David Nutt tells it how it is and is sacked

[Jux]

So the Government don't like it when one of their advisors actually takes notice of real evidence which doesn't quite accord with their stated policies (even though they say they want debate) and so sack the guy who says "but hang on...."

Leah Betts died from drinking too much water. Not from taking ecstacy. Overdosing on cannabis is practicly impossible. It is perfectly possible however to drink yourself to death - over the course of a single evening.

practically even.

Your mind might boggle Ponders, but it's the truth

scary, "No one has ever died from cannabis or ecstacy use as far as I know. Mind boggles" was a quote from you! (My mind wasn't boggling even if yours was )

And as I (carefully) said, Leah B died after taking ecstasy - not specifically because of taking it, but plainly she wouldn't have died if she hadn't taken it, or do you think that was a coincidence?

Cannabis clearly affects people's judgment short-term, & does goodness knows what damage long-term...

Please note that I'm not disagreeing with his position.

People have died after taking paracetamol or aspirin as well. That doesn't justify the hysteria surrounding the subject of drug use.

In fact, looking at % mortality figures, ecstasy seems to be far safer than paracetamol, for example.

That is what David Nutt was talking about - that these substances are just not as dangerous as government tries to portray them to be. If you are against people having too much fun on a night out and having no energy to do anything but slump in front of TV the following day, say so. Don't try to push scientists into backing your false claims of danger in the hope that people will fall in line.

Here are the figures:

Since 1994 there have been approximately 400 deaths in which Ecstasy has been a contributory factor. In 2005 alone 8,836 deaths were alcohol-related and roughly 100 deaths each year are attributed to overdoses or adverse reactions to aspirin or paracetamol.

From an article in The Times.

I think what sort of democracy are we living in where people get sacked for coming up with something the government happened not to agree with it (and err who is the specialist here). Sounds less like a democracy and more like a police state (though he'd probably have been knocked off by now if that were the case. Although look at what happened to poor David Kelly).

I read something about his speech on Thursday and said to dh that his days were numbered. and yep, Friday he gets the sack.

I am appalled. the govt are complete intellectual pygmies when it comes to drugs policy. too busy pandering to the Daily Mail to devise policy based on scientific fact and serious, sensible analysis. Too afraid to actually tackle politically difficult issues. I can only conclude that they appoint advisory committees comprising people like Nutt - a professor at one of our best universities - not to actually listen, but as an exercise in spin - to be seen to listen. But this sacking seems to indicate that they want a committee who's primary function is to be "on message" in which case why don't they appoint an "advisory" committee made up of pollsters, pr gurus and journalists. completely pathetic.

Sorry Ponders - should read my own posts first.

Take your point but Leah Betts died because she was misinformed or misguided or whatever you want to call it but not because ecstacy is dangerous per se

And while cannabis may have indirectly contributed to people's deaths, I'm not aware that it's ever been directly attributable as a cause of death as alcohol and nicotine have.

This makes the government look a bit stupid and childish

I am delighted that he was sacked as he seems to be a clear-minded, intelligent, articulate bloke who has no fear of showing up the government for its blatant manipulation of research and data.

Good on him. What a guy.

Its certainly going to raise a few eyebrows.

I really wouldnt be surprised if he's shuffled off or forced to retract his statements.. i dont put anything above the government where their dictatorial drug policy is concerned.

erm, well i think if you smoke enough weed for long enough, it could cause lung cancer..

so people probably ave died of cannibis use, but not that many relative to the number that have smoked/eaten weed at least once.

i would have compared ecsatcy to eating peanuts myself...

though i know which is more fun.

ooh its jsut come on the radio..

that link was for alan johnson's home office contact email by the way.

didn't see you there! hope you are all well

well, you could take it a step further and say that heroin is not harmful. because, actually, as a drug it isn't terribly harmful. it is addictive, yes. but harmful? the harm comes from the way in which it is used - e.g. if it is injected then it can cause harm to the veins (particularly as most injecting drug users are'nt trained in good injecting techniques). other 'harm' factors come from sharing needles and, the biggy, impure/contaminated supplies.

and that is the same for ALL street drugs - you can argue that they aren't particularly harmful but street drugs are often not what they are sold as - i'm not talking urban myths such as heroin being sold laced with rat poisin (what dealer wants to kill their customer base?) but the fact that illicit drugs go through many hands and are often cut with god-knows-what along the way. unlike presription drugs there is no quality control.

the harm from drugs comes from many factors - who is using it, their frame of mind, the setting, the drug, what else is being used with it (alcohol, other drugs), how it is used etc.

it is far too simplistic to say that e.g. ecstacy is/isn't harmful.

I think the aspirin/paracetamol thing is a complete red herring - people don't generally take those recreationally, do they?

(Or do they? Am I missing out here?)

alcohol has always caused more personal/social problems than any drug ...problem with smoking cannabis is you need a drug dealer, and dealers will try and sell you harder drugs to make more money out of you..... that's why they are called drug "pushers"......if you're in a bar and ask for an orange juice, you won't get pushed a double brandy.

prolonged use of cannabis leads to serious mental health problems...

but agree, crazy that they sacked him.....but not suprising.

daftpunk - that's a bit of a myth tbh. I've bought cannabis and never once been offered anything else. doubtless I could have had it if I'd asked but it was never "pushed". (by contrast, I have been persuaded to have another drink/a stronger drink)

the reason that there's such a difference between buying alcohol and buying cannabis/ecstasy or, for that matter heroin is because the latter are sold by criminals...because they're illegal. I strongly believe in legalising the lot. take production and distribution away from criminals and treat users rather than criminalise them.

I'm not saying any of them are harmless, just that it's stupid trying to pretend that alcohol and nicotine are less dangerous because they're legal.

daftpunk - in my youth when I used to smoke cannabis no one ever tried to get me to do anything harder. Ever.

Another cannabis user here who has never been "pushed" on to anything else.

I agree it's outrageous that Prof Nutt has been sacked, but glad he's speaking out.

You can make your own booze (beer and wine, at least) at home, and grow your own tobacco. If the government permitted those who wish, to grow their own cannabis, that would remove both the "contact with criminals" issue and the "pusher" shite argument.

indoorgarderner - given your suggestion your mn name sounds rather apposite

DP I have at times found it very difficult to source recreational drugs. People tend to only deal in one or two things - so for eg if you go to a person who sells cannabis looking for cocaine you will probably come away disappointed. Most drug dealers are ordinary people who use a bit and deal a bit to make a little money/cover their costs.

It's not like they have a full pharmaceutical range in their back pocket. I have never had anything "pushed" either.

Meanwhile I have many times been goaded, encouraged etc into drinking too much. What are "all you can drink for a fiver", tequila nights, free drinks for laydees, happy hours, BOGOFs on beer in the supermarkets if not pushing alcohol?

Anyhoo yes terrible they sacked this bloke, inevitable really, as he wouldn't play along with the "all drugs terribly dangerous" message that govt and certain papers seem dead set on.

yes, and does anyone, for one second, believe the drinks industry when they say alco-pops aren't aimed at children young adults? alco-pops are a prime example of luring people into a life-long habit

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/138/852470-tobacco-and-alcohol?msgid=17356353#17356353

This is why I posted this thread yesterday.

When the 'ecstasy less dangerous then riding a horse' thing came out he commented that one problem with giving drugs higher classifications than they warrant was that the message can get skewed. People will say take half an ecstasy and be fine and assume that maybe other class As aren't really as bad as they are made out t be.
IME this does happen.

I've also never been 'pushed' to take anything other than that which I want.