A return to reason?
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Home Office have just published the fruits of their meeting yesterday.
While those who had wanted an apology for the way the home secretary sacked his chief advisor, Professor David Nutt, will be disappointed, the search for a new arrangement to improve the relationship between ministers and advisers does seem to have made headway.
There may still be sticking points over the details of the "Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice" being discussed by the Chief Scientific Adviser Sir John Beddington, Lord Rees from the Royal Society and the prime minister's office.
However, the deal published includes a commitment from the home secretary to write to the full council setting out his reasons if he decides to reject their advice in the future. This retains the principle of ministerial responsibility but will oblige the Home Office to explain why they have rejected the science - and I suspect an answer that reads "the tabloids won't wear it" will not be good enough.
Here is the statement in full:
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
A new group full of toadies. Government policy is to change everything until it suits their wishes. Shame on you Johnson, why don't you accept that you are not bright enough for the position you hold.
Complain about this comment
So it was a pretty rough meeting. This translates as:
"The ACMD mebers told Johnson that if he did anything like the way he sacked Nutt again, he could expect to be without advisors; and if they did not get his promise to behave in writing, it would be 'Goodbye' immediately. Next, he must sign up to whatever guidelines Beddington and Rees come up with. Further, they would not accept a new Chairman unless they sat in on the selection.
The Home Secretary agreed."
Complain about this comment
Come on, sack the useless postman. He's an insult to reason.
Complain about this comment
The best path for the ACMD is to tell Johnson to get lost and the remainder resign en mass in protest against the crude bullying tactics of the Home Secretary. A government that is not prepared to argue its case openly preferring to have tame boffins to give it a thin veneer of respectability does not deserve to have independent advice. Anyway it is not as if the government's policy has been successful in reducing the abuse of drugs whatever the category.
Complain about this comment
all's well that ends well? time will tell.
Complain about this comment
it seems if you disagree with the almighty neu-labour party no matter how right you are you will loose so therein nothing new in this report just the same old spin and empty headed ideas.
Complain about this comment
It would be great relief to many in this country if all the alleged scientists who talk rubbish on drugs resigned...we do not want a country full of addicts on drugs or alcohol ..so we want people in authority to take that stance ..that is what Mr Johnson is doing and I for one support him
Complain about this comment
"If the advice is not to be accepted the Home Secretary will write to the full Council setting out his reasons for rejection. This will be ahead of any public comment by the Home Office on the matter."
Okay, so what's the reason for cannabis being a class B and mushrooms, MDMA and LSD being a class A?
Also, will they get sacked for publicising the reasons for rejection, or, airing a scientific opinion against the reasoning?
What about making a harm-based table showing the classes of what ACMD think in comparison to what the actual governments policy is on drugs?
"the ACMD accepted the Home Secretary's offer that one of their members would be part of the interview panel during the recruitment process."
What the fudge ..? The ACMD is independent but you may get sacked if you say something they don't like. Also one of the Home Secretary's minions will have to be present at interviews!
THAT'S STILL A POLITICIAN STEPPING INTO THE FIELD OF SCIENCE.
DOESN'T SOUND VERY INDEPENDENT TO ME!!!
Sorry, I got a bit angry caps lock. Where's their chemist? Will an Alan Johnson supervisor need to be there whilst picking a chemist?
The ACMD is now 6 down. I imagine it is now lacking expertise, not political interference.
Complain about this comment
oldsitkaspruce...Something seems to have escaped your attention...we have a nation of addicts, and we have prohibition. when will you and johnson understand your policies have failed...It would be a great relief for me when we start dealing with drugs intelligently.
Complain about this comment
yumyum #8.
"The ACMD is now 6 down. I imagine it is now lacking expertise, not political interference."
hear, hear!
bansis #9.
"oldsitkaspruce..."
you're feeding a troll (check its record).
Complain about this comment
Does this mean that the HS will now write to the ACMD and explain why he thinks its right to keep it class B and further criminalise 3.5 million people. Why he fells that its better to be left in criminal hands which in turn will lead to greater harm than when it was class C and less adulterated for profit with harmful substances.
Will he also ask for extra funding to cope with the stress in cancer treatments from adulterated cocaine which at current consumption bring a million people into high risk cancer groups.
Were given the current decision to keep cannabis class B and a high priced drug in favour of cheaper class A drugs were does he see the health of the nation in 10 years,(not that he actually has a concern for the effect 10 years from now)given that drugs like crystal meth is now easy to make and no longer requires a lab just the ingredients and a few plastic containers to shake it in.
oldsitkaspruce when was the last time you actually took of those rose tinted glasses.?
Complain about this comment
#2 Diversities
Spot on! I wouldn't be surprised if the actual discussion was very heated, in a nice gentlemanly, English way.
When I was a fresh-faced young manager in a nationalised industry part of my job was writing anodyne minutes like the BS the Home Office has just published. Everything was toned down to make the chairman sound good and in control. I grew heartily sick of the hypocrisy involved.
The sad thing is that everyone has lost here:
* Nutt has lost his post as chair of ACMB
* Johnson has lost his credibility as a politician and maybe even his chance to be Labour leader
* ACMD has lost a lot of expertise
* The Home Office has lost its political control over scientists
* The public has lost the chance to have a sensible policy on dangerous drugs
Ah well, 'twas ever thus...
Complain about this comment
"This retains the principle of ministerial responsibility but will oblige the Home Office to explain why they have rejected the science - and I suspect an answer that reads "the tabloids won't wear it" will not be good enough."
If the Government agrees to this - in a suitably watertight fashion -(and I don't see that they have any other option) - then this could be a really significant result. One I would call a victory for David Nutt.
But, there's a few things missing from what the Home Secretary appears to have agreed to:
1) Why is this restricted to the Home Office? Surely the same principles should apply across all advisory bodies across the whole of Government?
2) What guarantees are there that unpaid members of advisory bodies can speak out and criticize Government thinking and decisions - without damage to their academic careers or spurious character assination attempts by Government?
3)Where does it say that Government thinking - published in a letter to the advisory body - can be published in public forums with impunity?
If the Government does sign-up to the principles, then if I were a member of the ACMD, I'd be pushing to write to the Home Secretary the next day saying:
our advice is that cannabis should be Class C - and further, based on the relative harm of the two substances there should be rough parity of treatment for alcohol and cannabis in Government policy and legislation
- and then look forward to the Government's counter-arguments.
"The tabloids won't wear it" - is certainly not good enough. Nor is "it is good for our image" and nor is "we want to send a message (that is not credible)".
Complain about this comment
The bottom line is that the political system in this country is strangulated by religious morals and fear. We need to clear out all the dead wood and elect people like Professor Nutt and the people that post comments on these blogs, who given a chance would create drugs policys based on scientific evidence and intelligent reasoning.
Complain about this comment
A Return To Reason?
Further to my above comment (no.14) i have drawn up some recomendations which i shall be forwarding to the ACMD. These being, that:
A) Politicians should be subject to the same classification as are drugs.
and that,
B) Politicians should be placed in the A category, as they are dangerous, and likely to cause severe mental disorders in society.
However these recomendations, which are designed to protect the public, will not be able to stop the illegal production of politicians in back street labs, or stop street gangs making vast amounts of profits out of politicians that contain dangerous adulterants such as ear wax. It is hoped however that overall these measures will prove to be a sensible and realistic framework for future policy, in order to deter people from abusing politicians and suffering the long term health consequences.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
perhaps if they made the arrangement retroactive by a few months then we could have an explanation and Prof Nutt could have his position back.
Or perhaps if the new council has any b&lls they will simply rewrite and reissue the same advice and then see what the exlanation for refusing it might be.
Hmmmm .... I'd love to think so, but it soulnds like a castration to me.
Complain about this comment
The more I hear of this the less it sounds like a group of impartial advisers and the more it sounds like a group of people with an agenda to push a particular policy.
We elect people to make the decisions. If we are not happy with them then we vote them out (watch it happen next year). Who elected these academics?
Give the government your advice. Let them make a decision. End of story.
Complain about this comment
As one would expect the statement is written in "official speak" and is intended to demonstrate that the situation is completely under control and that any debate or disagreement is firmly booted into next year -after the election when there is a fair chance this wont be Alan Johnson's problem.
This episode has been a sad and tragic commentary on this governments inability to deal with one of the most serious problems of the the post war globalised world. Instead of New Labour it was still in the mindset of "Sunny" Jim Callaghan, the Labour Home Home Secretary in the 70s who wanted cannabis to be a class A drug.
"New" Labour that has continued to follow the american policy of the "War on Drugs" since the 70s. Imagine that! Our leading politicians wanting to wear the crown of that crook Richard Nixon the anti communist witch hunter, home bugging, wire tapping, war monger who invented the war on drugs. Surely they couldn't see him as a role model!
An inability to use their brains for the common good, to show leadership in the face of public (Tabloid) opinion. They are too cowardly to admit that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful to the population than illegal drugs for cynical reasons such as propping up the alcohol industry.
I used to vote for them but this and all the other shameful fiascos reminds me that there has to be a better way. I think I will give the LIb Dems a try at least they are prepared to argue with Alan Johnson.
Complain about this comment
#18 jon112uk.
The ACMD have been asked by the government to give them advice, and this is what they have done, in the hope that this will influence government policy, that is what advisors are for, as politicians are unable to make sensible decisions themselves.
The very fact that the government has asked these advisors to give them advice in the first place, means that the government is fully aware that the ACMD will be seeking to influence government policy (as would be any other group of advisors across the governmental departments) thats what giving advice is all about, to try and persuade or influence a person or body that they should adopt a certain policy based on sound scientific and rational evidence. The very act of asking for advice will mean that the government may from time to time be given something that they do not like, because the advisors ARE impartial. If the politicians dont want to open themselves up to the possibility of having to take someone else advice, then why bother having advisory panels in the first place?
This government will be voted out next year. But who are they going to be replaced with? The conservatives no doubt! As a result we will have to endure even more idiotic approaches to drugs policys than we are dealing with allready, and the same old story will reapeat itself, Politicians not listening to sound academic advice.
Nobody has elected these academics, but they have been asked to do a job by the politicians and the politicians dont like the advice they have been given.
Who really are the fools here?
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
"The more I hear of this the less it sounds like a group of impartial advisers and the more it sounds like a group of people with an agenda to push a particular policy."
If you'd spent your entire working life researching the effects of drugs, treating addicts, dealing with the social problems associated with prohibition & policing our streets, as the members of the ACMD have, wouldn't you want to make sure that the government were following a policy that would reduce the harm associated with prohibition ?
And if you gave your professional advice, wouldn't you want the government to give you the reasons why they had ignored it ?
The only agenda these people have is a desire not to be used as a rubberstamp for government policy, especially when that policy is going against all of the evidence available.
"We elect people to make the decisions."
Two words: Peter Mandelson.
"If we are not happy with them then we vote them out (watch it happen next year)."
Except that under the current system it doesn't really matter who you vote for, the party system ensures that whatever party gets in ends up making the same decisions.
"Who elected these academics?"
They're not just academics, are they ?
They are mostly people dealing with the real world effects of government policy, they're Police Officers, Magistrates, Teachers, Doctors and various other professionals who are experts in their field, working on the coal face, and have more knowledge and experience of the subject than the whole of Parliament combined.
You could just as easily say "Who elected the Governor of the Bank of England", or "Who elected the Chief Constable" or more importantly "Who elected the House of Lords".
"Give the government your advice. Let them make a decision. End of story."
Except that this government have spent years telling us how they're going to write evidence based policy, only to completely ignore the evidence almost every time they've written a piece of legislation.
The government either have to accept that they're going to write legislation based on evidence or stop setting up advisory panels who they then go on to ignore, they can't have it both ways.
Complain about this comment
@Darren
"A) Politicians should be subject to the same classification as are drugs."
er no. Politicians are much more dangerous than drugs. If we are to have an evidence based policy of relative harm risk assessment, then politicians are clearly more pernicious than any amount of fundamentally inert substances. Moreover, we deeply damage ourselves and our society by inflicting these toxins on ourselves. We should learn to just say no.
"B) Politicians should be placed in the A category, as they are dangerous, and likely to cause severe mental disorders in society."
The vast majority are so out of touch with reality that they should be placed in mental institutions. Well, I say "should", unfortunately the last lot of politicians decided that "care in the community" (a euphemistic justification of creative political accountancy) would instantly make psychiatric problems go away, and thus most units were closed down in order to be sold off. Prison would however definitely be an appropriate option for a number of the crooks, swindlers and expense fiddlers in government, although unsuprisingly it looks like they will be letting themselves off with a caution....
Complain about this comment
# 21. At 10:28am on 12 Nov 2009, General_Jack_Ripper
You're still missing the point - these are ADVISERS.
Their current conduct in relation to their advice (published articles, leaks, resignations, more leaks) increasingly makes this look like rather more than just advice.
Do what we say - or else?
That's not ADVICE.
Complain about this comment
#18
I don't remember electing Peter Mandelson, Baroness Ashton or any of the other Labour ministers in the Lords.
Even the Labour Party didn't get the chance for to vote for Gordon Brown as party leader and therefore by default Prime Minister.
And at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, the ACMD is a statutory body set up by an Act of Parliament specifically to do what they and prof. Nutt have been doing, not some ad-hoc group of people pulled together to give a veneer of respectability to a political decision.
If you don't like this, lobby your MP to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Probably worth reading it first...
Complain about this comment
Note how in the points of statement, how many have the Home Secretary or Government 'leading'.
Is this a true reflection ??
Complain about this comment
jon112uk. these advisers are unpaid and part time, they have full time jobs, in the case of Prof Nutt that is a psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs which affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety and sleep. He published his findings to academia, as other 'scientists' do, which he is allowed to do. Resignations happened because they disagreed with johnson. Alan johnson wrote a letter too the Gaurdian regarding david Nutts sacking and it wouldnt surprise me if the leaks originated from the HO. you miss the point.
Complain about this comment
telecasterdave
Re #1
Well, if they are a lot of "toadies" in place clearly Mr Johnson is "bright enough" to have got what he wanted!
I suggest "Toadies" don't get a commitment from the Home secretary to write a full explanation for not agreeing/accepting their advice.
On the other hand, if as seems evident from the quality of the Scientists and the Statement of intent, there has been quite a degree of drawing together on primary aims and the understanding of science advisory roles then it seems to me Mr Johnson has made the best of a very botched earlier job!
By the way, just like our Military commanders, Foreign Ambassadors, Police Chiefs etc. it is for the elected Government of the day via its Ministers of State to decide policy for the nation: Nothing says the 'advice' the Ministers receive need be taken or rejected and rightly so - - good Governance is rarely to be found by simply following 'expert' opinion - - in modern times the Car Seat-belt and Breathalizers were excellent recommendations by experts in their field whereas if you consider Speed Cameras or CCTV as enhancing 'safety' the jury is still very much out on the 'experts' views of good policy-making.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #23.
one cannot help but feel that these advisors are probably at their wits end with the current crop of career opportunists, just like a large proportion of the general population; consider, they're pretty 'safe hands' to have made into the committee in the first place and for them to say 'no' must have taken quite a bit. no excuse, I know, still..
Complain about this comment
Lot's of comments coming back - no problem.
So is it advice from these people? Or is it a campaign?
I know some of you guys like the 'advice' but I'm not discussing the the content of the advice. I'm commenting how they are responding when their advice has not been followed.
Frankly, I think if they are so unhappy then they should resign. This is not the primary source of income for any of them - no bravery is involved to quit. The fact that they are hanging on and contiuing the moaning and leaking just makes it look all the more like a campaign.
Complain about this comment
This whole debate about the ACMD, the sacking of Professor Nutt and the underlying debate about the legalisation of drugs has annoyed me so much, that i cant stop pacing up and down my living room.
I have an unpleasant feeling that within a few weeks or a month this whole debate will be forgotten. Which is sad, as it is a very important issue.
It is at times like this that i feel the BBC should do more to bring such a debate firmly into the public arena by creating more regular programmes and debates about the drugs issue to screen on our tellys. As a highly influential and powerfull organisation, i feel that the BBC has a duty to the license fee payers to keep the heat constantly on the politicians (not just on the drugs issue)in order to bring about some sensible policy decisions.
I also think that the top brass of the police force should be more vocal and get more involved in the debate, if there truly is a consensus among them towards legalisation.
I believe that, together, both the Police and the BBC could make such a difference to government policy on drugs, if they could only be brave enough to challenge the government head on and not let the politicians squirm their way out of things all the time, or let the issue get forgotten, whoever is power. The BBC and the Police have so much power, do they realise this? and are they prepared to stand up for a radical shift towards legalisation based on sound scientific evidence and reasoning? Thats what we need!
Complain about this comment
This all sounds fair enough. Why not offer the cannabis issue up as a referendum?
Johnson can't expect us to take his pronouncements seriously so he might as well give up. Prohibition doesn't work. In other parts of the world cannabis is the focus of research into treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. See the report in the Jerusalem post on 4/11/09.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #29.
"I know some of you guys like the 'advice' but.."
oh, come on now, this is not about 'us' guys liking their advice (well not exclusively, anyway ;)).
this is a much wider problem as you can see.
Complain about this comment
" 18. At 09:03am on 12 Nov 2009, jon112uk wrote:
The more I hear of this the less it sounds like a group of impartial advisers and the more it sounds like a group of people with an agenda to push a particular policy.
We elect people to make the decisions. If we are not happy with them then we vote them out (watch it happen next year). Who elected these academics?
Give the government your advice. Let them make a decision. End of story. "
The problem isn't that the advise wasn't followed.
The problem isn't that other factors came into play which meant they couldn't be followed.
The problem isn't that the advised policy required more funding than what was available.
The problem is that the advise was outright ignored and it looked like the policy was decided on before the advise had been recieved in the first place.
The problem is that the advisers were criticised and one was fired for giving a lecture on the facts that were used in the advise.
The problem is that the advisers were basically told they shouldn't publically disagree with the goverment, even when policy goes against the advise they have given and research that they have previously published.
The problem is that it has given the impression that the goverment only keep expert advisers around to give themselves credability, and ignore or disregard any advise that the experts give.
The problem is the goverment didin't even have to give the advisers a reason that their advise wan't followed, something that has no doubt caused alot of ill feeling umong advisers for years.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #29
"So is it advice from these people?, or is it a campaign?"
Does it matter whether it is advice or a campaign? Cant see any problem with advice, and politicians are always campaigning about something or other, so i cant see that it makes any difference. Whether or not it is advice or a campaign is completley missing the point.
The point is that the drugs issue is a very important issue, and a lot of people - the Police, drugs workers/agencys, teachers, doctors etc believe that, - based on sound scientific evidence and sane reasoning - we should move towards the legalisation of drugs for many many reasons, which would take weeks and weeks to list here in this comment.
I believe that the arguments for legalisation far outweigh the arguments against, and it is about time that our politicians took a bravery pill and did something about it.
Complain about this comment
#27
"By the way, just like our Military commanders, Foreign Ambassadors, Police Chiefs etc. it is for the elected Government of the day via its Ministers of State to decide policy for the nation: Nothing says the 'advice' the Ministers receive need be taken or rejected and rightly so - - good Governance is rarely to be found by simply following 'expert' opinion... "
You see, that's fine as long as the public is ill-informed. But once that public knows that a policy is barmy then it is unlikely to take much else seriously. The message put forth by the gov in its drugs policy is (to me) dangerous. It didn't take Nutt's report to inform me. I hasn't just dawned on me that the Gnome Office is the repository of bad ideas manifesting as legislation: Home Information Packs - useless! ID Cards - crikey, most of us have driving licenses! Community Police Support Officers: nice touch but totally mendicant...
So it's a known that Home Office outpourings are always suspect. In the case of the scientific advisors, they're hardly acting in a vacuum. As I said elsewhere, other countries are poised to use cannabis to treat PTSD...
Complain about this comment
" 23. At 10:55am on 12 Nov 2009, jon112uk wrote:
# 21. At 10:28am on 12 Nov 2009, General_Jack_Ripper
You're still missing the point - these are ADVISERS.
Their current conduct in relation to their advice (published articles, leaks, resignations, more leaks) increasingly makes this look like rather more than just advice.
Do what we say - or else?
That's not ADVICE."
Are you suggesting that an adviser shouldn't be allowed to speak about the advise they have given?
The initial argument started because Prof. Nutt gave a lecture, a single lecture, where he outlined his 'expert opinion' on how drugs policy should work. This 'opinion' is not contravertial legalisation of all drugs, it is merely that drugs should be classified according to the harm they do to users and society as a whole.
Is that really such a stupid idea?
The problem arises though with drugs like ecstacy/MDMA, they are not that dangerous relative to legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol (as Proff Nutt argued as an illistration of the risk they are less harmfull 'overall' that horse riding and extreme sports). So we have a problem in the system, drugs such as MDMA and others actually do more harm when illegal than if they were legal. Legalisation would eliminate some of the risk involved in getting poor quality drugs potentially cut with something alot more harmfull and would avoid users sometimes coming into contact with seriously dodgey people.
Proff Nutt was merely pointing out that for the 'relativly' harmless drugs (I'm not suggesting they are perfectly safe, just relative to alcohol and tobacco) should not be classified as highly as they are and definatly should not be upgraded.
It just doesn't make sense to put a potential 5 year sentence for posetion on a substance that is considerably less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
Complain about this comment
32. At 12:04pm on 12 Nov 2009, jr4412 wrote:
jon112uk #29.
"I know some of you guys like the 'advice' but.."
oh, come on now, this is not about 'us' guys liking their advice (well not exclusively, anyway ;)).
========================================
Mmmmm....
It will be interesting to see if you are all so keen on blind obedience to scientific 'advice' when some report comes back saying drug x NOT to be legalised, or calling for more nuclear power.
Might I suggest that if you didn't agree with the advice you might be saying it's... just advice - might be wrong - government must make the final decision?
Complain about this comment
atrisse #35.
"..Home Office outpourings.."
and then there's internal problems (dare I say incompetence), like:
"..the investigation into how a backlog of 27,000 files on UK citizens convicted abroad was left gathering dust in the Home Office."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/europe/article1292480.ece
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #37.
the primary purpose of #32 was to highlight that ministers are equally dismissive of evidence in other areas of government, did you miss the link?
re. nuclear. as source of power generation? or to breed weapons grade plutonium? and then there's always the as yet unsolved disposal problem.
I'm not argueing that scientific advice is the 'be all and end all' but I do think that evidence must be taken into account, like for instance, the Portuguese or Dutch experiences.
Complain about this comment
#37. At 12:33pm on 12 Nov 2009, jon112uk
Well I for one would love to see the word run according the scientific evidence and the facts instead of tradition, religion, sensationilist media and politicians who only care about votes and popularity.
Theres way too many instances where something is stopped, banned or made worse because of fears based on nothing but rumors, public perception and poor media reporting.
Look at the situation with windfarms, the MMR vacine, waste incinerators, mobile phone masts, nuclear power and drugs classification.
The list is endless, and full of cases where the scientific facts of the matter are ignored because of fear, lack of understanding and populist political decisions.
Complain about this comment
Those commenting on the Nutt debacle have not mentioned that other scientists (not on the ACMD) agreed with the sacking. So- even amongst scientists there is not 100% agreement. Now 6 members of the ACMD have resigned - good, that will give an opportunity for 6 newcomers to include members of Drug Prevention groups, parents of drug users and parents of non drug-usiong teens (or pre-teens) who also have opinions which need to be heard. Surely a professional working in the field of drug prevention has as much expertise as a vet ? I am inclined to agree with the comments that the ACMD has not only been about giving advice but of campaigning for changes in the laws.
Many members of the past and current ACMD are known to have links to pro-legalisation drugs lobbies or extreme liberal groups - google Dame Ruth Runciman and read some of her statements.......
Complain about this comment
AdaptableAnn #41.
"Many members of the past and current ACMD are known to have links to pro-legalisation drugs lobbies or extreme liberal groups.."
cannot comment on the past (and youthful indiscretions?) of any ACMD members, but what is your problem with liberalism?
do you feel better living in a straight-jacketed surveillance society where ordinary people are branded as 'criminals' for the sake of an establishment obsessed with dogma?
if that works for you, fine, a significant percentage of the population (a majority?) would disagree.
Complain about this comment
@jon112uk
It is not about cannabis - personally I don't care very much at all what happens about cannabis.
It is about a number of things:
1) Freedom of speech - whether you are a Government adviser or not.
2) Holding Policymakers to account and making sure our society's resources are managed and allocated appropriately.
3) Having a grown-up, rational society.
David Nutt earned his position by a lifetime spent in accumulating knowledge and expertise in a particular area. He, like anyone in our society, should be able to speak up and engage in public discourse about his area of expertise without suffering negative consequences whether a Government adviser or not. In particular he should be able to point out Government hypocrisy in claiming a policy is "evidence-based" when it clearly is not - simply as a citizen. I may disagree with David Nutt, I may agree with him - but in either case I will defend his right to say what he knows. That means he should not have gotten the sack - that act was an infringement of "free speech" - and was clearly politically, morally wrong.
Parliament - the Commons and the Lords - has shown itself to be incapable of holding the Executive, the Government, to account. One reason why it can't is because in general MPs lack enough knowledge to effectively question the Government's assertions. [And in general these days MPs seem more interested in their career benefits than doing the job for which they are elected - so they are not motivated to hold the Government to account.] Traditionally a free press, the media, have a role in holding politicians to account. But 'the media' in general suffers the same lack of knowledge as MPs - and their agenda has changed over the past decade or two. The media now is more about gossip and pandering to popular prejudice - in order to sell 'copy'. [I generalise - there are one or two bright patches in a very black media landscape.] If no-one effectively hold Government to account then our resources are allocated in an uninformed way on the basis of prejudice - and as a society we are all worse off for it - effectively lots of money, lots of the value created by peoples' 'graft', is wasted in futile policy pursuits. The only people left who _can_ hold the Government to account are knowledgeable people with a role in public discourse - people like David Nutt and the ACMD.
3) Colonicus 42 says it. Do we want a society based on ignorance, prejudice, fear and rumour? An autocracy of the ignorant? If your answer to this question is "yes" - then feel free to support Alan Johnson et al.
If on the other hand you want a society based on knowledge and rationality, where policy really is evidence-based, then you should do what you can to defend free speech and open debate, fight against political distortion of scientific evidence and advice, seek to stop bullying by arrogant and ignorant elected (or unelected) authorities, and capaign for better, more scientific education of the general populace.
Complain about this comment
AdaptableAnn, I found this regarding Dame Ruth Runiman
'Ministers argue, of course, that they do not have to accept advice - however fact-driven. But the view expressed by Dr Campbell echoes those of Dame Ruth Runciman, a former member of the ACMD, in a letter to The Times yesterday:
"Until now, the ACMD's advice has been accepted by governments of both parties despite the challenge to existing policies and practices that it sometimes posed. I think in particular of the Aids and Drug Misuse Reports, which I had the privilege of chairing and which attracted considerable public and press hostility. Nevertheless, Margaret Thatcher's Government, after some hesitation, took the bold step of accepting the ACMD's recommendations and implementing a wide range of harm reduction initiatives including needle exchanges. As a result, we now have one of the lowest rates in Europe of HIV among drug users."'...
Doesn't sound like she has an issue with Nutt sounds like she has an issue with Ministers ignoring advice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/secret_talks_to_crack_the_nutt.html
Oh you maybe interested in this it seems to say Dame Ruth was the person who set in motion cannabis being reclassified as a class C drug...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-470719/Woman-soft-policy-cannabis-addict-relative.html
Isn't that what Nutt has been saying?
Complain about this comment
#39, #40 (more decisions based on scientific evidence)
Here's a counter argument....
Scientifically eugenics makes great sense (stop 'undesirable' people from breading). Hitler (and in other countries) had loads of scientists, doctors etc telling him it made great logical sense.
However, there are very good ethical reasons against it.
Surely you would not want people automatically treated 'scientifically' like we would with a battery chicken?
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #45.
rational == inhumane ?
cheap shot :-(
"However, there are very good ethical reasons against it."
are you implying that UK ministers are driven by ethics?
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #45.
"Surely you would not want people automatically treated 'scientifically' like we would with a battery chicken?"
oh, and that would be treated 'industrially for profit', nothing to do with science.
Complain about this comment
Scientifically eugenics makes great sense (stop 'undesirable' people from breeding).
What _precisely_ is (or was in Eugenics Theory) the definition of 'desirability'? Is it a simple or compound phenomenon? Is it characterised by a single numerical index or quotient - or a multitude of factors in a complex equation? How do you go about measuring 'undesirability'?
No. 'Undesirable' is not a scientific concept - it is a social one. And consequently Eugenics was never a scientific theory - it was a political 'social' theory masquerading as science. It didn't make scientific sense. It was pseudo-science.
There was, and still is, a lot of pseudo-science about - and it can be very hard for those without scientific training to tell the two apart.
That's why we need experts and open debate.
But even if Eugenics were a science, there are good ethical reasons for rejecting it's social conclusions - which are relatively easy to spell out.
That's why scientific advice will never be the 'be-and-end-all' for policymaking and why the principle of 'advisers advise, ministers decide' is actually the right principle.
Now, should genetic disease be treated? In the germ line? And if it involves foetal stem-cell research? And why?
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #45.
(yet more, bear with me)
"Scientifically eugenics makes great sense.."
science (noun) : "The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline."
eugenics (noun): "(biology) The science of improving stock, whether human or animal."
given that nature already provides for 'improvement' through natural selection, as explained by Darwin, one could argue -- with some justification -- that eugenics (particularly the specific type you cite) is an aberration, a misapplication of science.
Complain about this comment
" 45. At 2:26pm on 12 Nov 2009, jon112uk wrote:
#39, #40 (more decisions based on scientific evidence)
Here's a counter argument....
Scientifically eugenics makes great sense (stop 'undesirable' people from breading). Hitler (and in other countries) had loads of scientists, doctors etc telling him it made great logical sense.
However, there are very good ethical reasons against it.
Surely you would not want people automatically treated 'scientifically' like we would with a battery chicken?"
========================================================================
Ah the classic comparison to the Nazis argument gets made, and you have instantly lost the argument. (Is it Gordons law, can never remember the name of it)
I'll think you'll find that most scientists, contrary to popular belief, are not nutters that don't think about the ethics of a situation.
And incidentally eugenics happens naturally to a degree anyway, attractive intellegent succesful people want to be with other attractive intellegent succesfull people. Eugenics is a pointless example to use, it is, in a totalitarian and repulsive way, a 'good' idea. The thing is it can never work in practice, it's been tried countless times and it never works. The reason being that it is a disgusting idea and infringes fundamental human rights.
My argument was that goverment policy should be based on facts, confirmend by research and supported by experts not rumours, uninformed opinions and press hype.
The situation reminds me (as I've mentioned in related blogs) of the Yes Minister episode where Hacker stop the British Chemical Cooperation making a chemical because the name is similar to the name of a chemical that caused a disaster, even though all the evidence and expert advise shows it is perfectly safe.
The facts, expert opinion and general scientific concensus should always have more weight than uninformed public opinion, rumour mills and press sensationalism.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
"You're still missing the point - these are ADVISERS.
Their current conduct in relation to their advice (published articles, leaks, resignations, more leaks) increasingly makes this look like rather more than just advice.
Do what we say - or else?
That's not ADVICE."
Well Colonicus42 covered this on #36, but...
"Their current conduct in relation to their advice (published articles,"
Some members of the ACMD are academics who regularly publish reports as part of their work, Professor Nutt, as far as I'm aware, always informed the Home Secretary of the papers he was going to publish and their content.
So, no problem there.
"leaks,"
Government is run on leaks and to paraphrase the old saying: Those who live by leaks, die by leaks.
I don't recall any members of the ACMD leaking anything other than a single letter they were sending to the HS about the sacking of Professor Nutt.
Have they leaked anything else ?
If they have, could you please post a link as I haven't seen it, or don't remember it anyway.
"resignations,"
As far as I'm aware everyone has the right to resign from any job, paid or unpaid. Are you suggesting that people who work for the government should not be able to resign over issues of importance ?
"more leaks)"
I've not seen any, I'm not saying they haven't, just that I don't recall them (admittedly my memory isn't what it used to be, old age is a bit funny that way).
As I see it, Professor Nutt gave a lecture regarding this issue, he got permission from the HS first and gave him the details of what he was going to discuss in it.
This then got picked up by the press who then started asking the Professor questions which he then answered.
The Professor then got sacked because the HS didn't like the negative press he was getting, several other members of the panel thought that this was out of order and something they could not accept and therefore resigned.
After meeting with the remaining members of the ACMD the HS all but accepted that he'd acted inappropriately and a new set of guidelines were put in place to prevent him from making such a mistake again.
Nowhere in any of this had any of the advisers acted inappropriately, the HS just made an ass of himself, and the government, but then that's nothing new, is it ?
What this really comes down to is that this government came to power in 1997 promising that they would produce evidence based policies.
Unfortunately on this, and several other issues, the evidence suggests a different policy to that which the government wants to put in place so the government then either tries to cover up the evidence, gag those who provide the evidence or discredit them and their findings.
This makes them little more than lying hypocrites and totally discredits their policies.
Complain about this comment
OK, so Eugenics and the comparison with the Nazis has been brought up by the anti-science lobby.
How long before the example of Stalinist Russia as a science-based society is brought up? Or other supposed 'de-humanizing' effects of science? Or the supposed lack of morality or ethics in science?
Complain about this comment
AdaptableAnn wrote:
"Those commenting on the Nutt debacle have not mentioned that other scientists (not on the ACMD) agreed with the sacking. So- even amongst scientists there is not 100% agreement."
There is hardly ever 100% agreement amongst scientists.
The point is that the majority of scientists and the overwhelming majority of the research done into this subject agrees with Professor Nutt's position.
"Now 6 members of the ACMD have resigned - good, that will give an opportunity for 6 newcomers to include members of Drug Prevention groups,"
The members of the ACMD included members of addiction prevention groups, including Dr Dima Abdulrahim who is the Research Briefings Manager of the National Treatment Agency and Mr Martin Barnes who is the Chief Executive of Drugscope UK.
A full list of members can be found here:
http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/about-us/committees-and-members/list-members/
"parents of drug users and parents of non drug-usiong teens (or pre-teens) who also have opinions which need to be heard."
What makes you think that the members of the ACMD are not parents ?
Just because they are experts in their field doesn't mean they aren't parents, in fact, several of the members of the ACMD spend most of their working lives dealing with parents and children.
"Surely a professional working in the field of drug prevention has as much expertise as a vet ?"
No they don't, not in the subject of veterinary medicines anyway.
Ketamine, a drug that is growing in popularity is a Horse tranquiliser; several other veterinary medicines are also used by people recreationally so a vet is in a unique position to offer their expertise on this issue.
"I am inclined to agree with the comments that the ACMD has not only been about giving advice but of campaigning for changes in the laws.
Many members of the past and current ACMD are known to have links to pro-legalisation drugs lobbies or extreme liberal groups - google Dame Ruth Runciman and read some of her statements......."
If you'd spent your life researching this issue and all of the evidence you had found pointed towards the benefits of repealing the prohibition laws then wouldn't you campaign for this to happen ?
I hate to sound patronising but I must point out that not all opinions are equal, I regularly shout at the TV telling David Moyes how he should be running the Everton first team, I'm older than him and have been watching football since before he was borne but this doesn't make me better qualified than him and my opinions are not equal to his as I don't have as much knowledge of the situation as he does.
What one person experiences is also not necessarily a good indicator of the wider trend.
My nephew died when he slipped off a swing and broke his neck, now if you asked my sister and her husband about their experiences with swings it would obviously be very negative and if you used this to base your decision about the legal status of swings then you may be inclined to think that swings should be made illegal.
Obviously the benefit of swings to society outweighs the loss my family experienced and our experiences are not indicative of the overall trend in swing use.
My sister may believe that swings should be banned and she may have lots of experience of the subject and her experience may be very emotive but it doesn't make her right.
This is why we have experts; this is why these people are funded to carry out research to try to get as much information about the subject as possible so that we can make an informed choice free from the emotional attachment of those directly involved.
Complain about this comment
glomal111 #48.
Colonicus42 #50.
thanks for those, unlike me, you guys managed to keep track of the actual points debated.
Complain about this comment
In response to several comments above, I see two strands of argument against my points....
Not all scientists are bad - certainly hope not, I count myself amongst them. They're not perfect either. Sometimes what they think at a moment in time is just plain wrong. Sometimes what they think is scientifically correct but just not a good idea in a given context - eg. selective breeding/eugenics is probably great science for race horses but not for people.
Resignations etc - sure people who disagree have the right to resign. I have done it myself. Look at #29 above, I think they should resign. What I am against is 'do as I say or I will resign' threats, I dont agree with that in this context. They are ADVISERS, they need to get used to people doing or not doing what they advise.
Complain about this comment
45 jon112uk starting "Here's a counter-argument"..
- How dare you try to link the legalisers' arguments to eugenics! The world's most infamous human eugenics advocate was a perfect example of someone that would listen to science, then cherry pick results for his own benefit, exactly what Alan Johnson did. David Nutt simply pointed out that Alan Johnson went even further and totally ignored them.
We need to move to policies decided on proven facts and not just "received wisdom" (i.e. regular propaganda). And folks, if you don't believe that cannabis and ecstasy are victims of propaganda, prepare for a shock - take a look lower down the page at the "Dealiest Drugs" graph:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/06/drugs-bnp
Of course this graph doesn't prove drug deadliness without usage figures but just take a look at the "% drug deaths reported" column and figure out which drugs the media want you to take and which ones they don't..
What's so great about this situation is that it has really kick-started the debate. You can already see how much the prohibitionists are fearing this debate because of the current level of propaganda against Professor Nutt and the others who support him. The Daily Mail is on overdrive at the moment - it reminds me of the scene in the Wizard of Oz:
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
I suspect that in all seriousness you're just practising debating, n'est ce pas Jon? I bet you're really thinking a lot of drugs should become legalised and controlled like most of us who have really thought about it!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Euforiater #56.
total deaths in the graph you linked to, all drugs: 3042.
total deaths by chemical kosh: 1800.
also, if 'only' 685 people supposedly died because of alcohol, they must have limited those numbers to outright alcohol poisonings only, around 300 per year of those alone are underage drinkers.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #55.
"Sometimes what they [scientists] think at a moment in time is just plain wrong."
thinking at a moment of time does not really come into it when there is a body of studies and research assembled over decades, does it?
I'd go with Euforiater's last paragraph in #56, you take the Queen's shilling and we're not likely to get your true opinions until after you retire (if ever); but, do you have to play devil's advocate?
Complain about this comment
This dodges the crucial question which is what do advisers do if they do not agree with the reasons a minister gives for rejecting their advice?
Do they continue to have discussions with the minister via publically available papers? Do they press their views in 'scientific papers' which are a thinnly disguised attempt to brief against a minister without making a direct approach?
My problem with the scientists is this. In the past people would have resigned if they felt that they were part of a decision they did not agree with. Some politicians still do this and fight their battles from the back benches. But some scientists don't do this. They want to keep the status which goes with being a government adviser, even if their advice is not accepted, whilst continuing to fight very publically against government policy. In the much revered private sector of employment such actions would earn the comment from the boss, "Perhaps you would be happier working somewhere else."
Complain about this comment
Boilerbill #60.
"In the past people would have resigned ... some scientists don't do this. They want to keep the status which goes with being a government adviser.."
could the difference lie in short-term vs long-term thinking and committment?
politicians are in it for a long as they can (ie. manage to get re-elected) then they go back to running their own business or perhaps get elevated into some non-exec chairperson role.
scientists, more often than not, pursue life-long careers in their chosen fields.
politicians don't need to have deep-held convictions, principles and beliefs to do their business (in fact, they just get in the way), but scientists?
and status, I don't know, everyone's different, but all of the ACMD members volunteer their time and we don't usually know their names or anything about them until they're all over the media, not exactly 'glitzy'. status for a scientist is probably best measured by reputation and the number of times their work is cited and re-used by others.
Complain about this comment
and in the meantime the postman gets his way. experts are ignored and Alan Johnson won. Didnt the Americans try prohibition once , what happened there then . Maybe if we got him a chair (sic) he could make the sea retreat. politics stinks
Complain about this comment
#60: "They want to keep the status which goes with being a government adviser.."
Being professor of neuropsychopharmacology at a world-class science institution. Being a renowned expert and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Nah, no status in that.
Being an adviser to a bunch of ignorant, sycophantic, self-serving expense-fiddlers.
Now that's a status you wouldn't want to lose - even if it cost you your integrity.
Complain about this comment
#60: "crucial question which is what do advisers do if they do not agree with the reasons a minister gives for rejecting their advice?"
They argue it out in public until either they reach agreement or an impasse is reached. If they reach an impasse - then the adviser must resign.
You cannot advise anyone who will not be advised - who will not listen to reason and argument, who will not consider the evidence. You cannot advise the willfully deluded.
Of course after resignation he or she is perfectly free to citicize Government policy in any public forum to which they have access.
Complain about this comment
I've come to the conclusion that Nutt was not sacked because of the row over reclassification of canabis or even the statement of horse riding being more dangerous than e's
Professor Nutt had the audacity to offend big business interests by trying to fit tobacco and alcohol into the ABC harms model.
Those interests (including pharmacutical companies) have huge lobbying clout and it not currently in their interest to be associated in relation to recreational drugs.
All the scientific evidence in the world cannot compete with those interests and the Home Secretary is enough of a politician to recognise this.
Pot will not be legalised until Tobacco/Alcohol/Pharma say so.
A concerted campaign to criminalise tobacco and alcohol, using the same arguments that have been used to upgrade canabis will have a crystallising effect on those industries.
Complain about this comment
#65 BobRocket
Spot on. That's it all in a nutshell. This has less to do with the postman and everything to do with his political masters.
Complain about this comment
BobRocket #65.
as X_Sticks says, your conclusion makes sense -- more than the Home Secretary's action anyhow.
"A concerted campaign to criminalise tobacco and alcohol, using the same arguments that have been used to upgrade canabis will have a crystallising effect on those industries."
and the public education needed to see such a campaign ever beginning to take shape is held back -- unfortunately -- by the BBC, who will not even admit that alcohol and tobacco are drugs. Auntie? malicious nanny, it seems.
Complain about this comment
I had an argument yesterday with a lady in her 60's about the effects of drugs on families. I said that the children that she was talking about grew up with drug using parents.. "No they don't use drugs they are both alcoholics" she replied... So I said yes they are both Drug users she said alcohol is not a drug. So I asked her what it was... At which point you saw the cogs turn. Then I got a mouth full about "oh I should just use cannabis and anything else if alcohol is a drug" she said.
We need proper education so that people understand what DRUGS are.
Drugs are software/wetware for the human body, they program it to act in different ways to execute functions outside the normal operating parameters of the brain and body.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I'd like to see some research done into the relative risks associated with all recreational activities.
Once all of the information has been collected and analysed we could then start to make all activities that carry as much risk as smoking cannabis illegal with a 5-year prison sentence imposed on anyone caught taking part in them.
Then we could move on to employment and all occupations that carry as much risk as smoking cannabis would also be prohibited, again with a 5-year prison term for anyone attempting to do one of these prohibited jobs.
After that we could move on to medical procedures & medicines, again, all procedures and products with as much risk as cannabis would be prohibited with a 5-year prison term for those breaking the law.
And at the end of all of this we'll be left in a situation where we all have to sit at home all day, with our hands on the table where everyone can see them, bored out of our minds living a life of dull sterility but happy in the knowledge that we're all safe from the dangers of these risky activities and products.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK !
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal #68.
"..what DRUGS are.
Drugs are software/wetware for the human body, they program it to act in different ways to execute functions outside the normal operating parameters of the brain and body."
this isn't the first thought-provoking analogy of yours I've read, but this -- truly excellent.
Complain about this comment
Re blog 68.Most people in this country are conditioned to think like this,stepping outside the norms is frightening for most people,so indoctrinated is the fear of drugs that it overrides all common sense.
My mothers image of drug takers was the scruffy unwashed bloke in a dirty mac hanging around public toilets preying on young children.A friend of my brother in laws who suffers from MS was prescribed the Sativex spray by his doctor to alleviate the symptoms,he used this to great effect until he discovered that it was based on cannabis and now refuses to use it,so ingrained is this fear in most of the population that it's impossible to have a proper conversation with them,their minds have already been made up for them by the propaganda dolled out in schools and by governments.
This does lead you to the conclusion that the population of this country is a "bit thick",borne out by the number of Sun reading,celebrity obsessed soap watchers out there with little more going on in their heads than how thin Beckhams wife is and where they're going to find the money for the tattoo they desperately need on the back of their neck.
In some respects this country has got the drug it deserves,alcohol,because if that is all that's going round in their heads I think I'd want to get pissed and forget about it!!
Complain about this comment
jr4412 there just rantings of a person whom looks at life from the outside of the box. The analogy is one Ive thought about for a very long time, plus Ive been reprogrammed by many doctors with many different anti psychotic/anti depressant drugs. In an attempt to make me a useful working Rat in the race to a pension. Their programming of my brain brought about many undesired functions in the rest of my body as systems within my brain were suppressed and controlled by force.
So drugs really are just wetware/software.
the software I choose to run is made of cannabinoids.
the software the doctor want me to use is made of 'Escitalopram' Full dose I'm on It scares me more than the cannabis ever will.
Complain about this comment
The public also need a little education about causality too.
Any drug abused (which usually means using too much of it) will cause harm to the individual. But in general harm to an individual does relatively little harm to society as a whole.
The harm that even serious drugs to society is caused not by the fact of drug misuse - but by poor regulation around the usage of the drug. It is not that people use, say, heroin - it the fact that they are forced to buy it through illegal channels. This creates a very highly artificial market where very high profits can be earned for very little effort. And since the market is illegal, companies and individuals operating in the market will use illegal methods like guns and violence to maintain their market share.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Government were to give heroin away - not willy-nilly in an uncontrolled fashion but through a carefully controlled network of clinics. The quality of the product could be controlled, the dosages could be controlled - and the price to the user would be tiny. So why would any user buy from an illegal supplier? So what would be the price of illegal heroin? - near zero I would suggest. So what profits would be available to fund a lifestyle for the illegal drug dealers? - not very high. So the illegal market would collapse - and along with it the illegal means of maintaining market share. Consequently less public money spent in policing trying to enforce an ineffective policy. Moreover, it might be possible to turn the drug users into functioning members of society - able to make a contribution and it would take away their need to finance their nasty little habit by illegal means - like robbery. Since the Government would also control usage of the drug and de-glamourize it, there would be no local peer-pressure in the back of dingy nightclubs to "just try the stuff - it's a great buzz - it won't hurt". Within a generation or two such drug use might just die out because it was "boring". What's more the Government could buy the stuff cheaply from Afghanistan as part of its foreign aid - and be seen to be helping the Afghan economy - and it would be less cost to the UK taxpayer. A better society for less money.
Maybe I'm being Utopian - I don't know, I'm not an expert.
But I am of a scientific, utilitarian dispostion and therefore willing to say "I don't know" and learn from experts and listen to even the most superficially outrageous ideas before coming to any conclusion.
It seems, however, that our politics is dominated by people of a 'religious', deontological, authoritarian disposition - drugs are evil and evil can and must be banned by legislation. They don't need to listen and learn - they already know all the answers - their conscience always tells them the right answer and they will impose it on everyone else. For me this seems close to madness - especially given the historical evidence that, as the General has repeatedly pointed out, prohibition doesn't work.
Complain about this comment
61. At 10:03pm on 12 Nov 2009, jr4412 wrote:
and status, I don't know, everyone's different, but all of the ACMD members volunteer their time and we don't usually know their names or anything about them until they're all over the media, not exactly 'glitzy'. status for a scientist is probably best measured by reputation and the number of times their work is cited and re-used by others.
======================
Publications and who cites your work in their publications is certainly one source of status.
There are other 'esteem indicators'
Sitting on such a committee is definitely one of them. Appointments like this committee are a big factor in esteem, promotion and often income via performance related pay.
Funded research projects are a big earner for universities. Being known by senior people on the committee such as the chair of medical research council (huge funder of paid research), plus ministers, senior civil servants, chief execs of qangos etc won't hurt either.
People are repeatedly saying they are not paid. I would be interested to see a full disclosure not just of any payments made direct to the individual but also payments to the persons employing university.
Complain about this comment
#74 jon112uk
It's been pointed out many times that the ACMD is made up of scientists, police, representatives of drug rehab charities and a variety of others.
To consider that this divers group of people don't take into account social and other factors when coming up with advice, to label them as "out of touch" scientists who for some reason don't get a full picture of the harm caused by drugs is fundamentally dishonest on your part.
Johnson hasn't a leg to stand on, neither has anyone else wishing to perpetuate the idea that cannabis (and many other illegal substances) are inherently more harmful than the legal substances.
The very fact that you and others like you have to clutch at straws in this way, to try and somehow explain that people who have dedicated their lives to all aspects of drug usage and law have got it wrong, is very telling.
Give it up.
If you don't want cannabis legal you're going to have to find another reason. Whilst you're at it you might want to take some time to seriously evaluate whether you actually have a reason, or if you have simply jumped to a conclusion without any sort of logical, rational backing.
Complain about this comment
75. At 12:58pm on 13 Nov 2009, Gothnet
You need to stop smoking for a bit and read what I have written - show me where I have said they have 'got it wrong' ??? I have not made a comment on their advice.
The issue here is the role of advisers and the sacking of an adviser - not whether your drug stash is legalised.
In #74 I have responded to a specific comment about how scientists gain status (#61). I know it is hard for you remember from one comment to another, but try to keep up.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #74.
"People are repeatedly saying they are not paid. I would be interested to see a full disclosure not just of any payments made direct to the individual but also payments to the persons employing university."
me too, but next you'll argue that those figures would make our current lot of MPs and their past expense claims, their current salaries, and their future earnings (on the back of the networking they got into whilst in job) look like small fry, right?
I've asked before: are you obliged to play devil's advocate, or is it that, as a civil servant, you simply have to much free time on your hands?
"There are other 'esteem indicators'
Sitting on such a committee is definitely one of them."
I'm inclined to see this more like glomal111 (#63) but I haven't got his (her?) way with words. :-)
"Funded research projects are a big earner for universities."
wouldn't dispute that, the sums pale into insignificance though next to payments made by private firms to private persons (like say, BAE to the Saudi princes), or even in comparison to donations from individuals to parties (like say, Lord Ashcroft for the Tories).
finally, how much do some politicians earn? say, for example, William Hague who reportedly (last year) held ten (10!!) directorships in various enterprises in addition to being an MP -- no wonder they have no time to work for society as a whole.
Complain about this comment
#76 jon112uk
You're trying to impugn the motivations of the advisers, and by doing so the quality of their advice.
(By the way, I don't smoke the stuff, I do think that pursuing it legally is a waste of time and money and a giant exercise in political hypocrisy )
Complain about this comment
yes this is the issue.
jon112uk
"The issue here is the role of advisers and the sacking of an adviser - not whether your drug stash is legalised."
The questions are very basic and while some may ramble myself included, the issue remains that an advisor has been see to campaign against a policy that its wrong and supported by Myths alone.
Now you can argue that he has an agenda but as many have pointed out this isn't just science that has been kicked out the door.
Mr Johnson may view this as a correct way to deal with an outspoken body but all he has done is opened the floodgates to reason. So in his world with these facts yes he was right to sack Nutt.
While I would like to see this corrected and Dave reinstalled as the chair I now feel that his work is better of without government interference. Soon the pharmas will have the capability to safely get people drunk without the harms on the body as it tries to deal with the toxic elements of the alcohol buzz. Treatment of people whom abuse this are easily detoxified once detained with an antidote that works within a few minutes. It wont even need to be packaged as a pill youll be able to buy it as a wine a beer a spirit... This will become a reality as the Pharma's will jump at it a chance to takeover a dangerous trade with a viable alternative.
Complain about this comment
Very few people here have actually read the report of E.by AMDC I ask 'Is it a good report in the context?' Classifying as B wll simply reduce the sentance possible for supplying and no judge has used a sentance beyond 10 years anyway. Given that the Committee is committed to a prohibition policy as is the government, the report fails to discuss enforcement, which is in real life discretionary or the effect of enforcement on use... or even the effect of classification (the Home Office's concerns.) This report only in the narrow sense is 'scientific'and tells us nothing new. We all knew that E gives you a downer mid week mucks about with the seratonin levels and makes you feel warm and happy to other people in in the context maybe horny as well. It may rot you brain but no one knows.
More signifcantly the Council is not sure that its decisions are sound.
'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. At our most recent meeting we worked with Professor Larry Phillips of the London School of Economics whom is an international expert in Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. The aim of this work is to continually improve the way we provide advice, ensuring it is embedded in a transparent framework of an assessment of harms'
the Council tells the Home Office in its letter about the its program.
The 'harms' and 'benefits include the effect of its advice and need to be assessed.These include the behaviour of enforcing agencies.
Meanwhile in my neck of the woods agencies have to manage what happens of the street including aggressive drugs pushing including violence and this report
"Fiona Measham and Karenza Moore
within local leisure scenes across the English night time economy
Repertoires of distinction: Exploring patterns of weekend polydrug use."
People discusing strategy need a scientific and rational response to how different policies and interventions will change this in a the direction they prefer. Of course a pro drug contxxt is legitmate if it causes little harm and is morally acceptable.
Incidentally we are discussing 'control strategies' for alcohol in my neck of the woods too
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal #79.
"Treatment of people whom abuse this are easily detoxified once detained with an antidote that works within a few minutes. ... This will become a reality as the Pharma's will jump at it a chance to takeover a dangerous trade with a viable alternative."
would be good yes, imagine, Saturday night on the high street without worrying about some drunk punks spoiling it all; however, what about the domestic sphere? the following is a partial quote from my local council (in conjunction with Dorset Police) publication:
"Domestic abuse accounts for between 16 percent and one quarter of all recorded violent crime.
One incident is reported to the police every minute.
Half of relationship breakdowns and one-third of all domestic abuse is alcohol related."
Complain about this comment
Readers here may wish to know that the AMDC aren't the only ones who are advocating the decriminalisation of drugs:
http://www.tdpfscotland.org.uk/policy.html
It really is long past time that we had a common-sense strategy to deal with drugs - and I mean ALL drugs, including the very damaging legal ones. The "war" is lost and the sooner we all realise that the better.
Complain about this comment
Yes domestic abuse is aggravated further a very toxic part of alcohol in its current forms. What you have to look at there is at what point in the shut down of the brains systems does this occur with alcohol. Is it part of the fight and flight system as the brain reverts to basic survival functions in order to cope with the volume of fatty acids that are defending the brain cells from the harm, thus pushing rational thought and behaviour out of the window. Such things could be balanced with synthetic alcohol.
With alcohol education we need to also educate on the levels of coherence and what damage is possible. What parts of the brain work in the process of getting drunk only then will people see alcohol as a very dangerous polydrug once inside the human body.
Complain about this comment
#78,#79
I'm not having a go at their report. I would have to do a lot studying to do a credible job of that.
All I'm saying is that these sort of appointments aren't entirely altruistic. The whole academic (and quango 'great-and-good') thing really can be quite a nice little gravy train. Professors are not poor.
Sitting on committees like this is part of how some people will get to be a professor (it's an apointment by the university, based largely on esteem and bringing in research money, not a new qualification like a PhD).
Don't think there is no payback.
Complain about this comment
I have read with interest all you guys falling into the trap of the TROLL that is jon112uk. Don't encourage hime people, his arguments are at best childish, at worst sinister.
Complain about this comment
neebols456 #85.
"..the TROLL that is jon112uk."
not quite the same category as oldsitkaspruce. ;)
"..his arguments are at best childish, at worst sinister."
yes, I did resent his eugenics stunt, and others too feel that his comments smear ("impugn") the scientists and advisors who have demonstrated their principled, ethical stance. still, I've met people who behave like that (in the MOD, but, no doubt, that's the same everywhere in the civil service); gifted people turned wasters and cynics in a dysfunctional system, who settle for being careerists and couldn't give a damn because all that matters is the countdown to retirement.
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness we have a Home Secretary who knows his own mind and is not going to be moved by drug users and their supporters ..the government must hold the stance to control drug and alcohol abuse despite what any of us do in our private lives
Complain about this comment
Comments number 86 ans 87.
I love it when people prove a point against themselves.
oldsitkapruce are you really saying that politicians making their decisions by ignoring advise from experts is a good thing?
I wonder what you would say if they ignored (or continued to ignore depending on your personal views) the advise from economists about the recession?
Would you still say it was a good thing?
Complain about this comment
I've just thought of another reason why drugs should be legalised.
In order for reasearch to be carried out into the possible dangers (serotonin syndrome etc)of taking illegal drugs whilst on prescription medications e.g smoking cannibis, taking E etc whilst on, say, anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. It does go on.
We know far more about the supposed dangers of illegal substances by themselves, than we do about the combination with prescription drugs.
Complain about this comment
Re blog 87.."a home secretary that knows his own mind",that's a laugh,I doubt if any of these politicians know their own minds,and even if they did they'd have to tow the party line and keep their own personal thoughts to themselves.
That's what smoking cannabis was all about when I started smoking it,I never saw it as a recreational drug,it was about mind expansion and increasing your perception of life,a tool to "defrag" your mind of all the nonsense that's pumped into it at school and by a society that wants to keep you in your place.
Thats what these politicians are frightened of,free thinking individuals,they'd much rather keep you in your place by providing the depressants to dumb down your life,along with the various religions that provide a barrier to free thought,look at Blair,when questioned on his decision to take this country into the Iraq war his reply was "let god be my judge",passing the buck or what!!
Anyone who's religious cant possibly make a rational judgement and certainly do not know their own minds,they just believe a load of old nonsense provided by a society that's full of crap.
Complain about this comment
It makes no difference. Parents will always interpret any loosening of drug laws as tantamount to putting dealers into school playgrounds. The tabloids, populated by some of the most hardened of boozers, know this.
Complain about this comment
An issue like this should not be seen as somthing that is political. If legalising cannabis is unpopular then so be it, it just means people are poorly educated on the subject.
If we always followed public opinion homosexuality would still be illegal, sexism in the workplace would be allowed and flagerant racism would be an every day occurance.
A lot of this boils down to the newspapers, as such i think we should introduce impartiality laws on newspapers so they have to adhere to the same standards of impartiality as a television news broadcaster.
If papers don't like the new system they can cary on as they are but must not be allowed to refer to themselves as newspapers, because they are not. They should only be allowed to print on sheet paper if they are classified as one.
Rags like the daily mail, the sun and the daily express should be classified under the law as magasines NOT newspapers then people would be able to tell the difference between actual news and uninformed hear say.
Complain about this comment
The UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 (as amended 1972) makes it possible for an unregulated, untaxed illegal market worth $500 billion dollars (2003 estimate) to go straight into the pockets of international terrorism, arms traders, people traffickers and organised criminal gangs.
I'm sure that this convention was ratified with good intentions but the result has been something entirely different.
Our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and Pakistan, fighting against people who are directly financed by the international drugs trade.
Clamping down on the trade only increases the price to the end user and the profitability of the organised criminals.
The UN charter needs scrapping.
Governments will do nothing until the vested interests (big business) demand it.
In order to make change, the profits of big business have to be threatened to catalyse them into action.
It is about the money, it is always about the money.
Complain about this comment
#91 Venom de Plume
The dealers should not be part of the solution. Legalisation, regulation and taxation would put the recreational drugs industry on a sound business footing.
(do you see off-licence proprietors dealing booze in the playground ?)
The newspapers understand their business model, advertising is what puts print on paper.
At the moment the only way for them to monetise the recreational drugs industry is to write sensational copy, they would soon change their stance if an alternative revenue stream became available.
(such is the way of the world)
Complain about this comment
#89 indeed.as Ive said before the side effects are awful with prescribed drugs. I use cannabis to counteract some of these effects.
#90 "Anyone who's religious cant possibly make a rational judgement and certainly do not know their own minds,they just believe a load of old nonsense provided by a society that's full of crap."
lets not confuse religion with doctrination. religion comes from within doctrination comes from the written word. There is plenty of archeology to show Jesus and the peoples of his time used cannabis daily :)
in-fact apart from the Trolls it seems the public see the truth, Should we take government advice on swine flu? or again is this science dangerous and flawed, look at the vaccine site under is this safe No were does it say its safe just that it has been given a licence, so it must be safe? in which case we now get to the sativex/GW licence's this shows cannabis is safe or it would never have been licenced as a viable safe medicine.
Complain about this comment
I wonder of all the posters supporting the ACMD for their scientific knowledge and absence of bias would take the same viewpoint if the group advised making cannabis a Class B drug, or made any other recommendation for stricter laws on drug use.
Complain about this comment
"95. At 12:50pm on 14 Nov 2009, CommunityCriminal wrote:
lets not confuse religion with doctrination. religion comes from within doctrination comes from the written word. There is plenty of archeology to show Jesus and the peoples of his time used cannabis daily :)"
I was not aware of there being any archaeological evidence for the existance of Jesus, never mind evidence of cannabis use. If you could give a link to this evidence it would be very interesting.
Complain about this comment
Yellosandydog as Ive said on other blogs here the Letter does not matter you could make it AAA+ it still wont make a difference to the illegal trade in it. Well apart from the price increasing further which is all the move back to class B did.
Is it unreasonable to ask for proper control in a situation were 3.5 million adults want a product.
So please tell me how do you make stricter drug laws and keep them enforced with the current system? Emptying a sink with a sieve comes to mind.
What is wrong with an open legal market on cannabis? strong laws for those that choose to flaunt the laws of a legal market sell to children etc. You would still have MODA(number goes here) to enforce the illegal markets which in turn would dry up through fear of real sentence's rather than the short ones we have imposed on dealers.
Complain about this comment
yellowsandydog true most people have never heard of it as it would question christian faith this extract from a larger blog talks about 'Cannabis through the biblical times' It was freely used by early christians
There are many links and referances at the bottom of the blog page.
Complain about this comment
SlightlyAllTheTime, 90:
"Thats what these politicians are frightened of,free thinking individuals,they'd much rather keep you in your place by providing the depressants to dumb down your life,along with the various religions that provide a barrier to free thought."
- Perfectly put, I think that's what most non-users don't understand about cannabis. Most think it's like one of those "zombie" pharmaceutical pills that calms you down to the point of inaction.
In reality, the ability it gives you to see the "wood from the trees" and the really important things in life is, to me, it's greatest gift. The bonus is the original, logical thought that protects against spin and propaganda.
Complain about this comment
Euforiater it swaps the side of the brain you think with Im still not sure of the science of it though there isn't to much info about it out there. Its somthing to do with antagonists of the CB receptors on the right hand side.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Community, I don't know much about the mechanisms myself but it certainly lets me see things from a different angle.
What an unforgiveable law. So what if I want to take a couple of puffs on a bong, put on some Abba and drop back into the 1970s whilst doing the housework for an hour or so? Great fun and gets me dancing (which is always good for you).
Really I think it's a drug for older people because it prevents you being so set in your ways and you remember the great little things in life. I'll leave the medicinal benefits for older people to those that have that experience. Personally I don't think it's a drug that kids would want much if it wasn't illegal, it just wouldn't have the "street-cred".
Complain about this comment
yellowsandydog#97.
"I was not aware of there being any archaeological evidence ... of cannabis use."
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/15/4171
Complain about this comment
BobRocket #93.
"Our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and Pakistan, fighting against people who are directly financed by the international drugs trade."
the most despicable people are the shareholders of the arms and munitions manufacturers because they peddle their wares to anyone who pays -- these people are entirely without social conscience.
Complain about this comment
Euforiater #102.
"Really I think it's a drug for older people because it prevents you being so set in your ways and you remember the great little things in life."
apt, and topical.
"There are currently 700,000 people in the UK with the condition [dementia], but this is expected to rise to one million in the next 10 years because of the ageing population."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8356423.stm
Complain about this comment
#104
The major shareholders of the arms industries are pension funds, as they are the major shareholders of most 'blue chip' indusries.
That means you and I as pension holders.
Very few company or private pension schemes offer what could be termed ethical pensions, funds that are only held in ethical schemes.
It is largely academic, there is demand, it will be satisfied (economics).
As you are the one paying for some of the costs* surely you should at least have some say in how these costs should be paid and who should be the benefit of any dividend.
*costs - personally as a victim of drug related burglary, a relative who is a drug addict or indirectly by paying taxes to fund some foreign war or as increased insurance premiums, police costs etc.
What price, in cold cash terms or peoples lives, is acceptable in the 'War On Drugs'
It is always about the money.
Complain about this comment
#106:
"What price, in cold cash terms or peoples lives, is acceptable in the 'War On Drugs'
It is always about the money."
- Spot On. And it's already cost us far too much.
As Sting said, "There's no such thing as a winnable war. It's a lie we don't believe any more"
Complain about this comment
Further to my comment #89,
The ridiculous thing is, that some legally prescribed drugs are far more dangerous than some/any of the illegal drugs. MAOI anti-depressants for example.
Complain about this comment
#108
If you want to know what is in your prescription drugs and the contra-indications (including what is currently yellow-carded*) then you need a copy of MIMS (Monthly Index of Medical Supplements) or a BNF (British National Formulary) only avaliable via a subscription or from a friendly receptionist :) I personally favour the MIMS as it is easier to read.
*yellow-carded - drugs new to the market come to the doctors surgery with a yellow card on which they are supposed to record as yet unknown side effects.
Complain about this comment
The government is gagged by the tobacco companies, which provide huge tax revenue in excahnge for destroying people's health and lives. Professor Nutt was absolutely right to criticise the hypocrisy of the classification system, although I still believe that cannabis should be class B (and tobacco class A).
Obviously, the government is not obliged to follow expert advice, but it must be prepared to take criticism for not following. The sacking of Professor Nutt is tantamount to repression, and undermines the principles of accountability and democracy. Before spending years dithering away on meaningless (inasmuch as they are ignored) reports, Professor Nutt must be reinstated.
Complain about this comment
A bit of light reading as were on the science 'evolution and cannabinoids'
.
could the war on cannabis actualy be a war on evolution :P
Complain about this comment
"109. At 8:41pm on 14 Nov 2009, BobRocket wrote:
If you want to know what is in your prescription drugs and the contra-indications (including what is currently yellow-carded*) then you need a copy of MIMS (Monthly Index of Medical Supplements) or a BNF (British National Formulary) only avaliable via a subscription or from a friendly receptionist :) I personally favour the MIMS as it is easier to read."
You can find out a lot about prescription drugs (and many over-the-counter drugs) just by reading the piece of paper in the box. This will tell you what the drug is suitable for, what the contra-indications are, the ingredients and the side-effects. Some of the side-effects may sound terrible but you should remember they have only happened to a very small number of patients. All drugs (including natural ones) have side-effects and medication is a question of balancing risks against advantages.
Complain about this comment
This has nothing to do with prescription drugs they are tightly controlled and regulated under the strictest of quality assurance etc etc.
they have Law and they have Order governing them on all sides.
Illegal drugs have Law and Disorder governing them.
If someone has an endocannabinoid deficiency like myself then the legal drugs are far more harmful to myself than the illegal one I use :)
Scary thought that we have no choice in the matter over cannabis its as important to us as our 5 a day is to maintain the correct vitamin and mineral content in our diets.
A whole new range of supplements lol
Complain about this comment
The sacking of Professor Nutt by Alan Johnson, the British Home Secretary, has to do with the differences between belief and evidence. For some, such as the Home Secretary, belief is more important than evidence. The Home Secretary believes that drugs are the cause many of the problems found in our society, whereas the evidence, gathered by hundreds of scientists over many years of research, shows quite the opposite.
The acceptance of belief over evidence has been occurring for thousands of years. The Catholic Church, persecuted Nicholas Copernicus back in 14th century, because he pointed out that the earth was not the centre of the universe, just as Alan Johnson has persecuted Professor Nutt. The same happened to Galileo in the 15th century, when he found that Jupiter had moons. This condemnation based on belief, is not limited to politicians, the ideas of plate tectonics and warm blooded dinosaurs that later became birds were both condemned by those in power in the scientific community, when they were proposed, because the concepts did not fit in the beliefs of the scientists who controlled research.
In this case, the evidence shows that alcohol and tobacco causes more heath problems than cannabis. It has also been shown that smoking cannabis creates only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness. Many of the individuals who do smoke cannabis that also have psychotic illnesses have been shown to be better off smoking the drug, than they would be if they hadn't been smoking it. Many doctors feel these individuals have been successfully self medicating themselves.
But this is not what the Health Secretary believes to be true. Therefore, he must punish Professor Nutt, much as the Catholic Church punished those who also found evidence that contradicted their beliefs, and for the same reason.
As long as evidence is not allowed to be given it's proper due, scientists will not be allowed to have opinions.
Complain about this comment
So. Why is cannabis a class B and why is Ecstasy, Mushrooms and LSD a class A?
Could someone please pose this question to government ... I'm assuming this used to be the job of the ACMD but now 6 of them are gone, who's doing the asking?
Complain about this comment
Lets not forget that at the heart of this story,a nice guy got sacked for telling the truth,but then that's no surprise,this country is no place for honest nice guys.
Also,having thought about it,I'm not so sure that legalising cannabis is such a good idea any more,do we really want to be paying taxes on the stuff that will then fall into the hands of this government,I doubt if the the price would come down at all,the quality may improve and legalisation may remove a few unscrupulous dealers from the scene but that's about all it would do.
I dont want my money falling into the hands of a bunch of lying,expense fiddling ex public school boys,to be spent on guns and bombs and bailing out useless bankers.
So lets keep it illegal,all of us smokers know the truth and that's what really matters.What we can do is speak up for cannabis when called for and try and turn youngsters away from the dangers of alcohol.It's the Establishment in this country that needs to be brought down and we wont do that by contributing to the governments coffers.
Complain about this comment
> We elect people to make the decisions. If we are not happy with them then we vote
>them out (watch it happen next year). Who elected these academics?
Which would be fine if it weren't for the fact that all major parties are currently toeing the War on Drugs line. Even the Libdems. There seems a powerful need for a serious libertarian party in this country, but who would fund it?
I wish the BBC, for one, would show more backbone. Mark, when did we last hear you, _on air_ expressing the views you clearly hold about legalisation? Yes, I know the BBC is supposed to be neutral but in not presenting the legalisation case when any of these drug warriors pontificate the stance does not seem neutral to me. Neutral is not the same as following "Conventional Wisdom".
Complain about this comment
I find it highly amusing that the physician who introduced cannabis to the UK in the 1800's was knighted by Queen Victoria. He'd be locked up now. LOL
Complain about this comment
It seems to me the only time the 'drugs issue' is newsworthy is if something happens, and sadly not much seems to happen in this country. The advocates for more sensible drug policy seem to me be too quiet unless something rocks the boat, a debate ensues then everybody goes back to sleep till the next time. The citizens of the US have achieved a HUGE amount by being pro-active, getting out there, being seen getting their voice heard. They haven't waited for a liberal government to be installed, (California legalised medical marijuana in 1996) they've shouted until their views were listened to. They had marches, protests, smoke-ins, festivals, they lobbied government, they stood up for their beliefs. Don't see a lot of that over here, which is a shame, we could achieve SO much.
Complain about this comment
7. At 10:29pm on 11 Nov 2009, oldsitkaspruce wrote:
It would be great relief to many in this country if all the alleged scientists who talk rubbish on drugs resigned...we do not want a country full of addicts on drugs or alcohol ..so we want people in authority to take that stance ..that is what Mr Johnson is doing and I for one support him
Thank you for making the issue clear. So the scientists are lying to us and "talking rubbish" for some unknown reason?
Meanwhile the government is spot on as always right? I mean Mr. Johnson and our politions would NEVER ignore scientifc facts for their own agendas would they?
I hate to ask this but, are you high? And if so, where can I get me some of that :)
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #23
# 21. At 10:28am on 12 Nov 2009, General_Jack_Ripper
You're still missing the point - these are ADVISERS.
Their current conduct in relation to their advice (published articles, leaks, resignations, more leaks) increasingly makes this look like rather more than just advice.
Do what we say - or else?
That's not ADVICE.
-------
You're missing the point, jon112uk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Council_on_the_Misuse_of_Drugs
Read the very first section, "Mandate". Point "d". One of the ACMD's core briefs is to, and I quote, "for educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs and for giving publicity to those dangers".
David Nutt was sacked for carrying out his job. The mandate clearly states where the line is and Professor Nutt definitely did not step over it.
The government's conduct in relation to the ACMD's long-accepted and clearly defined mandate increasingly makes the government appear more autocratic and the existence of such a council obsolete.
108. At 8:26pm on 14 Nov 2009, Darren wrote:
Further to my comment #89,
The ridiculous thing is, that some legally prescribed drugs are far more dangerous than some/any of the illegal drugs. MAOI anti-depressants for example.
100% right, Darren. There's a huge, well-lobbied, well-funded industry behind the production of MAOIs, which is why they're still on the market.
72. At 11:45am on 13 Nov 2009, CommunityCriminal wrote:
So drugs really are just wetware/software.
the software I choose to run is made of cannabinoids.
the software the doctor want me to use is made of 'Escitalopram' Full dose I'm on It scares me more than the cannabis ever will.
----
You should have a go on 'Paroxetine' if you want a whole range of human functions to be no longer available to you and get a whole load of new undesirable ones, all in the name of your GP and Glaxo getting richer and the NHS being able to say "another case dealt with". It's a joke. A cure which brings with it 10x more problems than there were originally, and then requires you to go through cold turkey withdrawal for a fortnight when you try to come off it. MAOIs and SSRIs should be made class A and the very fact that the government sees fit to sell this poison to people, all in the name of a "Health Service" is a criminal act. Granted, trying to prevent people from harming themselves is a noble concept, but how does it square with simultaneously playing an active part in trying to increase the intake of substances which are known to be detrimental to peoples' health? It all points to a huge conflic of interests.
Complain about this comment
LuftHamza # You should have a go on 'Paroxetine'
I spent 6 months on them wife dragged me to the doc and told him in no uncertain terms take "take him of these or its a divorce"
Ive worn all the chemical suits the doc has to offer in trying to make me a useful rat. Its killing our elderly now all these nasty drugs. 1000's of deaths reached before time because a natural brain protecting brain balancing drug is unavailable due to wide spread discrimination.
Take this morning I didn't take the cipralex had some natural medication and then went and worked hard on a community allotment we are building. If I had taken the cipralex this I could not have done (although I did take it when I got home) I would have breathless dizzy got tired really quick and be only half a person, also thought would have been blurred and memory not so quick, which in turn is a health risk and judgement.
Complain about this comment
I wrote
I would have breathless dizzy got tired really quick and be only half a person, also thought would have been blurred and memory not so quick, which in turn is a health risk and judgement.
lol see what i mean I took my med a hour ago and I cant even get the words down
adds 'been' in between have & breathless and 'impaired' between and & judgment.
took several rereads to see those missing words.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal
Sorry to hear about your problems with med's, hope you're getting back on track !
I experienced similar things with my Dad, about five years ago his doctor prescribed him Zyban, the anti-smoking drug. Within a few days he became very quiet and withdrawn, after a month he had become a manic-depressive and experienced a lot of very severe mood swings.
He only seemed to have three moods with short periods of intense happiness intermixed with long bouts of overwhelming depression or paranoia and aggression that often spilled over into violence towards anyone he was around.
At the time he had been embarrassed about being unable to give up cigarettes on his own so he hadn't told anyone he had started taking these med's so it wasn't until about two months into this that we found out. By this time he was addicted to them so it was very difficult for us to even get him to acknowledge that they could be the reason he was acting so strangely and it wasn't until he ended up in hospital that we could get him to even discuss this with us.
It took him several months to get off those med's and it was over a year before his old personality started to return but even now, over five years later, he is still feeling the effects and sometimes has what I'd describe as a flashback, these can last from between a few minutes to a few days.
This isn't an unusual story, my Dad started going to a community support group to help him with these problems and five other people in his group are all suffering from the effects of Zyban.
These legal drugs cost him his job and over a year of his life and the rebuilding process still isn't over yet they are still legally available to anyone looking to stop smoking in the UK.
It was only when we experienced this that we started looking into the side effects of med's and I couldn't believe just how many of them have serious side effects that can ruin your life, or even end it. It appears that loads of people die every years from many such med's yet very few of them ever seem to get banned or even reported about in the mainstream media.
Complain about this comment
Radio 4 tonight the voice of reason calls for a royal commission on a dutch style cannabis system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8366466.stm
Complain about this comment
Mark, Mark,
Re: the play on words on the "Nutt Case", "Nutt Sack", etc.
That'll do. That'll Do.
J. Freeman
Florida, USA
Complain about this comment
Can I meekly suggest that the ACMD take the opportunity of being on the selection panel for the chair to invite Prof Nutt to apply for his old job again, making it clear publicly that they back him.
They've got the concessions, now go for the jugular.
Complain about this comment
Shame on Radio 4 last night anyone would think from the report show the BBC was government funded. "Can I get high one the smell" asks the reporter as a bag of green is open..
the expert evidence supplied by a kid who claimed his mate smoked a joint of skunk and was waisted for 3 days. Then the other friend who saw spiders after smoking skunk. More like he bought contaminated cannabis.
Then some babbling idiot claiming that cannabis users got schizophrenia and he had the proof in his new study were he asked patients if they happened to use cannabis.Hes just protecting all these dangerous antipsychotic drugs that are worth billions to the pharms with the harms.
Complain about this comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/20/cannabis-college-detroit
Complain about this comment
@128 CommunityCriminal
Couldn't agree with you more, parts of it were embarrassing why do the BBC persist in interviewing people who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, or at least use an interviewer who at least has researched the subject. It smacked of a piece of government propaganda...and a poor one at that.
RE-LEGALISE, REGULATE, TAX, EDUCATE
Complain about this comment
I didn't listen to the Radio 4 programme myself,I tend not to listen or watch these debates mainly because they usually end up being up market versions of the Jeremy Kyle show with a few attention seeking individuals relating their experiences to a panel of ill informed presenters.
As for the kid mentioned in Blog 128 who saw some spiders when stoned,so what! it's not the cannabis that causes you to see spiders,it's the state of mind you're already in when you smoked a joint that will determine the effect.Cannabis will not make a sad person happy,all it will do is enhance a mood you're already in and it may be that this spider seeing kid is a bit on the disturbed side anyway,with or without cannabis,and maybe it's best if he doesn't smoke it again.
In general,these programmes tend to invite along those that have not had the best experiences on cannabis,to invite along someone who will sit there and state that he had a nice relaxing time with some beautiful images in his head following a smoke is not what makes a programme watchable,hence my comparison with Kyles awful programme,the day he introduces a young well brought up couple with two lovely kids and a generally happy life is the day his viewing figures deteriorate.
Unfortunately,it seems to be human nature that makes people want to see the bad stuff,show some pictures of a motorway flowing freely with everybody driving along happily and no one will look,add a ten car pile up with cops and ambulances and we all want to look,it's the same with most programming on whatever channel.
So it's best not to watch or listen to these programmes,you'll only end up angry and frustrated at the apparent bias in favour of the downside from a presenter and guests who have little knowledge of the subject.
All of us smokers know the truth,and that's all that really matters.
Complain about this comment
Drinking alcohol every day gives men a strong heart
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8367141.stm
smoking 1 spliff of skunk gets you stoned for 3 days...
Complain about this comment
Newshour on BBC World Service today had an excellent piece about the drugs war, from about 26 mins in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0053fc5/Newshour_21_11_2009/
Complain about this comment
were win ning the war on drugs ,were winning the war on drugs, praise the lord and pass the bong were winning the war on drugs (the asylum street spankers)
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
did anyone check if the nutty prof'had been 'at it'?
Complain about this comment
Being as people are now starting to pass the bong whilst praising the lord (#134),(an act which is ultimatley a celebration of centuries of war, hatred, mind controll, child abuse, murder etc)(LOL!)(pass the bong by all means, but surely not in the name of the lord!) i feel that the debate has suddenly strayed into the land of something absurd and naiive. Perhaps some people really shouldnt smoke Cannabis.
I think this would be a good time to exit this debate, until the next annoying installment of the rape of reason occurs, but i would like to thank Mark Easton and everyone that has posted comments for providing this important and entertaining debate.
To some extent my willingness to pay my licence fee has now been restored and it is nice to know that Britain still has a lot of intelligent and rational people as its citizens, whether they take illegal drugs or not.
Complain about this comment
the bong being descended from the hookah pipe really was for getting together meeting and discussing social issues.
What I find the most amusing in this whole argument is we are fighting against our own natural bodies. 'Evolution' its self :)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS