Not one but two major rows

Nick

This is a mess entirely of the Government's own making.

They have been advised time and time again in numerous areas of policy that saying they believe in "evidence-informed policy" while in practice wanting "policy-informed evidence" is a recipe for long-term problems.

Trying to fix the evidence to support the decisions you have already made then shooting the messenger is just bad politics, as well as bad faith and bad PR.

The only surprise is that it has taken this long to come to a head.

As I have said elsewhere, politics seems to be the most dangerous drug around at the moment!

A comparison of the risks of substance abuse with the risks of other threats to health and mortality is a legitimate pursuit of a scientist qualified in this arena. Not only should the debate be about other substances such as cigarettes and alcohol but about other activities including being admitted to hospital driving over-eating etc. It is an advisory committee and if the SoS does not like to hear what is said or he is not prepared to engage in an open debate he should scrap such committees.

We have had 30 years of more of Home Secretaries being tough on drugs so is it so wrong for someone to question whether we are getting the policy right? As for drug inducing poverty - yes it does happen but those addicted to hard drugs usually are at or near the bottom of the pile. It would do no harm if the Churches could offer their traditional opiate of the people - even if there is some 'self harm' as a result.

This argument goes straight to the heart of what is wrong with newlbaour; wrong with the government and wrong with the country...it has become impossible to make a reasoned argment that differs from their opinion without being fired.

That is not a democracy it is a symptom of an increasingly autocratic government that has lost touch with the people who elected it. (well, in fairness we didn't elect Gordon Brown, did we?).

The goevrnment has lost touch on almost every aspect of its economic, domestic and overseas policy because of the tin ears it has developed towards the slightest criticism; look at the newlabour apologists on these posts and they have become increasingly shrill. Listen to government ministers and they have become increasingly shrill. They knee-jerk and shriek their ways throught their final days in government.

It's a Greek tragedy of a government that has brought about its own destruction; its supporters left as a bizarre collection of proto-egalitarian types, banging progressive bongo drums. The working classes deserted the ship failing to understand the message as it became diluted and contradictory.

This is the end of a government and only the BBC and a few newlabour apologist seem incapable of recognising it. It has been a failure even by its own standards; no amount of shopping lists of new hospitals and schools built (all with our money) can make up for the bankrupting of our country by corrupt politicians and bankers they enobled.

Anyone can build a new house but can you afford to pay for it and to live in it? This is the simple question newlabour forgot to ask itself; they have built a welfare state way beyond what we cvan afford and invited all and sundry to take advantage of it. It's the biggest crime perpertrated against an indigent population for centuries. Yet they got away with shouting racist at anyone who disagreed; another gross intrusion into the lives of the average Brit, who needs no lecturing on the noble history of this country. We are one of the oldest hybrids on the planet and I for one need no hectoring on racism.

With any luck this resignation will lead others to question their allegiance to a morally, politically and financially bankrupt administration.

Call an election.

But is there not a third argument which is about good governance with respect to the benefit of the public at large rather than making decisions solely for political gain which is a Nu Labour trait. Whenever a reasoned debate surfaces it is stamped out by bullying political tactics.

It is this stifling of debate that threatens to destroy democracy in this country. It is now perceived political wisdom across all political parties that a debate can only be held if the conclusions can be guaranteed to match a perceived political ideology or viewpoint.

There have been so many consultations and inquiries over the last decade that have cost millions with the end result of ignoring professional advice to then succumb to a lobbyist group wishes without sound reasoning to back it up. If politicians are trying to get back respect from the public they are going about it the wrong way.

Mods - there seems to be a problem completing the new registration process from this blog. I went to Andrew Neil's blog and was able to log-in there instead!

''Something, it should be noted, which David Cameron said he would have done too - only sooner.''

As many before have said,you are an apologist for New Labour. You spoil a well made argument by including a totally irrelevant dig at the Conservative Party.

Will you never learn?

This Government has moved Cannabis from B to C and back to B in the space of 5 years. Do they know what they are doing? If I was a user then I would have lost all trust in their ability to think through the scientific evidence in any kind of logical way. Sacking people because you disagree with them marks yet another stage in this Governments desire to remove all criticism.

Use of the term "nutty" professor fits in with the BBC's "Mock the Week" level of humour. Does it perhaps reveal which side the blogger is on in this dispute between Government and independent advisor?

Prof Nutt is factually correct in what he says but he words his statements so atrociously that I presume he WANTS the tabloid press to pick up on what he has said.

This is why he's been sacked.

He's a government ADVISOR, paid to give advice to the elected politicians who make the law. If they choose to ignore that advice its their perogative and if we don't like their decisions we can replace them in the next election. Nutt is clearly unhappy that the govt isn't doing exactly what he tells them too and is courting yet more media attention. While he is a very highly experienced expert on the chemial apsects of drug use on the human body he has no qualification whatsoever to speak about law enforcement or the economics of policing drug crimes.

I'd have sacked him too.

Is Allan Johnson unfit to be Home Secretary (as the suggested last week by a Parliamentary Select Committee)? [Probably not for those who do not wish to read on!]

The man is so obviously mentally enfeebled as not to be able to understand logical argument and is such a bully that all disagreements lead to resignations, what is his Permanent Secretary doing letting him make such a fool of himself and of our government?

This situation is however not new, or unique to Alan Johnson or the Labour Party - it has been progressively developing for thirty or forty years. Governments seem only capable of taking decisions that are in accordance with the views of the proprietors of the right wing press and this is what we get - rubbish inconsistent government based on nothing at all.

#5 Right click and open the link in a new tab. For some reason left clicking does nothing. Hope that helps!

P.S I'm using Mozilla. Explorer may work better or worse.

Its seems remarkably two faced in that they will sack someone who openly disagrees with their decisions and questions their policies, but refuse to do anything about someone who disagrees with the oppositions policies.

I notice the DPP didn't lose his job by venturing into politics.

Regardless of whether or not they were right to do it it shows a complete lack of consistency.

Is this now a banana republic?

The decision as to how to classify certain drugs should certainly take the 'science' into consideration, but this is not a purely scientific debate.

Illegal drugs have an impact on society as a whole, not just the people who use them. It is right that the final decision should be taken by an elected government. Experts can and should inform the process, but they have not been elected to make decisions.

The debate isn't just about how a particular drug can affect the health of the user (although that does need to be considered). The bigger picture includes the effect on society as a whole.

As to the science itself, the 'evidence' can be misleading. For example, it has been suggested that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy. But this ignores the fact that billions of people use alcohol every day. It is the abuse of alcohol that is the problem. Too much alcohol is certainly very dangerous. But if we compare this with ecstasy, any amount is potentially lethal. Perhaps those who want to legalise ecstasy should remember Leah Betts who died after taking just one tablet.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4440438.stm

My God that was a struggle, whats going on? someones broken the registration process, i've just had to go through the lot about 5 times, not that they're even asking for anymore information its just exactly the same process as previously, for no reason.

Anyway,

The irony of the government ignoring the experts advice on drugs, is that large parts of the British public have bee ignoring successive Government's guidance (ie. the pointless classification system) for years.

Seriously, has there ever been any evidence, ever that anybody has ever decided against taking any drug because of how it was classified by the government.?

Also ,bearing in mind that in their 'spin king' days Mandelson and Campbell spent considerable amounts of time & energy trying to silence criticism of the government from legitimate journalists, and on the most memorable occasion, the entire BBC.

Why is anyone suprised that a government which is obsessed with spinning and managing the way information is released to the public, would resort to silencing its own advisors in this way?

DistantTraveller - Perhaps those who wish to engage in hysteria should consider how many people have died from taking ecstasy since the tragic case of Leah Betts.

Is what some people do not realise (and I say this as a 24 year old who has never taken ecstasy), is that having what amounts to a totally arbitrary classification system is totally counter-productive, as it immediately criminalises and marginalises tens of thousands of young people who take this drugs recreationally every Saturday.

Young people do not believe the government lines "Drugs kill" and "Drugs ruin lives" because that is simply not what they see on a day to day, week to week basis. When the Prime minister of this country comes out and tells young people that "Cannabis kills", the legitimacy of anything the government says on drugs is utterly destroyed.

Thanks for the advice DistantTraveller. The same thing happened to me.

This is yet another mess the government has got itself into. Do we now have a Laurel and Hardy government?

The sad thing is that one can understand both points of view. The comment from Professor Nutt about horse-riding was perhaps inapposite but there also continues to be failure at the heart of government anti-drug policies.

To my mind the ABC of drug harm is not very helpful in preventing drug use and abuse. Tobacco and alcohol need to be drawn into the same structure of harm as hard, soft and prescription drugs and the campaign focussed upon the health of the population at large. Perhaps issues of diet could be drawn into the same methodology but that might be over-complicating matters.

There is a difference between the careful use of inebriating materials and the addiction to the same, but how can one quantify that into a useable law?

The question as to why we set out to get inebriated also needs to be addressed. If someone becomes inebriated for whatever reason and behaves badly as a consequence, surely they need help rather than punishment? As for addicts on alcohol or the hard drugs, they should be given treatment rather than be sent to prison. Do we have a regime that successfully gets addicted people off drugs and booze?

Having said all that I wholly agree that constructing a simple policy which will be both successful and acceptable to what still remains a largely puritan population will be difficult.

13
Ave!
'Seriously, has there ever been any evidence, ever that anybody has ever decided against taking any drug because of how it was classified by the government?'
Or that anything the government says is of any note whatsoever and if it is it is probably some sort of lie or distortion or cover up or all three.

Is this new interface user friendly I ask myself?

No more than the government is I suppose.

Now it's taken so long to get registered, I've forgotten what the thread's about. Maybe I should have taken more cannabis, or e, can't be sure because my memory's shot to hell.

So, I think hoist by your own petard seems to be the mot juste here. A government that has spent 12 years using advisers to formulate policy and provide a smokescreen is suddenly becoming exposed to the real world, and it seems they don't like it. Shoot the messenger why don't you?

Nick Robinson:

It is not shaping up to a good week for the Government
regarding its evolving policy...

=Dennis Junior=

12, Distanttraveller

But if we compare this with ecstasy, any amount is potentially lethal. Perhaps those who want to legalise ecstasy should remember Leah Betts who died after taking just one tablet.

------------------

Not strictly true, the drug itself is no more harmful than any number of prescription drugs taken every day. The danger arises due to:

1) The amount taken, in order to have the desired effect dangerous quantities need to be taken (1 pill can be a large quantity for this particular drug).

2) Additional substances used to "cut" the pill. Can be anything from washing powder to rat poison.

Personally I don't feel any inclination to use substances to alter my perception (pass the whisky gov) but I am firmly of the belief that people should be allowed to poison themselves in any way they choose, it is not for anyone to decide what people may or may not do insofar as it effects only themselves. People will complain about the effect it has on families etc., but it has those effects whether legal or not, those who are inclined to take drugs will do so anyway and end up putting far more dangerous substances into their body as a biproduct. You also encourage a crime culture by banning people from doing things that effect only them, at which point others than those who choose to take the risk become effected.

I like a bit of passion in my politicians but we're seeing the wrong sort of passion here; I remember the very sad Leah Betts case of the mid nineties and it seems to me that Alan Johnson is reacting more like a father who has lost a daughter to a drugs overdose than like a Home Secretary

Allan Johnson and the majority of Ministers have been over promoted. How can a postman or a shop steward know everything about everything.

The political agenda regarding drugs and their usage is identical to the mainstream media agenda.

Advisors advise, politicians ignore!

#14 I mostly agree with you. A tiny number of people have died from ectasy and a relatively small amount from cannabis (it CAN kill, either by contributing to mental health problems or via its carcinogenic properties, however this isn't the debate and I've posted on that before)

Distanttravellers point is valid. If you drink one beer it will not kill you. If you take 1 ectasy tablet there is a tiny chance it WILL kill you, not least because you have no idea what on earth is in the tablet the dealer is selling you. Another thing to bear in mind is that many drinkers will have one drink and have virtually no intoxication from it. Because you drink doesn't mean you will drink until you get drunk. I haven't met many ectasy users who would be happy taking a dose of the drug that has virtually no effect. Likewise most cannabis users will smoke until stoned.

#20
Hmm. A surfeit of sentimentality perhaps.

Oh dear, what an outbreak of hypocrisy in the media! Of course, any fool knows that government drugs policy should be science based. But it can't be, because of the red top hysteria that follows any apparent softening of the approach to drugs. People say things like "Remember Leah Betts, who died after taking one ecstasy tablet". That is hardly a scientific argument. Are you going to apply the same logic to peanut butter? Science is based on statistical significance rather than emotional impact. The media can't be bothered to report science properly because they think the message is too complex to get across, and besides, most journalists don't understand it. So they look for the 'human angle' which just poisons people's ability to make rational decisions.

We've as much chance of starting a serious debate on child protection (remember the "Sarah's Law" fiasco?) as we have on drugs policy.


PS 10 Peter_Sym
Thanks. It worked for me.

Nick Robinson:

*It is also about the basis of drugs policy in Britain. *

It is time for an comprehensive review and adult like
discussion about....

=Dennis Junior=

Totally agree with 1. badgercourage. A mess of their own making.

Also with great respect Nick, I feel using the quote "nutty professor" is a tad tabloid and rather insulting to a man who commands great respect. In fact I cannot find any source for your attributable quote.

Johnson is just the latest in a long line of hapless home secretaries caught up in the political football of drugs classification which has been raging since the '70s. It's the way home secretaries handle the thorny issue which is enlightening.

Johnson has displayed woeful arrogance by sacking his top drugs expert for daring to do his job, speak the truth and speak his scientific mind. After all he could have easily stuck to his guns and just binned the advice.

Isn't this now a question of trust. if scientists are barred from the drugs classification debate, then who does the public believe? Who do they trust when trying to come up with an informed opinion? Home secretary Johnson or a respected scientist?

Where does that leave the supposed 'independence' of advice to the government?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/johnsons-reefer-madness.html

I suspect alcohol ruins far more lives than cannabis, but would our "red-faced home secretary" allow that to influence his thinking?

If we just step back from the hysterical approach for a second, you can see how valid the riding a horse argument is, and by extension the whole idea of banning drugs becomes a bit ridiculous.

We are banning one type of dangerous thrill seeking behaviour, so why should we not ban all of them? Horse riding, parachuting, hang gliding, rock climbing etc., can just as easily lead to death, so why are they accepted, even encouraged? There is some kind of falacy in many peoples' minds that achieving a thrill by taking a substance is less "clean" than engaging in an outdoors pursuit, but this is really just a random and illogical thought process indoctrinated from a young age. One type of thrill is acceptable, one is not, but both are equally capable of wrecking a family. People may also allude to impact on health, but if we are legislating on this basis then any number of things should be declared illegal (starting of course with alcohol and cigarettes, then we can move on to chocolate, salt etc.).

I recognise that I have veered slightly from the point here, but there is a link. It is exaclty this type of knee jerk hysteria our home secretary is reinforcing here. "How dare you question that drugs are all bad, you're fired. We'll have no debate here."

(By the way, I should clarify that I neither a desire to abuse any substance or throw myself from an airplane).

Is it coincidence that you started a new thread about a governemnt problem and the BBC introduces malfunctioning technology changes?

I mean, by the time you've got through the technology you're faced with the dilemma of not knowing who to criticize, and then realise it doesn't matter, they're all equally to blame.

The government, because they've spent too much time creating focus groups, teams of advisore etc that they have never faced up to any issue based upon their own moral and gut instincts. If they had, they would never have got themselves into the whole issue of downgrading cannabis, as they did, under advice, and then had to backtrack and then enter into conflict with their advisors.

The advisors who, normally, have an axe to grind, or are too supine to fight back when their advice is ignored.

The people who have voted this misbegotten shower into roles for which they are totally unsuited.

Hopefully the forthcoming election will give them a chance to undo some of the damage they have caused by their previous voting malfunctions.

#14 Kyle Walkley

You say, "Is what some people do not realise (and I say this as a 24 year old who has never taken ecstasy), is that having what amounts to a totally arbitrary classification system is totally counter-productive"

It is always possible to argue that wherever a line is drawn, it is 'arbitrary'. People can often make a case that the line should have been drawn 'here' instead of 'there'. But does this mean we should never attempt to draw lines at all? Would society be better if we said 'anything goes'?

"Young people do not believe the government lines "Drugs kill" and "Drugs ruin lives" because that is simply not what they see on a day to day, week to week basis"

It is sometimes suggested that advising young people NOT to do something will actually encourage them to do the exact opposite. That is why rather than advise people not to take drugs in the first place, there was instead 'advice' about how to use drugs more 'safely'. But this actually gave people a totally false sense of security.

According to the theory, young people will always be rebellious, so there is no point in telling them anything! But this paints young people in a very poor light! Personally, I think young people have more intelligence than that!

27. At 1:08pm on 02 Nov 2009, TheBlameGame wrote:
I suspect alcohol ruins far more lives than cannabis, but would our "red-faced home secretary" allow that to influence his thinking?
-------------

Thats undeniable, because the number of acholhol users is an order of magnitude higher han that of drug users, the cost to society in criminal damage, criminal violence and NHS bills is also exponentially higher.

Increasing the drinking hours has certainly increased the problem, but the government seem unwilling to backtrack on that policy.

Anyway, as i read on another site, This government seems quite happy to ignore advice from its top military brass concerning the welfare of our soldiers in afghanistan (and thats about as 'life & death' as it gets at thesharp end of politics)

Why is anyone suprised that they also think they know better than their own scientists.

I note that Mr Brown is encouring Mr Karzai to move forward with a better form of government than he currently has.
This is in Afghanistan, which hasn't had a proper government in decades.
And where there was widespread electoral fraud in the recently contested election.
And where too many of our troops have died, supporting a corrupt government.
And where opiates are the cash crop of preference among the poor farmers (revance to the thread!!!)
And I suppose, since El Gordo persists with governing us because it's the "right" thing to do to provide continuity in getting us out of the mess that he got us into, we now lack the moral authority to insist otherwise.

Unfortunately its a truism in life that you reap what you sow, and somebody else always pays the bill.

As I see it the great danger is to education. This happened in the 1960s when government claims were recognised as so ridiculous that they were dismissed by potential users eager to get in the scene. A lot of highly dodgy drugs appeared on the street and people got into trouble. Sadly, good advice was buried under a pile of government dross where the reality and the propaganda were wildly disparate.

It doesn't take this fracas to tell us that alcohol and tobacco are greater dangers than cannabis, especially alcohol. Crikey, you need only walk through a town centre of a Friday night to realise that! Drunken violence denies many people a night out for fear of getting embroiled in something.

So how can a government expect to educate people on health and drugs? It can't. No right-minded person would take its message seriously. Look at the mistrust over the triple-MMR jab. You can't blame people - they'd only just been caught out over the mad-cow/CJD business.

Ah well, here was I hoping that legalising cannabis would herald the return of the quid deal. Shame...though it'd be more like a ten-quid deal after tax and duty.

@12 DistantTraveller

Sorry I am going to have to call your bluff in the Leah Betts story.

She actually died of water intoxication, if she had taken the ecstasy alone she may have survived. Drinking 7 litres of water in 90 minutes killed her.

Ignorance killed this poor girl.

What people need is information, and the best people to give us this information are the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs, not the Home Secretary.

#19 greatHayemaker

"You also encourage a crime culture by banning people from doing things that effect only them, at which point others than those who choose to take the risk become effected"

I think it's very difficult to make a case that it affects 'only them'. People who become addicted to drugs often commit crimes to feed their addictions. If the drugs were legalised, there is no reason to suppose the rate of addiction would go down. Furthermore, people can injure others whilst 'under the influence'. Long term health effects will still need to treated at the expense of the tax payer through the NHS and social services etc.

I don't think it is unreasonable therefore that society (through its elected government) should restrict certain activities that clearly DO affect other people.

DistantTraveller, I couldn't agree more that 'young people' do have more intelligence than that, that is exactly why giving them messages which are at best disingenuous and not reflective of reality, and at worse blatantly false is not going to endear them to government advice.

The comment doing the rounds is correct... Advisors advise and Ministers decide. That principle is completely correct.
The problem is this.
PM Brown and Ms Smith decided before they heard the advice.
They could have said that even tho the evidence shows less harm from cannabis compared to alcohol, that is not a road down which we want to go, except that they did and then changed their mind.... typical.
There is another argument to be had here, California (a state with an economy similar in size to our own) has a £14 billion medicinal cannabis trade. Surely this would help to pay down some debt?

6. At 11:59am on 02 Nov 2009, myteam-0 wrote:
''Something, it should be noted, which David Cameron said he would have done too - only sooner.''

As many before have said,you are an apologist for New Labour. You spoil a well made argument by including a totally irrelevant dig at the Conservative Party.

Will you never learn?

----------------

Its hardly a dig at the conservatives, I heard Cameron making exactly the same coment on the news yesterday, he said it, he's obviously not embarrassed by it, why not report it?

Normally if the government is in difficulty you would expect the opposition to put the boot in. In this case Cameron has come out in support of the government ( i presume because the tories use the same demograpghic profiling as the government when it comes to assessing public opinion).)

The fact that the tories are supporting the governments actions is certainly newsworthy and, indeed has been mentioned here entirely in context.

There is no conspiracy.

Of course any system is arbitrary, but perhaps 'random' would have been a better description, the absurdity of placing cannabis into 'Class-B' is there for all to see.

A truly retrograde step in drugs policy to appease people with very little knowledge of the subject.

"If you drink one beer it will not kill you. If you take 1 ectasy tablet there is a tiny chance it WILL kill you, not least because you have no idea what on earth is in the tablet the dealer is selling you." Peter Sym.

That does miss one point. In countries where alcohol is brewed illegally, you DO read stories about 1 drink resulting in death. This is because the drinker had no idea what was in the drink the dealer was selling. Had the poor drinker been able to get alcohol, properly brewed, properly tested and regulated, it's massively unlikely that 1 drink would kill him. And supposing one person had an abnormal allergy and died from his drink, would be ban all drink because of that?

What is the POINT of an advisory body if the Government ploughs ahead with what it intended to do anyway? Why have the advisors?

Professor David Nutt was correct on his assessment of cannabis, but the cannabis laws are irrelevant to the pot smoker when those laws are being made by thieving corrupt politicians who get them endorsed in the Upper House by thieving, corrupt Lords as has been proved. Any slight chance New Labour had of getting into power again has just gone up in smoke. (I hope)

I believe that a more liberal treatment of drugs is needed. There are all sorts of personal freedom issues and it is typical of this 'Nanny knows best' Government that they are behaving in the way that they are.

There is, though, one aspect of the debate that I'm surprised hasn't been much discussed.

Were I to draw up a league of dangerous carnivorous animals (probably headed up by the Grizzly bear, followed by other bears and the big cats) I suspect that the Hyena would be quite low down the league.

Still wouldn't want to be locked in a box with one.

That something is less dangerous, doesn't mean it's safe.

#42

Drifted off a bit there at the end Pete.

A stoned silence?

#12. At 12:24pm on 02 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
"The debate isn't just about how a particular drug can affect the health of the user (although that does need to be considered). The bigger picture includes the effect on society as a whole."
= = = = =

Indeed, so why is there such a demand for drugs anyway, not just the illicit ones but stupefactives like alcohol? I personally don't want to anaesthesise my way through life. Apparently others do.

= = = = =

"As to the science itself, the 'evidence' can be misleading. For example, it has been suggested that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy. But this ignores the fact that billions of people use alcohol every day. It is the abuse of alcohol that is the problem. Too much alcohol is certainly very dangerous. But if we compare this with ecstasy, any amount is potentially lethal. Perhaps those who want to legalise ecstasy should remember Leah Betts who died after taking just one tablet."
= = = = =

The Leah Betts incident was tragedy indeed. But don't let's forget she was at her 18th birthday party and (though not reported) was likely drinking too. Believe me, taking any of the illicit drugs with alcohol is dangerous on many levels. Likewise, mixing illicit drugs - more so when you don't know what extras they contain. It can't be stressed enough. How can we get that message through?

And this is why we need better education. Scary ads on TV do nothing because the kids know that it just isn't like that (until they try to drink at the same time). We need an enlightened attitude toward prohibition and drugs. At least, if we can't legalise and control these drugs, honesty would be a considerable advance.

40, 41, 43, 44 You taking speed?

35. At 1:30pm on 02 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
#19 greatHayemaker

"You also encourage a crime culture by banning people from doing things that effect only them, at which point others than those who choose to take the risk become effected"

I think it's very difficult to make a case that it affects 'only them'. People who become addicted to drugs often commit crimes to feed their addictions. If the drugs were legalised, there is no reason to suppose the rate of addiction would go down. Furthermore, people can injure others whilst 'under the influence'. Long term health effects will still need to treated at the expense of the tax payer through the NHS and social services etc.

I don't think it is unreasonable therefore that society (through its elected government) should restrict certain activities that clearly DO affect other people.

--------------

I am not suggesting addiction rates would go down, not immediately anyway. But associated crime would go down for a couple of reasons. Firstly the prices would be lower because there would no longer be any risk to supplying them, therefore less theft to support it. Secondly, the dealers themselves would no longer make their living by supplying drugs, and since many of them are fairly unpleasnt characters, violence associated with them would fall.

But in the end, drug crime is not caused by the drug, it is caused by the people who take the drugs. I am not a huge fan of thinking that you eliminate drug crime by eliminating drug use. You eliminate crime by stopping people from committing crimes, ie. you police the streets and you lock up offenders. The vast majority of drug users are not habitually stealing to fund their habits, it is only a small percentage who do, so it is hardly reaonable to make laws specifically for the few who can not be trusted (and who incidentally will break the law in any case, so why bother).

I wonder what long term health effects you are referring to. Often the health effects of drugs are more short term (ie. overdose = death), but I think it is overly simplistic to say people who use drugs will cost the health service more. Those who cost the most are those who live the longest, the older you are, the more things go wrong with your body. Drug use will likely bring your health problems forward, but it won't necessarily lead to a higher overall cost. And besides, you would tax drugs in the same way you tax tobacco and alcohol, so you get a great deal of the cost back (on a net cost/ tax basis, obese people are more expensive to the NHS than smokers).

What is the point of having expert advisor's if you don't take any notice of their expert advice, and if their expert advice is wrong what were you doing 'employing' them in the first place - over to your Mr Johnson...

Having re-watched the 'Brass-Eye' series recently, so much of the current reporting on the News today sounds awfully close to parodying itself.....here are a few extracts from the 'Drugs' episode. Sharp eyed readers will spot the edit, without which the BBC wouldn't post it...



"People say that alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink!"

"Luckily, the amount of heroin I use is harmless, I inject about once a month on a purely recreational basis. Fine. But what about other people less stable, less educated, less middle-class than me? Builders for example. If you're one of those, my advice is leave well alone. Good luck."

"An overdose of heroin is fatal - in the short term. But there has been no research whatsoever into long term effects."

"If time's a drug, then Big Ben is a huge needle injecting it into the sky."

#8 -- The "advisers" including Professor Nutt are NOT paid.

#39 Kyle Walkley

"A truly retrograde step in drugs policy to appease people with very little knowledge of the subject"

I think that's a bit of a sweeping assumption! At best you could say there are strongly held differences of opinion.

On the one hand, there are people who feel (perhaps this includes you?) that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, irrespective of the harm they may be doing to themselves.

Then there are others who feel that personal freedom needs to be weighed against the effects on society as a whole.

As an example, it is not permitted to drink and drive; the reason is not simply the possible danger to the driver, but the possible (or likely) effect on others as well.

In the case of cannabis, there can indeed be long term health effects, including mental health, although the exact risk is a matter of debate. As Society has to pick up the bill (through the NHS and social services) it is not unreasonable for the elected government to place restrictions on certain activities which clearly DO affect others.

#48
Unfortunately Brown and his team think they know best. They tolerate these "advisory panels" to ensure they are seen to be going through the process but in the end as we know in so many areas the government just bullys its way on !
We need an election.

I'm personally not sure whether the oproblem is scientists or politicians.

Neither of them have over-much experieince of what the rest of us might call "real life". Scientists inhabit labs, whether in or out of academic institutions, whilst politicians inhabit a strange twilight world in SW1. Yes, I know I'm generalising, but so scientists and politicians.

Each of those groups would have us believe they are telling us the absolute truth, at least as they see it.

I'm minded of the fact that at the conclusion of WW2 half the german scientists went to work in the US and the other hald in Russia, and for the next 30-40 years engaged in the space race, nuclear weapons development and, who knows, biological weapons development - somebody did it. Kubrick, in Dr Strangelove, nailed it pretty well.

The point of this is to say that I personally wouldn't take the word of a member of either group that when the sun shines its day time and when the moon shows its night time. I think they ought to be locked in the room with some pills, syringes, loosely wrapped leaves and some mushrooms and only come out when they have reached a senslible level of agreement with each other. Meanwhile we can get on with the rest of our lives.

#34. Someone always tries to clame that Leah Betts died of water toxicity not the ectasy while glossing over the fact that ectacsy messes with the bodies ability to regulate its temperature and urinate (google or wiki SIADH). You also part quote what was said at her inquest:

by Professor John Henry, who had previously warned the public of the danger of ecstasy causing death by dehydration, "If Leah had taken the drug alone she might well have survived. If she had drunk the amount of water alone she would have survived."

If she's just taken the E she'd probably have lived. If she'd drank 7 litres of water she'd have lived. The two together killed her.

Claiming it was all the fault of the water she drank is like claiming that heroin overdoses don't kill you- its all down to the heart attack, or that dying after driving at high speed into a tree has nothing to do with the high speed and its the tree that does the killing.

#40. I totally agree, however in this country alcohol IS legal and people do not die after one drink because what they're consuming is actually meths so my statement that no-one ever died after one beer stands. I'm a firm believer that if most currently illegal drugs were state produced, properly quality controlled and sold (and taxed) via off-licences we'd have far less problems. However this isn't likely to happen and has little relevance as to whether cannabis is class C or B or ectasy A or B as either way it'll be of unknown quality and strength.

#47 greatHayemaker

"But in the end, drug crime is not caused by the drug, it is caused by the people who take the drugs. I am not a huge fan of thinking that you eliminate drug crime by eliminating drug use."

But if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, one could say anything and everything should be allowed. Would you say (as some do!) that guns don't kill people - it's the people who use guns who are the problem? The reason guns are illegal is to make it harder for people to get their hands on them. Obviously, determined criminals are still able to do so.. but would society be better if you could just buy one over the counter?

#45 Leah Betts hadn't consumed alcohol... she took 1 E and drank 14 pints of water. You can find her PM report online easily enough. At most raves you can't even buy alcohol, just water.

However if she HAD suffered a bad reaction between the illegal drug and booze it would be a powerful argument against the drug as these sort of 'accidents' are highly likely to occur and once you have a few drinks (or a few E's) any education is likely to be totally ignored anyway.

This whole story is really about the Government completely losing control of the news agenda. We have a Government in its death throws, it has lost control of the news agenda, the Civil Service and its advisors. It is a clapped out Government, bereft of talent and ideas - we should have had a General Election months ago!

Bring on the election now, so we can get a new Government with a fresh mandate to start addressing the serious issues affecting the country - not least, the massive and unsustainable fiscal deficit created by Brown.

This whole situation is stupid.

Why have advisors if you aren't going to listen to them?
Why have advisors if you've already made a decision yourself?
Why sack an advisor for having their own opinions?

The government shouldn't have just made the decision without consultation with the advisors or there should be no advisors and just let government policy dictate things, because you can't have both at the same time.

The sacking was outrageous, I agree to a point that the advisor shouldn't have brought politics in to it considering that he was only an advisor and not a policy maker but he has a right to voice his opinion and the public have a right to hear the views expressed by those advising the government.

Personally, I see this as a complete waste of time and money. Drugs are a problem but all these policies and advisors do nothing to solve the problem because they're easily available to those that want to find them.

Now I'll probably strike up a debate in all this by saying that, in my opinion, all these drugs should be legalised and taxed. A legal substance is easier to control than an illegal substance and you destroy the whole black market criminal aspects of the whole thing. If people want to waste their money on these drugs and take them then it's their own fault for whatever consequences they suffer.

I have never taken drugs and I feel I'm educated enough to easily make the choice that I never do want to take drugs. That has always been my stance and I would never have been convinced in to taking such substances unless they were physically forced down my throat but luckily that has never happened.

People will either listen and consider the facts realising that taking drugs is stupid or they will not listen and they will continue taking the drugs no matter what is said or done to try and convince them otherwise. Therefore, tax them and let's get those public finances back in shape.

How many people who campaign against drugs have been through the bad experiences?

They suffered the consequences and they learnt from the experience. To me, that's the only way forward, allow people to make their choices, suffer the consequences and learn from their stupidity.

Unfortunately, there will always be those that don't learn and the Treasury will be quite happy to keep raking in the income from them. After all, how long has there been an anti-smoking camp and although people have stopped there are those that continue doing it and the government are quite happy with getting those taxes in.

Now let's move on from this silly situation. I throw my support to the advisors, they should just all quit and then we can replace the entire lot of them with a Quango, now there's an idea.

I find your pun at the beginning a wee bit over the top Mr Robinson but obviously nutty did not form a word association with Johnston where it perhaps should have been applied. The said Johnston after his interview performance, has gone from Mr Sensible to Mr Angry in very quick time, and no doubt since he had ambitions of using the first dagger on MacCaesar will now at the first opportune moment become Mr Nobody. His handling of this situation displays all the skills necessary for being a postman plus the required amount of intransigence and dishonesty which made him a union chief and thence led him into the higher echelons of the Labour party where these obvious questionable talents are esteemed.

54. At 2:13pm on 02 Nov 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:
#34. Someone always tries to clame that Leah Betts died of water toxicity not the ectasy while glossing over the fact that ectacsy messes with the bodies ability to regulate its temperature and urinate (google or wiki SIADH). You also part quote what was said at her inquest:

----------

as i've said before, like many people from my generation i experimented with drugs in my 20s.

The spate of water toxicity deaths was largely down do ignorance of the effects of ecstacy within the 'scene' of the time. I remember being advised by experienced clubbers to make sure i drank loads of water - it was the perceived wisdom among clubbers at the time as the safest way to take ecstacy.

People now know better - i haven't heard of a water/ecstacy related death in some years.

An example of education making drug use safer over time?

Go to the doctor...get a pill. The society is full of drugs, many with warnings. It is about behavior. If you drink at the pub, that is fine, if you drink and drive, it is not. Good rationale. Addicted populations remain about the same small percentage of any population. Probably not going to change that. This is mainly foolishness based on morale judgements not science or social norms. Has been a waste of time, money and ruined many lives for not real reason other than laws were passed to make people feel good by severely punishing others for acts of possession. Self-flagalation did not end the plague either.

Legalise it...don't criticise it.

51

Fine, then lets also ban rugby, on account that anyone who breaks a bone must also be funded by the NHS.

No watching TV, because people who are watching TV might be effecting their eyes, and are certainly not exercising at that moment so they are at slightly higher risk of developing health problems associated with weight.

Lets ban drinking full stop, on the basis that someone who drinks is
more likely to drink and drive (infinitely so in fact).

Everything you do effects others in some way. Lets not descend to having our lives maanged for us completely.

Pop @ 23

"A surfeit of sentimentality perhaps"

exactly; we need to keep that out of the drugs debate (or any debate for that matter) if we want to achieve a sensible policy

Two years ago the BBC reported that while you can expect to have a serious motorbike accident once in every 7,000 hours, a serious horse riding accident happens once in every 350 hours.

Yet the common perception is that motorcycle riders (such as myself) have some sort of death-wish and Government slyly legislates, through increasingly difficult tests/bureaucratic hurdles, to get us motorcyclists off the roads.

Anecdotally, whilst I suffered a broken leg whilst riding a motorcycle as a teen-ager, my sister, a keen horse rider has suffered two serious riding accidents, once she cracked her skull when her horse bolted, desite wearing a hardhat, and the second time, again with another horse bolting, she smashed her jaw when she came off and destroyed various nerves in her mouth and has lost most senses of taste and the difference between hot and cold food.

Having seen at close quarters the very dark world of underground drugs, it is my view that all currently illegal drugs should be decriminalised and sold via chemists with the appropriate quality controls, taxes applied etc.

In parallel, the authorities should conduct brutally explicit anti-drugs advertising in the media, targetting the so-called hard drugs.

Drugs such as cannabis, at the appropriate strength, should be viewed as no more harmful than alcohol.

Just as alcohol induces some people to become alcoholics, then likewise cannabis may induce some people to become psychotic.

The libertarian view is that people must be free to chose how they live their lives, providing they are fully aware of the consequences of the choices they may make, for themselves, their families and their communities.

ghm @ 28

"By the way, I should clarify that I neither have a desire to abuse any substance or to throw myself from an airplane"

your point would retain its validity even if you did

#55

When guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns.

Put it another way - would you break into a house knowing that there was a good chance that the occupier could have a gun and use it?

No liberal let-offs for stiffs!

What on earth is the 'Nutty Professor' thing about? Are you saying that because he's a scientist he must be crazy, because everyone knows that science is really wierd? Is it meant to be a joke? If so, you should probably stick to the day job!

This government gave us 24 hour drinking and then put cannabis as a grade C drug. It now wants to back pedal and appear tough with a paid expert. What a joke.

Let's see if we can educate people about drugs but the tax take on cannabis could be huge so why not allow a small amount of trade in the business so we are progressive on this front. Bringing it into the open is the only way the problem can be tackled effectively

#34 King_Athelstan

"She actually died of water intoxication, if she had taken the ecstasy alone she may have survived. Drinking 7 litres of water in 90 minutes killed her"

It was probably a combination of the excessive amount of water AND the drug itself. According to a BBC report,
"At the inquest, Prof Henry said: "If Leah had taken the drug alone she might well have survived. If she had drunk the amount of water alone she would have survived."

The same BBC report says: "In Leah's case, excessive water consumption was exacerbated by the ecstasy causing her body to release anti-diuretic hormones, stopping a normal level of urination that could have saved her."

There are always going to be some people who wish to down-play the dangers of the drug. But however you look at it, Leah would still be alive today if she hadn't taken the ecstasy in the first place.

This tragic case also highlights the danger of giving misleading advice about how to 'stay safe'. Prof Henry was later reported as saying the original advice "was fatal".

A much better message would be "Stay safe by not taking drugs - because you're worth it!"

This is just another blunder from a tired 'lost its way' government.
Seeing the red faced out of control Johnson being interviewed yesterday just sums them all up.

The red light is showing. They need to stop everything they are doing for the more they do the bigger the mess they are creating.

Bloomers big and small are happening so frequently now we can't keep up. The PM appears but there is never anything credible about what he says.

The whole country is confused for we all know that the drugs problem is out of control but so is everything else.

So many U turns we don't know what is legal or illegal any more.

A democracy in chaos where half or even more of the present politicians are too busy preparing their CV's to be bothered.

Such chaos has never been seen in my lifetime and it is urgent that the tinkering stops and someone steps in to bring back some order now.

Before my time it's my understanding that there was a rather obscene law in place that made it and illegal and arrestable offence to attempt to commit suicide, and if you were caught before actually slipping off this mortal coil you could be put in prison. This is something that boggles the mind, for me at least, even now, because it works on the assumption that people do not own their own bodies, or their own lives, and have to be subservient to an external organisation first.

Thankfully, this rather ethically ambiguous concept has been condemned to the dustbin of history. The notion that the government can legislate and prosecute anyone for doing something to themselves is, to me, utterly absurd.

I'm not going to argue the specifics of certain substances over other substances, or pander to the hysterical types who want to ban everything, for me that isn't the issue at all. Governments continually use the line on the drugs issue that they're "saving people from themselves", and doing so by rejecting outright the verdicts of professionals who are actually knowledgeable on the subject for the sake of political posturing.

The issue for me isn't a case of preventing people from harming themselves - it's about the ethics of personal freedom. There is no ethical difference between alcohol, tobacco, and all the illegal or semi-legal substances out there, and anyone who claims there is is just being hypocritical.

The most surprising thing for me, however, is that this government is passing up an opportunity to make a policy that would not only be widely popular, but that also has an extremely high potential for tax revenue.

So, how's legalizing drugs going to work?

Will they only be for sale in Drug stores, chemists/pharmacists by any other name?
If so, will they only be on prescription? (Cue problems at the doctors)
If not, will they only be available at the counter?
Will there be security?
Is this going to impact other customers of the chemist?
Will there be a rise in crime related to chemists?
Has this been thought through?
Stupid question, sorry.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#63 greatHayemaker

One may take the view that you must either ban everything or nothing, but I am certainly not proposing that!

There are many activities which can be enjoyable, yet carry some risk. I certainly don't believe in the Nanny State or the absurd culture of 'health and safety' that seems to have evolved under this government - eg the ban on hanging baskets in Bury St Edmunds.

But opposing Health and Safety madness doesn't mean 'anything goes'.

You say "Lets ban drinking full stop, on the basis that someone who drinks is
more likely to drink and drive (infinitely so in fact)". Drinking isn't banned - but it is rightly subject to certain restrictions - eg, age, being drunk in a public place, driving etc.

What should be allowed or restricted will always be a matter of oppinion. But we need to be clear it isn't just about science - it's also about social acceptability.

You say "Lets not descend to having our lives managed for us completely."

Yes, I agree! But in a democracy, there will always be debate about where we draw the lines. Personally, I think having the debate (even if we can't all agree) is a useful exercise.

66. At 2:46pm on 02 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghm @ 28

"By the way, I should clarify that I neither have a desire to abuse any substance or to throw myself from an airplane"

your point would retain its validity even if you did

-------------

But Big Brother might be watching...

It doesn't make sense to ask: "Why does the government employ advisers if it's then going to ignore their advice?"

Advice can, by definition, be accepted or rejected.

You might as well ask: "Why have a government if all they're going to do is implement the advice of third parties?"

It's only a problem when advisers start throwing their toys out of the pram.

The odd thing is that I do believe advisors should advosie and those in govrenment should decide. (Of course they should make it clear on what basis they take decisions...)

I've today heard a number of eminent scientists disputing the assertions of Prof Nutt. They seem to be working in exactly relevant areas and withn the panel of advisors on drug classification, there does appear to be a split.

I rather wish Ministers had been a bit more selective when looking at the "evidence" of the man-made global warming theory. Like millions of others, I believe in climate change. (You'd have to be a fool not to, as climate chane is evident all around. For example, London isn't covered by ice...) But the rampant political herd is hell-bent on spending billions using the wrong label. They should say that poluttion is a bad thing, rather than clinging to discredited computer models.

What's the differene with Prof Nutt? He is one voice among several. Some other voices tell a different story. Governments are not elected to deliver policy or law based on "scientific" advice. They sometimes frame their decisiions in odd ways, but then, so do scientists...

70. At 3:01pm on 02 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
#34 King_Athelstan

"She actually died of water intoxication, if she had taken the ecstasy alone she may have survived. Drinking 7 litres of water in 90 minutes killed her"

It was probably a combination of the excessive amount of water AND the drug itself. According to a BBC report,
"At the inquest, Prof Henry said: "If Leah had taken the drug alone she might well have survived. If she had drunk the amount of water alone she would have survived."

The same BBC report says: "In Leah's case, excessive water consumption was exacerbated by the ecstasy causing her body to release anti-diuretic hormones, stopping a normal level of urination that could have saved her."


--------

The point i was trying to make in my earlier, confessional, post is that there is still a misconception that ecstacy gives you a raging,uncontrollable thirst which then results in people , such as Leah Betts drinking dangerous levels of water.

That simply isn't true.

During the 90s users were telling each other to make sure they drank loads of water because we thought it made taking ecstacy much safer.I was one of them. I'm fairly sure that whoever procured leah betts her tablet gave her the same advice - make sure you drink loads of water.

Thanks to beter education & scientific evidence people now know not to do this, which is why the number of ecstascy related deaths is so much smaller.

Which as i said earlier surely make ecstacy the perfect example of how better education about drugs makes them safer for everyone, whereas the 'all drugs bad' approach doesn't deter users, but can lead to them harming themselves through their own ignorance.

Haha, the BBC accusing an organisation of 'Group Think', now that's funny.

Are you on drugs?

The rise of postmodernism in the information age is being exploited by politicians like Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson. Johnson interprets legitimate scientific argument as "political lobbying" because, to him, scientific data and theories are just "opinions" or "guesses" that can be "correct" or "incorrect" depending on nothing more than the eye of the beholder. However, unlike mere political opinion, the scientific method is 1) self-improving and 2) acts to remove such personal bias. This way of thinking got us out of the religion-dominated dark ages. Incompentent, control-freak politicians shall surely put us back there.

A lesson from history is Lysenkoism. The science of genetics under Stalin was deemed to be "inconvenient" to the message the communist party was trying to deliver to the peasants working the farming collectives. Under the auspices of Trofim Lysenko, rank pseudoscience was officially endorsed by the Stalin w.r.t. improving agricultural yields, and genuine scientsts persecuted as though they were political renegades for daring to disagree. It can be argued that this policy led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peasants through resulting famine (not to mention the sacking/imprisonment/execusion of many scientists).

After Stalin's death, Lysenko was eventually outed as a fraud and died in disgrace. However, the cost to his country was dear. Are we in the UK prepared to vote for politicians who ignore all "inconvenient" science and persecute scientists merely for speaking their minds? Is it a good thing to expect scientists to abandon ethics, as Lysenko did, and only endorse science "compatible" with the political spin du jour? If this is deemed acceptable, then a repeat of Lysenkoism here is surely an inevitability. I'm sure ol' Gordon Brown would love the chance to extend his control freakery further.

It is time for a proper scientific debate on the merits of drug policy. To date, I have not heard a single rational argument against cannabis that cannot also be applied to legal drugs or even food that is "bad for you". I've heard all the nonsense about "dropping dead", "going schizo", "acting as gateway drugs", "the collapse of society" and so on, but not one of these is backed up by anything other than, "my friend/son/daughter" anecdotes. Yes, personal tragedies are linked to illegal drugs, and I sympathise with those who have lost someone close to them. However, dangers are also linked linked to fast cars, extreme sports, alcohol, smoking, eating too many burgers and so on. It's time to treat people like adults, not bed-wetting babies who need an all-powerful state to care for their well-being.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" (attributed to Ben Franklin)

It would be interesting to get some NHS financials on the annual cost of treating patients with a)smoking, b) alchohol, and c) drug related problems. All three are harmful but government only seems interested in tackling c). I think that Alan Johnson's action in dismissing Professor Nutt was wrong and sets a very bad precedent.

#60 GoldCaesar. You may very well be right about education in relation to ectasy use reducing deaths, but if so its a very unique situation. What rational person would start injecting heroin or smoking crack knowing what the likely outcome of their habit will be? Yet many do.... people do very stupid things, especially kids who think they're immortal.

I actually sympathise with the govt over this:

They treated us like adults a few years by relaxing the licencing laws. Rather than being forced to drink up at 11 and everyone pouring onto the streets at once we could relax over our drinks and leave when we wanted to... it would make us adopt a european attitude to drinking. hahahaha.

We just drank more at the same speed, but rather than blame the adults who choose to drink like fish we blame the govt for changing the law.

Why should drug use be any different? If Johnson legalised E, cannabis etc I can guarantee that there'll be another few Leah Betts on the front of the daily mail and he'll be crucified for 'turning our kids into zombie junkies'. You only have to look at how many people use the phrase '24 hour drinking' too see my point. Only 300 establishments have a 24 hour licence. A few 24 hr supermarkets, some casino's and major hotels. The reality of '24 hour drinking' is that the pubs shut at 12 or 1 on a Fri and Sat night and the clubs that shut at 3 stay open till 5. Not so much '24 hour drinking' as 'an extra 2 hours'.... but that doesn't look good in the headlines.

Virtually everything thats wrong in Britain is down to people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions and frankly given how we behave with booze I don't trust us with anything more powerful.

On a related note I just realised how much 'spin' Nutt and some of his supporters are using. He rather naughtily blames people killed as a result of drink driving or in alcohol fueled fights as part of his 'alcohol death' figures, yet Leah Bett's death was 'caused by water'.... he's been around New Labour people for too long I think.

#67. So there's no breaking an entering in America? I'd happily break into a house if I though the homeowner MIGHT have a gun... I'd be awake, alert, have my own gun out, loaded and the safety off. Good odds against a sleepy, untrained homeowner trying to find their gun in the wardrobe. Its why we have 700 murders a year (mostly knives) and the US 30-odd thousand. Its a totally flawed argument.

11. At 12:21pm on 02 Nov 2009, sircomespect wrote:
Its seems remarkably two faced in that they will sack someone who openly disagrees with their decisions and questions their policies, but refuse to do anything about someone who disagrees with the oppositions policies.

I notice the DPP didn't lose his job by venturing into politics.

Regardless of whether or not they were right to do it it shows a complete lack of consistency.

Is this now a banana republic?

===

Judging by from this photo of the Foreign Secretary, yes it is!

https://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/david-milliband-banana-415x275.jpg

===

Anyway, back on topic, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde:

"To lose one drugs adviser is unfortunate, to lose two is careless."

To lose three, well, a bit of a pattern emerging there. Will he sack everybody who disagrees with him?

DistantTraveller wrote:
"As Society has to pick up the bill (through the NHS and social services"


This has got to be one of the most tired arguments relating to drugs.

If Cannabis was legally produced, under licence and sold to adults only and then taxed at a similar level to alcohol and tobacco it would generate billions of pounds of taxation that would easily cover the costs to the NHS and any other government agency that would be dealing with the effects of drugs.
We have all of these costs now but because of prohibition the profits are all going to criminals instead of going into the legal market and no tax is being generated to cover these costs.

Now, can you please tell me what harm I am doing to society by having a few spliffs at home with my friends ?

Forget about the what if's and deal with the reality, I am a grown man who has worked his entire life, has never hurt anybody, pays lots of tax, has never been in trouble with the Police and have generally tried to be a decent member of society so please, what exactly am I doing wrong ?

People like you are the reason we've got gangs ruining the country because you're too blinded by your ignorance and fear to be able to see the harm you are causing our society with this continued failure of a policy.

Prohibition does not work !

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

For me it just shows that government 'spin' is once again alive and well.
I was pleased to see that one commentator on the BBC put it in a nut-shell. They said it was like when Gallileo proposed that the Earth went around the Sun. He was persecuted for this because it didn't agree with the Christian Church's view at that time.
The same is here. A government advisor doesn't agree with government policy and so is sacked. Only the government is right - everyone else is wrong!
All hail the government - the fountain of all wisdom!

To be fair to NuLabour:
1.Horse riding is a pretty dangerous activity - it's a half ton herbivore with a tendency to panic, not a car with airbags.
2.The Tories were never any more sensible or sane on the topic of drugs than NuLabour.
That said, this does make them look like a bunch of ex union donkeys who've been promoted beyond what their competence/education would warrant.

It should not be the business of government to stop grown competent adults taking any sort of risk, they should merely make sure that we know the consequences of our actions.
We now have two generations of people who know know full well that police and politicians are either lying or mistaken when talking about illegal drugs, many assume the former and subscribe to conspiracy theories as a result. They assume if the government is lying about drugs then they must be lying about everything else - Iraq, the economy, the environment etc.
I reckon the politicians are sincere - they actually believe this rubbish they're talking.

When are we going to learn the lessons of alcohol prohibition in the US? When is a politician going to stand up in public and tell the truth? The "war on drugs" has been an unmitigated disaster having eroded democracy, funded our enemies, encouraged massive amounts of crime, and created a huge gulf between many of us and the police and politicians, (not to mention the media).


The "war on drugs" sharply underlines just how competent our politicians aren't. If they can get it so wrong for so long on a subject that teenagers know about, what else are they getting wrong?

#85. I totally agree. Two problems though: if cannabis was sold to over 18's only, taxed etc then within minutes we'd have someone buying it for a £1 a joint and selling it to schoolkids for £2 or £5 a joint. Just like with booze.

As to what harm am I doing society by having a few spliffs. Very little. But where does you spliff come from? In my town (Nottingham) most cannabis is grown in private homes rented in good faith to chinese gangs. The chinese bypass the electric meter and use illegal immigrants to turn the houses into cannabis farms and we've had a handful already burn to the ground (because of the dodgy electrics). The householder usually gets no insurance because the fire is a result of criminal activity.

Its a great reason to justify legal growing but at present your few spliffs are fuelling this sort of illegal growing

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has told MPs he sacked his drugs adviser because he "lost confidence" in Professor David Nutt's ability to do the job. My god, I wish it was that easy to get rid of this shower of ....

Roll on the election!!!!

https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/people/cocaine-use-rife-in-the-media/5007133.article

Grotesque hypocricy from the BBC a la ZanuLab?

83. At 3:45pm on 02 Nov 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:
#60 GoldCaesar. You may very well be right about education in relation to ectasy use reducing deaths, but if so its a very unique situation. What rational person would start injecting heroin or smoking crack knowing what the likely outcome of their habit will be? Yet many do.... people do very stupid things, especially kids who think they're immortal.

---

Heroin & crack are in a different league to the substances Proff Nutt was sacked for discussing. I don't know why anyone starts down that road either, i suspect that if heroin & crack were'nt available those who use it would be trying to blot out the world through alcohol instead.

I suspect that in the case of a good 90% of heroin/crack addicts, the addiction is actual a symptom of something else. Such as the desire for total oblivion...

Advisors advise and ministers decide - this is a non blog.

Giant hayestacks- sorry to hear £1.20 a day is too much to take responsibility for your own health.

#87. Rather ironic that you criticise 'spin' then claim that "A government advisor doesn't agree with government policy and so is sacked. Only the government is right - everyone else is wrong!"

Nutt was sacked for criticising his boss (repeatedly) in the media, not for disagreeing with the policy. I strongly suspect that if I criticise my board members in the media (or even on a blog) I will also be sacked and it doesn't matter if I'm "right" or "wrong" in my opinions either.

My understanding of how the world should work is that advisors are paid to produce reports ADVISING what should be done and why and its up to elected ministers to choose whether to act on that advice or not. I can't remember Nutt ever being elected to any job with law making power.

Some years ago I was advised by a scientist that the baby born to a heroin addict was normal sized and normal.The baby born to an alcohol addict was undersized and afflicted by other problems.

I was also informed that passive smoking and its effect was grossly exaggerated to suit the political stance of the time.

I have no reason to doubt that scientist.

Well, a war on drugs is better than no drugs at all!

(Thanks Kurt!)

This is almost certainly an issue where the politicians are behind the curve, in that it is possible that the majority of adults in this country are in favour of decriminalising these drugs.

Or they would be if a suitably holostic argument was put to them i.e. in terms of the legalisation causing a large reduction of the underground market in these drugs along with the colossal profits that accrue to criminals dealing in this, plus a reduction in associated anti-social behaviour, linked prostitution, violence, burglary and so on. Plus increased tax income through the sale of these drugs and less hospitalisation/deaths of users taking drugs of unknown quality.

Indeed, one could almost argue that it is the authorities current stance on drugs that is criminal.

PS. Blogger U14147588 argues that chemists may not be the best place to sell these legalised drugs and I agree, for example, at the beginning of the internal combustion engine era, petrol was sold in tins via chemists. So it may be that another type of outlet might be more suitable for selling drugs which are currently illegal. But first the drugs need to be decriminalised.

Roll_on_2010

What planet does Mr Johnson live on?

One can only presume form his latest announcements that he has extended his prior lack of self belief (he indicated he was not up to the prime minister role some months ago) and is now declaring himself to be a fully paid up member of the Jacqui Smith Party - all members being 'not fit for purpose'

These newlbaour ministers are falling on their own swords faster than a falling on a sword thing.

Jacqui is saying she's not fit for the House of Lords (House of Cards, maybe). Miliband is considering a position in the graveyard of all political graveyards the EU; effectively ruling him out of either a leadership challenge or parliamentary newlabour politics. Now we have the spector of the Home Office minister saying the government's immigration policy is all at sea.

What a shower. There is no other word for these timorous beasties. But I'm afraid they are showing all the signs of any sports team with a rubbish capatin; morale disintigrates; the will to fight on disappears; self examination sets in and the game becomes totally unwinnable as the team descends into infighting.

Brown already has his place in history as the chancellor that sold gold, wrecked the pension system, taxed more than any ever before, spent more than any ever before, got less result htan any ever before, but he now adds to this list the worst leadership ever shown in this country.

How could anyone stand in front of a group of war veterans in France, all mourning their lost friends and colleagues sixty years ago and refer to the landings at 'Obama' beach. The answer is Gordon Brown; a man without style, class, shame or pity. Truly a boy in a man's job; but that's what you get when you choose as the party leader someone who played student politics.

Call an election.

#85 General_Jack_Ripper

"If Cannabis was legally produced, under licence and sold to adults only and then taxed at a similar level to alcohol and tobacco it would generate billions of pounds of taxation that would easily cover the costs to the NHS and any other government agency that would be dealing with the effects of drugs"

So, are you saying it is OK for the state to exploit drug users for financial gain? Perhaps you don't think the misery that drug abuse can cause should be a factor?

According to a report by the Royal Collage of Psychiatrists on the subject of Cannabis and Mental Health: (see here)

"Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?

Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents."

The report goes on....

"Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26"

You say: "We have all of these costs now but because of prohibition the profits are all going to criminals instead of going into the legal market and no tax is being generated to cover these costs.

This sounds like the old "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" argument. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you might as well have no laws at all.

You say "People like you are the reason we've got gangs ruining the country because you're too blinded by your ignorance...."

I think hurling insults doesn't really advance your cause. You ask "what harm I am doing to society by having a few spliffs at home with my friends ?". Obviously I don't know if it is connected in any way, but you might want to consider the irrational outbursts of anger.

DistantTraveller @ 99

You reference a report which states that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability.

Recent developments in genetics can unravel our personal genetic code, which means that we can, in theory, now be pre-screened for our susceptibility or otherwise to various drugs, including cannabis and alcohol.

Seems like a sensible first step to me before embarking on adventures of a drug orientated sort.