This government scares me more and more each day....

[ronnie]

Just heard that he's been sacked over all of this... wtf? 

yeah what the FUCK!! that makes me really really angry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8334774.stm

For anyone who watched question time last night, this probably doesn't come as a surprise. Jacqui Smith wasn't exactly singing his praises.

[Tekton]

Just heard that he's been sacked over all of this... wtf? 

yeah what the FUCK!! that makes me really really angry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8334774.stm

For anyone who watched question time last night, this probably doesn't come as a surprise. Jacqui Smith wasn't exactly singing his praises.

Do you reckon Labour have just decided 'Fuck it' and are going for the worst general election results possible?

[Bongo_Clive]

Just heard that he's been sacked over all of this... wtf?  

yeah what the FUCK!! that makes me really really angry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8334774.stm

For anyone who watched question time last night, this probably doesn't come as a surprise. Jacqui Smith wasn't exactly singing his praises.

Do you reckon Labour have just decided 'Fuck it' and are going for the worst general election results possible?

This guy will not go quietly, good on him!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8335189.stm

Maybe Gordon got a taste for record breaking with all the crazy ones he was breaking in the recession, and now wants to see if he can get the worst result ever

[Dan Alive!]

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

Here is a petition asking the one-eyed Scottish fúhrer to reinstate Prof. Nutt. Please sign it will yer? Gwarn!

[Koast (Central Spillz)]

Alan Johnson reckons he sacked him because you can't have a government adviser briefing against government policy... but if that policy is meant to be guided by his advice, which is then ignored, what else is the man supposed to do?! Ridiculous. Not that the Tories would have done any different in this case

[Koast (Central Spillz)]

Just heard that he's been sacked over all of this... wtf? 

yeah what the FUCK!! that makes me really really angry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8334774.stm

For anyone who watched question time last night, this probably doesn't come as a surprise. Jacqui Smith wasn't exactly singing his praises.

Do you reckon Labour have just decided 'Fuck it' and are going for the worst general election results possible?

To be honest, this might actually get them some support from blinkered, middle England twats... they'll see it as being tough on drugs/crime/whatever Daily Mail inspired hype they're on this week

[tko]

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

Here is a petition asking the one-eyed Scottish fúhrer to reinstate Prof. Nutt. Please sign it will yer? Gwarn!

Alan Johnson would have to resign if they reinstated him and that aint gonna happen, internet petition or not.

[Koast (Central Spillz)]

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

Here is a petition asking the one-eyed Scottish fúhrer to reinstate Prof. Nutt. Please sign it will yer? Gwarn!

Alan Johnson would have to resign if they reinstated him and that aint gonna happen, internet petition or not.

Internet petition + Facebook group might do it though

[Dan Alive!]

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

Here is a petition asking the one-eyed Scottish fúhrer to reinstate Prof. Nutt. Please sign it will yer? Gwarn!

Alan Johnson would have to resign if they reinstated him and that aint gonna happen, internet petition or not.

Well yeah, but what you just said basically translates as "it aint gonna go your way so don't waste your breath", which is the central tenet of political apathy. If these people are going to act in a way that doesn't sit pretty with any reasonable proportion of the electorate then they should be made well aware of the concerns of whatever proportion of people oppose their actions.

[tko]

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

Here is a petition asking the one-eyed Scottish fúhrer to reinstate Prof. Nutt. Please sign it will yer? Gwarn!

Alan Johnson would have to resign if they reinstated him and that aint gonna happen, internet petition or not.

Well yeah, but what you just said basically translates as "it aint gonna go your way so don't waste your breath", which is the central tenet of political apathy. If these people are going to act in a way that doesn't sit pretty with any reasonable proportion of the electorate then they should be made well aware of the concerns of whatever proportion of people oppose their actions.

Internet petitions are completely and utterly worthless IMO

[Dan Alive!]

Just heard that he's been sacked over all of this... wtf? 

yeah what the FUCK!! that makes me really really angry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8334774.stm

For anyone who watched question time last night, this probably doesn't come as a surprise. Jacqui Smith wasn't exactly singing his praises.

Do you reckon Labour have just decided 'Fuck it' and are going for the worst general election results possible?

To be honest, this might actually get them some support from blinkered, middle England twats... they'll see it as being tough on drugs/crime/whatever Daily Mail inspired hype they're on this week

Well yeah, when folk say that reclassification has been done for "political reasons" thats what they mean; the entire undecided chunk of voters (i.e. those with no conviction who are easily swayed by sensationalism) already think that:

1. drugs are bad, mmmkay
2. the "war on drugs" as we know it is the safest most effective way to tackle drug problems
3. Alcohol and tobacco are, by divine intervention, not the same as "other" drugs

And any government with any political skill will realise that its easier to pander to these foolish idiots (whom by the way transcend all age and class boundaries, and are bound into a common group by one thing alone; IQ) than to re-educate them. Politicians are way too clever to actually think that the current system is a good one. But they're also too politically astute to change it after successive regimes spent literally decades persuading everyone that the "war" was a good idea.

@tko: they are no more or less worthless than a paper petition. Its a little easier to get media coverage when you're hand-delivering 150,000 sheets of A4 to Downing Street but aside from that they're the same. They are "pointless" in that they have no sort of constitutional place in government, but they are highly visible and therefore a worthy way of noting various opinions.

[tko]

@tko: they are no more or less worthless than a paper petition. Its a little easier to get media coverage when you're hand-delivering 150,000 sheets of A4 to Downing Street but aside from that they're the same. They are "pointless" in that they have no sort of constitutional place in government, but they are highly visible and therefore a worthy way of noting various opinions.

I suppose it was an internet petition that got the Wispa bar reinstated so I should not underestimate their effectiveness.

[Dan Alive!]

@tko: they are no more or less worthless than a paper petition. Its a little easier to get media coverage when you're hand-delivering 150,000 sheets of A4 to Downing Street but aside from that they're the same. They are "pointless" in that they have no sort of constitutional place in government, but they are highly visible and therefore a worthy way of noting various opinions.

I suppose it was an internet petition that got the Wispa bar reinstated so I should not underestimate their effectiveness.

*chortle* The problem with Downing Street petitions is they are almost always about reversing things that have already been done, or changing things that have recently been decided and put into action. Nobody ever jumps the gun with petitions, they're always reactive. And changing anything in British politics thats already been decided is a nightmare. Had 30,000 people registered their support for Prof Nutt before he was sacked methinks it would never have happened.

[B'Tol]

As has been stated, there is too much of a vested interest in there being enough illegal drugs...

It keeps the Police in work, keeps solicitors in work, it keeps Barristers in work.

All the same, I'm on the petition.

 

[Trix - Bass Honey]

As has been stated, there is too much of a vested interest in there being enough illegal drugs...

It keeps the Police in work, keeps solicitors in work, it keeps Barristers in work.

All the same, I'm on the petition.

 

[tko]

If you want to read a fair and balanced debate on this subject:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Outrage-sacking-drugs-advisor-David-Nutt/article-1472349-detail/article.html#StartComments

[Dan Alive!]

If you want to read a fair and balanced debate on this subject:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Outrage-sacking-drugs-advisor-David-Nutt/article-1472349-detail/article.html#StartComments

EP comments section lol. I dunno even if you were being serious there cos there is one or two obviously-not-idiot folk posting on there but there's so much detritus in between the good posts I can't bring myself to read enough to find out of you were being sarcastic.

[★]

2 more of the advisors have not stepped down and more are due to hand in their notice after this. 

[JE:5]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ecstacy-is-mental,-says-drugs-czar-200910302184/

[Ewan Hoozami]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ecstacy-is-mental,-says-drugs-czar-200910302184/

 

[Dan Alive!]

"Nevertheless I think Es should be downgraded from Class A to something that gets put in drinking water."

 

[steve rice]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ecstacy-is-mental,-says-drugs-czar-200910302184/

very good

[bloke]

i also found that most amusing, has anyone sent it to dr nutt? might cheer him up, i thought some of his ex students were on here

[Spit]

"Fr
The Home Secretary, the Right Honourable Alan Johnson MP

Dear Professor Nutt

In previous correspondence with you the Government has highlighted the value that we place on receiving high quality scientific advice from the ACMD

It is precisely for this reason that we asked you to find evidence in support of a pre-determined Government policy that was acceptable to readers of the tabloid press. Your total failure in this regard raises doubts about your independence as a scientific advisor.

Not only have you singularly failed to produce the requested evidence, you have not even attempted to distort existing evidence. There has been no massaging of the statistics, no exaggeration of the significance of minor studies and anecdotal testimony, no attempt to suppress embarrassing data. All contrary to established Government practise. Indeed, I am left wondering what qualifications you have to fulfil this high profile role or whether you have any proper understanding of the role of science in informing policy decisions.

You may wish to take a leaf out of Sir John Scarlett's book. Sir John was given the far more demanding task of finding evidence of WMDs in Iraq, a task that he performed masterfully, working closely with such distinguished professionals as the Prime Minister's press secretary. The resultant dossier was widely regarded as the definitive statement of the threat posed by the then Iraqi regime, and doubted only by some dodgy journalists and one rather eccentric weapons expert, both of whom were soon disposed of. You will note that Sir John's career has blossomed thanks to this fine tradition of public service.

Your recent remarks have highlighted comparable risks among legal drugs and sporting activities. This is totally unacceptable. It is not your role to go around informing people about things and giving them facts. It completely undermines government policy. All of the evidence must be presented to the public through trusted, Right Honourable statesmen, such as myself.

It is for these reasons that I have lost all confidence in your ability to provide me with the evidence that the Government would like to see. Nor do I trust you to keep your trap shut about the true state of affairs.

I would therefore ask you to step down from the council with immediate effect."



 

[apathesis]

I think the whole drug legalisation thing can be put neatly into context when you ask the question:

When have you EVER heard anyone say "oh I'd love to try [some drug] but it's illegal so I'm not going to" ?

[The T.I.B.]

I just skim-read this thread again and you're all just agreeing with each other. Which is cool, just not very Hijack.

Will you be keeping up the agreeing for much longer? I much prefer the threads when someone inadvertently slags off something like hippies or fascists or something and about a million people wade in to set them straight.

Failing that we have to just bang on about music again

[★]

Stats from a study by the university of london.
Last year alcohol directly caused 7341 deaths, cigarettes caused 114000.
Ecstasy caused 12 and there were no known deaths caused from cannabis...

[Dan Alive!]

Stats from a study by the university of london.
Last year alcohol directly caused 7341 deaths, cigarettes caused 114000.
Ecstasy caused 12 and there were no known deaths caused from cannabis...

afaik there isn't a single recorded direct death from cannabis in the history of since we started paying attention.... However, some percentage of "cigarette" deaths are no doubt associated with joints mixed with tobacco. Also if you looked at the results as a percentage of users then the alcohol and ecstacy figures would be closer than they appear when viewed as a straight count.

Everything is bad for you in excess, even water. But we're adults, we can be trusted to decide on our own what we do with our spare time. As long as the behaviour we indulge in only poses a direct risk to ourselves and not to anyone else then whats the problem?

[B'Tol]

Stats from a study by the university of london.
Last year alcohol directly caused 7341 deaths, cigarettes caused 114000.
Ecstasy caused 12 and there were no known deaths caused from cannabis...

afaik there isn't a single recorded direct death from cannabis in the history of since we started paying attention.... However, some percentage of "cigarette" deaths are no doubt associated with joints mixed with tobacco. Also if you looked at the results as a percentage of users then the alcohol and ecstacy figures would be closer than they appear when viewed as a straight count.

Everything is bad for you in excess, even water. But we're adults, we can be trusted to decide on our own what we do with our spare time. As long as the behaviour we indulge in only poses a direct risk to ourselves and not to anyone else then whats the problem?

Of course, but to assume that by simply ingesting Ecstacy yourself that you are not effecting the lives of others directly (more so for drugs such as Cocaine) is ruddy madness my good man.

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious hardship and exploitation that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "street drug".

[Dan Alive!]

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious fairly paid work and fairtrade practice that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "drug we can buy in Boots the chemist".

fixed for what the situation would be if it were legalised and controlled.

[Tekton]

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious fairly paid work and fairtrade practice that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "drug we can buy in Boots the chemist".

fixed for what the situation would be if it were legalised and controlled.

Things aren't that simple though old Noodlekins. Illegal timber still makes it to the legal market as would cocaine etc. Theres always some sketchy types willing to make a buck by fiddling papers and bending rules.

[steve rice]

Stats from a study by the university of london.
Last year alcohol directly caused 7341 deaths, cigarettes caused 114000.
Ecstasy caused 12 and there were no known deaths caused from cannabis...

afaik there isn't a single recorded direct death from cannabis in the history of since we started paying attention.... However, some percentage of "cigarette" deaths are no doubt associated with joints mixed with tobacco. Also if you looked at the results as a percentage of users then the alcohol and ecstacy figures would be closer than they appear when viewed as a straight count.

Everything is bad for you in excess, even water. But we're adults, we can be trusted to decide on our own what we do with our spare time. As long as the behaviour we indulge in only poses a direct risk to ourselves and not to anyone else then whats the problem?

So to follow that argument to it's logical conclusion..
you could take ecstacy and smoke dope all day long..not eat properly and lose your job and all social contact with others...never see your family and loved ones unless they came to see you  and as long as you didn't die you would not be hurting anyone.

  We all have a responsibility to care for ourselves for there are others who care for us too and who might be dependant on us for support and guidance and as an example

[Koast (Central Spillz)]

So to follow that argument to it's logical conclusion..
you could take ecstacy and smoke dope all day long..not eat properly and lose your job and all social contact with others...never see your family and loved ones unless they came to see you  and as long as you didn't die you would not be hurting anyone.

  We all have a responsibility to care for ourselves for there are others who care for us too and who might be dependant on us for support and guidance and as an example

While I fully agree with the sentiment of the second paragraph, with regard to your argument above it, could you not say EXACTLY the same thing about people who drink their lives away?! Of which I'm sure there are equal/greater numbers than people who spend all day getting lean... Which kind of brings it back round full circle to Nutt's argument about the artificial separation of booze (and tobacco) from illegal drugs

[Koast (Central Spillz)]

Of course, but to assume that by simply ingesting Ecstacy yourself that you are not effecting the lives of others directly (more so for drugs such as Cocaine) is ruddy madness my good man.

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious hardship and exploitation that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "street drug".

You do realise your argument is actually playing into the hands of the anti-reform camp... you're obviously putting E's & coke on a similar level (or applying the same arguments to both anyway), which flies in the face of the report which has caused the whole controversy... Nutt NEVER disputed how harmful cocaine & heroin were, but argued that ecstasy & weed need re-evaluating. But I get the impression you may have been playing devils advocate...

[alex fata]

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious fairly paid work and fairtrade practice that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "drug we can buy in Boots the chemist".

fixed for what the situation would be if it were legalised and controlled.

Things aren't that simple though old Noodlekins. Illegal timber still makes it to the legal market as would cocaine etc. Theres always some sketchy types willing to make a buck by fiddling papers and bending rules.

So we should outlaw timber then? and fight a 'war on timber'  to bring down all the illegal wood traffickers?
Personally i think more harm is done in the world by pharmaceutical companies - that develop drugs, test them on people in poor areas, often with disasterous results and then once they are finally safe, sell them at exclusively high prices so most of the world cant afford them - than cocaine dealers.

that may be a slight over exageration, but still, every industry has its cunts, legal or illegal

[Kitty]

Personally i think more harm is done in the world by pharmaceutical companies - that develop drugs, test them on people in poor areas, often with disasterous results and then once they are finally safe, sell them at exclusively high prices so most of the world cant afford them - than cocaine dealers.

that may be a slight over exageration, but still, every industry has its cunts, legal or illegal

Bit of a strange comparison to make...even if pharmaceutical companies do have some shit ethical aspects to them, the end product is a drug that will benefit the health & wellbeing of lots of people, whereas cocaine has zero positive impact on society.

[Block Party]

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious fairly paid work and fairtrade practice that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "drug we can buy in Boots the chemist".

fixed for what the situation would be if it were legalised and controlled.

Things aren't that simple though old Noodlekins. Illegal timber still makes it to the legal market as would cocaine etc. Theres always some sketchy types willing to make a buck by fiddling papers and bending rules.

So we should outlaw timber then?

Hell yeh, think of all those people who die in fires because of timber.

[Dan Alive!]

Stats from a study by the university of london.
Last year alcohol directly caused 7341 deaths, cigarettes caused 114000.
Ecstasy caused 12 and there were no known deaths caused from cannabis...

afaik there isn't a single recorded direct death from cannabis in the history of since we started paying attention.... However, some percentage of "cigarette" deaths are no doubt associated with joints mixed with tobacco. Also if you looked at the results as a percentage of users then the alcohol and ecstacy figures would be closer than they appear when viewed as a straight count.

Everything is bad for you in excess, even water. But we're adults, we can be trusted to decide on our own what we do with our spare time. As long as the behaviour we indulge in only poses a direct risk to ourselves and not to anyone else then whats the problem?

So to follow that argument to it's logical conclusion..
you could take ecstacy and smoke dope all day long..not eat properly and lose your job and all social contact with others...never see your family and loved ones unless they came to see you  and as long as you didn't die you would not be hurting anyone.

  We all have a responsibility to care for ourselves for there are others who care for us too and who might be dependant on us for support and guidance and as an example

I agree. We have a moral imperative to remain functional and useful members of society. But morals are a personal thing. We should help each other, in a social context, to lead good moral lives. But the law should enforce ethics. Ethics are measurable, objective things. They're easy to prescribe widely. Its unethical to kill a person, for example. But morals are more personal. To me making it illegal to take ecstacy is broadly equivalent to making it illegal to masturbate; its only a problem if you do nothing else all day, other than that its a choice we should be free to make. Finding a happy limit, not living to excess, doing things in moderation; these are things that are best learned and enforced as part of a societal norm, the same way its not illegal to be unemployed but most of us have jobs because thats how we were raised.

[Soash]

imo, morality does not come into the 'Drug question'. There are simply taxed drugs, and untaxed drugs. Nitrous ban anyone? Why's that? People dropping dead from balloons, or government angst that they do not receive a penny from it's sale?

Drug dealers = bad people

Doctors that prescribe your Granny needless medication, based on the fact that they are on commission from pharmecutical companies = bad people

If the government wanted to really bring the war to the dealers, they would be sending their agents straight to the doors of Glaxo-Kline Smith.h

[alex fata]

Personally i think more harm is done in the world by pharmaceutical companies - that develop drugs, test them on people in poor areas, often with disasterous results and then once they are finally safe, sell them at exclusively high prices so most of the world cant afford them - than cocaine dealers.

that may be a slight over exageration, but still, every industry has its cunts, legal or illegal

Bit of a strange comparison to make...even if pharmaceutical companies do have some shit ethical aspects to them, the end product is a drug that will benefit the health & wellbeing of lots of people, whereas cocaine has zero positive impact on society.

I suppose i was more making a general point that in any given industry you have massively immoral practises that should, arguably, be illegal (not wanting to open a whole new can of worms), comparing pharmaceuticals to illegal logging practices, rather than comparing the production of medicine to recreational drugs...

[ronnie]

Good piece from Dr Nutt in the New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18099-david-nutt-governments-should-get-real-on-drugs.html

[Ewan Hoozami]

Good piece from Dr Nutt in the New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18099-david-nutt-governments-should-get-real-on-drugs.html

Fascinating article 

These paragraphs I particularly like:

"No one doubts that heavy users of marijuana are risking trouble with their mental health. What I have simply pointed out is that we need a consistent policy, recognising that heavy users of alcohol and tobacco are more numerous and are causing themselves – and others – even more trouble through their indulgence."

And

"The current British government has said repeatedly that it wants its policies to be evidence-based, but actions speak louder than words. On ecstasy, for example, it made policy first, sought advice second – and cynically rejected the advice it was given. The result is shambolic policy-making which gives great cause for concern if that is how governments operate more generally.

The results of a government inventing its own reality and acting on it can be seen in the appalling consequences the George W. Bush presidency had for world peace, the environment and human rights. The message for the British government is a simple one: don't exclude rational argument in order to exploit a visceral public response. Politicians have to win the hearts and minds of their electorate. If your policy is informed by an underlying moral imperative, be open about what that is, and don't try to disguise it with a veneer of pseudo-science. We ignore scientific evidence at our peril."

[zenzic]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/drug-body-fatally-flawed-says-sacked-chairman-1814552.html

He's said

that he was taking seriously an anonymous supporter's offer to fund an alternative expert group that would operate without any interference from ministers.

[Dan Alive!]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/drug-body-fatally-flawed-says-sacked-chairman-1814552.html

He's said

that he was taking seriously an anonymous supporter's offer to fund an alternative expert group that would operate without any interference from ministers.

GO SCIENCE! ITS YOUR BIRTHDAY!   

[B'Tol]

Of course, but to assume that by simply ingesting Ecstacy yourself that you are not effecting the lives of others directly (more so for drugs such as Cocaine) is ruddy madness my good man.

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious hardship and exploitation that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "street drug".

You do realise your argument is actually playing into the hands of the anti-reform camp... you're obviously putting E's & coke on a similar level (or applying the same arguments to both anyway), which flies in the face of the report which has caused the whole controversy... Nutt NEVER disputed how harmful cocaine & heroin were, but argued that ecstasy & weed need re-evaluating. But I get the impression you may have been playing devils advocate...

Not at all - my point is that the PRODUCTION of the drug exploits others... coke is the most pertinent example, but it goes for MDMA (which is back btw)... they rely on someone being exploited in order to be made street drugs.

I'm not classifying them in terms of being as dangerous as each other... they just both have folks who get fucked over in order to be created.

[ZatOichi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6493671/Gordon-Brown-backs-sacking-of-chief-drugs-adviser-Prof-David-Nutt.html

He said the Government could not risk sending out the message that it was acceptable for young people to experiment with cannabis, as this could lead to more becoming addicted to hard drugs.

FFS, legalise it, regulate it , tax it.

Get cannabis out of the underworld away from the hard drugs. (and maybe stop people growing that social skill destroying cronik)


Gordon brown, you are a dick head.

[Dan Alive!]

(and maybe stop people growing that social skill destroying cronik)

Nooooooooooooo! Without my high grade I'd have to go outside!!!! 


 

[Alkemy]

Reply from the government e-petition (got those things are pointless!!)

Thank you for your e-petition which calls for the reinstatement of Professor David Nutt as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

In his statement to the House of Commons on 2 November 2009, the Home Secretary informed the House that he asked Professor Nutt to resign as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs because he had lost confidence in Professor Nutt’s ability to undertake this important role.

The Home Secretary recognises that the advice of independent scientific advisers is essential to the Government’s work.  The role of such advisers is to provide independent advice to Government based on their professional, scientific expertise.

The role of Government is to consider that advice carefully, along with all other relevant factors, such as public perceptions, and it is for Parliament to endorse or reject the Government’s decisions where appropriate.

The Chair of the Council has to be able to accept those decisions and continue his work as an adviser to, rather than a critic of, government.

Members of the Council of course have the right as academics to express their views on drug risks. What they cannot do is lobby against the decisions taken by ministers in relation to drugs.

The Government accepts that its commitment to evidence-based policy making on the important issue of drug misuse and in many other areas can only continue with high quality scientific evidence underpinning it.  Principles on scientific advice to Government to ensure effective engagement between the Government and those who provide independent scientific and engineering advice are currently out for consultation. A revised, agreed set of rules governing scientific advisory bodies will then be put into practice by the Government in its dealings with all such bodies.

In relation to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Home Secretary has agreed specific ways of working, supported with mutual commitments. These are set out in a joint statement that was issued on 10 November 2009, following his meeting with the Council. They agreed that it is important to concentrate efforts on ensuring that the best advice is available to government on drug misuse with the common purpose of reducing drug-related harms in the UK.

Professor Les Iversen was appointed in January 2010 as interim chair for 12 months.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22548

[jay nom]

I went to school with Dr Nutts kids.


on a different theme but just as scary..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

[Dan Alive!]

Of course, but to assume that by simply ingesting Ecstacy yourself that you are not effecting the lives of others directly (more so for drugs such as Cocaine) is ruddy madness my good man.

It's not just the act of taking said drug, it's the obvious hardship and exploitation that goes in to their growing, harvesting and transformation in to the "street drug".

You do realise your argument is actually playing into the hands of the anti-reform camp... you're obviously putting E's & coke on a similar level (or applying the same arguments to both anyway), which flies in the face of the report which has caused the whole controversy... Nutt NEVER disputed how harmful cocaine & heroin were, but argued that ecstasy & weed need re-evaluating. But I get the impression you may have been playing devils advocate...

Not at all - my point is that the PRODUCTION of the drug exploits others... coke is the most pertinent example, but it goes for MDMA (which is back btw)... they rely on someone being exploited in order to be made street drugs.

I'm not classifying them in terms of being as dangerous as each other... they just both have folks who get fucked over in order to be created.

Standard positive feedback situation. The current regulation creates conditions which can be used as "evidence" to reinforce the validity of the current regulation.... The minute you legalise and tax pills this argument falls to dust. Seeing as most schools of thought say that, psychologically, prohibition just doesn't stop people it is an entirely fair argument that prohibition causes this problem.