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...."

scary - i disagree that the table is absolute i.e how harmful each substance is.

as i have said heroin is not particularly harmful to the body - hence it is still widely used medicinally today. cocaine puts the body, particulary the heart, under tremendous strain - it is no longer widely used medicinally.

if heroin is more harmful than cocaine, as the table suggests, then why is it not as widely used in modern medicine. it is, after all, an effective local anaesthetic (which is why it is also more dodgy to inject than heroin - it numbs the injecting site).

sorry -
that should read 'why is cociane not as widely used in modern medicine'

maryz - that's so tragic. I am so, so sorry.

I was pretty dependent on weed for a while, would do pretty much anything to get it, ended up sacked from my job because of it, in debt etc etc. I would rather have bought weed than food.

But that wasn't the weed making me do it, it was me. I used to smoke weed to help me sleep as I had horrendous nightmares which kept me awake night after night. Cannabis isn't physically addictive, unlike caffeine, nicotine and alcohol. I also think it's unlikely that cannabis made your ds' friend kill himself. Depression in teens is a terrifying thing, but IMO the cannabis use is a symptom not a cause.

"i think if you smoke enough weed for long enough, it could cause lung cancer"

Actually, cannabis/weed doesn't seem to cause cancer. People tend to smoke it with tobacco, though, which does.

Perhaps we should all read the Science Select Committee report which is linked to on the same page.

maryz - I am so sorry about your son. I think cannabis can turn bright young people into human beanbags who do nothing other that sit in darkened rooms. It can be terrible. I was talking about the fact that it is virtually impossible to overdose on cannabis, rather than the fact that it can destroy someone ambitions.

Cote - inhaling any smoke means you're inhaling carcinogens. You could be smoking oregano and eventually it'll give you cancer! More likely to be mouth cancer though, not lung, I think.

ceres - re "you could take it a step further and say that heroin is not harmful. because, actually, as a drug it isn't terribly harmful. the harm comes from the way in which it is used..."

That is very wrong. Heroin creates a very powerful addiction and thoroughly messes up pain/pleasure mechanism of the brain. Without a regular dose, actual physical pain results, which should give you an idea of just how deeply the physical harm goes. This pushes the addict to do anything to procure the next fix. People often turn to prostitution when all financial resources dry up.

Compare this to, say, LSD or ecstasy, which don't create addiction, don't cause withdrawal syndromes, users don't do it every day, and if anyone has ever turned to prostitution to get a bit of LSD or ecstasy he is certainly a rare bird.

TAFKA - I thought the same as you, but research says otherwise. Cannabis does not cause cancer even when inhaled.

See here.

dittany - re "He just seems to be having a bit of a temper tantrum because they didn't do what he told them too"

No, actually, he had the "temper tantrum" because they fired him for speaking empirical truth.

still not sure why they sacked him...(haven't been following it that closely)

he was an advisor....all he did was provide the government with information....up to them what they did with it....why sack him..?

ceres - re "heroin is not particularly harmful to the body - hence it is still widely used medicinally today"

You would pretty much only be prescribed heroin (for pain relief) if you are already dying, and that is in the UK. In most other places, (like US) heroin isn't prescribed at all and other opiates (diamorphine, morphine, etc) are preferred.

Really, I would recommend giving up trying to compare heroin to recreational drugs like ecstasy or LSD.

thanks dittany...

"Arbitrary" - how, exactly? These chemicals have been in use for some decades and their harm or lack thereof is fairly obvious by now. Those ratings are given by experts, who would know a thing or two about the harm they cause. What exactly is your claim to authority in the subject that you can dismiss their collective ratings?

Cote - thanks for that! I thought that if you set fire to anything and inhaled it, it would produce carcinogens.

I can't remember who said it (further down the thread) but there is a big difference between drug use and drug abuse. I think that as long as you have accurate information about what drugs do to your brain chemistry you can counteract them pretty effectively and still have a good time using drugs recreationally.

For example, when I used to take ecstacy of a weekend, I would also take a supplement called 5-HTP which encourages your brain to make more seratonin. This meant that even though I took up to 10-15 pills in a weekend, I avoided the mid-week crash! We should be providing our kids with this sort of information, because, clearly, the "Drugs are baaaaad, mmm-kay," message doesn't work.

I assume what the government want is a puppet 'scientist' who will produce the 'right' evidence to support their own views rather than someone who thinks independently. The government are a joke and their policies on drugs even more so

So - urbandryad - if you took 10-15 pills in a weeekend, were you off your head for the entire weekend?

spicemonster - oh heeeeeeeell yes! I would start on a Saturday evening and take pills throughout the night and through to Sunday morning, then spend Monday recovering (used to work Tues - Sat).

Of course, once you're past 5 or so pills, all you're doing is delaying the come down.

It's not something that I would advise doing, it's not all that fun, really, better to take half a pill, or 1 occasionally - then you don't build up the resistance that means you have to take more for it to have an effect.

I used to drop an acid tab in there too - LSD and MDMA is a fun mix! Double drop some pills and a tab, get some banging music and some like minded wreckheads people and you have a good weekend ahead!

I hasten to add - i wasn't doing this every weekend. I only did this maybe 5 or 6 times in total.

cote - not sure why you feel the need to be patronising.

are you aware that diamorphine IS heroin?

ceres - Sorry for typo. I didn't mean to write diamorphine there. It's used in UK for pain relief in dire situations, where patient is not expected to survive and hence where heroin's severe addiction and harm don't matter.

I'm sorry you feel patronized. In any case, the comparison you are attempting re heroin vs recreational drugs does not hold.

I'm assuming you don't have much of an experience with these substances, if any, in light of your posts. If so, you might like to listen to those of us who do. As with anything, those who have tried something tend to know a bit about it.

cote - you really shouldn't assume.

i have a lot of experience of addiction, specifically heroin addiction (ex-partner - heroin, speed, lsd, pretty much anything he could get into him). i also have a degree in addiction studies.

when you talk of 'recreational drugs' i think you mean the way in which drugs are used. drug USE may be recreational, yes even heroin may be used recreationally rather than dependently. i have already posted that there is a big difference between experimental, recreational and dependent drug use. i have also posted about the other factors that need to be considered when talking about drug related harm - who is using the drug, what else is being used, state of mind, amount, purity/impurity etc. all of these things affect the drug using experience.

you seem to eqaute heroin being addictive with heroin being harmful. not true - the addiction itself does not harm the addict. people can be maintained on medical heroin for years, what is harmful is the impurity of street heroin, poor injecting techniques, damage to the lungs from smoking heroin, the lifestyle people lead due to the criminality of heroin and getting money for the drug etc etc.

with any street drug you don't know what you are buying, there is no quality control - they are impure, the effects will vary depending on factors such as what else is being used, frame of mind......and the rest as i have posted already.

and you were being patronising again.

I am a staff nurse and everything I do has to be evidence-based. What on earth is my Health Minister doing???

I have only nursed in 31 years patients with illnessess relating to alcohol and cigarettes. Although I have nursed people with other drug use complications,I can count on one hand.I do belive though that it would be political suicide if Government announced that alcohol more harmful etc.

on a separate point, my gran was on prescribed opiates for about 50 years, and at the time of her death had 3* a lethal dose in her bloodstream. this did not affect her behaviour in any substantial way.

this is why illegality could be viewed as something contributory to the negative effects of heroin. It causes behaviour in the addict that is very harmful.

If you do not view illegality as something with negative effects - think of prohibition in the US - banning boze caused far far more trouble, crime and violence that having it legally available.

ruthie - i reckon if alcohol were introduced today it would be a class A. i don't know the figures but i bet that the cost to the NHS of alcohol related illnesses is far greater than the whole spectrum of drug related illnesses/complications.

i am not sure but i think there is more money for drug treatment than alcohol treatment - so more detox/residential places for drug users than alcohol users.