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...."

I agree with that WoT, it reduces the message. They know this is a problem with young people, all their friends are doing whatever with no probs, but govt message is it is super dangerous. So the message gets diluted for the drugs which really are dangerous. Bit like crying wolf.

Lets face it though, very few drugs are that dangerous if you are sensible. There is a big difference between drug use and drug abuse.

Some are very very addictive though. Unfortunately nicotine and alcohol are amongst the worst

that wasn't my point.

Thing is, if they're all legal, then you can concentrate on educating in how to use them sensibly.

I've posted on 3littlefrogs' thread.

yes, I agree. I know far more people who have died from liver cirrhosis/smoking linked cancer than from drug use.
which is 3little frogs' thead?

She's put a link in a few posts ago about tobacco and alcohol.

but that is the issue - what is meant by harm? in any discussion about drug use we have to consider the different elements of harm. i.e harm to the individual, harm to society, the cost of treatment, cost of crime, physical harm, emotional harm - the list goes on.

there is a world of difference between experimental, recreational and dependent drug use. obviously the risk of 'harm' (however you define it) increases with regular drug use.

i don't believe that there is any such thing as 'safe' drug use - the stimulant group of drugs puts tremendous pressure on the heart for example. obviously the risks increase with regular use, increased dosage etc. but i don't believe that anyone could say that, for example, cocaine is not harmful. you can reduce the harm associcated with cocaine use - by not using it too often, not drinking alcohol with cocaine etc. but you can't make it NOT harmful. as i have said imn my previous post the effects of any drug will be dependent on a number of elements - how much is taken, how it is taken, what else is being used, frame of mind of the user etc.

and the discussion here is kind of presuming that people will only use one drug at a time. the reality is that most drug users will use more than one drug - cocaine and alcohol, heroin and crack, heroin and alcohol etc.

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.....

Not true. cannibis people sell weed. coke people sell coke., the twain rarely meet. Generally people that sell drugs are swamped with buyers, and don't have to make any effort on the marketing front, or indeed do anything beyond the most basic retail (ie, sell at more than price bought for) in order to make a good profit.

one probable exception to this is skank dealers, i have heard of free samples being put through peoples doors in sink estates. That would never happen for weed, E or coke. (for one thing, weed & E don't create physical dependency, and why give away coke when you can sell at £50 per gramme?)

E is widely used.. any club can measure its use by sales of bottled water (and requests for tap water in a glass)

whilst still a carefree youth, i knew plenty of people taking it every weekend...and only one horse-rider!

isn't there also a slight discrepancy in the law, if outright suicide isn't illegal, but doing things which may, in the long term, be harmful, are proscribed by the nanny state (some with 10-15 yr jail terms merely for personal use?)

There are lots and lots of people who have done loads and loads of LSD and ecstacy Dittany and not suffered any particular ill effects (bar possibly fucking with their seratonin levels in the latter). Believe me, if there was something that was going to kill you in MDMA they would have found it by now.

I completely disagree that he was being political. He is arguing against classification being influenced by politics, and remaining linked to risk. If politicians can move things up and down the classification system at will, there doesn't really seem any point in having it. Imagine (I know it's rather far-fetched but for the sake of argument) that our PM's personal wealth was funded by opium poppy production. In that scenario, heroin could be downgraded because it was politically expedient.

It sets a very dangerous precedent IMO.

It seems to me that most of the problems with drugs are that they are illegal - having to buy from dealers, being impure, lack of information on dosage and safety. If drugs are so dangerous then why on earth are they being left int the hands of criminals? That's what I don't understand.

That's your opinion dittany, it's not true. I'm sure I can't convince you but you might want to do some research

So you believe that classification should be based on political will rather than facts?

The table here places all available recreational (both legal and illegal) drugs in order of harm. That seems a sensible way of organising it.

Think he has an over inflated idea about his own importance. Of course policy isn't always dictated by scientific evidence as there are also socio-economic reasons not to re classify drugs.

Agree with Dittany. It isn't whether the research is or isn't true, it has to do with the remit. His role was to advise the government about drugs. A politican's role is policy.

Just because one's advice isn't taken, doesn't mean that one should resign or throw a massive tantrum.

The bit where you said 'off their heads' dittany. My sister would be off her head on one glass of wine. Just because it has little impact on you as a regular drinker doesn't mean it's not potent!

While I agree that socio-economic reasons should be taken into accout ilovemydog, I can't see any particular ones that exist to reclassify cannabis. The government table says that the classification is related to risk. The table I posted is absolute risk ie how harmful the substance is. It doesn't take into account socio-economic factors.

There is no way on earth alcohol wouldn't be classed as B if it were a new drug, no way at all. In fact, it might even make it to A.

sure....not all dealers will try and get you on crack cocaine...but it does happen...

quite a few people i know who started on cannabis are now on hard drugs....all down to the dealer they were with...

just my experience....

I wasn't talking about making anything legal. And I don't partake in any illegal drugs thank you.

I think we should probably agree to disagree - my point is all about the potency of legal drugs, rather than illegal ones. I think perhaps I should go to the other thread