Politics v Science yet again
The government and the scientific community could be on a collision course over what critics describe as plans to "emasculate" the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Home Office says its proposals will allow "greater flexibility".
Campaigners for drug law reform are claiming the government is "reaping vengeance" over the David Nutt affair with plans to remove the statutory requirement for scientists to sit on the ACMD.
Readers will recall how Professor Nutt, the former chairman of the advisory body, was sacked after suggesting that classification of some drugs was at odds with their relative harm. Seven members of the council then resigned in disgust, resulting in a showdown between ministers and the science community.
Without public consultation or any prior notification, government plans to remove the need for scientific experts on the committee appear under the "miscellaneous" section of the Police Reform Bill [742KB PDF].
It may look like a small arcane change, but the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act effectively removes a keystone in the architecture of Britain's drugs policy.
The ACMD was created to ensure that the prohibition of substances was conducted with regard to the evidence of how harmful those drugs were rather than moral or popular pressures. As such, the Misuse of Drugs Act insists there must be at least six scientists among the 20 members including a chemist, a doctor, a vet and a dentist.
The Crime Prevention Minister James Brokenshire has told the BBC:
"Scientific advice is absolutely critical to the government's approach to drugs and any suggestion that we are moving away from it is absolutely not true. Removing the requirement on the Home Secretary to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with experience in six specific areas will allow us greater flexibility in the expertise we are able to draw on. We want the ACMD to be adapted to best address the challenges posed by the accelerating pace of challenges in the drugs landscape."
This adaptation, however, has gone down very badly with some sections of the scientific community. The Drug Equality Alliance which campaigns for what it calls "rational and objective drugs laws" has penned an open letter condemning the proposals:
"Seemingly the legacy of the sacking of former council chair professor David Nutt, and the subsequent resignations of most of the former scientists on the council, is now reaping vengeance by sweeping away potential heretics that might seek to use evidence rather than tabloid hysteria to fulfil the need to be seen to be doing something."
Strong stuff, but representative of the depth of feeling still remaining after Professor Nutt's dismissal by the previous government. The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) has been equally forthright in its criticism of the move. Director Imran Khan says "the government are trying to take us back to the time of 'Minister knows best'."
"Scrapping the need for expertise on the drugs advice is not only bad science, but it's also terrible politics. The status of the ACMD is still a raw nerve, after Alan Johnson sacked its Chair and caused the resignation of over half a dozen of its members. The Home Office would be hard-pressed to find a worse fight to pick with the science community."
The government is adamant that it is not picking any fight and is committed to using evidence to drive policy decisions. The Science Minister David Willetts said as much to the BBC recently. "I certainly believe in evidence-based policy and the prime minister does and the cabinet are committed to it".
However, the decision to remove the statutory requirement to have half a dozen scientists on the ACMD is a significant moment in the sweep of UK drugs policy. The so-called "British system" of narcotics control, which held sway for most of the 20th Century, assumed that it was primarily a matter for doctors and other professionals.
In the 60s, amid public anxiety at the arrival of many new psychotropic substances, it was decided to follow the American model and criminalise the possession of a wide range of drugs. The legislation was enshrined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
But also included in the statute was the creation of the ACMD, regarded as a bulwark against the perceived risk that prohibition and criminal sanction against drug users would be driven by morals or populism rather than evidence of harm. It was part of that debate which saw Parliament demand there must be at least six expert scientific advisors on the advisory council.
Dr Evan Harris, the former Lib Dem MP and Director of the Campaign for Evidence-based Policy, said:
"The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was ahead of its time in embedding expert and scientific advice into policy-making. In the forty years since then the need for good evidence to inform policy has increased, yet the Government seem to want to go back to a pre-scientific era in policy terms."
I understand existing members of the ACMD are broadly content with the idea of scrapping the requirement on the understanding it will make room for more social scientists to come onto the body rather than, perhaps, a dentist or a vet.
Critics of the move point out that there is no reason why you can't have more social scientists AND maintain the "key" scientific roles, but there has been growing ministerial disquiet that the strict rules can hamper the government's ability to move rapidly against a new drug threat.
In March this year, after a number of the scientists on the ACMD had resigned in protest at David Nutt's sacking, the home secretary was warned that the absence of a vet on the council meant the government could not proscribe mephedrone. I wrote about the crisis at the time.
In the end, Home Office lawyers found a way to work around the problem, aided by the fact that there was little Parliamentary opposition to the move to ban the so-called "legal high".
Since then, of course, there have been a number of learned articles suggesting that the absence of proper scientific scrutiny of the harms associated with mephedrone has made the situation worse, not better. Again, I wrote about this last month.
It is the desire to deal rapidly with new and potentially dangerous drugs arriving in Britain that is driving the government reform proposals for the ACMD. Section 149 of the Police Reform Bill enacts an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act allowing ministers to slap a temporary ban on any substance without consideration by the advisory council.
Some critics suggest that this is a "charter for political moral panic". The government argues it is a practical solution for dealing with the fast-moving threat from new and potentially dangerous drugs. Either way, it appears that hostilities may be about to start up once again between the worlds of politics and science.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is sickening and really does show us how regressive our new coalition has become.
I voted liberal democrat specifically because they seemed the only party that was willing to make policy based upon best outcome rather than any specific politcal ideaology.
An example of that would be when we had the BBC newsnight episode after the professor nut sacking and it was only the lib dems who said they thought it was better to treat drug use as a health issue and let the experts decide policy. Even when faced with jeers from the audience and panel members.
But now i see like with all other lib dem poliies they have thrown them away all so they can stay in power.
They are spineless and irrelevant to the coalition. Make no mistake we have a conservative government nothing else. I will never vote lib dem again which begs the question will i ever vote again? If so for who?
And the conservatives? And Labour? They are all too busy waiting for consultancy jobs in the alcohol/tobbacco/pharmacuetical sector to do anything genuine about drugs policy.
They are all corrupt and would prefer to see british people die on the street or beg and steal from each other than give up the fortunes they are promised.
Welcome to stalinist britian.
Complain about this comment
This amounts to nothing less than a descent into immorality and corruption.
All that the people seek is that drugs policy should be based on facts and evidence. Even the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have criticised the government for basing drugs policy on opinion rather than evidence.
The government’s only concern is to be able to pursue the policies it wants irrespective of public opinion, science, facts or evidence. It is a shameful perversion of democracy. When it doesn’t like the truth it lies. When others speak the truth it silences them.
These are crimes every bit as serious as those of Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein. Such is the British government of 2010.
Complain about this comment
Government claims that it is not attacking the scientific foundations of the ACMD have to be seen in the context of a long history of successive administrations refusing to let evidence of what works get in the way of using drug policy as a tool to cynically grub for votes.
Despite its staggering cost ineffectiveness, drug related spending remains protected from public scrutiny within a political bubble of law and order populism. This year alone, reports from the National Audit Office, The Public Accounts Committee and Home Affairs Select Committee have blasted the Home Office for having no meaningful evaluation of the impact of the money spent. In terms of major public spending initiatives, drug policy is unique in this regard.
Because Labour and the Tories (and potentially now the Lib Dems too?) are still playing politics with the drugs issue, more cost-effective approaches, including Portuguese-style decriminalisation or the regulatory models for drug production and supply explored in Transform’s Blueprint for Regulation (with controls over products, vendors, outlets, access and marketing), have never been seriously considered. Questions about legal regulation are rebuffed with claims that the benefits would be outweighed by increased health costs from an assumed increase in use. These claims are baseless. The Home Office has never, and refuses to do, the cost benefit analysis needed to substantiate them – because they know what it would show.
At the very least all political parties should support calls for an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act to assess the pros and cons of the current approach, including the role of the ACMD, and compare them with all the alternatives for the first time, so future policy can be based on evidence not ideology. No more, in fact, than has been called for by the pre-coalition Lib Dems, and David Cameron when on the Home Affairs Select Committee. When even the US is exploring legal regulation of marijuana, what is the UK still afraid of? All politicians need to ask; is it really still worth squandering billions a year just to sound tough on drugs when it is the poor who pick up the tab?
Complain about this comment
Of course all policies should be guided by evidence - but evidence is not purely 'scientific', in the narrow sense, and neither does it necessarily point to a relaxation of our drugs laws. For example, there is a lot of evidence - from Singapore and Japan, for instance - that if a country has very strict laws against personal possession or use of drugs, and strictly enforces these laws, the result can be a society that is free from the social, economic and health-related problems of widespread drug use. Whether there would ever be the political will to carry out these policies in Britain is another question of course (and I would say not), but it's not 'unscientific' or 'populist' or 'spreading moral panic' - or in any way irrational, as the evidence supporting this argument need not include any moral component - to discuss the possibility.
Complain about this comment
No scientists on the ACMD? Blame David Nutt and all those who kept quiet.
Nutt overstated what the science tells us and other scientists did not step up to clarify the position. Consequently, science itself became a passive accomplice in Nutt's campaign, undermining the integrity of science and the goal of evidence-based policy.
See http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2010/12/no-scientists-on-the-acmd-blame-david-nutt-and-all-those-who-kept-quiet.html
Complain about this comment
"4. At 11:37am on 06 Dec 2010, njmayes wrote:"
Your asssertion drugs should be removed entirely from society is in itself a moral judgement you have no right to make.
And your assertion that legalising/decriminalising/reforming drugs would amount to increase in use is totally baseless. Any country in europe you look at with decriminalisation has a lower level of drug use than the UK has.
And i'm sorry if it inconvenieces you but it is a scientific subject. Of course in that context the police, social workers etc also have points to make. As they did do in the ACMD and they all agreed the proposals they put forward.
The government have a policy of misinformation, even today if you ask a minister why cannabis is illegal they will tell you its 'much stronger than it used to be' (which it isn't) and they will tell you 'it causes mental illness' which in contrast it can actually treat mental illness.
And this misinformation comes right down to the talk to frank campaign where factual errors and outright lies are sold to children and parents.
And all so they can make money.
Complain about this comment
Why is anyone surprised? This has always been a field where political (read: 'ill-informed expediency') opinions have outweighed fact.
And for the benefit of njmayes, 'scientific evidence' in this context means 'verifiable by independent testing'. Non-scientific 'evidence' is - insofar as it means anything - hearsay.
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb - You are using the same definition of evidence that I would use: that is, one not solely based on the physical effects on users' bodies. That was all I meant by saying that evidence was not scientific alone. Of course policy deliberations should include input from chemists, police officers, etc, as you say. I have not said I support the government narrowing the range of advice they take: to be clear, I don't.
I did NOT assert that legalising drugs would amount to an increase in use. Please read what I said and do not put words into my mouth. I would suggest the evidence shows that we have the worst of all possible situations in this country - drugs are illegal, but their personal use is not strictly punished, so criminals benefit. I think it would be more rational for policy to go in either direction: if we are not going to punish users, drugs should be legal, so that we can tax and regulate their use - evidence from some European countries, as you point out, suggests this might be a policy worth following. However, there is also evidence from other countries to suggest that stricter enforcement of existing laws can reduce harm to society. So I hope you will concede that I have not taken a moral position one way or the other, or introduced moral arguments at all: I am solely concerned with discovering which policies would be least harmful to society as a whole.
My point, then, was merely that there is evidence on both sides: evidence is not solely the monopoly of those in favour of legalising drugs. To reduce the argument to one of 'science (pro-drugs)' versus 'non-science (anti-drugs)' is to oversimplify a complex discussion.
Complain about this comment
Open and transparent? Why are we not allowed to have a genuine impartial debate about the truth of all substances that can lead to abuse.
Complain about this comment
As a scientist I find this move staggering and insulting. The message I am getting from the government is that, because the evidence doesn't fit the policy, they're going to ignore the evidence. I'm not sure you could come up with a more unintelligent approach if you tried. They might as well get rid of any scientists that are on the panel and replace them with tabloid editors and moralists as these are the people dictating drugs policy in the UK these days. I am thoroughly depressed with the way drugs policy is going in this country. So much for the new politics or the great repeal act. This is sticking and even entrenching the status quo for who know's what reason. The profits of the drink industry probably.
Complain about this comment
viewfromabove - thank you, that is a good definition, and I agree with it. I should have said 'evidence is not strictly limited to the physical sciences': that is, it includes the social sciences (which is why it's also sensible to look at the experiences of other European countries). It seems to be physical scientists who have been excluded, regrettably, from the advisory council.
Complain about this comment
The vested interests in two of the worst drugs, tobbacco and alcohol are dictating this countrys drug policy. They don't want any competition. They have the politicians in their pockets, so don't expect anything to change soon. Rational or evidence based policy is not likely to happen until the links between politicians and big business are broken. This would be a major step forward in the whole of British politics. Meanwhile, we will continue to waste huge amounts of money and resources simply to protect the tobbacco and alcohol industries. If they want a war on "drugs" they should pay for it, not the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
njmayes
There may have been a couple of crossed wires there!
However if you look at the evidence internationally you will see the harsher the punishment for drug use/dealing the more valuable the industry becomes and the more violent crimes ensues.
In the UK we have one of the harshest drug enforcment regimes in the civlised world second only to america. And here like america we have the worst problems with drugs and associated crime.
Quality 'BC Bud' cannabis (canadian) for instance goes for the same price in miami as grade A columbian cocaine and the violence we see is a direct result of how valuable and unregulated that substance is.
If it were legal it would still be profitable but it would truly be controlled. Government could insist certain standards are met ie: concentration of THC vs CBD and most importantly there would be no associated crime because it would be legal.
When i say it is a scientific issue, it is. But that does not mean only sicentists should be involved. The entire issue is an equation based upon reducing harm and maintaining personal freedoms as much as possible.
In that context it is a simple equation and the result of that equation is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Complain about this comment
This is terrible! The last thing they should be doing is removing the voice of evidence based reason from drug policy! Scientists are the most qualified to deal with this area, the removal of scientists can and will lead to an embarrassing level of incompetency. This government wishes to end research, education, social mobility and now facts! What's next? Parliamentary opposition? Freedom of the press? The right to peaceful protest? When will they stop?!
Complain about this comment
At the risk of descending to then level of those driving this change, I have heard too many well-informed people telling me that the Home Office is "not fit for purpose". As a scientist I treat those opinions as just that - opinions. But this latest piece of evidence does not convince me that the opposite is true.
The excuse that it can take time to assess the dangers of any new abused substance is valid, but in no way is any sort of justification for the change; nor is the argument that leaving out the medical scientists will leave room for the social scientists.
If there had been willing , both those matters could have been addressed in a way that left a scientifically-informed and independently-minded ACMD making long-term recommendations after serious consideration of real evidence. Along with that, provisions would in place for short-term measures (perhaps with an automatic sunset clause) whilst the evidence was being collected and assessed.
That the problems have not been so addressed suggests to me that the Home Office (qua the civil servants) wants to have the ACMD as a fig-leaf to cover its own back as well as that of 'our minister', but doesn't want that committee to do anything else except take the flak.
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb -
"In the UK we have one of the harshest drug enforcment regimes in the civlised world second only to america. And here like america we have the worst problems with drugs and associated crime."
The second part of that statement is entirely correct. The first half is completely and demonstrably false. Compare Britain's drug enforcement regime to either of the countries I cited originally. You will see that they have far harsher regimes than we do. They also have far fewer problems with drugs and drug crime than we do. I am not concluding that the one leads to the other: merely that the experience is worth examining, as are contradictory ones. The result is not obvious; but this seems a sensible way on which to proceed with evidence-based policy making.
Complain about this comment
Oh really, let's cut the outrage a bit. "Stalinist"? "Staggering and insulting"?
Every aspect of public policy is decided by our elected politicians, taking into account whatever opinions they care to. Our drugs policy is a political matter as well as a scientific matter, and the issue covers health, public order, effects on society and other wide ranging issues. I would no more have a Scientist deciding our national drugs policy than I would a General or an Admiral deciding our defence policy. They are all essential to the process, but see matters through a specific prism and are not the arbiters of public policy. I totally agree with what Professor Nutt said, but his opinion would be no less valid if it came from a source other than the ACMD.
BTW, for my part I would legalise the lot and make cannabis mandatory in our town centres on Friday and Saturday nights. Imagine how much we could save on policing and ambulance services.
Complain about this comment
On the topic of hysteria and media panic ... lets wait and see what actually happens.
This change does not mandate zero scientists, lets see how many there actually are. Who they are may be more an issue than how many there are.
Whatever happens... all you druggies should not be holding your breath waiting for the tories (or anyone else) to give you legalised drugs, free drugs or whatever it is you want.
Complain about this comment
Do we act on facts or what sounds credible?
Do we act to minimise damage to the public or what sounds tough?
Do we want to save money or waste it?
Are we really the respectable citizens we pretend to be or are we in collusion with organised crime to maximise their profits through prohibition?
And as for the example of Japan, I thought that I'd read that drug arrests were booming there?
Complain about this comment
It just goes to show that our Politicians are more concerned with how they will look to the tabloids that producing policy based on rigorous scientific evidence
Complain about this comment
The problem is that the scientific advisors seemed to fail to understand what the term 'advice' means. Nutt's job was to give the government the facts backed up with as much evidence as he could. The Government then decides whether they should act on that advice or not, bearing in mind that THEY are elected and the advisors are not and that a large chunk of the electorate does not want cannabis etc legalised whether its less harmful than alcohol or not.
P.S If we WERE living in 'Stalinist Britain' Nutt would be serving 30 years in the gulag or more likely dead in an unmarked grave. 30 million people were murdered by Stalin. The use of the term for such a trivial matter is offensive.
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb -
"In the UK we have one of the harshest drug enforcment regimes in the civlised world second only to america. And here like america we have the worst problems with drugs and associated crime."
Given that most of South East Asia, China and the middle east hang dealers and beat the addiction out of addicts your claim depends very much on your definition of 'civilised world'.
Complain about this comment
16. At 12:48pm on 06 Dec 2010, njmayes
Agree with you on this - UK has neither a permissive nor a harsh regime.
It may well be that the UK's mixed message, half-hearted criminalisation is the most problematic approach.
Complain about this comment
So the message to scientists is "If you agree with us, welcome on board. If not, get lost." So much for a pragmatic approach to drugs. Of course aside from the actual make up of the ACMD nothing really changes; we will still have knee jerk reactions and morally insupportable policies.
I just hope Big Society Dave realises he has more people prepared to test new drugs in their own time than he has volunteers to support his Coalition whimsies.
Complain about this comment
You have to ask yourself why the Politicians are so keen to remove the Scientific Community from the ACDM, and there pressing need to control at a political whim the misuse of drugs.
Given the recent mephedrone issue, the persons that were harmed most were young people seeking "legal highs" and who had obtained it over the internet.
The vast majority of these were from middle income "Tory Voters" families or at the least people who were inclined to vote at all. There expectations and demands for the control of this substance were echoed in the press, often by shrill headlines and demands for "action".
The ACDM obviously at that time took note of the issues and started to investigate the substance and it's abuse, unfortunately (from a political) point of view they could not provide a clear and decisive answer nor even an answer that the Politicians wanted to hear.
So the simple answer at the time was never mind the Science or never mind empirical evidence, lets just ban it anyway and ignore the advice of the best scientific minds in the country.
Hence the dismissal of Prof. Nutt and the subsequent resignation of the other on the panel.
It seems to me a case of "if the answer does not fit" then ignore it and do as we please.
Labour were bad enough at this and now it seems the Coalition are no better.
Complain about this comment
Politicians lie. Independent advisors are employed on the understanding that they will toe the party line - whichever may be in power. The purpose, to provide faux validation of a pre-determined policy. The quid pro quo for such advisors is the opportunity to sit on bigger, and therefore more lucrative bodies - the hope being it will lead (indirectly) to opportunities for financial gain and the award of a gong or even a knighthood; it is the gravy train for self-important non-governmental "experts" whose desire for status and wealth can not be satisfied through normal academic channels.
So - surprise surprise, an academic didn't play by the unspoken rules. So what have the politicians done: had a hissy fit, taken their ball home and rewritten the rules to exclude those who won't grovel to them in exchange for a shiny bauble.
Why are we surprised? T'was ever thus.
Complain about this comment
"njmayes"
I stand by my statement for the simple fact i do not consider either Japan or singapore to be civlised countries.
Mainly because they both have the death penalty as well as other horrendous violent punishments.
And Japan specifcally has an consent set at 13 and it is legal to sell used school girl uniforms with vials of spit to perverts.
So sorry but those countries do not count as 'civilised'.
Complain about this comment
"22. At 1:18pm on 06 Dec 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
bigsammyb -
"In the UK we have one of the harshest drug enforcment regimes in the civlised world second only to america. And here like america we have the worst problems with drugs and associated crime."
Given that most of South East Asia, China and the middle east hang dealers and beat the addiction out of addicts your claim depends very much on your definition of 'civilised world'."
I think thats pretty obvious don't you? As i said we in the UK have the harshest drug policies in the CIVILISED WORLD not the entire world the CIVILISED WORLD, after america.
Complain about this comment
The implication that scientists could be excluded is appalling. Non-scientists lack essential knowledge about the issue, and also the experience for critical judgement of scientific information. It is the equivalent of non-physicians determining treatments and surgical techniques, of non-engineers approving plans for a bridge, of illiterates judging a book.
In respect of the Nutt affair, the now-retired MP Patrick Cormack got on his hind legs and reiterated Churchill’s line: “Scientists should be on tap, not on top”. Needless to say, Cormack has no education in science. The trouble with education in England is that there is little chance of students gaining an all-round, arts and science education to a respectable level, and arts graduates have only a very basic understanding of science. Forced to consider a bewildering scientific issue in adult life, and probably influenced by equally ignorant journalists’ “NEW MIRACLE CURE” level of treatment of scientific matters, it is easier to pretend that scientific knowledge can be selected from a shelf like a can of beans, rather than confront the truth – that it represents a vast corpus of learning concerning everything that has ever been new, or discovered, or made, and of which they know next to nothing, and on which they unqualified to pronounce.
Complain about this comment
This sickens me. Not only can the Home Secretary choose to remove any scientist from the council at will, but they can choose to remove anybody from the council at will if they don't think they're appropriate.
"If you agree with us you're on the council, and none of you are indispensable" seems to be the message.
Things like this make me never want to vote again. What difference does it make? We just have a different set of liars in power doing whatever they want and hang the evidence.
And what of Clegg's "Have Your Say" website? The overwhelming call was to open up a debate about legalising cannabis? But that's been buried along with all other dissent.
Complain about this comment
Laughable. Truly laughable....and worrying. What do we expect though? They don't "get" science (inc. the people whose careers are in a scientific discipline) and it scares them that they don't understand it. Anyone name a genuine scientist in the Commons? And I don't mean Doctors...
PaulRM @ 26
Spot on.
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb - if your definition of the civilised world includes two countries, then I'm willing to concede we have the civilised world's second harshest drugs laws. This is not the same as saying that we have drugs laws that are harsh enough to discourage personal use of drugs; evidently we don't.
My approach to evidence is that we should look at as many examples from as many countries as possible - rather than deciding first on an anti-drugs policy then finding the evidence to suit that position (as the government do), or deciding first on a pro-drugs policy then finding the evidence to suit that position (as others do).
Complain about this comment
While not going as far as referring to the Japanese as "uncivilised" it is terribly misleading to compare the British legal/penal system to the Japanese one as both the systems themselves and the society they function within are totally different.
So to ignore the difference in society with Japan. Their legal system puts far more onus on the power of the prosecutor/state/public order, as far as I know doesn't have the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, the jury system basically doesn't exist and the aquittal rate in Japan for criminal cases is less than 1%. Trying to compare it to the British legal system is simply misleading.
Complain about this comment
Can we please make alcohol illegal now?
Complain about this comment
It sounds like a "progressive" policy to me ;)
Complain about this comment
Well as we now have all of the junk food manufacturers advising us on healthy eating and lobbying groups for the alcohol trade advising on binge drinking, we may as well have pushers advising us on drug policy. What a corrupt and devious government. They apply false logic and lies "there is no evidence that funding school sports led to increase in activity so we are scrapping the funding". We want to pay off the national debt to ensure future generations will not have a burden- by increasing university fees by 300%. I can just imagine the smug Cameron and Clegg (smug is a great word for them both) enjoying every moment of dismantling our society.
Complain about this comment
"njmayes"
My definition consists of:-
Europe
America
Austrialia
New Zealand
Canada
Plus maybe a couple of others
I don't think thats being partisan to be honest. It is just comparing countries that are similar culturally and have shared values.
And when you look at those continents/countries and states within countries there is a direct correlation between the illegality of drugs and the harm caused. In the sense of the more illegal drugs are the more crime and harm is caused.
Complain about this comment
It would seem the one basis of drug policy in the UK and US is ignorance and social stigma. The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal, and more harmful than almost all drugs, yet cannabis, which is relatively harmless, is illegal goes to show the ignorance in the system. The point of a government is to move society forward, and yet this shows the opposite is happening, they are not facing the facts and helping society by embracing them and reforming policy, but rather plugging their ears and saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" simply because of their outdated "values".
Complain about this comment
Evidence based decisions have never played a part in political decisions.
When politicians do want evidence it is always in hindsight after attempts to mould society through whatever political theory is de rigueur.
Scientific evidence is what eventually proves a scientific theory.
In political "science" the only true laboratory is the nation (or world) as a whole. Evidence gained from political "science" is usually too inconvenient to ever be noted impartially.
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb - It seems odd to leave countries that have, variously, higher scores on the UN development index, longer life expectancies, lower levels of crime and disorder, higher GDPs, less economic and social inequality, and better rankings on international education league tables, out of any definition of the civilised world. Those countries you mention are indeed similar culturally and have shared values to our own, but it seems narrow minded to conclude that only the countries most like us can be described as civilised, or that we can only learn from our cultural neighbours.
Complain about this comment
It really concerns me that such a fundamental shift in the way in which the Government establishes policy in dealing with drugs, by the removal of the requirement to have scientists on the council, is pushed through parliament in an addendum in the miscellaneous section of the Police Reform Bill.
The Houses have set time frames within which to debate a bill, and given the gravitas of the Police Reform Bill, just how much time was going to be put aside in the Commons to debate the ammendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act? It would not surprise me if half the MPs who would be present to vote on the bill would have been unaware of the ammendment, had it not been scrutinised by the press. This is absolutely shocking.
Moreover, the idea that this move is in the public interest to 'protect us against new and harmful drugs' is an absolute joke. Why not empower the Council to make that decision? Surely they are in a far better position to make an informed decision, and therefore invoke a temporary ban on a substance whilst it's investigated further. Such a decision should be made by experts in the field, not by politicians. The idea that expediency is a factor is not an argument - give the Council that power. But to remove the statutory obligation to have scientists on the Council is a step backwards, beyond 40-odd years, and this from a 'progressive' government??
Progressive would be to have a 20 member council, of 20 scientists.
Complain about this comment
So now we can dismiss any drug advice the Government give its citizens since its void of exert knowledge. When I want my car fixed I ask a mechanic not a baker, bleeding imbeciles.
Complain about this comment
is the ACMD even legal now in its advice? after all you would not get a mot of a cake shop just because the manager drives a car....
In light of this news We are closing down one of our community groups as its no longer viable to pursue public health and social happiness/well being. This decision to remove science from chemical addiction is ludacris, we may as well just stop all our scientific community contributing findings to our lives.
Im looking forward to the flood of drugs onto our streets now as we have washed our hands of the problem, police will have to fend for themselves, still it will do them good to be put to work doing the jobs they were meant to do instead of relying upon organised communities to provide information to them on drugs.
Welcome to the Dark ages.
Welcome to a Narco State.
And to those that claim success of prohibition in other countries around the world, I have news for you they just hide it well all countries have equal problems with drugs, in many cases worse than ours due to social policies.
Anyways here's to the end of fighting drug abuse in communities. Its been fun.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't be surprised to see Daily Mail editors and CEO's of Tobacco, Alcohol and Pharmaceutical companies heading the council in future. Drug advice will move back into the dark recesses of political dogma and moral righteousness, if it ever came out of those recesses.
Complain about this comment
The only long term result of this cynical lunacy will be the criminalization of the next generation. Already we have one of the highest prison populations, per capita, for drug related 'crime' outside of america and this move will only serve to incarcerate our children for more invented, victimless crimes. I would not be supprised to hear in a years time or so that a new line of prisons will be funded for they surely will need them to contain all those dangerous clubbers, experimenting teens and self medicating pensioners!
This issue stands out as a point at which the real masters of our political class come clearly into focus. Not 'We the People' but big pharma, tobacco and alcohol manufacturers. Democracy begins and ends at the ballot box, after we cast our vote we are expected to return in silence to our homes, go to work, pay our taxes and keep our mouths shut. Politicians won't fix this... There's no profit in it!
Complain about this comment
Only face the problem,we can solve it
Complain about this comment
This is a by-product of a terribly poor understanding of science amongst the general public. Obviously this doesn't apply to everybody, but a large minority - possibly even a majority - of people seem to think scientific fact is "just one opinion". They don't seem to realise that ignoring facts which disagree with your prejudice doesn't make your case stronger, it just makes you more imbecilic.
Of course there are areas of science which are controvertial, and where the data allows multiple different interpretations. In time more research will resolve these areas. But the affects of drugs have been studied for a long, long time; and the scientific consensus is pretty clear. For the government to have a policy - a POLICY - of ignoring facts is pretty distressing to a rational mind.
But politicials have to answer to ALL of the public, not only to the clever, educated, rational public. Politicians have to make irrational cretins happy, especially when those cretins have a column in the Daily Mail. I understand why this policy has arisen - the politicians are still terrified of the tabloid mentality of much of the press, which (sadly) much of the public falls for regularly.
The solution:
1: We have a law about misrepresentation in adverts. Why not a law to ensure science isn't misrepresented - it's much more important than shampoo ads! It should be mandatory for news media to report sciene accurately, otherwise we risk misinformed panic after misinformed panic. Global warming is a case in point - sure, about 0.01% of experts disagree with the consensus. But this is represented as thought there is a large body of scientific opinion against climate change - which is a lie. And it's repeated daily in our press. And look at the disaster over MMR: bad reporting cost lives, caused real human mysery. There should be a legal requirement for accuracy, or at least to make it clear when a "reporter" is actually offering his (or his paymasters') own, unsubstatiated opinion.
2: While we should have a ministry for science, key policy decisions based on science should be judged by a body of respected scientists (and qualified politicians) who have the reasoned, methodological thought processes which bring about intelligent decisions. Asking a professional politician with a 2:1 in PPE to judge the intricacies of genetics, physics or medicine is a nonsense. We can't let these important decisions be made by people who just don't understand the data.
3: I'd honestly love to see a private prosecution of somebody who misrepresents science. I'd love to see the fools who caused the MMR panic get sued by the families whose kids contracted measles, mumps or rubella because a foolish, fear-mongering journalist decided to report wild speculation as though it was fact. That scandal cost dozens of lives and tens of thousands of serious illnesses. If I were a parent of one of those kids, I'd be suing right now. If enough people blame the messagers - who should and DO know better - this kind of dangerous speculation will stop.
Complain about this comment
37. At 3:05pm on 06 Dec 2010, bigsammyb
My definition consists of:-
Europe
America
Austrialia
New Zealand
Canada
Plus maybe a couple of others
==========================================
That sounds like doing the same thing as the government: ignoring strands of evidence if they don't fit the position you are promoting.
International comparisons are risky and someimes contradictory, but the long and short of it is that some countries have kept drug harm low by taking a hard line.
If some people don't like that approach on human rights grounds, that is a valid point. However, the fact remains that they have kept drug harms (and other some other harms) low. We can't just ignore the evidence. The singapore 'communitarian' approach is actually popular with many of the public.
Complain about this comment
Lets all just celegbrate how fantastic the BBC is how wonderful the 13 years of new labour were. (This is the only sort of blog the moderator likes)
Complain about this comment
I don't know why the government doesn't have done with it and take it's cue on drugs policy from the Daily Mail.
Complain about this comment
Given that the two things politicians routinely ignore are the wishes of the electorate and any evidence pertaining to the matter at hand, why is this surprising?
Complain about this comment
This is pathetic and the government should not be allowed to get away with this. What is wrong with scientists providing conclusions based upon evidence. This culture of reporting the truth is fundamental to scientific research.
We do not need politicians to "protect" us from "renegades" who do not toe the party line. In my opinion and that of many, including a high percentage of the judiciary and the police, legalising all drugs, irrespective of any harm they may do, is a sensible thing to do. There is no evidence that the level of drug addictionb would increase, but there is substantial evidence that drug-related crime would virtually disappear. The financial benefits to UK citizens would be enormous.
For some inexplicable reason the government is hostile to any suggestion that such a policy should be considered.
From my point of view, I am not a "do-gooder" and feel that I have no business controlling the actions of others when those actions have no effect on me or any third party. The tennet "no third party victim, no crime" seems reasonable to me and I object to my political representatives doing everything they can to block any policy shift in that direction.
The goverment should ensure that advisory committees comprise appropriately qualified people.
Complain about this comment
Our politicians have always been corrupt. the fact is that in the new media age they cannot get away with it as they did in the past. Therefore they are becoming even more slippery, dishonest and deceptive in an effort to hang on to their power.
How long will we allow them to get away with this?
Which will win - apathy, repression or truth?
I'm afraid apathy is in the lead.
Complain about this comment
The government’s main body that informs and advises on national drug policy could be effectively by-passed, certainly weakened under the government plan.
This is not law yet; so, your article is timely. The Bill is due for debate in the House of Commons on 13 December. If enacted, it would effectively reduce (or potentially eliminate) the number of "hard" scientists on the expert Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), but might thereby create room for additional social, psychological or psychiatric members.
Personally, I feel okay with this IF the number of scientific-sorts remains at six. There are two considerations:
1. What is the drug made of, what harm might might its chemical construction cause to the user, and
2. Is this drug addictive and what cautions should therefore be taken?
I believe that both areas are important - perhaps, equally important.
The 1971 Act specified that the experts appointed by the government must include a medical doctor, a veterinarian, a dentist, a pharmacologist, a representative of the pharmaceutical industry, and a chemist.
I think the bone of contention is this: The new Bill contains an amendment to the constitution of the ACMD that would remove the requirement on the home secretary to appoint at least six scientists to the committee. This is ludicrous! What does the Government intend to do in order not to be sued if someone dies or ends up comatose? Just ban everything new?
I can't see less than six scientific-sorts able to provide anything like a comprehensive review to the Government, though I believe the nature of the six should be reviewed.
- a medical doctor (in what specialization?)
- a veterinarian (likely expendable)
- a dentist,
- a pharmacologist,
- a representative of the pharmaceutical industry (likely expendable) and
- a chemist.
I would like to see the vet and the representative of the pharmaceutical industry replaced by psychiatrists (who are also doctors by training) and can therefore provide advice on the addiction itself as well as the physical side-effects.
The Government is seriously opening tiself to legal action:
- a new drug that should have been approved is not approved; and
- a new drug that should not have been approved is approved.
If I was the Government, I'd want to ask a professional.
Darryl Bickler coordinator of the Alliance said: “This would allow the government free reign to control various drug users, without the need for the statutory consultation process nor any of the required scientific expertise being present on the council.
“Sections 149 and 150 to the Bill entirely negate the whole ethos of the legislation that sought to bring expert evidence to the heart of the drug user classification system.”
Home Office Minister James Brokenshire said the changes “will allow us greater flexibility in the expertise we are able to draw on”, rather than moving away from having expertise.
Another pressure group the Campaign for Science and Engineering also had concerns and its director Imran Khan said: “While the Home Office may genuinely feel that the ACMD needs to be reformed and brought up to date, not only good practice but history demands that any such reform must be done sensitively and with care.
“Unilaterally removing requirements for expertise is not the way to go about it. It gives the impression of a lack of respect for the independence and importance of expert scientific advice, which we hope is not the reality.”
Mr Bickler added: “Once given away, these powers Parliament bestowed upon the ACMD will likely never be restored and subsequent governments will be free to act impulsively driven by political moral panic.”
Mr Bickler argued that the ACMD should be bolstered and amendments made to the law to remove them from the “interference and control” of the Home Office.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Professor Colin Blakemore, former head of the Medical Research Council, has also expressed his concerns. Listen to the interview here.
Complain about this comment
I am personally entertained by the excuse to get rid of the specialist science panel put forward by the government.
i.e. "We want the ACMD to be adapted to best address the challenges posed by the accelerating pace of challenges in the drugs landscape."
The last case of note put to the ACMD was that of "mephedrone" a compound related to MDMA and Khat which was first made in 1929. Admittedly this did not become a main stream drug of abuse until 2003 but if 80 years is the “accelerating pace of challenges in the drugs landscape” then there is no need for panic just yet.
Also if you consider the structure of "mephedrone" it is a basic amphetamine derivative so it is utterly unsurprising to anyone with a chemistry/pharmacy background that is similar in effect to MDMA.
So if the government are worried about the health problems related to a new drug of abuse perhaps the best approach would be to ask some experts, perhaps a medic, vet, dentist and pharmacist (about the effects) and an industrial pharmaceutical representative and chemist (about availability, impurities from manufacture etc.), with all there experience they could give you an educated answer within minutes.
If the government was really worried about new drugs of abuse then a similar team could come up with all the obvious MDMA derivatives in an afternoon and then you could make them illegal before they got as far as the streets (with a suitable loop hole for research and medical usages, which already exists anyway).
But there would be no need for such a group of experts if you only wanted to be “tough on drugs and tough on the causes of tabloid grabbing headlines......”.
Complain about this comment
I can't tell you how heartening it is to see a forum so packed with intelligent, positive, workable solutions. I guess that's what happens when the majority of contributors have scientific background. Normally contributions are a mixture of aimless general anger, prejudice and abuse, with an occasional call for common sense. Why? Because that's pretty much what the general population is like.
That in itself should be an important lesson for the misguided people behind this unbelievable policy: more science is always better than more prejudice.
Complain about this comment
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
Complain about this comment
Ahahahahaha.... what did we expect? It's not like the government takes any notice of scientific advice anyway, the only opinions that have any weight are (far-right capitalist sponsored) tabloid. I think they should replace the entire panel with The Sun's sub-editing staff.
Complain about this comment
Another way to look at it is if there is no evidence of a drug from a scientific nature then there is no drug, as many have pointed out the current ACMD works fairly well due to the science bit instant answers about chemical compounds.
Thanks to science we no longer need cannabis to get THC it can be pooed out by bacteria in a lab. will the acmd outlaw bacteria in its next move?
if so can we start with the common cold as that causes wide spread drug abuse.. Um no that involves science and microscopes which dont exist anymore in the realms of government policy.
How will this effect drug charges for possession as it could be argued that as science is no longer part of drug policy it is no longer part of the criminal justice system? Prove my powder isn't sherbet? without scientific method or input. taste and smell being the first two scientific tools at our disposal.
Complain about this comment
The government's approach to drugs is so depressingly archaic that this move doesn't surprise me.
The sad reality is that Mephedrone was a safe, clean (that is not cut) substance that young people were using instead of binge drinking (expensive and unsafe) or using other stimulants (coke is heavily cut and people buying ecstasy pills were buying anything but). The government felt they knew better and bulldosed through a ban.
What's cropped up in Mephedrone's place is either cut mephedrone (far more dangerous) or new 'research chemicals', some of which have been incredibly toxic.
So instead of learning from the mistake made with Mephedrone the govenment wants to make it again and again and again by eliminating the only people that will advise on scientific evidence and not tabloid fiction.
Urgh.
Complain about this comment
Governments only like the kind of advice that supports whatever their policy position is. Obviously our current Government and their predecessors are/were 'anti-drug' (whatever that means) so when the ACMD tells them that the 2 most popular legal drugs in the country, alcohol/tobacco are more dangerous than most 'illegal' drugs they put their fingers in their collective ears, stamp their feet and shout nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, until the nasty scientists go away. If the scientist won't go away, they sack them. Now they are going for the no scientist at all option. What a way to formulate a coherent, intelligent policy on drug use. We may as well start teaching creationism, that the world really is flat and is the centre of the universe and that the old lady down the road really is a witch and it's ok to burn her. It is obviously only right and proper that we smoke ourselves to an early death or drink until our livers resemble a prune. Heaven forbid if you want to relax by taking something that is less harmful but morally repugnant to people who seem unable to string two coherent thoughts together.
BAH HUMBUG!
Complain about this comment
Why are so many people keen to drop vets?
If we look at a relatively recent drug of abuse, Ketamine, that was widely used in veterinary medicine for a long time before becoming a recreational drug and was a drug that vets would have had a lot of knowledge about compared to an MD for example.
Frankly 6 out of 20 is too few people with scientific skills on the commitee anyway without potentially decreasing then number.
Complain about this comment
This move doesn't, I'm afraid, surprise me. The credibility of the Advisory Council, already precariously low, will fall close to zero if this measure is proceeded with.
Perhaps the government should continue the good work by, say, eliminating anyone with medical qualifications from NIHCE?
Complain about this comment
Why is it taking nearly 2 hours to moderate on this blog?!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
What I don't get is why the government messes around like this, if they want the Daily Mail to set the drug policy in the UK, they can just write a law that makes this the case rather than pretend there is some other reasoning behind it.
Complain about this comment
"I voted liberal democrat specifically because they seemed the only party that was willing to make policy based upon best outcome rather than any specific politcal ideaology." You allowed yourself to be sucked in, did you not?
You guys just don't get it, do you. The government is plannning (and always has planned) to relegate logic and science to the same status they enjoy in countries where religion rules. Drug dealers, addicts and all the other suffering vulnerable people will be subjected to a regimen of increasing similarity to that dispensed to the vulnerable in religious countries. You people voted for this whether you understood what you were doing or not and now, too late, you can start to appreciate the consequences of your actions.
Complain about this comment
This is the sort of 'good idea' I'd expect from Alaska's Sarah Palin who on numerous occasions has admitted she 'has issues' with science.
Worryingly, the difference is SHE would be honest and upfront about it.
This is an attempt to slide it under the door unnoticed.
Which will of course routinely be denied now they're outed.
Complain about this comment
This is not evidenced based policy, who do the politicians think they are kidding? Most of us do have enough intelligence to know when they do thigs to suit themselves. I am a nurse and must work with evidence or risk beinf struck off I feel that this should also happen to politicians. With one swipe of their pens they confine people to a life of misery without help and support. making people criminals for self harm is CRIMINAL!!! Give people a chance , shame we give these politicians another chance. Get real this ostrich attitude is and will never work. All people need help at sometime but it depends wether they take alcohol or cocaine as to wether they get a record. wow does this make sense?
Complain about this comment
Bluesberry, actually these experts are not as expendible as you think. Firstly it is enshrined in law that the govt MUST make provisions for Vets etc to do their job. This job uses controlled drugs such as opiates, ketamine etc. These experts represent their professions and relay concerns and needs. There is a lot non-experts don't know and don't know that they don't know about these kinds of subjects - there are ethical drug testing issues, related pharmacology from animals to humans, comparative physiology and who knows what else - really the point is that by making a core of real scientists, you create a scientific forum, multi-disciined, scientifically thinking, able to peer review each other, brainstorm, plan research, organise sub'c'tees - we need a lot more scientists so let's not diss the ones we are g'teed!
Complain about this comment
moderators gone to sleep?
Complain about this comment
For goodness sake...... how can you have a debate when it is taking more than 4 hours to get a posting up. This is a joke - BBC get your act together please - this is unacceptable!
Complain about this comment
Aren't we kinda missing the point here? We should be treating drug abuse as a disease, something to be cured and not stigmatising abusers as criminals.
Complain about this comment
It must be wikileaks again coming out with all the evidence between psychois and drug abuse coupled with mental disorders and nervous disorders. Shame on them!!Who do these learned scientists think they're kidding when they're up against a band of hippies and beatniks?!
The brilliant BBC knows this is a lie as do the fabulous new labour. What a shame they lost the election. We could have had another BBC/New labour latest fad/propaganda TV tie in with a special question time with Boy George Keith Richards and Pete Doherty on the panel at a special location at a commune in San Francisco(not to mention a fab concert to follow)
Just writting this I'm mourning the tragic loss and have no doubt reduced the moderator to tears as I've said everything the BBC and himself hoped to hear!
Complain about this comment
Without a robust and comprehensive team of scientific advisers, the coalition risks long term repercussions as a consequence of misinformed decisions. Inappropriate classification of drugs will naturally be skewed towards harsher policies, in a 'better safe than sorry' sense - however, if a new drug's lethality is underestimated due to lack of scientific input, then illegal demand will increase, causing more damage to health of users than anticipated.
This is just one example of why it makes no sense for the government to undermine the role of scientists on the ACMD; unless we have a cabinet of myopic ministers, they should be facilitating themselves to make as well-informed decisions as possible.
This recent move could be seen to benefit the council by allowing access from social scientists. Is there an element of giving the benefit of the doubt here?
In any case I do think that the constitution of the council should be set in stone to protect it from bias and ulterior motives.
Complain about this comment
#26 Spot on, couldn't agree with you more.
#34 When you outlaw a substance for which there is a huge demand you simply create a marketplace for bootleggers and criminals. Haven't you seen The Untouchables?
Complain about this comment
At 11:37am on 06 Dec 2010, njmayes wrote:
"there is a lot of evidence - from Singapore and Japan, for instance - that if a country has very strict laws against personal possession or use of drugs, and strictly enforces these laws, the result can be a society that is free from the social, economic and health-related problems of widespread drug use."
So, there's no alcohol abuse in Japan, nor does it cause what you term 'social, economic or health-related problems'?
I doubt it. Alcohol is a drug. Same old, same old.
Complain about this comment
I have a quick-fix solution: cut hypocrisy immediately by alcohol and drug-testing ALL public servants who have jurisdiction over others on the drugs and alcohol issue. Namely: Ministers, MPs, POLICE (funny how they don't, even though they are qualified to drive over the speed limit, isn't it?), CUSTOMS / BORDER AGENCY. I'd have a zero-tolerance policy.
More and more companies are implementing American-style workplace drugs-testing now, as a condition of employment. This is a disgrace when those who are in a position to bully and steal from the public over drugs issues are not even in line for testing. Why would anyone have a problem with this, then? I'll let you guess the answer...
Complain about this comment
Taking a pharmacologist's advice on social policy makes as much sense as consulting someone with a social science degree on medicine. Obviously drug users are quite happy to take pharmacological advice from yobs on street corners, so they may not see the difference.
Complain about this comment
"78. At 11:57am on 07 Dec 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
Taking a pharmacologist's advice on social policy makes as much sense as consulting someone with a social science degree on medicine. Obviously drug users are quite happy to take pharmacological advice from yobs on street corners, so they may not see the difference."
Except this is a criminal justice policy not a social one so what is your point?
The scientists involved are asking, and have always asked, for drugs to be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal one.
This is not a moral issue, it is not a democratic issue it is a health issue.
And as long as people like you make moral judgements about people your really no better than then the UK is not going to get any better.
Complain about this comment
njmayes wrote:
For example, there is a lot of evidence - from Singapore and Japan, for instance - that if a country has very strict laws against personal possession or use of drugs, and strictly enforces these laws, the result can be a society that is free from the social, economic and health-related problems of widespread drug use.
Japan is one of the most crime ridden nations in the developed world and Singapore is a police state.
Both countries may look very nice when viewed from afar but neither are countries I'd like to live in. The rates of crime, social problems and drug addiction may well be officially lower than in countries such as ours but that's only because most of it is hidden from sight and never makes its way into official reports or press releases.
The Yakuza control large parts of Japan and their drugs distribution network is able to supply people with any drug they want, amphetamines and cocaine are particularly popular amongst the businessmen of Japans major cities and they have a huge problem with teenage prostitutes who use the money they earn from prostitution to fund their designer drugs habit. Enjo Kosai funds the drug habits of many young girls in Japan yet is never reported in the western media and barely gets a mention in the Japanese media.
If you're going to make comparisons between nations then you need to do so in the knowledge that some other governments are even less honest than our own and that there exists a culture of secrecy within such nations that ensures that the truth is never spoken of in an official way and that this means that their official figures can not be relied upon.
Japan is a very secretive nation and their traditions of honour often prevent issues such as these from being discussed in public and this prevents an honest and informed comparison between the problems our nation’s experience. Speak to anyone who has spent some time living and working in Japan and they will tell you that the reality of Japanese life and society bears little or no relation to the image the Japanese government likes to portray to outsiders.
Complain about this comment
79. At 12:30pm on 07 Dec 2010, bigsammyb wrote:
"78. At 11:57am on 07 Dec 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
Taking a pharmacologist's advice on social policy makes as much sense as consulting someone with a social science degree on medicine. Obviously drug users are quite happy to take pharmacological advice from yobs on street corners, so they may not see the difference."
----------
"Except this is a criminal justice policy not a social one so what is your point?"
-----------
The analogy still stands
-------------
"The scientists involved are asking, and have always asked, for drugs to be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal one."
-------------
We don't let physicists define nuclear weapons policy.
--------------
"This is not a moral issue, it is not a democratic issue it is a health issue."
-------------
A self inflicted health issue. If drug users did choose to injest dangerous chemicals they wouldn't need to be regulated.
Complain about this comment
http://www.lca-uk.org/lcaforum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16266
seems the ACMD is being shafted by teh very man that promised me more from them! But its all so easy to forget once blinded by power.
Letter To Nick Clegg MP
by Rev2212 » Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:28 pm
Good Afternoon
I have a few issues that i would like to make you aware of regarding the reclassification of cannabis to class B and its estimated impact upon the cannabis market in the UK.
As a cannabis user of over 5 years now for medical reasons because the pharmaceutical drugs made life intolerable I have a great concern over the sudden and sharp rise in price of cannabis during 2007 the cannabis market was worth arounf the £4 billion mark with the average country wide price on the street of an ounce of cannabis settling at the £90 mark with only very small variance in the price.
Now we have entered the Class B phase of cannabis the same street value has just passed £200 for an ounce were i live and I hear many reports of it reaching the £250 mark in Liverpool Birmingham and other cities around the country. This I expect to add 5 billion to the value of the cannabis market by the end of 2010, This 5 billion as in my case will come from recreational spending ie meals out cinema new dvds as I struggle to pay the £50 a quarter of an ounce from £25 for the same quarter of an ounce in 2007/2008.
what i fail to understand is the lack of foresight in this matter especially as we are still recovering from what is deemed as a very bad social economic period.
While i understand the aim of the mad cows decision to ignore the recommendations to leave it class C to try and reduce harm all that has happened is a huge profit shift and a fast rise in the home-grower as this market has now become so lucrative.
I hope you take the time out to look at this matter and see if my predictions are right for a 9 billion market by the end of 2010 that's a lot of class A drugs!
Good luck in the upcoming elections and you have my vote ill never tick labour again at any ballot box.
Highest regard
Mr **** *****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr *****
Many thanks for your email to Nick Clegg MP. Nick has asked me to contact you on his behalf. I’m sorry for the delay in responding and I hope you will understand that, due to the sheer volume of correspondence that Nick has been receiving, it can take some time for us to reply.
The Liberal Democrats opposed the reclassification of cannabis to Class B. The government made this change despite its own advisers arguing that the classification should remain as Class C. We feel that policy should be made on the basis of expert advice and that we need to move towards a firmly evidence-based approach in this area. Which is why we would re-establish the existing Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as a standing Drugs Commission with a wider range of expertise, greater independence from the Government, and a remit to look at social effects and abuse of legal drugs and illegal drugs. This would, we hope, help to set the whole debate onto a much more reasoned footing.
Thank you once again for emailing.
Best wishes,
Douglas Dowell
Office of Nick Clegg MP
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Shaunie.. A self inflicted health issue. If drug users did choose to ingest dangerous chemicals they wouldn't need to be regulated.
Good stuff m8 no reason to exclude alcohol from MODA now or cream cakes, burgers, and of course yourself being as toxicity trollish as possible :)
who makes drugs ?
care workers?
police?
other social bodies or scientists/chemists?
should a cattery look after lions?
Complain about this comment
"81. At 2:30pm on 07 Dec 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
We don't let physicists define nuclear weapons policy.
A self inflicted health issue. If drug users did choose to injest dangerous chemicals they wouldn't need to be regulated."
Here you go again creating a moral argument which is irrelevant. Nobody cares whether you think these people are bad etc etc. Nobody does Shaunie.
Government policy has a direct impact on behaviour your assertion people should not take drugs so its fine the way it is is akin to the pope saying people in africa should not have sex outside marriage so don't need condoms and if they die of aids its their own fault.
It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't change anything it's just bigotry.
As for your other comment, again irrelevant. What has a physicist got to do with health policy?
We DO allow doctors to run the NHS, everyone agrees thats how it should be done.
Complain about this comment
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42156&SESSION=905
Ask your MP to sign this if they have a brain cell or two that can fend for themselves then they will sign it if not you know they are just empty air heads :D
Complain about this comment
The Age of Ignorance is with us, where facts are unwanted.
(Or is it the Age of Un-enlightenment)
My dogma is the only true dogma, therefore it is a sin to be influenced by the evidence. Our fundamental wing will not even acknowledge any evidence.
This is where politics has got us, just like religion in the dark ages.
Complain about this comment
It's not only science which is under threat as we speak freedom of speech is locked in a cell, refused bail and awaiting extradition to Sweden. Good bye Science good bye freedom of speech, you were good whilst they let you last...RIP.
Complain about this comment
Have your say rejected, do you know that its over a split condom?
Complain about this comment
John, what the removal of the legal requirement for 6 scientific professionals to sit on the ACMD...Wouldn't surprise me!
Complain about this comment
lol No poor Mr Assange.
seems a split condom counts as rape if it is forcefully split....
http://www.businessinsider.com/reminder-the-sex-crime-that-julian-assange-was-just-arrested-for-wasnt-rape-it-was-2010-12
sorry for the off topic :D
back on topic the ACMD will need a huge condom to protect it from the big hole its about to be shoved into...... :D
Complain about this comment
john...as I said bye bye freedom of speech. I just read about something which mentioned sexfalla, couldnt tell you what that means, but It sounds about right!!! Its all a bit prof Nutt vs A johnson but very exciting.
Complain about this comment
If those who claim to represent us(I never voted for any of them so I dispute that for a start) refuse to base policy on evidence? and place freedom of information under the jurisdiction of corporate law! At what point shall we all stop drinking their particular brand of kool aid and ask ourselves how we shall govern our affairs in logical and humanitarian ways.
It's not rocket science,
If you make a claim, whether it be on a tabloid message board or in a chamber of government our prime reaction need only be to ask for all your evidence to be shown.
If you cannot back it up we must discard it as inadmissable as reason to alter policy or inform debate.
Complain about this comment
sexfalla, which translates loosely from the Swedish as a 'honey trap'. ...
sounds about right in this case.
control of this case is about as effective as the MODA as well so much in common. lies and conspiracy to hide the truth.
especially as the current head of the ACMD is lecturing on bringing cannabis back to the medicine cabinet on the 14th of this month!!!
Complain about this comment
Could it be that the reason why the government are removing the requirement for scientific advisors on the ACMD is due to a failure to recruit that required expertise? The ACMD currently lacks its mandated scientists, and is therefore inquorate. Decisions made by the government subsequent to consulting an inquorate ACMD may be legally questionable, which would be untenable for government.
The ACMD lost its requisite personnel in the wake of the sacking of Professor Nutt, and the subsequent mephedrone madness, which prompted the scientists on the ACMD to resign. The Home Office then advertised for a Chair and eight members to replace those who had left.
The advertisement is available here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/acmd1/acmd-ad-appoint-nov10?view=Standard&pubID=840117
After the dismissive behaviour of Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson towards its scientific advisors, it would be a surprise if the Home Office was flooded by applicants. Indeed, we believe they drew a blank.
Concluding, in spite of James Brokenshire's assurances, the desire to abolish scientific expertise from the ACMD seems more probably a result of the government's inability to fill the vacant positions. Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, I shall write to the ACMD to ask how many applications they had received by the closing date November 18th 2010.
If this is the real reason for the new proposals for the ACMD, then clearly we are in deep trouble: due to political interference, mutual trust between government asnd scientific advisors has been blown apart, with appalling consequences for policy in the United Kingdom.
Edwin Stratton
Drug Equality Alliance
www.drugequality.org
Complain about this comment
88 and 89 Have your say Rejected and John Ellis
And, it seems, she didn't realise the condom had split until several days after the event. About as impossible to believe as the original topic of this blog.
Back to ACMD: I can have sympathy when politicians or anyone else cannot understand science or complex evidence, but this is all straightforwrd. It's not even a case of 'shooting the messenger with bad news'. It's good news in these days with the need to reduce expenditure. It's an opportunity to save a load of Gov dosh.
Complain about this comment
WolfiePeters - the jobs are entirely non-remunerated, and as for saving cash, they could save billions if only they would actually get it right.
Complain about this comment
Indeed Sunshine Band they are voluntary positions unwaged out of the goodness of heart and compassion towards fellow man, then they come across the task masters!!!. If as Edd says the jobs that were advertised remained unfilled then the ACMD is not quorate and would need to be changed in order for it to function. Les will leave the role as Chair of the ACMD in Jan which is why hes getting on with his real life and lecturing and writing once more on the benefits of cannabis to society.
Prof. Les Iversen is also one of the founders of the British Medical Cannabis Register http://bmcr.co.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=10
I really can't see a valid way forward for the government or a quorate ACMD under the MODA with the basic and most fundamental part the science being ignored.
The other thing that the government now has to worry about is the whole message that this move sends out to the wider public, how many will believe anything that they are told whatsoever about any drug or alcohol abuse?
If I were the Home sec and Mr James Broken Britain I would seriously take another look at this as they are about to become the laughing stock of this country in any respectable walks of life, within any academic fields let alone the EU and other forward thinking countries.
Complain about this comment
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2010/12/acmd-on-front-line-again-in-battle.html
A major concern not flagged up in any of the media coverage yesterday, however, is that this Home Office review of the ACMD - that specifically addresses questions on how the ACMD should be constituted - is Missing In Action.
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11943958
OMG there goes the crime rate and im preety sure its going to be illegal to force addicts to give up heroin..
only way my brother gave it up was in the grave.
there is a ,lot more id like to say but this is a p[ublic forum ... god im angry who are these fools.../.
Complain about this comment
Sunshine Band @ 97
Sorry, I wasn't very clear, but my point about saving money actually related to what we waste in trying to prohibit drug use. If the Gov took the advice of the scientists, we could save money, reduce misery and save lives.
Since Brokenshire came from the world of finance, you might imagine that he would understand the cost of the present system and the potential for reducing it. With people like him in the City, no wonder there's a been a financial crisis.
Complain about this comment
Its obvious for all us that the government wants to keep an uncountable source of tax-money to fill their pockets
no mystery here - its' the government, for god's sake!
Complain about this comment
Okay it takes time. But eventually things mesh together, even for a bungling coalition.
Picture Fleet Prison.
Guard (to inmate): "You come complaining about being raped by a servant of the state. Where do you think this is? You are not in Sweden now. You must be on drugs. You are, aren't you? Come on, dearie, it is going to be so good watching you sweat and plead. Plead and sweat. We can keep you here for months. No need to scream for your lawyer. No one can help you now."
"That's it. Just lie back and relax while I strap you down. It may take a day, a week, a year, but smetime you'll sweat and plead. Plead and sweat. And then it'll all start to be better. Just admit to your addiction and we can help with your torment; help with your pain. You'll see how right we all are. And when you tell us we're right, think about it, you'll be free.... free..... free......"
Of course it'll never happen. It will be Xmas soon, after all.
Complain about this comment
John, 'link drug treatment with welfare benefits' Seems to me this would further aggravate the situation. Many addicts fund their habit through crime or prostitution, cutting their only source of legitimate money will force them further into crime. This is not a solution, seems to be they are trying to fit daily mail rhetoric into actual policy.
Complain about this comment
78. At 11:57am on 07 Dec 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
Obviously drug users are quite happy to take pharmacological advice from yobs on street corners, so they may not see the difference.
because all drug dealers, bar none, are yobs on street corners. of course.
I wonder which corner-standing behooded neet with antisocial tendencies Harry Wales gets his stash from?
Complain about this comment
they should ban all forms of glue because I get the distinct impression the coalition is sniffing it. a lot.
Complain about this comment
Carl,
"I wonder which corner-standing behooded neet with antisocial tendencies Harry Wales gets his stash from?"
...or David Cameron, maybe he combined hugging a hoodie with a visit to his dealer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6350909.stm
Complain about this comment
84. At 2:50pm on 07 Dec 2010, John Ellis wrote:
Shaunie.. A self inflicted health issue. If drug users didn't choose to ingest dangerous chemicals they wouldn't need to be regulated.
------------
Good stuff m8 no reason to exclude alcohol from MODA now or cream cakes, burgers, and of course yourself being as toxicity trollish as possible :)
---------------
Alcohol is regulated. And guess what ? Most people actually take it in such a way to avoid getting intoxicated. Its a convenient means of take a chemical vital to the functioning of the body - H2O
I look forward to you explaining the social problems caused by fat people
Complain about this comment
85. At 4:10pm on 07 Dec 2010, bigsammyb wrote:
"81. At 2:30pm on 07 Dec 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
We don't let physicists define nuclear weapons policy. A self inflicted health issue. If drug users did choose to injest dangerous chemicals they wouldn't need to be regulated."-
-----------
"Here you go again creating a moral argument which is irrelevant. Nobody cares whether you think these people are bad etc etc. Nobody does Shaunie."
-------------
Freedom of choice is a moral argument. But if you don't think this is relevent to a debate on drug use, so be it.
------------
"Government policy has a direct impact on behaviour your assertion people should not take drugs so its fine the way it is is akin to the pope saying people in africa should not have sex outside marriage so don't need condoms and if they die of aids its their own fault."
------------
There is no ban on condoms in Africa. If you choose to cause harm to yourself and society it is purely down to you own personal irresponsiblity.
--------------
"As for your other comment, again irrelevant. What has a physicist got to do with health policy?"
---------------------
its called an analogy . You used a poor one earlier.
-------------
"We DO allow doctors to run the NHS, everyone agrees thats how it should be done."
--------------
Doctors don't run the NHS. They might become clincal directors but when you want to put someone in charge of finance its best to employ an accountant.
Complain about this comment
105. At 10:04am on 08 Dec 2010, Carl Showalter wrote:
78. At 11:57am on 07 Dec 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
Obviously drug users are quite happy to take pharmacological advice from yobs on street corners, so they may not see the difference.
---
because all drug dealers, bar none, are yobs on street corners. of course. I wonder which corner-standing behooded neet with antisocial tendencies Harry Wales gets his stash from?
-----
I imagine he gets it from a smashing bloke, who gets it from a bit of a cad, who gets it from a right mental Johnny.
Complain about this comment
shaunie, Im sure the government claimed 1 in 3 people don't drink responsibly.
Complain about this comment
SB 'Alcohol is regulated. And guess what ? Most people actually take it in such a way to avoid getting intoxicated. Its a convenient means of take a chemical vital to the functioning of the body - H2O
I look forward to you explaining the social problems caused by fat people'
What a troll!! no need to explain you only have to look at the popular to realise that fat people are proving to be a drain on the NHS so there is less money for vital operations this is now reflecting on all walks of life from bigger rides at amusement parks to the fire brigade having to tear down the front of peoples houses so they can get to hospital.
In response to the H2o rubbish I take it the UK has no Night time economy no cut price off licences and no problem what so ever with alcoholism, AA dont exist.
Is your real name NICK ?
Complain about this comment
SB.. I imagine he gets it from a smashing bloke, who gets it from a bit of a cad, who gets it from a right mental Johnny.
I get mine of a bloke that works realy hard, he gets his of someone who works realy hard, and they get it of a realy good farmer in wales.. Again your arguments hold no weight.
however the bloke in the offlicence is realy shadey and sells alcohol to minors.
you work under the assumption that a so called 'legal' trade is faultless, when in most cases its well exploited and very often stung by the police for under age sales..
Complain about this comment
DRUG STRATEGY 2010
Reducing Demand, Restricting
Supply, Building Recovery :
Supporting People to Live a Drug Free Life
This strategy sets out the Government’s approach to tackling drugs and addressing
alcohol dependence, both of which are key causes of societal harm, including
crime, family breakdown and poverty. Together, they cause misery and pain to
individuals, destroy families and undermine communities. Such suffering cannot
be allowed to go unchecked.
Our level of ambition is high, and includes stopping people taking drugs in the first
place and bearing down relentlessly on those involved in the drugs trade. The
introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners, in May 2012, will re-establish
the link between the police and the communities they serve. They will be directly
accountable to the public for reducing drug-related crime within their force area. The new National
Crime Agency will lead the fight against organised crime and enhance the security of our borders.
The patterns of drug use are also changing, particularly with the emergence of so called ‘legal highs’.
We will respond more quickly and flexibly to any new and emerging threats and harms and ensure
that criminals manufacturing and trading in drugs feel the full force of the law.
A fundamental difference between this strategy and those that have gone before is that instead
of focusing primarily on reducing the harms caused by drug misuse, our approach will be to go
much further and offer every support for people to choose recovery as an achievable way out of
dependency. Over the next 4 years, we are determined to break the cycle of dependence on drugs
and alcohol and the wasted opportunities that result. Individuals do not take drugs in isolation from
what is happening in the rest of their lives. The causes and drivers of drug and alcohol dependence
are complex and personal. The solutions need to be holistic and centred around each individual, with
the expectation that full recovery is possible and desirable.
This strategy also sets out a shift in power to local areas. Gone are the days when central Government
tells communities and the public what to do. We are setting out a clear and ambitious vision for the
future direction of travel, and it will be for local areas to respond to this and design and commission
services which meet the needs of all in the community.
During the consultation process, which informed the development of this strategy, some respondents
advocated liberalisation and decriminalisation as a way to deal with the problem of drugs. This
Government does not believe that liberalisation and legalisation are the answer. Decriminalisation
fails to recognise the complexity of the problem and gives insufficient regard to the harms that drugs
pose to the individual. It neither addresses the risk factors which lead individuals to misuse drugs or
alcohol, nor the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, their families
and the wider community.
This strategy sets out our clear ambition to reduce demand, restrict supply and support and achieve
recovery; they are stretching but I am convinced that they can be achieved. By enabling local
communities to support more individuals to become free of their dependence and contribute to
society, we will build a bigger and better society for all.
Rt. Hon Theresa May, MP
Home Secretary
Will we se the whole sale closing of cheap offlicences as these are the real mainstay of alcohol problems in all communities.??
Complain about this comment
SB how do you feel now the government has said its going to fill our communities with drug addicts?
We have dealt with this so called recovery in community for 6 years. It does not work, as addicts are real people and not suggested figures on a piece of paper. All this policy will lead to is more crimes and more social hardship and greater levels of fear.
Complain about this comment
john, when you take into account the bigger picture, policing cuts, education cuts, cuts to homeless, as well as reductions in life chances, employment, cost of living rises, wage reductions, its hard to disagree with you.
Complain about this comment
Have your say.. Id run as an independent MP.. but who would support a loon like myself. :D as i believe its still based on constituencies :(
Complain about this comment
John, Tbh I feel im being radicalised by this and the previous government, the recent attacks on science and freedom of speech is about the last straw for me. I would be happy to vote for you if less state control was on the agenda.
Complain about this comment
118. At 12:54pm on 08 Dec 2010, Have your say Rejected wrote:
John, Tbh I feel im being radicalised by this and the previous government, the recent attacks on science and freedom of speech is about the last straw for me. I would be happy to vote for you if less state control was on the agenda.
----------------------------------------------
I have also changed my opinions radically in the last few years. I am far from young but find myself angry not just with the current political nonsense (and I mean the last 20 years or so!) but with the UK population failing to be so angry because they are ignorant of what is going on.
In this new vane I am surprised to find myself pleased that a certain card's website is under attack and difficult to access.
Complain about this comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/dec/08/proposals-banning-drugs
Edwin Stratton is a member of the Drug Equality Alliance who knows the realities of the MODA first hand.
Complain about this comment
Kit Green, ""There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard." Except wikileaks.
John, "John Stuart Mill's harm principle is at the core of British jurisprudence: individual liberty is respected even if the individual plans to do him or herself lethal harm. This is reflected in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, in that the harm a drug represents to the individual is irrelevant in law. The legislation is drafted specifically to protect society from the harmful effects of drugs, and not to encroach on individual liberty. This is why parliament stopped short of prohibiting the use of most drugs"...Im confused why have so many people been criminalised for using drugs?
Complain about this comment
This strategy also sets out a shift in power to local areas. Gone are the days when central Government tells communities and the public what to do. We are setting out a clear and ambitious vision for the future direction of travel, and it will be for local areas to respond to this and design and commission services which meet the needs of all in the community.
What will the government do if the locals decide they want to control cannabis use through regulated supplies? through cafes? and medical cannabis outlets as it would fix a lot of the problems we have in our community.
Would also be a good small business model for local councils striped of cash. ;)
Complain about this comment
110. At 11:22am on 08 Dec 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
I imagine he gets it from a smashing bloke, who gets it from a bit of a cad, who gets it from a right mental Johnny.
and who does Mental Johnny get it from? c'mon Shaunie, I want the whole supply chain or you're staying behind. I want to know the name of the Colombian donkey handler who brought the stuff to the middleman.
Complain about this comment
If the intention is to remove those that know about the science of drugs from the ACMD Committee, and if there are on the Commitee no takers/ex-takers to advise on the user-characteristics of the drugs, then all we are left with is Committee-members who know nothing and have no relevant expertise who can then create policy in the vain hope that some of it will do some good.
I suppose they could ask NIHCE for some science but, in the interests of equity, I suppose the scientists will be removed from this body also - as NIHCE recommendations are always, in the last analysis, politico-economic judgements.
There is (allegedly) a General Law of Government that states that 'in any decision-making process those with least knowledge of any subject under discussion should be afforded the most authority'.
It harks back to school-days when the game was 'bully the brainbags (= science-specialists) for being too bright'.
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained wrote @ 103:
'Guard (to inmate): "You come complaining about being raped by a servant of the state. Where do you think this is? You are not in Sweden now. You must be on drugs. You are, aren't you? Come on, dearie, it is going to be so good watching you sweat and plead. Plead and sweat. We can keep you here for months. No need to scream for your lawyer. No one can help you now."
"That's it. Just lie back and relax while I strap you down. It may take a day, a week, a year, but smetime you'll sweat and plead. Plead and sweat. And then it'll all start to be better. Just admit to your addiction and we can help with your torment; help with your pain. You'll see how right we all are. And when you tell us we're right, think about it, you'll be free.... free..... free......".'
---------------------------------
Yes, my old friend,
and we can't say we have not been warned:
1984,
Brave New World,
and especially Alex (Malcolm McDowell) in A Clockwork Orange (1971)....."In future Britain, charismatic delinquent Alex DeLarge is jailed and volunteers for an experimental aversion therapy developed by the government in an effort to solve society's crime problem... but not all goes to plan ...." (IMDb)
Prison Chaplain: "Choice! The boy (Alex) has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice."
Minister: "Padre, there are subtleties! We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the heart at the thought of killing a fly. Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works." (A Clockwork Orange, 1971)
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
We have had such a disheartening week of regression and draconian ethics. I truly do hope that even those who are opposed to progression in this contested subject matter are aware and can see the pitfalls of broken democracy in this issue. We all have much to fear when totalitarian methods can be used with such ease.
This video has whole new twists of irony to it now:
http://wn.com/homegrownoutlaw
Complain about this comment
38. At 3:08pm on 06 Dec 2010, Tom wrote:
The point of a government is to move society forward, and yet this shows the opposite is happening, they are not facing the facts and helping society by embracing them and reforming policy, but rather plugging their ears and saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" simply because of their outdated "values".
they haven't got the nuts to stand up to the pharmaceutical, alcohol and tobacco lobbies either. I dare say the almighty $$$ is also steering policy.
Complain about this comment
I fear that what I strongly suspected pre-General election were a Conservative Government to be returned to power is shaping up even faster than I thought possible.
All the old 'Tory' fetishes are bristling beneath the facade of this new Westminster-No.10 cadre.
Ugly social notions, nasty hereditary conditions eking into the light: From Unmarried Mums to Asylum Seekers and beyond to Student Fees preventing the 'poor/wrong sort' of kids fulfilling their potential and through to restoration of a stereotyped Working Class the Policies of angry bigotry and baser prejudices engrained in elitist Conservatism are upon the UK.
Having read much of the background 'philosophy' (limited though the references were) to Cameron's coterie of privately educated, rich-whizz-kid political friends I have no doubt Thatcher throwback Cameron is only restrained by the enforced sit-down with the LibDems (& as Clegg is expedentially losing touch with Liberal principles the deeper he entrenches himself in Government the influence lessens).
Whether it is Drug policy, the War on Terror, or who should Pay for the Financial debacle there is only one certainty - - Policy will NOT be based on Reason & Logic (still less Science!), but on dogmatic tenets of 'Born to Rule' Toryism that should have died out with WW2 and incredibly via the UK Public School system remain intact and if anything even stronger!
Afterall, WHY would any Conservative Cabinet Minister consider an 'expert' opinion as superior to their own 'gut-feeling' of superiority over the general public? These are the relatives, friends & confidantes of those who sat in the Bank & Investment Board rooms advancing & gambling their Bonus Payments whilst risking the entire UK's financial security.
WHAT care they about the Economic Recession? It made not an iota of differnce to their lifestyles or occupations: Not one has paid a pence in Compensation to the Nation's coffers and none have even faced interrogation as to their Criminally avaricious conduct.
Of course they will deal harshly with drug addicts/dealers, but as it is also their social habit which affected so many of their Board room judgements let us not think for a moment they will be taking the issue seriously except amongst their perception of what constitutes the lower orders of UK society.
Thatcher's 1980s 'Hooray Henry & Henrietta' in the 'City' were in the main fuelled by alcohol & cocaine, but their off-spring use the white stuff plus the chemicals in the same quantities. There will always be a Drug Policy: However, in reality there will be the one for those feeding off and enjoying the benefits of new Tory regime and another entirely more reactionery for the rest of society.
For evidence: Take a look at the Re-Habilitation Clinics - - private, expensive ones are opening up all over the place - - whereas, among the first Cut-Backs to be felt in Social Services for the general public are in the area of Treatment for Addiction.
As PM Cameron, Chancellor Osborne & Deputy PM Clegg have so empathetically pointed out a number of times to the Citizens: "There are some very tough choices and tough decisions ahead", and, "..the burden must be shared..".
Durg Policy being just a small cog in a much larger 'tough choice': Thus, if the number of 'expert scientists' is reduced there is so much less of a 'tough decision', isn't there?
Yeah, right!
Complain about this comment
I can see why they droped science now when it comes out with this.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/12/thc_reduces_aggressive_behavior_in_schizophrenics.php
Real schizophrenic people treated with THC the very thing that made them ill?
Sure it wan't one drink to many killing of the brains ability to grow properly.?
Complain about this comment
This is from yesterday's Westminster Hall Drugs Debate sponsored by Bob Ainsworth and is a direct cut and paste from Hansard 16 Dec 2010 : Column 369WH 4.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire):
[...] I genuinely welcome our discussion and the approaches that right hon. and hon. Members have brought to it this afternoon. As for the notion that our proposal on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is silly-that was probably the one pejorative phrase that the right hon. Gentleman used during the course of his contribution this afternoon-let me say to both the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow spokesman that its existing framework is a matter that has merited our careful consideration. Our proposal should in no way be characterised as Government not wanting to receive scientific advice.
16 Dec 2010 : Column 370WH
As hon. Members will know, there are different types of members of the ACMD: the statutory and non-statutory members. We are not convinced that drawing that distinction between the two is necessarily sensible. Equally, the need for scientific and other expert advice has changed over the years. Indeed, the science itself has changed, and it is important to have flexibility in the arrangements on the construction of the ACMD. That was the purpose that lay behind the provisions in the Police and Social Responsibility Bill. The ACMD was supportive of the proposal. It acknowledged that it is questionable whether the statutory positions in the Act correlate with how the council now operates. It considered that the proposed change was particularly important given the introduction of the temporary bans and the need to provide advice within short timeframes. The chief scientific adviser to the Home Office, Professor Silverman, has also consulted the wider scientific community and garnered broad support. The flexibility of bringing different expertise to the ACMD as the drugs landscape changed was welcomed. Those consulted were the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the British Society of Criminology, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Pharmacological Society, the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Medicine. The proposals also had the support of Sir John Beddington, the Government's chief scientific adviser. I just want to put it on the record that this is in no way seeking to undermine or weaken the scientific approach that we wish to take over the formulation of drugs policy. We very much value the scientific input and the relationship that we have with the ACMD in the formulation of policy. That is very important and I would not wish in any way to give the impression that the Government were, in some way, not looking to scientific advice or input or not having that expert involvement in the formulation of policy. It is important that I state that this afternoon.
http://bit.ly/gsdSFh
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS