Secret talks to crack the Nutt case
I am told that talks between the Home Office and its drugs advisers are still continuing behind the scenes with the aim of producing a "joint statement".
Members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) have said they expect an announcement "in a few days' time", but the Home Office has told me, very pointedly, that there is "no time-scale".
Alan Johnson is desperate to close down this unfortunate affair and officials are working with colleagues in Number Ten and Professor John Beddington, the government's Chief Scientific Adviser, to produce a communique that will satisfy the remaining ACMD members.
The home secretary had clearly gambled that he had enough to offer at yesterday's crunch meeting to head off any further resignations. I understand that "he did suggest a number of concrete ways" in which the relationship between his department and the council might be improved. ACMD members have told me that many present regarded his suggestions as "positive" and that he convinced the meeting of his genuine desire to find an accommodation.
"A week ago a clear majority (of members) were on the verge of resigning," one advisor disclosed to me. "Depending on what happens now, most will probably stay."
However, this morning's statements from Dr Simon Campbell (one of the three scientists who resigned after yesterday's meeting) reveal the anger that was also evident at the meeting.
He has described the sacking of Professor Nutt "by e-mail" as "an unnecessary humiliation for such a respected scientist". I understand that there were demands yesterday for Mr Johnson to apologise to the professor for the handling of his dismissal - something the home secretary refused to do.
There is also continuing frustration on the committee at the way that - in Dr Campbell's words today - "political expediency rules the roost". In other words, some members believe that government has not been giving due respect to the recommendations of the council because ministers are motivated by potential votes, not by hard facts.
This is what Dr Campbell said on the Today programme this morning:
"The council has to keep working with the government to make sure the government understands that we are presenting an evidence-based recommendation and, whatever the political expediency, at some stage a government has to accept a fact-driven recommendation."
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
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."
Dame Ruth now chairs the independent UK Drug Policy Commission, which is currently looking at designing "a governance process for non-partisan, evidence-based drug policy that brings together in a systematic and transparent way, expert advice and public opinion".
One final thought - I think it is indicative of the fragile state of the relationship between the Home Office and its drug advisers that Dr Campbell assumed that details of his resignation were leaked to the BBC by the department. The Home Office denies doing any such thing and points to a statement issued last night which makes no mention of resignations or the names of those involved.
Journalists were separately advised that "any details of potential resignations" (plural) would come from the Advisory Council itself.
Nevertheless, Dr Campbell's consternation adds relevance to one of the demands made by the scientists at yesterday's meeting: that they should have their own press office to deal with journalists rather than come under the Home Office media operation. There is a growing feeling that only by separating the council from the department can its independence be assured.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"Dame Ruth now chairs the independent UK Drug Policy Commission, which is currently looking at designing "a governance process for non-partisan, evidence-based drug policy...."
If I were her I'd be looking out for my job. Or preparing to suppress the evidence in the name or political expediency.
Makes me sick, this lot wouldn't know evidence if it bit them on the backside.
Evidence suggests the the DNA database is not useful.
Evidence shows our massive network off CCTV spycams is not effective or economical.
Evidence shows that most of the nonsense this lot force into law is at best useless and at worst actually malicious.
The day they accept evidence based policy is the day I.... well I'd probably drop dead from the shock.
That goes for conservatives too. Neither of the two big parties cares about anything beyond its own contributors and its own moral vision. Reality and actual, provable harm to the public through government policy be damned.
Anyone that voted for them more than once should be ashamed of themselves.
Complain about this comment
The thing is, if the goverments curretn stance on drugs was working then nobody would complain.
The facts of the matter are that it's not working, and the expert advisers disagree with some of the policies in place. Surely that means, whatever the motivation of the goverment in not following the advise, that the system should be looked at again with more cooperation between advisers and politicians.
The problem with that is there is clearly a lack of trust in the relationship with the advisers feeling they are being ignored and the politicians feeling they don't have the support of the advisers.
Complain about this comment
1. At 2:46pm on 11 Nov 2009, Gothnet wrote:
"...Makes me sick, this lot wouldn't know evidence if it bit them on the backside...Evidence suggests the the DNA database is not useful..."
A bit like starting a sentence with 'apparently'. It just doesn't work anymore.
Evidence suggests that we need a new approach to Government!!!!!
Complain about this comment
The whole thing just stinks. The mis-use of drugs act is about classification based on harm caused. I am sick and tired of being a criminal because I choose to smoke and not drink. It just makes me so angry.
you cannot criminalise 10% of the population because they don't fit in government policy, its absurd. You may as well make it illegal NOT to drink because by not doing so you are not paying a percentage of tax that the rest of the population pay.
I want my government to protect me. From street and organised crime. To protect me from the contaminated cannabis that only exists through prohibition. I want them to protect me from the aggressive drunken louts that populate our town centers after closing time. I want be able to visit a casualty department without the risk of alcohol fuelled violence. Afterall I work, have a mortgage, family and car. Because I like to "puff da 'erb" does not make me a criminal worthy of a 5 year prison sentance. is this too much to ask? Apparently, yes.
Show me a party that will take action to remedy this and I'll show you my vote!
Complain about this comment
How can anyone in their right mind possibly believe that a panel of distinguished scientists would know a lot more about their specialist field than a former postman ? Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
What a storm in a tea-cup! We all know "drugs" are bad. Does it really matter whether we say they are as bad as A or B? In the bigger scheme of things perhaps the scientists can come out of their ivory towers, stop getting their knickers in a twist and do some real work instead.
There are plenty of real problems in the world for them to address. Perhaps they'd do more good talking to some drug addicts and helping them sort out their lives.
Jan Child PhD Biochem
Complain about this comment
6. At 3:23pm on 11 Nov 2009, janchild wrote:
"...We all know "drugs" are bad..."
There's a statement! Do we? Are they?
I know what is preached. Cannabis is bad, they say. Why? Because it is, they say again. What constitutes 'BAD'?
Let's look at alcohol. Alcohol is bad, they also say. But some have said that in moderation, alcohol can be good. Red wine, for instance, in moderate doses, can be good for the blood. Likewise, cannabis has been shown to provide stress and pain relief. Is that bad?
Excessive use of anything is bad for you - now I'm making broad statements, but I'm generalising. What is excessive for my mother is not necessarily excessive for me. What is excessive for me now, in my 40s, would not have been excessive for me in my 20s. We adapt.
Humans are not unique in our quest for feeling good. Animals have been shown to seek out rotten or ripening fruit to get their high. That's nature, you might say, but aren't we of nature too. However it is ingested, whether by eating, drinking or smoking (let's leave the harder stuff alone for now), it is done so in a natural way. Digested through the stomach or absorbed through the lungs, it is nature that provides the plant, it is nature that allows us to ingest the plant and the effects thereof are purely natural. Morality is the man-made obstacle that is causing this argument. If we were all the same, had the same goals, had the same moralities, lived by the same beliefs, the world would be a very boring place.
I'm taught, via the media and society, that it is immoral to discriminate based on a variety of parameters. Why then, is it considered a moral argument to discriminate against a large proportion of society based on their beliefs.
We are all entitled to our opinion, but that is what it is. Opinion is often based upon belief. I believe that cannabis should not be illegal, and my opinion is based upon that. No amount of ABCs, or XYZs after a name will change my belief, and therefore my opinion. A good argument can change both, but until now, I've not heard one. Only when belief and opinion are changed will my actions differ.
LEGISLATE WHEN YOU NEED TO
REGULATE WHEN YOU CAN
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
Jan Child at #6 wrote
"There are plenty of real problems in the world for them to address. Perhaps they'd do more good talking to some drug addicts and helping them sort out their lives."
Problems like people dying of cancers brought on by secondary smoking, people being killed by drunken driver and drunken yobs do you mean Jan?
The Nutt case is about the Governments refusal to recognise the risks of harm from drugs and specifically about their refusal to include alcohol and tobacco (or caffine for that matter)to be included in the same harm scale. It is equivalent to leaving enemy action out of a list of risks to British soldiers!
We know how dangerous fags and booze are so why not a comparison between the risk to health from drinking 4 pints a night for 20 years v smoking 4 joints a day for the same period ?
Even the risk of using 'clean' heroin for 20 years v smoking 20 fags a day ........
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton.
"There is also continuing frustration on the committee at the way that - in Dr Campbell's words today - 'political expediency rules the roost'."
that frustration is also evident in the wider population, fewer and fewer bother to vote because it seems so utterly pointless.
s1ndr0me #4.
"The mis-use of drugs act is about classification based on harm caused."
which is why the evident political expediency is so harmful to the wider society.
Complain about this comment
bluest-man #8, replying to janchild #6.
"..the Governments refusal to recognise the risks of harm from drugs and specifically about their refusal to include alcohol and tobacco (or caffine for that matter).."
the BBC, with its unique role as a Public Service Broadcaster, is also 'letting the side down', no mention of those establishment approved drugs in their 'fact sheet' either.
Complain about this comment
'I am told that talks between the Home Office and its drugs advisers are still continuing behind the scenes with the aim of producing a "joint statement".'
Oh groan - that's a bad pun, Mark.
But seriously: 'There is a growing feeling that only by separating the council from the department can its independence be assured.'
Although that won't solve all the problems by any means, it does seem a sensible move.
Complain about this comment
Well I'm going to exercise my democratic right to protest about this mess by trying some cannabis this weekend.
Complain about this comment
Its nice to see concern growing on this .
However I would like to point out the price for cannabis on this chart is well out of date it needs to go up to around £80 for solids and £160 for plant materials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8340796.stm
Complain about this comment
#9 - jr4412
"that frustration is also evident in the wider population, fewer and fewer bother to vote because it seems so utterly pointless."
That is true, but it's also perpetuating the status quo. It's easier for second-rate people to get into high office without making too much effort. And the damage they can once in power is quite terrifying. We quite literally give Parliament the power of life and death over us.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent a government with an overall majority and enough brainless sycophants on the back benches from withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, enacting legislation making it a capital offence to walk on the cracks in the pavement and using the Parliament Act to force the bill through the Lords.
Nothing at all, that is, apart from the Royal Assent. And if that was refused, and a sufficiently pig-headed government forced the issue, it could in theory lead to civil war.
Now, that's a very far-fetched scenario. But it's not quite impossible. We do give Parliament the power to enact whatever legislation it sees fit, which is why a combination of voter apathy combined with a government that possesses high levels of idealistic naiveté, lack of experience and monumental stupidity has brought the civil liberties in the UK below the level of Communist Eastern Europe. There was no grand plan to establish a Stalinist regime in the UK; it's arisen by default because we've put far too much power into the hands of people who simply are not up to the job.
Having said that, it's not quite true that voting is pointless. If enough of the electoral refuseniks were to vote tactically, it can make a difference.
There are just two simple rules to remember:
1: Vote for the most popular candidate other than the big three. Doesn't matter which party.
2. If it's only the big three, vote for the candidate that came third last time. Again, it doesn't matter which party.
Here's a worked example, showing how we could have been rid of Jacqboot Smith if these rules had been followed in 2005. Stats are taken from the Electoral Commission's website (Excel spreadsheet).
Redditch had a total electoral roll of 63,150. Here is the result:
Smith, J.J. Ms (Labour): 18,012
Lumley, K.E. Ms (Conservative): 15,296
Hicks, N.S. (Liberal Democrat): 5,602
Ison, J.P. (UKIP) 1,381
That gave Jacqboot a majority of 2,716.
63,150 - (18,012+15,296 + 5,602 + 1,381) = 22,859 people who were registered to vote but didn't.
Let us assume that 10% of these genuinely couldn't vote, as opposed to couldn't be bothered to. That gives us 20,573, rounding down.
Applying rule 1 gives us this:
Smith, J.J. Ms (Labour): 18,012
Lumley, K.E. Ms (Conservative): 15,296
Hicks, N.S. (Liberal Democrat): 5,602
Ison, J.P. (UKIP) 1,381 + 20,573 = 21,954.
So the UKIP would have won with a majority of 3,942. That's 1,226 more than Jacqboot's majority and without taking swinging voters into account.
I'm currently working out what the result would have been if that had happened across the country.
It's important to remember that the point of doing this is not to show support for any given party; it's to upset the apple cart and give the complacent goons in Westminster a big kicking. That's the only way we'll see real change happening.
It doesn't have to be confined to kicking Labour, either. If the electorate of Richmond had done the same thing, William Hague's 26,722 majority would have been cut by 90% - in a supposedly safe Tory seat.
Oh, and don't bother spoiling your paper. Invalid votes are just ignored. Any idea of "sending a message" about dissatisfaction will result in nothing more than some flatulent cant from the new MP about listening more to the people. If you're lucky.
It's difficult to achieve - but not quite impossible.
Complain about this comment
14. At 5:13pm on 11 Nov 2009, politicallyincorrect
nice try but .... you are forgetting the Afghanistan Factor ...
Complain about this comment
politicallyincorrect #14.
you make it sound so easy..
did you account for gerry-mandering and the activities of the Boundaries Commission?
Complain about this comment
All Alan Johnson is doing is finding some scientists who will agree to do his, and the governments bidding. Shame on you Johnson, you are not bright enough to sit in judgement or make policy decisions.
Complain about this comment
#14 Politicallyincorrect,
Greetings from an expat Scot in Raleigh, North Carolina. You are right in your analysis. It is an argument that is put forward at every election this side of the pond - vote out all incumbents. Unfortunately, one has to bear in mind the issue of postal votes. Look at what happened in Glenrothes last year and what is happening right now in Glasgow North-East.
For a long time I was opposed to PR - weak governments and all that rot. The last 2 1/2 years (in particular) in Scotland have convinced me that a sensible PR system (ie, one NOT designed to preserve a cosy coalition) is the way forward. Will Westminster be brave enough to impose upon itself what it has imposed upon the three smaller nations within the UK?
Complain about this comment
My, we live in interesting times. If nothing else, the Nutt affair has fanned the flames of debate surrounding a governmental mechanism and electoral process largely unchanged since the Representation of the People Act 1867.
If what you have in drunken charge of a floundering ship of state is more broken, overpriced and bloated than Micro$oft software (which it udoubtedly is) what you probably need to put matters right is Open Source Democracy, to which anyone can contribute. For those of you unfamiliar with the principles of the Open Source movement, Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", which has as its central tenet "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", is a good starting point. This concept is as applicable to government as it is to software engineering. There are 19 steps to creating good open source software listed in Raymond's essay and they can all, to a greater or lesser extent, be applied to democracy. The full text can be found easily enough with Google (it's an Open Source document and thus free) and there's a useful overview in Wikipedia (itself also founded on the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" principle)
If we can reorganise the administration of the country on something along these lines, we'd undoubtedly all be a lot better off, more empowered, and most important of all, unchained from the mortmain grip of the monkeys currently whooping it up Whitehall.
Complain about this comment
none of this matters now as the government have made their mind up and the general public and the experts can go whistle as Brown has changed the law. No matter what the experts say now the deed is done. It makes me sick,
Complain about this comment
WE are going to re classify cannabis to send out a message that its bad "WHY" because its illegal "WHY IS IT ILLEGAL" cos we say so "WHY DO YOU SAY SO" cos we do . This governments frightening in its inability to see the truth. One day a government will have the balls to sort out the whole drugs situation and it wont be by locking up users (or dealers) .A junkie has loads of problems without making them a criminal as well . I know its not the same but does anyone remember how popular cb radio was untill it was legalised and now you never hear of it .Why doesnt Mr Nutt start a political party (The party of experts sounds good)
Complain about this comment
Beginning to wish I hadn't done that now. It's disquieting reading.
Just to recap, here is the 2005 result:
Labour 355
Conservative 198
Liberal Democrat 62
Democratic Unionist Party 9
Scottish National Party 6
Sinn Féin 5
Plaid Cymru 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3
Ulster Unionist Party 1
Speaker 1
Your Party 1
Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern 1
Respect/Unity Coalition 1
If, as I suggested above, 90% of the electoral refuseniks turned away from mainstream politics and voted either for an independent or the party that came in third if no independents were standing, the House of Commons would look like this:
UK Independence Party 205
Green 83
British National Party 79
Conservative 77
Scottish National Party 56
Plaid Cymru 37
Liberal Democrat 32
Respect/Unity Coalition 11
Independent 10
Labour 10
Democratic Unionist Party 9
Veritas 7
Sinn Féin 5
Liberal Party 3
Socialist Alternative 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3
Community Action Party 2
National Front 2
Socialist Labour Party 2
Your Party 1
Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern 1
Community Group 1
Alliance for Green Socialism 1
Residents Association of London 1
Speaker 1
Ashfield Independents 1
Ulster Unionist Party 1
Peace and Progress 1
British Public Party 1
There would have been one tied vote between the BNP and UKIP.
This is something of a worst case scenario. But what if only half the refuseniks could be persuaded to shift their backsides down the polling station?
Here's what:
Labour 262
Conservative 192
Liberal Democrat 58
SNP 35
Green 25
British National Party 18
Plaid Cymru 11
UK Independence Party 10
Democratic Unionist Party 9
Respect/Unity Coalition 8
Sinn Féin 5
Independent 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3
Veritas 1
Ulster Unionist Party 1
Speaker 1
Your Party 1
Liberal Party 1
Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern 1
National Front 1
Again, there would have been one tied vote between the BNP and UKIP.
Now, I don't claim to be an expert in political analysis. And I don't particularly like the idea of seeing fascists in the House of Commons. But I can't help thinking that that sort of breakdown is a far better proposition than a massive majority that, coupled with the whip system, does so much to stifle Parliament.
And all it would take is for the apathetic refuseniks to get their backsides down the polling station next June and follow the two simple rules.
Here's hoping...
Complain about this comment
bluest-man wrote:
"nice try but .... you are forgetting the Afghanistan Factor ..."
I take it you mean scaring people with Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Terrorist? Oh, they'll do that all right - expect to see a lot of scaremongering nonsense in all the mainstream parties' manifestos.
If you bump into someone canvassing, or get doorstepped, ask them politely why we didn't need all the current anti-terror legislation back in the 1970s and 1980s, when we had the IRA on our doorstep. And watch them squirm :-)
r4412 wrote:
"you make it sound so easy.."
Ah - I omitted the tricky part - that of actually getting the apathetic off their backsides and down the polling station. I'm well aware that that would be the hardest part of all.
"did you account for gerry-mandering and the activities of the Boundaries Commission?"
Well, if you look at the figures I've posted, the more people that make an effort, the less important that becomes.
I'm beginning to think that in spite of the twaddle about reaching out to voters that our MPs come out with, they're secretly hoping that apathy will remain at its current level, so all they have to do is convince the electorate in a few key marginals to forget the past because it'll all be better next time.
But the point is still valid, in that if enough people make the effort to vote, and do so tactically, they can make a difference.
Complain about this comment
11 Nov 2009, Skip_NC wrote:
"For a long time I was opposed to PR - weak governments and all that rot. The last 2 1/2 years (in particular) in Scotland have convinced me that a sensible PR system (ie, one NOT designed to preserve a cosy coalition) is the way forward. Will Westminster be brave enough to impose upon itself what it has imposed upon the three smaller nations within the UK?"
It might be a case of turkeys being asked to vote for Christmas :-) The Lib Dems do want to introduce PR, but I doubt if it'll happen any time soon.
I'm also an expat Scot, which is one reason I'll be watching the election with great interest. If there's a turn away from Labour in Scotland that doesn't benefit the Tories, the SNP might find themselves in a very powerful position. A Tory government in Westminster and a SNP government in Holyrood might even result in more support for independence.
Complain about this comment
Now that the ACMD have the Home Secretary by the short and curlies - sorry, with a "genuine desire to find an accommodation" in political spin terms - they should press home the advantage to the maximum extent.
An apology for David Nutt is a nicety - but not of any real significance. Rather the ACMD members should use the power they now have, and the very weak position of the Home Secretary, to get in place systems that mean "political expediency rules the roost" is a thing of the past.
In negotiation terms the ACMD, should be straight through the fat, take all of the meat - and maybe even take a scaping of bone or two.
The Home Secretary cannot win. The best he can do is minimise the losses - and he knows it. The ACMD can give him some small semblance of a win - by allowing him to be the Home Secretary that really brought in evidence-based policy. It won't be too much of a loss for Alan Johnson to bear - expecially if he can spin it out a while and in the end come to a 'positive' conclusion. It is only a few months and then he will be out-of-office and positioning himself to replace Gordon Brown. By agreeing some systems that negate 'political expediency' he will leave a problematic legacy for his blue successor - which from his point of view he could spin positively in the race to replace Gordon Brown.
But the ACMD should not be naive scientists and 'succeed' in getting an apology. They should play the political game and use the power they have to the maximum extent and get something really valuable - real evidence-based policymaking.
Complain about this comment
I tell you what annoys me and i'm afraid it is going to turn into a rant... Throughout my teens, arguably one of the fastest development stages in life where you start to think?judge the way the world works. I can remember these PSHE(I think) classes we were taught about sex and drugs but also politics, human rights and the general law of the land, Reasons why people take drugs/drink. ect.
Around when cannabis was changed to class C we would "debate" about decriminalising cannabis. This debate was often hyped at the time by the media. Holland was setting a great example. But it gave my generation an "easy" opinion about weed.
Fast forward a couple of years and Magic mushrooms are making a comeback on the high street. Quite literally. Because of a loophole which was arguably designed to be lenient or when the original laws were made law makers were too ignorant and didn't want to have to police farmland.
Maybe mushroom cultivation had become easier over the years, which I doubt. Or the trading of them when wet wasn't very profitable until recently (A percentage came from dam maybe ?). However all I needed to say was how did they go from legal to class A. It was rushed and the govt was very worried is my opinion. Well they didn't even ask the ACMD
"(And) They would of gone against against us on magic mushrooms. IF they had even had the courtesy to ask us.(ACMD)" - Prof Nutt
And then recently they put cannabis back to B. At the risk of sounding like a sheepish but "honest" politician, I have smoked cannabis. And yes, at risk of being a stat in the Cannabis leads to harder drugs argument; the one we did at school, I have taken many drugs. In fact I would say there were times I have abused them but this is not the point. Why do they keep changing the law ? They don't even keep the "class system" the same, recent changes considering the social damage is involved.
As well as losing trust, respect from people taking drugs, they also completely fail to correctly advise young people and old, drug users/abusers, non users and worst of all the maybes. (Frank isn't advice). So Govt policy at the moment is to criminalise and use propaganda in a way that censors some facts and glorifies some opinions to make it look wrong and dangerous. Lack of education makes it more dangerous. All in the hope people will one day stop.
What's worse is that similar to the loophole in the mushroom trend, people are manufacturing
other legal highs. The BBC3 show about it was bad. Methadrone and methalone or whatever they really are, possibly contain similar analogues to amphetamines and when I took some it certainly felt chemically. Similar effects to other chemical drugs but its as bad if not worse than MDMA in my mind. Purely because it seems more addictive. SO why is there not an outcry ? Today you can legally buy a chemical drug like MDMA for cheaper and that are probably as dangerous. Of course if we only knew how "dangerous" Mdma REALLY was.
What does that all that say about not just our govt but our society ?
That we are still unwilling to have a proper "grown-up" debate on the issue. It tends to be a big divider of opinions with tabloid papers giving drugs a negative press over the celebrities they love and make it a big public opinion thing. Meanwhile the people that do take drugs regularly will often find it usual to see someone in a less than healthy way and fail to really advise the person, usually a friend to be disciplined. We all know stories but people should look out for each other more. Anything not taken in moderation is bad.
It all makes for a bad state of affairs and to be honest an election wont change much anyway. Too much politically bigotry from the politicians, media and the voters to really talk about drugs. Quite sad but not as sad as how many words this is.Haha
Complain about this comment
YOU CAN TRUST THIS GOV TO USE A SLEDGE HAMMER TO CRACK A NUT:
OOBUCK
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There seems to be a common belief among commentators on this issue that experts cannot be wrong. In fact they can be wrong and sometimes with terrible consequences for the families involved.
A classic example was the treatment of autism. For years this was considered by the experts in the field to be a problem of parenting (particularly mothering) and the mothers of such children were cruelly labelled ‘refrigerator’ mothers, who told that they were emotionally cold to their children. It is now known that this view is completely incorrect and that autism is a biochemical disorder in the brain.
In my view, the ACMD response (April 2008) to Jacqui Smith, the then home secretary, was inadequate in that it was selective in its use of evidence and omitted or dismissed evidence that was contrary to their (majority) view.
For example, it cites a paper from Zammit et al (British Medical Journal, 2002 325: 1199–1201), but belittles its conclusion as it used “self-reported” cannabis use even though these objections were addressed in the immediately subsequent follow-up paper, as they had been raised by the peer reviewers at the time.
The conclusions of this study was clear:
“Self reported cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation.
This association is not explained by sociability personality traits, or by use of amphetamines or other drugs.
Self medication with cannabis is an unlikely explanation for the association observed.”
The government was within its rights to reject the recommendation to reclassify cannabis and, given the controversy, even amongst experts over this question, they were required to make a judgement.
Professor Nutt was clearly campaigning for a reversal of this decision and for the (majority) view of the committee. Therefore, Alan Johnson was perfectly, in order to sack him.
Finally, some commentators have raised the question of the obvious dangers of tobacco and alcohol. These are not relevant to the discussion of cannabis, except that cannabis smoking can lead to tobacco smoking.
The particular problem with these drugs is their current social acceptability. However, the government has made very significant progress on reducing tobacco smoking in recent years (in spite of libertarian objections). Sadly, alcohol abuse has probably been increasing, though the success against smoking may indicate a realistic route to reducing it.
Complain about this comment
Regardless of the health issues -
Drugs (and dissociative practices in general)are deeply rooted in our history. Perhaps they provide a form of necessary escapism. I also think this is partly why we get so much pleasure from the arts, but presumably dissociative experiences and ritual go back much further in human history.
An ethnographic study of 488 societies around the world, 89% practiced this in some form (Hallucinogenics or alcohol).
Even if we had an effective way of dealing with this... "issue", such practices are not going to cease our lifetimes.
As it happens, current national and international anti-narcotic campaigns are, shall we say, under performing slightly :)
The Economist ran a very good article recently on why legalization is the "least bad" option, personally though I think you only need to look towards Mexico and the daily gangland murders to see the very real and human cost of the the global "War On Drugs".
Parents in this country will always be concerned for the wellbeing of their children, but in all honesty I have a lot more sympathy for parents in somewhere like Ciudad Juarez, where children as young as seven are being gunned down as a result of our (or rather our ancestors) decision to force the drug trade into the criminal underworld.
Complain about this comment
jockbug wrote:
"Finally, some commentators have raised the question of the obvious dangers of tobacco and alcohol. These are not relevant to the discussion of cannabis, except that cannabis smoking can lead to tobacco smoking."
Could you please explain why the relative dangers of alcohol and tobacco are not relevant to the discussion of cannabis ?
Alcohol is a recreational drug, so is tobacco, so is cannabis.
Why should they not be treated in the same way ?
As I see it, the only real difference is their legal status and the fact that cannabis is far safer than the other two.
Complain about this comment
these guys were doing a job for free in there own time but because the top man said that cannabis was safer than the 2 things (ALCHOHOL AND CIGARETTES)that our goverment hammer with tax is it because they cant tax cannabis he was sacked im with marshall FTG
Complain about this comment
29. At 6:56pm on 15 Nov 2009, jockbug wrote:
"In my view, the ACMD response (April 2008) to Jacqui Smith, the then home secretary, was inadequate in that it was selective in its use of evidence and omitted or dismissed evidence that was contrary to their (majority) view."
The report by the ACMD is here: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] I would rather listen to a group that took 10 years to collate evidence from all over the country, than listen to someone like Dr Robin Murray (who may be very respected in his field) who only does research in his own little corner of London and seems to ignore the rest of the country.
This whole subject, whether cannabis either has a link or causes schizophrenia is a red herring in my opinion and just isn't borne out by the numbers as the numbers have not gone up in relation to the explosion in cannabis use. Why is it that the US hasn't seen this link? You would think seeing as cannabis usage is probably triple or even quadruple ours that there would be some kind of evidence (apart from the enforced treatment by the courts) of an increase in numbers.
It is accepted by most that people who are predisposed to schizophrenia should not use cannabis, but when confronted with the choice of pharmaceutical drugs with their personality changing side effects, or a bit of bud that to them has little or no side effects it's understandable which they would prefer.
jockbug also wrote
"Finally, some commentators have raised the question of the obvious dangers of tobacco and alcohol. These are not relevant to the discussion of cannabis, except that cannabis smoking can lead to tobacco smoking."
Can I ask you why there is no relevance between cannabis, alcohol and tobacco? 'Cos from where I'm sitting there is a great deal of relevance. They are all drugs, they are all taken recreationally. The only reason cannabis is not sold alongside the other two is because industrialists got their own way in the 1920's and it's usage outlawed. The only reason tobacco is associated with cannabis is because of the price of cannabis is too high to smoke on its own, and the lack of good quality grass in the UK. The most commonly found dope in this country is 'soap' and the ONLY way to smoke that in a joint is to use tobacco, it's too vile to smoke on its own. Talk to a Canadian or American about spliffs with tobacco and they'll look at you as though you've come from another planet. If it was legal here the usage of tobacco in spliffs would probably decline over time as the cost of good quality grass would be lower.
The argument that the young have to be protected by keeping this plant illegal would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The one sure fire way to make it attractive to the young is by prohibiting it. We are not keeping it from the young we are thrusting it into their hands, they can obtain it easier than adults!
Anyone who wants the present policies to continue does NOT have young peoples well being at heart and are only perpetuating the problem.
Oh and another thing, Why do I have to branded a criminal and in all likelihoods be locked up...for using a substance that my great grandparents probably used everyday without a problem?
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK!
RE-LEGALISE, REGULATE, TAX & EDUCATE
Complain about this comment
I have been asked to explain why the issues of tobacco and alcohol are not relevant to the cannabis debate (see #31 & #33).
It is certainly true that they are all recreational drugs, as indeed are also cocaine and caffeine, not to mention some solvents. However, to say they should be treated the same would be totally wrong. This is like saying that since a lion, a tiger and a domestic cat are all cats then they should be treated the same. Surely one would not react the same way to a tiger or a domestic cat if you were to meet one or other in the street.
Firstly, nicotine is not generally considered a narcotic, as it is not considered to inhibit mental processes, induce a stupor or affect one’s perception of the outside world. Indeed, in some aspects it is considered to enhance mental processes; hence, having nicotine in the blood stream when driving on the public highway is not considered to make you a danger to others and is not treated as a criminal offence.
In these respects, nicotine is no worse than caffeine. What makes it dangerous (in its own way) is firstly it is extraordinarily addictive and secondly it is normally taken directly into the lungs with a load of partial combustion products that can both induce cancer and emphysema. The products of smoking are also known to have a serious detrimental effect on the heart and circulatory system. The connection of smoking and premature death and the early onset of ill-health are now widely accepted.
The serious effects of smoking usually take several years to do permanent damage, so the impact on the young is limited, with most of its victims in middle age or older.
The governments of most developed countries have made good progress on limiting smoking, by banning it at work and in public places, among other measures.
Alcohol is a narcotic, in small amounts it can induce euphoria and is hence used as a facilitator at social gatherings. However, in larger amounts, it causes an increasing lack of mental control and finally stupor. It is addictive, but not nearly so much as nicotine and heavy usage eventually destroys the health. It can induce psychoses, but only after years of heavy drinking.
It can also cause reckless behaviour, so it is often implicated in violent or dangerous incidents. I have not checked the figures, but I would be very surprised if alcohol were not responsible for the majority of drug and drug related (crime, road accidents etc) deaths and injuries in the UK. However, it is also has a very large number of users, probably a significant majority of adults in the UK. So even if the number of incidents were low per user, it would still amount to a large number.
Alcohol differs significantly from cannabis in that it is rapidly metabolised by the body, so it does not accumulate in the body: therefore, even after heavy drinking one is usually fit to drive within 12 hours as by then the alcohol blood level has dropped to very low levels. Therefore even regular drinking does not result in accumulation of alcohol in the bloodstream. It is also a relatively weak drug, so large doses are required to cause an effect.
Some of the active ingredients of cannabis on the other hand stay within the human body (brain!) for several weeks and can accumulate, even if taken only once a week.
Cannabis is a narcotic, as it impairs mental functions and induces a stupor; hence its presence in the brain has a very marked effect on mental functioning.
I have met quite a few young men who are regular users of cannabis. Although the majority are not psychotic, some do say that they feel paranoid and the vast majority are unable to hold down any sort of job or continue education. They have effectively disabled themselves and are leading stunted lives, because of their cannabis use. Since cannabis remains in their bodies, they are never free of the mental effects it induces.
I also know some heavy drinkers, the majority of whom can hold down jobs and still have their mental faculties (although damaging themselves in other ways and their families). Light or moderate drinkers, encompass the large majority of users and usually have few problems, depending on their use pattern. This does not make alcohol good, it means though that it is very different from cannabis.
Finally, I was glad that Dr Robin Murray has been mentioned, as it is worth googling “Robin Murray Guardian” and reading his article on cannabis criticising the ACMD for its original advice to David Blunkett and their downplaying of the link between cannabis and psychotic illness.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS