Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...hol-sacked.html The Government’s drug tsar who claimed that Ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol, has been sacked, Home Office sources said. Professor David Nutt had called for a new ‘index of harm’ to warn the public about the relative dangers of various substances. He said alcohol should rank fifth, behind only cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy. He said: 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. 'We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you’re probably wrong.' In a wide-ranging article for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, the scientist - who resisted the reclassification of cannabis from C to B - accused - claimed that smoking the drug created only a 'relatively small risk' of psychotic illness. He accused former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified cannabis, of 'distorting and devaluing' scientific research. More... Alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful than Ecstasy and LSD, says drugs tsar Prof Nutt said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness. And he claimed advocates of moving ecstasy into class B from class A had 'won the intellectual argument'. He also repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse. Ms Smith's decision to reclassify cannabis as a "precautionary step" sent mixed messages and undermined public faith in Government science, he said. Professor Nutt has also courted controversy in the past - by suggesting taking Ecstasy was no more dangerous than riding a horse. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0VRT9vYaS Whilst ive seen the damage long term cannabis and LSD use can do, on the whole I agree with him. This myth we have in society that alcohol is only harmful if youre drinking 3 bottles of white lightning a day in a bus shelter is only being perpetuated with stunts like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Headline on the news last night "Nutt on drugs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Cheers for directing me to this thread KD. So basically they sacked their own professional advisor on the back of his findings of which they didn't agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) Cheers for directing me to this thread KD. So basically they sacked their own professional advisor on the back of his findings of which they didn't agree with? Correct, Tooooj. What's the point in having an advisor, if his advice is 'wrong'? Let's hope they get the right guy/guyess the next time, so we can all get the 'right' advice. Edited November 1, 2009 by snakehips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I suspect the advisor had been a bit 'naughty' on purpose on this occasion and a few other times in the past due to his frustration at the government having a body of experts then completely ignoring any advice they don't think will serve them well politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6581 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Cheers for directing me to this thread KD. So basically they sacked their own professional advisor on the back of his findings of which they didn't agree with? They're learning I guess... Unlike David Kelly, this one didn't find the need to take his own life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 164 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Cheers for directing me to this thread KD. So basically they sacked their own professional advisor on the back of his findings of which they didn't agree with? They're learning I guess... Unlike David Kelly, this one didn't find the need to take his own life. you still reckon he committed suicide? I heard from a friend of a friend who's mother was told by someone at a bustop who'd heard it of their cousins dog that the government had him wasted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4256 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I suspect the advisor had been a bit 'naughty' on purpose on this occasion and a few other times in the past due to his frustration at the government having a body of experts then completely ignoring any advice they don't think will serve them well politically. Theres nothing wrong with having an advisory panel and then saying "thanks but we won't take your recomnendations because x, y and z" as long as the x, y and z can be argued coherently. In this case however "Because the editor of The Mail would be really, really angry" doesn't stand up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I suspect the advisor had been a bit 'naughty' on purpose on this occasion and a few other times in the past due to his frustration at the government having a body of experts then completely ignoring any advice they don't think will serve them well politically. Theres nothing wrong with having an advisory panel and then saying "thanks but we won't take your recomnendations because x, y and z" as long as the x, y and z can be argued coherently. I appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4256 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I would add that the drugs issue is like immigration - adult debate is seen as toxic to politicians which I think is one of their greatest failings. The mantra of "lets talk about and address only things we can without upsetting anyone" is sheer cowardice. Having said that I can understand how the number of thick people about would easily discourage them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 Tax the arse off alcohol and fags, bump the legal ages up to 21 and regulate the fuck out of pubs and offies selling to minors and your alcohol problem would be reduced overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Irrelevant though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 Not really. I dont think he's suggesting that a few pints down the pub with your mates is less dangerous than popping a few pills. The binge drinking culture we have in this country is the danger. Say what you like about the US but they have a zero tolerance policy against underage drinking and it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4650 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Not really. I dont think he's suggesting that a few pints down the pub with your mates is less dangerous than popping a few pills. The binge drinking culture we have in this country is the danger. Say what you like about the US but they have a zero tolerance policy against underage drinking and it works. I've a mate at santa barbara uni who I'm quite sure would disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 41318 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Tax the arse off alcohol and fags, bump the legal ages up to 21 and regulate the fuck out of pubs and offies selling to minors and your alcohol problem would be reduced overnight. Welcome to Earth- it may take a while to adjust to this reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 Not really. I dont think he's suggesting that a few pints down the pub with your mates is less dangerous than popping a few pills. The binge drinking culture we have in this country is the danger. Say what you like about the US but they have a zero tolerance policy against underage drinking and it works. I've a mate at santa barbara uni who I'm quite sure would disagree Does he wander around town centres pissing in the street, starting fights and throwing up? I would guess no as he would be locked up quick smart. If he wants to get pissed on campus and annoy other students then thats their lookout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Not really. I dont think he's suggesting that a few pints down the pub with your mates is less dangerous than popping a few pills. The binge drinking culture we have in this country is the danger. Say what you like about the US but they have a zero tolerance policy against underage drinking and it works. I don't think he was discussing binge drinking at all though. And you've said the exact same thing before. It's not like you've come up with something really clever either, is it? Fair enough if you want to discuss binge drinking but Nutt's comments about LSD and E and his more recent ones about Cannabis weren't really a comment about our binge drinking culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6581 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Be interesting to see stats on what proportion of drug related deaths and injuries are physicallly attributable to the drugs themselves and how much is attributed to criminal activity caused by the fact they're illegal? I saw some table a few weeks back that suggested that in terms of substance abuse, both alcohol and tobacco sit rather high in terms of causing death - certainly both inside the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) Not really. I dont think he's suggesting that a few pints down the pub with your mates is less dangerous than popping a few pills. The binge drinking culture we have in this country is the danger. Say what you like about the US but they have a zero tolerance policy against underage drinking and it works. I don't think he was discussing binge drinking at all though. And you've said the exact same thing before. It's not like you've come up with something really clever either, is it? Fair enough if you want to discuss binge drinking but Nutt's comments about LSD and E and his more recent ones about Cannabis weren't really a comment about our binge drinking culture. But they were. Hes saying that alcohol use in this country is more dangerous than cannabis or Ecstacy use. And hes right. I cant be fucked arguing semantics with you 'again'. The 2 arent mutually exclusive Alex He said alcohol should rank fifth, behind only cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy. He said: 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. Edited November 2, 2009 by Kid Dynamite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4256 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 KD his focus was on health effects rather than violence/anti-social stuff. I see the two as separate as a lot of people can drink "sensibly" but still have health issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 He doesnt say that anywhere. And you cant distinguish the 2 imo. Its like saying smoking doesnt harm you, but the cancer might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Not really. I dont think he's suggesting that a few pints down the pub with your mates is less dangerous than popping a few pills. The binge drinking culture we have in this country is the danger. Say what you like about the US but they have a zero tolerance policy against underage drinking and it works. I don't think he was discussing binge drinking at all though. And you've said the exact same thing before. It's not like you've come up with something really clever either, is it? Fair enough if you want to discuss binge drinking but Nutt's comments about LSD and E and his more recent ones about Cannabis weren't really a comment about our binge drinking culture. But they were. Hes saying that alcohol use in this country is more dangerous than cannabis or Ecstacy use. And hes right. I cant be fucked arguing semantics with you 'again'. The 2 arent mutually exclusive Alex He said alcohol should rank fifth, behind only cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy. He said: 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. Aye, he mentioned alcohol in passing just as he mentioned other more dangerous illegal drugs too. I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive either. What he was really on about though was what he perceived as a relative contradiction between the classification of those drugs and the relative harm they cause. Which is why I thought your comments on alcohol weren't that relevant. You just wanted to repeat your mantra again about taxing it to the hilt. That's got very little to do with what Nutt was on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 I didnt realise you werent allowed to expand the discussion beyond the narrow scope of the original post. This is a message board, my post is relevant to the discussion. Its hardly a mantra either, ive probably mentioned it twice in the past, at most, in all the time ive been on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Oooh My point was the focus of his comments weren't alcohol any more than they were about horseriding when he compared that to taking E in the past. You mention how bad drink is all the time as well tbh as though everyone who has a drink gets mortal and has a fight. I know that's why you gave up mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 KD his focus was on health effects rather than violence/anti-social stuff. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now