and irrational and you can ignore all advice on drug-use that comes from the government”.
Well done Gordon! Next, let’s reintroduce phlogiston to the national curriculum.
Complain about this comment
Frank-D@16: where have you been? I've been a lone voice in the wilderness over this for the past few days (see Wednesday's PM Glass Box and earlier).
Complain about this comment
21. Frank_Davis - better... but still daft. Deaths from alcohol per year? Any idea? Deaths from alcohol? Cannabis deaths = 0, ecstasy deaths all proved to be caused by water overconsumption. Since that information was disseminated, no deaths. So no matter how you cut it, tobacco and alcohol hugely more dangerous than cannabis and e.
Research into the latter is such poor quality???? How about deaths from drunk driving for starters? Then there's drunken murders and assaults, drunken accidents due to lowered sensibilities and apprehension of danger with inflated self confidence... or were you thinking of liver damage?
It must be a conspiracy to be so comprehensive.
Complain about this comment
#21. Frank_Davis
"I doubt if he's right about cannabis and ecstasy being less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol"
Everything I've read on the subject suggests he is right.
Complain about this comment
What a wonderful interview with David Nutt. Can I suggest a campaign of support with T-Shirts saying proudly 'I am a Nutter!'
Complain about this comment
** BREAKING NEWS **
scientist claims earth orbits sun
scientist claims too much fat is bad for you
bah, so much for evidence based government policy
Complain about this comment
Having just heard the interview with Dr Nutt I am left with the impression that the Government has absolutely no interest in presenting truth and facts to the public. It is a very great shame that the Government has chosen to shoot the messenger by sacking Dr Nutt instead of allowing the public to decide for themselves based on evidence rather than political policy. The issue of the classification of drugs is always likely to be contentious but the public should be given the evidence and the recognition of sufficient intelligence to make up their own minds based on the evidence. Instead of sacking Dr Nutt, the Government should have taken proper notice of the evidence.
After the politicians lost all moral authority through the exposure of the corruption inherent in the expenses claims, it really is absurd for politicians to claim any moral high ground with regard to anti-drugs policies, or any other policies for that matter.
Complain about this comment
Labour sticks up two fingers at the nations health. Again.
How outrageous that these public servants should pursue their prejudices at the expense of the best interests of us- their employers.
Complain about this comment
27. He's been writing nonsense on denier forums where you both should air your theories so the rest of us don't have to be bothered.
Complain about this comment
DD 12, Even Jacqui Smith admitted that she had used cannabis on QT last night. Of course, maybe that explains a few things...
Complain about this comment
I’m sure that Professor Nut’s scientific comments relating specifically, but narrowly, to the health of cannabis users were indeed accurate but the trouble with this government is that they cannot then articulate the associated dangers of drugs like cannabis (such as the effects on crime, the dangers of taking drugs before driving etc) and make public their (political) decision based on that broader conclusion. Instead, as Professor Nut points out, they want him to change his scientific conclusion and hide behind that so that they can have someone else to blame for their decision when the public arguments begin rather than put forward a coherent broader case taking all the associated factors into account.
Complain about this comment
Having just heard the interview with Dr Nutt I am left with the impression that the Government has absolutely no interest in presenting truth and facts to the public. It is a very great shame that the Government has chosen to shoot the messenger by sacking Dr Nutt instead of allowing the public to decide for themselves based on evidence rather than political policy. The issue of the classification of drugs is always likely to be contentious but the public should be given the evidence and the recognition of sufficient intelligence to make up their own minds based on the evidence. Instead of sacking Dr Nutt, the Government should have taken proper notice of the evidence.
After the politicians lost all moral authority through the exposure of the corruption inherent in the expenses claims, it really is absurd for politicians to claim any moral high ground with regard to anti-drugs policies, or any other policies for that matter.
Complain about this comment
DD 13, Assuming the link works, this is our Olympus digi camera. It is fairly old and only 4 mp, but we are happy with it.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0409/olympus/umini-press.jpg
Complain about this comment
21. Of course I should have added that the case is shut on tobacco, sorry you can't accept that, but it's your addiction talking. It isn't so hard to give up, once you let go of the 'habit' involved, I found no difficulty at all, having smoked most of my adult life. The medical evidence isn't anything to do with moral fervour, the government reaction is merely the act of people who want to control our lives and so ban everything they think might be harmful, since we are unintelligent, juvenile, facile and incapable of choosing the right way to live, so need them to guide us and protect us from ourselves. It's quite fascistic I grant, but not really moral, if a little fervent.
Health and safety my friend, part of the modern PC world. Now tobacco users know a little of what it's been like for cannabis and E users, just wait until they make it illegal and gangs smuggle it at high profit into the UK... oh yeah, doing that already.
Complain about this comment
How many people in the UK die each year as a result of alcohol or tobacco related illness? Or are killed in motor vehicle accidents, or in accidents in the home or at work? How many people have EVER died as a direct result of smoking a joint? Our government,as ever, are scared of the plain truth, as they are of so many other issues,preferring to ignore facts which don't fit into their agenda.
Complain about this comment
35. davmcn - it's the in thing in some circles, always in the distant, student, past, they think it gives them street cred. Don't think it's involved in her looking and acting stupid though.
Complain about this comment
36. ordinary_bloke - effects on crime? They made it a crime, if the law were changed, there would be no crime. Or are you suggesting use leads to crime? If so, any evidence of that?
Taking drugs before driving - there is evidence from the US that regular users of cannabis drive better after ingesting it, and are safer drivers while under the influence than non users. This could be due to calming effects so less testosterone fuelled aggressive driving, and an enhanced ability to read dangers ahead and act accordingly to avoid them. People unused to the drug would be ill advised to drive under the effects of any substance, or is it ok for non drinker to get behind the wheel after having a few pints? There are warnings about driving on many prescribed drugs, this could also apply to legal cannabis sales, but is difficult to enforce with illegal dealers.
Complain about this comment
The ignorant attitude to drugs in this country exemplified by the Home Secretary degrades and devalues the efforts to reduce and minimise harmful missuse of those drugs.
We are far too conservative about this whole subject and as long as we imagine that cannabis and e do more damage than alchohol and tobacco then we will continue to have misery up and down the land.
We should bann all alchohol in the Palace of Westmister and maybe we will through time have sufficient political leaders who do not have pickled brains and who can understand and act on the facts.
Complain about this comment
43. California is thinking of legalising it for the revenue from taxing it since they're bancrupt.
Since the UK is now also wallowing in unpaybackable debts...
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the most sensible drugs policy would be to legalise all drugs and treat addiction as a medical matter. This would have the effect of reducing the number of drug users getting criminal records, would free up substantial amounts of Police resources for other more worthwhile anti-crime activities, would free up time and costs of Court Hearings, would reduce the prison overcrowding, and so on. The money saved by legalising drugs could be redirected into the NHS for treating addicts, which would undoubtedly be cheaper than putting drug users through the so-called Criminal Justice System.
It is notable that Great Britain was, at one time, the biggest drug dealer the world has ever known - selling opium to the Chinese.
Complain about this comment
I can't decide if Professor Nutt is naive or self-important - maybe he is both. He certainly seems to want to be a politician and set policy rather than carry out the job he was appointed to, of supplying scientific advice.
Well he's now at liberty to say whatever he wants to whoever he wants. Perhaps he'll stand for parliament. He can stand as an indepenent or join one of the other two main parties whose attitude to drugs pretty much reflects that of the current governing party.
Complain about this comment
I think its sad but typical truism that all governments will be happy to follow scientific advice, so long as it broadly agrees with their political aims. Sadly, that's not how science works. The truth has a rather peculiar habit of going 'off message' from time to time. However, to paraphrase the old legal cliche "Let science be done, though the heavens fall...". You need to accept a given scientific truth, regardless whether or not its 'comfortable' politically (or even spiritually, he says opening-can-of-worms-edly)
Can we write to the Home Secretary to protest at this action?
Complain about this comment
Many apologies, David , for not making it clear that the fab photo for the PM glass box came from you. But it seems the David McNickle fans out there don't need telling!
Any ideas for next week??!
sequin
Complain about this comment
Sequin in moderation? Whatever next!
Complain about this comment
49 BigSis
Extreme Eddie.
Complain about this comment
Lucien, that would be worth waiting for, wouldn't it? (by which I don't mean to imply that Sequin's comment isn't worth the wait, by the way ..)
Complain about this comment
Sequin (48) Well I'm sure David's remembered it will be Bonfire Night on Thursday!
Complain about this comment
LOL.... davmcn 8, re DOB it's on your driving lic. We suggest you get your SO to have a look. I am sure she will figure it out for you.
Look everybody David McNickle hasn't left us after all!. Time for a group hug me thinks.
Welcome back Dave!
Go Dave go, Go Dave go.....
BTW, if you have also forgotten your phone number, street name, post code etc. Then give us the nod as we can point you in the right direction!"
BTW, did I say welcome back?
Complain about this comment
Evening all.
Since most of your beef seems to be for or against Prof Nutt, I'll keep it brief. I was pleased tonight- just typical, you wait around for news for a whole day and then lots comes along at once. Thought Carolyn did a standout job with Prof Nutt, and please keep your thoughts coming- might try and do a debate about science and politics on Saturday PM.
and (20)- I think you have a point but as you'll know it's very contentious. When I was a wee slip of an editrice, the terminology changed from first world/ second world/ third world to HDC (high developed country), MDC (medium etc etc) and LDC (low etc etc)- imagine that! and if you're a human geography teacher, that will date me..
Have a good weekend all, and enjoy Kevin Connolly Broadcasting House-sitting for Paddy.
Jo
Complain about this comment
Gillianianian...Thursday! And there was me thinking it was tomorrow eve!
Complain about this comment
Is cannabis less dangerous than horse riding? It depends on your perspective.
Friend's daughter went horse riding regularly for several years. No accidents, traumas, injuries....
Same friend's husband smoked cannabis regularly for several years. Dependancy, depression, anxiety, paranoia, hospitalisation, irrationality, divorce, antagonism, loss of contact with daughter and grandchildren....
It didn't kill him though, so I guess it's not dangerous.
Complain about this comment
Sprouty (55) If you're celebrating Samhain, then it is tomorrow night!
Complain about this comment
Although I have reservations about Professor Nutt’s sacking, I do think he’s better at collecting evidence than he is at presenting it or drawing sensible conclusions from it.
To say that cannabis should be downgraded because it’s less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco is like saying we should de-stigmatise knives sold as weapons, because more people are killed with kitchen knives.
Complain about this comment
42. DD. It is a (well documented) fact that increased burglaries and muggings can be largely attributed to drug users robbing to get money to buy their drugs. I cannot comment on the “US evidence” you refer to regarding driving but I can refer you to UK evidence that cannabis affects adversely reaction times and gives users a dangerous feeling of well being when potential hazards should be prompting speedy preventive action. However, you appear to have missed my point but proved my case: the scientist makes a perfectly reasoned and researched scientific case whereas the politician is unable or unwilling to make the broader case for categorising cannabis based upon the many other factors that do not just take the 2 subjects I mentioned into account. Instead, the politician wants the scientist to change his evidence based research conclusion because he finds that politically easier (he can keep referring to the scientist when questioned, ie “blame him not me”). This is a culture that has grown with this government who devolve responsibility to increasing numbers of agencies who they can then blame when things go wrong.
Complain about this comment
Our politicians have reached another new low by sacking an advisor for speaking the truth.
These serious questions of public health and personal liberty are in future to be decided not on a scientific basis, but entirely on moral grounds.
By people like Jacqui Smith.
Complain about this comment
DocD@34: you so remind me of steelpulse - dopplegangers?
Complain about this comment
56 - What you have there is an anecdote, what Prof. Nutt has done is look at thousands of anecdotes systematically and come to a different conclusion.
Complain about this comment
Gosh! Only just realised that davmcn@8 was/is David_McNickle! Thank goodness you've come back with a name that, hopefully, you wont suspect people of tracking you down with. Honestly, we all have far more important things to do.
Complain about this comment
DD@34: if you can't stand the heat...
Complain about this comment
The problem with Cannabis is the delivery system - smoking it. It needs rebranding and a more socially acceptable method of delivery.
Very few of the people I know who used it in their youth do so now but they still use alchohol. Those who still use it do tend to be stuck in a time in more ways than one. Even the those who regulary used cannabis admit now that alcholol (usually in the form of beer or lager) is more satisfying both socially and in its effects.
Complain about this comment
56. Gillianian - tell that to the parents whose children have died. Your attribution of 'Dependancy, depression, anxiety, paranoia, hospitalisation, irrationality, divorce, antagonism, loss of contact with daughter and grandchildren....' sounds like an urban myth to me. No proof cannabis causes dependancy, depression anxiety, or pananoia, though he may have been trying to self medicate to control what was obviously a mental illness, it may even have helped at times to calm him. If you knew anything about the drug you'd know what you wrote was ludicrous hyperbole.
59. ordinary_bloke wrote:
You are conflating drugs, not surprising since the government prefer to talk of 'drugs' rather than anything specific, as do the media most of the time since they're mostly slack and lazy and don't pay attention.
Heroin users rob to get money to buy their drugs as it is addictive and they feel very sick if they go without. However, when heroin was prescribed by doctors in the sixties, there was no crime associated with addicts, they didn't need to. If you were diabetic and the medicine you needed to stay alive cost a lot on the black market, you might be forced into criminality. Cannabis, being non-addictive, doesn't cause users to commit burglaries or any other crimes like smashing bottles in peroples faces and kicking their heads while they lie helples on the ground; that's mostly the preserve of binge drinkers. On the rest of what you wrote, I concur totally.
Complain about this comment
65. RJMolesworth - your friends have obviously not heard or cannabis wine or beer then. And of course in different, less uptight cultures, it is used in many different dishes, both savoury and sweet and including sweeties like hash fudge as anyone who's been to India or Morocco [among others] would tell you.
Smoking anything is merely a faster delivery system, ingestion by other means is a little slower. The fastest of course is injection, but many heroin addicts smoke it also.
Complain about this comment
64. Lady_Sue - you wish ;-)
Complain about this comment
The Ftse down by exactly what it gained yesterday, the Dow down by even more.
Yesterday things were UP because of high USA growth figures.
Today was DOWN 'cos the growth was government rather than consumer driven. (Consumers are holding on to their dimes in the US).
This 24 hour of bear markets is of a piece with something else of course, namely market makers, big funnd holders, being anti governmwent spending - it's socialist or worse!!!
And that view shades into a systematically perverse view of the world. The more governments help ordinary people, in this case by discretionary spending, the more markets dislike it. The worse the future gets for ordinary people the better markets like it, 'cos it means plenty of cheap labour and greater realtive privelege.
Cos ideally, market makers, private fund holders, want stocks and shares and real estate, their capital, to flourish and every other part of the economy to be down on its uppers.
The period of profit realisation, the boom, is past. Now is the time that capital cuts itself a high RATE of profit.
And it does it, in part, by bucking and twisting like a bronco refusing any narrative that says things are normalising.
Yesterday the pro-government (I mean pro- in the sense of government itself being a good thing) optimists had their brief day.
Today the hard nosed contractionists are back at the helm.
They'll try to convince us government is bad....and then step in to inflate the price of their own capital to make a killing.
The time this policy will work fully, is with a change of governement here and a weakened US President emboilled in a Middle Eastern War. Then expect asset infaltion and unemployment both going thru' the roof under an anti-governemnt Cameron ...'government'..
...Some time next year.
Complain about this comment
Yet again – cannabis and psychosis; yet again – the specialists and politicians (and anyone with a particular axe to grind) get into the TV and Radio studios and the words come pouring out. But have you noticed something? The dog that doesn’t bark in the night; the voice that is hardly ever heard. The voice of anyone who actually hears voices or suffers from ‘schizophrenia’.
There is something that I can tell you with absolute certainty – the only people who know what it is like to hear voices are the people who hear voices. All others are guessing – what they imagine voice hearing is about. “It’s one side of the brain talking to the other”. “It’s a chemical imbalance in the brain.” It’s the ‘bicameral mind’.” And so on and so on….
Whereas, I can tell you what it is like to hear voices, because I have done so for thirty years – fortunately without being made ill, and never as the result of ‘using substances’. For thirty years, continuously and continuing, I have experienced all eleven of what are commonly known as the ‘First Rank’ symptoms of schizophrenia, yet I have never sought – or even felt the desire to ask for help, nor have I had a ‘label’.
In fact, during the whole of that time, all that I have wanted to do – tried to do – is to inform and provide help and understanding for the unfortunates who are plagued by voices to the point of suicide.
From the very outset, I knew that my experiences – which were completely unsought - resulted from spiritual intrusion into my mind and body – and everything that has happened since leaves me with unshakeable certainty. And this is the link with cannabis. Throughout time, and in all parts of the world, the shaman figure has sought contact with his spiritual ‘other’ through the use of hyp-notic substances – cannabis, peyote/mescaline, mushrooms… The people who have so-called psychotic experiences when using cannabis have opened themselves inadvertently to unwanted spiritual intrusion. Sounds far-fetched? There are many who also accept that this is so.
It is a vast subject, and have written 160,000 words about it in a book called ‘Listening to the Silences – in a world of hearing voices’, and if you wish, you can read it for nothing for it is free on the Internet at www.royvincent.net
I know – to many, the word ‘spiritual’ means ‘religion’. Forget it – I have gone out of my way to separate the two. In spite of that, I can also affirm with absolute certainty that the converse of the malign intruding presence exists – and I have had some life defining experiences from such contact with the benign.
Complain about this comment
The government, quite rightly, tells doctors to practice evidence based medicine, but with what shameless hypocrisy. Let us have evidence based government by following the advice of the advisory panel.
It does not seem tenable for the other members of the panel to remain in post; their advice is ignored unless it is what ministers want to hear and it will appear that any who choose to remain, or join, are prepared to compromise evidence, with consequent loss of authority.
Complain about this comment
DoctorDolots (66) I'm only telling you what was told to him and his family by well-qualified and experienced professionals who were trying to help them.
If I knew anyone else who was a long-term cannabis user, I'd have told you about them too....but I don't.
It's real life as I know it.....limited, but certainly neither myth nor hyperbole.
Tell me your story, or show me some evidence, but please don't disparage me for relating one family's experiences.
Complain about this comment
The trouble with "clear scientific evidence" is that I understand that castrating pedophiles would reduce their tendancy to reoffend. However this procedure is not permitted.
Yes I, like most people my age smoked canabis. Unlike politicians I inhaled and enjoyed it.
Complain about this comment
Evidence based policies? It's not just dope is it?
Car Occupant and Motorcyclist Deaths, 1994-2002 by Dr. Jeremy Broughton of the TRL, commissioned by the DoT was completely ignored. Gwyneth Dunwoody then headed a little team to show speed cameras work.
There are two articles in the motoring press at the moment of those speed awareness courses that drivers can do instead of getting the points. One of them queries if it's directed at the correct audience. Is it because the courses aim to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving rather than address the issues identified in the research by Dr. Jeremy Broughton?
We have a lost generation of graduates unable to find jobs because the banksters, regulators and politicians shafted the global economy? What about the lost generation of teenagers still dying on our roads? Where they identified by Dr. Broughton in his research? Isn't there research that shows the more passengers, younger, inexperienced drivers have in the car the more likely an accident is? Don't other countries restrict the age and number of passengers that can be driven by young, inexperienced drivers?
Ignoring the facts and research leads to teenagers continue to die on our roads. Supposedly each fatality on our road costs £1.8M? When I first started seeing a financial cost attributed to each fatality on our roads it was £1M per fatal accident.
Complain about this comment
Is Richard_SM and davmcn
Both missing for several days and then both reappear on the same day. Are they connected? :-)
Complain about this comment
Gillianian, the doctor does have a tendency towards "ludicrous hyperbole" himself, as I have witnessed on different threads a number of times, and seems unable to make a point without abject rudeness or sarcasm. He does rather pontificate on most subjects with an aggression I presume he believes will convince us of his 'superior' knowledge, which if pressed, usually leaves him metaphorically stomping up and down.
I found your point@56 interesting, particularly because it came from personal experience.
Complain about this comment
Oh no, Soupy Sales has died. Good bye White Fang and Black Tooth.
Complain about this comment
DD 34, Do denier forums discuss brands of tights? I used to use Delphi forums.
Complain about this comment
DD 41, In the distant past (OK, the 1970's) I was in charge of a building that housed archaeological volunteers. You could cut the smoke with a knife in some rooms.
Complain about this comment
DD 41, Careful what you say about certain posters. They have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to referring.
Ln 75, Yes, we both stay away from Luton.
Complain about this comment
cq 48, Thanks for using it. I need motivation. Wot's next week?
Complain about this comment
SG 53, My drivers license is from the US, so has the dates in the other order: month, day, year.
Complain about this comment
DD, You are abjectly rude and sarcastic....a bit like me, then. What made me think that you were a female?
Complain about this comment
Welcome davmcn, have I missed something is there a reason why you have rebranded yourself.
Complain about this comment
84 Ln
I think it's something to do with driving around Britain for the last 30 years on a US driving license.
Complain about this comment
#85. lucien_desgai
I'm even more confused!
Complain about this comment
Ln 84, l_d 85, I explained earlier, but for the deaf... Do you remember a month or so ago when everybody lost the ability to post, but it was restored? Well, it happened again, but only to a select few of us and try as they may, mine wasn't restored. They only way to get back on was to use a new name (UNDERSTAND SUE?) as I couldn't remember my password....or my height...or the date of my birth. I wrote the password down somewhere and if I find it, I will return as me....maybe.
My Ohio license expired last year, so I am licenseless.
The Glass Box of a week back used a 'piggy bank' French mailbox that I got from a post office in France.
I'll think about Guy Fox night. BTW, who was that Guy Fox? Related to Guido Fawkes, was he?
Complain about this comment
87 dav
A very select few indeed.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
#87. davmcn
Oh I see now.
For a moment I thought you had been introuble because you had been naughty or funny.
Complain about this comment
Gillianian, a former work colleague told me his son had wrecked his brain with cannabis. Who am I to argue with that?
(26) We were taught about phlogiston at school, that it was a well-established scientific fact until evidence appeared to contradict it. I expect the same to happen about evolution and man-made global warming, eventually.
Complain about this comment
91 VH
If your colleague's son had a mental illness and had been a smoker of cannabis then your colleague will understandably seek to make sense of things by making a causal link.
The parent won't be interested in investigating whether the cannabis smoking was unrelated to cannabis or if the pot-smoking was a function and not a cause of the illness. That is the job of scientists, and their findings seem pretty clear.
Complain about this comment
92 I meant to type ... The parent won't be interested in investigating whether the mental illness was unrelated to cannabis.
Complain about this comment
Lord_Nathan@89: I had a quick look at that link and it makes it clear that:
"No disruptive, offensive or abusive behaviour: contributions must be constructive and polite, not mean-spirited or contributed with the intention of causing trouble.
No unlawful or objectionable content: unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable."
Amazed he lasted as long as he did as DMN.
Ln@90: What are the chances of "being funny"? As he says himself, he is "abjectly rude and sarcastic" rather more often. It does make for an easy target and the phrase "own worst enemy" springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
91. "I expect the same to happen about evolution and man-made global warming, eventually."
Hmmm that looks like a veiled attempt to promote the old gunz'n'relijin agenda but, oddly enough, just reinforces the strength of the scientific method. The whole reason that science exists and is able to sustain itself is precisely because it premits dissent and paradigm changes, so long as new theories are able to account for all of the available evidence.
Using your example of "phlogiston", that wasn't a scientific fact as such, merely the best available theory that explained the observed phenonema at the time. Yes, further evidence was found, a new hypothesis was devised, tested against that evidence and thus a new theory superceded it - in no way does it point to a weakness in the methodology!
Similarly with "Evolution" (by which I assume you mean "modern evolutionary synthesis"). The field just happens to be the most coherent, comprehensive and stable explanation for the observed phenomena (namely, you, me, kittens, the 'flu etc, etc) - any 'rival' theory that can best it would have to be a very big theory indeed; similarly with man-made global warming.
Back to your cage, troll! :-)
Complain about this comment
@95 indeed.
Lord Winston has commented this very day that maybe some folk dont quite understand how science works.
And this week, there was an outstanding broadcast by Clive James, which, while on the surface was championing skepticism, actually was a crackingly good recruiting sergent for the scientific method - requesting that we all look at the facts and fit a theory around them, rather than vice versa.
Complain about this comment
Joel@95: think your 'troll' comment is quite uncalled for. Vyle's comment was perfectly legitimate. No need to be rude merely because we disagree, is there?
nikki, I heard Lord Winston too and thought he sounded so very sensible on precisely that point and was brought to mind of both you and TSSCat. Also thought Clive James' request that we look at the facts was a most salient point.
Delighted we can agree on these two things at least. ;-)
Complain about this comment
I am sure we will find much to agree on, Lady Sue!
Delighted equally!!
n-n
Complain about this comment
n-n, very pleased with this as I kept wanting to apologise for not agreeing with you but, thankfully, you are such a gent and have been gracious at all times.
Complain about this comment
Where did people hear Lord Winston today?
Complain about this comment
I shall not be around to post on tomorrow's AM Box, maybe somebody thinks it is interesting to bring this up in view of David Miliband's first visit to Russia in 5 years.
Earlier this evening I heard on the BBC Radio 4 News that Prime Minister Putin has issued a warning to EUROPE about possible interruptions to gas supply in the coming winter, due to the difficulties with Ukraine's alleged non-payment. Many European countries may be affected again. In any case, interesting timing...
Complain about this comment
Lucien@100: Think it must have been 'The World This Weekend' with Shaun Lay at 1300.
Complain about this comment
Why is everyone so surprised that 20 X more people die of alcohol than of drugs? It's legal and cheaply available, so naturally many times more people consume alcohol than drugs. Also couldn't the larger number of deaths caused by horse riding compared with taking ecstasy be something to do with the fact that millions of people of all ages ride whereas taking ecstasy is only done by a relatively narrow band of people? Is Dr Nutt really saying that if you took 100 horseriders and 100 ecstasy users of the same age the danger for the riders would be greater? Trouble is Dr Nutt's so-called scientific comments strike me as fancicul: how can you compare the dangers of an irreversible psychosis caused by a year of smoking skunk as a tenager with the chance of death by heart or lung disease caused by decades of taking alcohol and/or nicotine? He grabbed the headlines with over-simplistic statements and because he is a scientist everyone takes his words as gospel. Please could he be replaced with someone who has some experience of psychiatry?
Complain about this comment
92 lucien_desgai
You could argue the other way round. Those who take cannabis and don't suffer (apart from memory loss) prefer to think that their more unlucky collaborators were sort of ill already. This absolves them of the guilt of aiding so-called friends into a lifetime of anxiety, prescription drugs with side-effects and possible early death. When my son had to leave Oxford University because of a psychosis following repeated and heavy use of skunk I read all the stuff about how he'd really been a schizophrenic all along and taking drugs was just a symptom rather than a cause. In his case it simply doesn't add up. And if cannabis was so mild, why did all the psychiatrists insist that he must never take it again? And why were the 3 psychiatric wards he went to groaning under the sudden influx of similar cases, all cannabis users?
I was disgusted to discover that when my son was still vulnerable and on the first steps of painful rehabilitation his friends felt no shame in continuing to smoke pot in front of him. Would you do the same?
If you're a happy drug user and get away with it, bully for you. But have you ever opened your eyes to people around you who are less fortunate? If ao I think you would be a little less sure in your opinions
Complain about this comment
Elizabeth T: Although I can see that what you say has relevance here, may I suggest that your two posts might get more exposure if they were on the PM Glass Box for Monday? I hope things have worked out for your son - it must have been a terribly difficult time.
Complain about this comment
elizabeth taylor (104) Thank you for sharing your experiences. Your son's story is very similar to the experiences of my friend's family which I outlined earlier on this thread.
Who are we to argue with the expertise of the professionals into whose care we entrust our loved ones?
I hope your son has recovered. Best wishes to both of you.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Gillianian (106). Yes my son got his degree, has a job, was chosen to be captain of his local cricket team and has taken leading roles in the public performances of plays, so Dr Nutt would probably never consider including him on any statistics for ill effects of cannabis. If he dies young it will probably be attributed to side-effects of the anti-psychotic drugs he will have to take for the rest of his life. He is a wiser but sadder man, quite different from the extrovert jokey chap who just had to try everything including cannabis.
You say we have to trust the expertise of professionals but I'm afraid that's where I disagree with so many contributors to this blog. The point is that experts and scientists disagree and should not therefore use colourful language to cover what appear to me to be rather tenuous stats. A basic principle of statistics is to compare samples of equal size, run the experiment over identical periods of time and have similar profiles of people. I simply do not believe he has done that. If you are interested I have tried to explore how complicated this would be in my comment at the end of Monday's blog. A scientist I found much more convincing also spoke on R4 (possibly World at 1?) and pointed out that Dr Nutt's committee have been forced into a couple of embarrassing U-turns so they do not have a monopoly on the facts.
The scientist I have always believed and trusted was the university psychiatrist who first told me of my son's condition. As he said, some people might have a stronger predisposition than others in the same way that some people pick up colds more easily than others, but the heavy use of skunk had definitely sent my son over the edge. He told me that the psychiatric wards of hospitals all over the country were experiencing a sudden influx of patients in a similar state with similar causes.
I do not like this government but the fact that they sacked Dr Nutt does not make him suddenly an icon of The Truth. He was supposed to look for remedies not divert attention elsewhere. Some of our most eminent scientists in the past used to test their theories on themselves. Perhaps he should smoke a large amount of skunk daily and wait to see if anything happens ...? Or try if on a younger member of his family?
Complain about this comment
elizabeth: I have heard the theory about the 'stronger predisposition' proposed before and suspect that there may well be something in it.
One other relevant point is that the drugs that people take these days (I mean the "illegal" drugs) apparently are not as pure as eg. the 'dope' that was smoked in the 1960s because they are 'cut' with different damaging chemicals and this also contributes to problems and complications. I'm glad to read that your son has progressed so well and completely understand your concerns over this issue. I second Gillianian in thanking you for sharing your own experience.
Complain about this comment
Comparing deaths from cannabis use with deaths from horse riding is comparing apples and oranges. As far as I'm aware, though (and perhaps this is more relevant), there is no causal link whatsoever between horseriding and psychosis - indeed, horseriding has been used therapeutically to help people with mental, and other conditions, to recover from, or cope with, their conditions.
I think the eminent professor needs to have a long hard think about how he perceives danger.
Complain about this comment
Big Sister: I don't know if you missed these figures in the transfer fiasco ...
"Ecstasy: 500,000 users, 30 deaths a year. Acute harm: 1/10000 episodes.
"Horse-riding: 10 deaths and more than 100 road traffic accidents (some fatal) a year. Acute harm: 1/350 episodes.
"I don't know how many people ride.
"You can, of course, read the original article in the Journal of Psychopharmacology."
I can't give a link, I'm afraid, as pdfs are frowned on.
Regretably, if you fall from your horse and suffer brain damage, there is a plain causal link between the fall and any psychosis you may suffer.
Complain about this comment
Ah, Sid, but if there IS psychosis resulting from the fall, it is precisely that - the result of the fall. However, any psychosis caused by drug use is, well, you can see where I'm going ....
Complain about this comment
Elizabeth(107) I should make it clear that when I referred to ''the expertise of the professionals into whose care we entrust our loved ones?'' I had in mind certain individuals like the university psychiatrist you referred to, and the psychiatrists who were trying to help my friend, as these are the people who have to deal with drug abuse on a day-to-day basis and form their opinions from first hand experience with other individuals who are not mere statistics or data.
In my friend's case, the professionals' view that his condition was due to his prolonged high daily use of cannabis was unequivocal. Sadly, he didn't accept his doctors' advice, and the family is still suffering the consequences.
Complain about this comment
Lady Sue,
It's definitely the case with alcohol. Masses of evidence. Just ask AA. Some people are sensitive to gluten or peanuts, too.
Complain about this comment
Big Sister - the good prof was actually comparing ecstasy (not cannabis) and horse-riding ...
If you read the article, you will see that he is simply raising the question: why do we seek to ban one of two activities, each of which causes a small number of deaths each year, and not the other? He's not concerned with the precise numbers. He is, however, concerned with our perception of risk. It seems to me that we accept the risks associated with horse-riding because we think horse riding is a good thing, while we are averse to the risks associated with ecstasy because we think drugs are a bad thing.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Sid, you're right - in my haste I transposed ecstasy for cannabis - but my point remains true. I did read the article (honestly! though I'm not prepared to reread it for lack of time) and understand his point about perceptions of risk. There's a whole different debate out there about risky activities (including rockclimbing, parachuting, gliding, rugby, etc., etc.) and also a completely different debate about what we categorise as drugs and acceptable drugs. I understand his frustration, in many ways, but unfortunately the way he has expressed himself (and I'm now particularly thinking about interviews he gave last week, not the article to which you refer) has given the impression that he and his panel think cannabis is pretty harmless. Psychiatrists appear to disagree with this view. And our generation (you and me, that is) were not exposed to the dangers of skunk, or some of the other forms of cannabis that are now around.
For what it's worth, I don't think the professor should have spoken out in the way that he did because that wasn't his role, but I don't think I have enough information to make an informed opinion about how cannabis should be categorised. Having seen young people move from cannabis into stronger drugs, though, and the effect this has had on their lives, I wouldn't rush to liberalisation.
Complain about this comment
Lord Nathan@113: good point. Am sure you are right.
BTW: as Sid says on another thread, your formatting is rather playing havoc with the lines that separate each post.
I'm betting Professor Nutt is so regretting his horse-riding metaphor.
Complain about this comment
Big Sis - what Nutt said was that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. He didn't say it wasn't harmful.
(By the way, I've just come across an article suggesting a link between sunspot activity and schizophrenia - neatly combining two current threads!)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sid, I know that is what he said (I have been following the discussion!). My points stand, however.
Complain about this comment
There's an old AA saying, "One's too many, and a thousand's not enough." It applies very well to the susceptible, and I'mof the opinion that the same applies to most things. Fortunately, I can take a taste of most things without experiencing the compulsion to over-do it.
Sadly, others are less fortunate, but the misfortune of a minority is a poor basis for laws governing all of us, or instead of just printing warnings, should we outlaw peanuts?
Complain about this comment
Personally, I am very much of the belief that the government has a role in providing as much useful information as it can - and that the rest of us are responsible for making our own choices.
Complain about this comment
Hear, Here!
Complain about this comment
Sid, in practice that's what happens ...
Complain about this comment
Big Sister - in practice the government can put me in prison if I make my own choices ...
Complain about this comment
But in practice, Sid, there are plenty of people who are technically breaking the law in the manner described but to whom blind eyes are being turned. ;o)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS