Drugs...

[steakbake]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

The UK's chief drugs adviser has been sacked because his scientific advice conflicts with government policy.

This is an interesting one. So, should the government listen to expertise in the area or does it want to do what the public opinion wants and control the tabloid headlines?

Personally, I consider alcohol and tobacco to be some of the most harmful drugs around - alcohol is in a league of its own when it comes to destruction, availability, low cost access and the cost to the public purse of even clearing up the effects of it.

Madness.

[Betty Boop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

The UK's chief drugs adviser has been sacked because his scientific advice conflicts with government policy.

This is an interesting one. So, should the government listen to expertise in the area or does it want to do what the public opinion wants via tabloid headlines?

Personally, I consider alcohol and tobacco to be some of the most harmful drugs around - alcohol is in a league of its own when it comes to destruction, availability, low cost access and the cost to the public purse of even clearing up the effects of it.

Madness.

Just another example of the methods used by this totalitarian government. The messenger has been well and truly shot. :rolleyes:

[Jack]

He's a civil servant. His job is to carry out government policy.
What he said from his official position conflicts with government policy. He had to go.
He's the English adviser by the way not the UK as far as I am aware.

[Woody1985]

The only reason it is class C is because the streets were flooded with it.

It does have it's dangers and IMO should have stayed class B. I've seen people who have smoked for many years. You can be sitting with them for a whole night and they'll tell you the same stories 4 times and have no recollection of telling you. It makes people forget what they're saying half way through sentences and makes some paranoid.

On the contrary to that, I know guys that will smoke it first thing in the morning, all day, play football etc and show none of those symptoms.

Stange to say the least.

The irony of all this is that it's actually more expensive now and less widely available because dealers have started selling harder drugs where there is more profit.

[steakbake]

Just another example of the methods used by this totalitarian government. The messenger has been well and truly shot. :rolleyes:

Absolutely. If you don't like the considered advice you are getting, sack the adviser then get your broadcasting organisation to use soundbites from his research to make him sound ridiculous.

Everyone knows that ecstasy is more dangerous than horses. Statistically, horses are far more dangerous and kill more people per year than ecstasy but you know, doesn't make it true and all that and what about that girl who drank like her own body weight in water and drowned from the inside out... I mean, like, OMG!

IMHO, heroin should be available on prescription, you should be allowed your own plants for private consumption if that's what you wish to do and private companies should be allowed to make some recreational drugs (ecstasy, speed for example) under the same strict licensing conditions as pharmaceuticals.

Take it out of the hands of the dealers, get it into the public domain and you will disrupt a lucrative and crime-ridden black market.

[steakbake]

He's a civil servant. His job is to carry out government policy.
What he said from his official position conflicts with government policy. He had to go.
He's the English adviser by the way not the UK as far as I am aware.

His job is to advise and then the government makes it's policy from his advice.

Mark Easton's article (linked in to the main story) brings up an interesting debate about the conflict between science and politics. This is one such example.

Drugs policy is reserved. The current Scottish Government wants those powers returned.

[Betty Boop]

Absolutely. If you don't like the considered advice you are getting, sack the adviser then get your broadcasting organisation to use soundbites from his research to make him sound ridiculous.

Everyone knows that ecstasy is more dangerous than horses. Statistically, horses are far more dangerous and kill more people per year than ecstasy but you know, doesn't make it true and all that and what about that girl who drank like her own body weight in water and drowned from the inside out... I mean, like, OMG!

IMHO, heroin should be available on prescription, you should be allowed your own plants for private consumption if that's what you wish to do and private companies should be allowed to make some recreational drugs (ecstasy, speed for example) under the same strict licensing conditions as pharmaceuticals.

Take it out of the hands of the dealers, get it into the public domain and you will disrupt a lucrative and crime-ridden black market.
:top marks

[Mike777]

Absolutely. If you don't like the considered advice you are getting, sack the adviser then get your broadcasting organisation to use soundbites from his research to make him sound ridiculous.

Everyone knows that ecstasy is more dangerous than horses. Statistically, horses are far more dangerous and kill more people per year than ecstasy but you know, doesn't make it true and all that and what about that girl who drank like her own body weight in water and drowned from the inside out... I mean, like, OMG!

IMHO, heroin should be available on prescription, you should be allowed your own plants for private consumption if that's what you wish to do and private companies should be allowed to make some recreational drugs (ecstasy, speed for example) under the same strict licensing conditions as pharmaceuticals.

Take it out of the hands of the dealers, get it into the public domain and you will disrupt a lucrative and crime-ridden black market.

:top marks

Denmark very recently have started prescription Heroin simply to cut (petty) crime.
We would have space in our Prison's and could afford to let judges say LIFE and mean it.
There is also pilot scheme's in place, but lets cut to the point and change polcy's on drugs.
I would happily pay a nice bit of VAT on a clean green bit of green.

Story today on a young girl killed by a legal drug,
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2705981/Clubber-Stephanie-Balcarras-killed-by-legal-party-drug-GBL.html

[Pete]

Government policy should be the one to "shift"...and not this man with his considered and researched recommendations.

He's spot on in everything he says...especially on alcohol and its relative place in society...and he's just been swept under the carpet in every sense!!

This isn't a government, it's a bloody dictatorship!

[Darth Hibbie]

The only reason it is class C is because the streets were flooded with it.

It does have it's dangers and IMO should have stayed class B. I've seen people who have smoked for many years. You can be sitting with them for a whole night and they'll tell you the same stories 4 times and have no recollection of telling you. It makes people forget what they're saying half way through sentences and makes some paranoid.

On the contrary to that, I know guys that will smoke it first thing in the morning, all day, play football etc and show none of those symptoms.

Stange to say the least.

The irony of all this is that it's actually more expensive now and less widely available because dealers have started selling harder drugs where there is more profit.


It is back to class B now. Has been for about 6 months I think.

[Darth Hibbie]

Take it out of the hands of the dealers, get it into the public domain and you will disrupt a lucrative and crime-ridden black market.

I understand what you are saying say here but this black market will not go anywhere. Those who commit crime to to fun there habits will not not suddenly be able to afford it. If they get it on prescription it will not be enough for them and the will have to go to the dealers for more.

That said the current system is all wrong.

[Phil D. Rolls]

He's a civil servant. His job is to carry out government policy.
What he said from his official position conflicts with government policy. He had to go.
He's the English adviser by the way not the UK as far as I am aware.

I think that isn't right. Policy is supposed to be formed by expert evidence,not the other way round. Policy is opinion about how to tackle an issue, evidence is "fact". However this government seems to want to change the facts to suit the policy.


The only reason it is class C is because the streets were flooded with it.

It does have it's dangers and IMO should have stayed class B. I've seen people who have smoked for many years. You can be sitting with them for a whole night and they'll tell you the same stories 4 times and have no recollection of telling you. It makes people forget what they're saying half way through sentences and makes some paranoid.

On the contrary to that, I know guys that will smoke it first thing in the morning, all day, play football etc and show none of those symptoms.

Stange to say the least.

The irony of all this is that it's actually more expensive now and less widely available because dealers have started selling harder drugs where there is more profit.

There is very little evidence to say that Cannabis is bad for you. And when you compare the evidence on it to the evidence against tobacco and alcohol, it becomes very small beer indeed.

Personally I think the whole war on drugs is a criminal waste of money. Firstly in that the real harm from drugs comes from its criminalty rather than the substance. There is very little risk to health from pure Heroin, the health risks arise from lack of proper works, and the cr*p that the Heroin is cut with.

I think the money is being wasted because, a) they are fighting a losing war, and b) there are other things it could be spent on that would do more good for society - cancer research for example.

The best example of this misguided policy is Methadone (IMO). Methadone plays no part in getting someone off smack, all it does is reduces criminal behaviour.

[Killiehibbie]

What do these lame brained politicians want? They ask a Scientist to do a study he comes up with conclusions they don't like get rid of him. Sounds very much like Stalin is alive and well.

[Woody1985]

It is back to class B now. Has been for about 6 months I think.

That's good, I suspect that the period it was C saved them a hell of a lot of police time and effort pursuing convictions when it should be spent on harder stuff.


I think that isn't right. Policy is supposed to be formed by expert evidence,not the other way round. Policy is opinion about how to tackle an issue, evidence is "fact". However this government seems to want to change the facts to suit the policy.



There is very little evidence to say that Cannabis is bad for you. And when you compare the evidence on it to the evidence against tobacco and alcohol, it becomes very small beer indeed.

Personally I think the whole war on drugs is a criminal waste of money. Firstly in that the real harm from drugs comes from its criminalty rather than the substance. There is very little risk to health from pure Heroin, the health risks arise from lack of proper works, and the cr*p that the Heroin is cut with.

I think the money is being wasted because, a) they are fighting a losing war, and b) there are other things it could be spent on that would do more good for society - cancer research for example.

The best example of this misguided policy is Methadone (IMO). Methadone plays no part in getting someone off smack, all it does is reduces criminal behaviour.

Those are just my experiences and I can certainly say that it definitely has an effect on some people.

One of the guys I mentioned above plays 5 aside whilst smoking joints of grass during the game and is still **** hot. It's weird how it seems to affect some people and not others.

Personally I think they should legalise some drugs. They won't do it because of pressures from other countries and the fact that they'd find it difficult to tax.

If people were offered a gram of coke for say £30/40 quid on the street but would have to pay 50 or 60 in a shop then I suspect they would still buy it on the street. Although people who could afford it would probably buy 'safer' stuff from a shop as it probably wouldn't be mixed with all kinds of **** as you say.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's good, I suspect that the period it was C saved them a hell of a lot of police time and effort pursuing convictions when it should be spent on harder stuff.



Those are just my experiences and I can certainly say that it definitely has an effect on some people.

One of the guys I mentioned above plays 5 aside whilst smoking joints of grass during the game and is still **** hot. It's weird how it seems to affect some people and not others.

Personally I think they should legalise some drugs. They won't do it because of pressures from other countries and the fact that they'd find it difficult to tax.

If people were offered a gram of coke for say £30/40 quid on the street but would have to pay 50 or 60 in a shop then I suspect they would still buy it on the street. Although people who could afford it would probably buy 'safer' stuff from a shop as it probably wouldn't be mixed with all kinds of **** as you say.

I think over all Canabis is a harmless drug. As with any drug some people will over indulge, but statistically at least it is probably the drug that causes least harm to society and indviduals. The other frustration is that it is known to have positive therapetic aspects especially in treatment of MS, yet because it is illegal, pharmaceutical companies are wasting time and money trying to develop an alternative.

I think one of the biggest ironies about drug use is the control the doctors have over it. This is particulary true in psychoactive drugs, anybody who as done a medical degree is deemed to be in better position to judge what drugs you can take. By trial and error, they decide what is best for the patient. Yet the person who probably knows their body best -the patient - is not allowed to indulge in the same experimentation themselves.

In fairness to science, it is a moralistic, paternalistic government that is keeping the nonsese going.

[(((Fergus)))]

"Nutt has also claimed that taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse."

[hibsbollah]

"Nutt has also claimed that taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse."

Although riding a horse that has just taken ecstasy is very dangerous indeed:agree:

[hibsbollah]

There is very little evidence to say that Cannabis is bad for you.

The Lancet would disagree with you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cannabis-can-increase-risk-of-schizophrenia-by-40-459184.html

[ancient hibee]

It never fails to amaze me how many naive people are happy for unelected civil servants to decide how we should live.We elect politicians and if we don't like what they do we get rid of them.That's democracy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The Lancet would disagree with you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cannabis-can-increase-risk-of-schizophrenia-by-40-459184.html

I think that article is typical of the way newspapers report clinical research. Big headline saying Cannabis can increase schizophrenia by 40% (Cannabis 'can increase risk of schizophrenia by 40%'), then in the text you get this;



But the research was challenged by experts who said that there had been no increase in schizophrenia over the past 40 years, despite the explosion in cannabis use by young people. An estimated 6.2 million people take the drug.

The researchers led by Stanley Zammitt of Cardiff University say they cannot prove cannabis causes schizophrenia but the association is strong enough to warn young people of the dangers.

The findings imply that the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia of 1 per cent in the general population would be raised to 2-3 per cent among regular cannabis users.


I'll read the Lancet article, but I would like to know two things: 1) Are they saying they definitely understand the causes of schizophrenia - ground breaking stuff if they do; 2) how many of those in the sample would have developed schizophrenia anyway?

I've got my doubts about the validity of an article on schizophrenia being published in The Lancet, it's not the first port of call for mental health professionals when finding evidence to back up practice. They may be on to something though, and it is worth a read.

I am interested in whether anyone has estabished a clear link between Cannabis and schiophrenia. Any other study I have read has been inconclusive. Personally I think teenagers smoking pot is a no no. It seems like common sense to me that using any hypnotic drug has to be a danger to a developing brain and psyche.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Here is the author of the report's (which was actually a review of other studies) reply. How the Independent can justify their headline which implies a strong link between Cannabis and psychotic illness is beyond me.

It is typical of the misreporting that surrounds the subject. Of course the Independent did back the campaign to reclassify the drug to B.



We agree with John Macleod and colleagues that it is not possible to be certain that the relation between cannabis use and psychotic illness is causal given the problems of confounding and reverse causation that are inherent to observational studies.

We carefully considered whether to present a narrative synthesis or a meta-analysis of results from these observational studies. We followed the advice provided by Egger and colleagues1—ie, that meta-analyses of observational studies are not inappropriate, but that the statistical combination of results should not be the main component of the review. In keeping with this, the primary focus of our review was not the strength of statistical evidence from the pooled results, but the thoroughness of any attempts made by each individual study to minimise the effects of bias, reverse causation, and confounding. It is because of the rigour of these assessments, and not because of the statistical evidence from the meta-analyses, that we concluded that there was weaker evidence for a causal relation between cannabis use and depression than for psychosis.

Macleod and colleagues raise a valid concern that by doing a meta-analysis, people might misinterpret the pooled results as definite evidence of a causal effect of cannabis on psychosis. That is why we made it very clear in our Summary and Discussion that the effects of residual confounding or bias cannot be eliminated as possible explanations for the associations seen, and that uncertainty about causality is inevitable in observational studies such as these.

Future studies can, and will, help to address some of the unknown questions relating to whether cannabis use increases the risk of psychotic disorders. New methods such as Mendelian randomisation2 referred to by Macleod and colleagues are likely to be very useful techniques within epidemiology, but require the presence of genetic variants that are strongly associated with cannabis use. Unfortunately there is no good evidence for any such candidates at present. Therefore we remain of the opinion that further observational studies, such as those included in the review, are unlikely to provide a definitive answer given that they will be subject to the same potential problems of confounding and bias.

For any individual, use of cannabis is quite unlikely to lead to psychotic illness, even if the relation is causal. However, having taken into account the methodological quality of each study, and the unavoidable limitations in interpreting the statistical evidence from observational studies, we believe that there is enough evidence for people to be made aware of the potential role of cannabis in increasing psychotic illness.

We thank Anne Lingford-Hughes, Thomas Barnes, Peter Jones, and Margaret Burke for their contribution to this response. We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9598, 3 November 2007-9 November 2007, Pages 1539-1540


Regardless of your views on drugs, it is an indictment of the haphazard approach that has been taken towards the "problem". It is very frustrating because I think most people just want the truth, not moralistic policies which are based on what politicians think people want to hear.

It becomes a vicious cycle because the government demonise drug use, so in turn the public start to believe their are real dangers. This is obvious in the way people talk about "skunk", as if it is some new mega strain of marijuana. It is a stronger strain, in much the same way as vodka is stronger than beer, that's all.

Finally, the people working at the sharp end with drugs and mental illness are not helped at all by ignorant posturing like the government have shown on this subject. They have to try to do their best to tackle these problems with misinformation being spread by the very people who should be doing their best to help those with problems.

[hibsbollah]

Here is the author of the report's (which was actually a review of other studies) reply. How the Independent can justify their headline which implies a strong link between Cannabis and psychotic illness is beyond me.

It is typical of the misreporting that surrounds the subject. Of course the Independent did back the campaign to reclassify the drug to B.




Regardless of your views on drugs, it is an indictment of the haphazard approach that has been taken towards the "problem". It is very frustrating because I think most people just want the truth, not moralistic policies which are based on what politicians think people want to hear.

It becomes a vicious cycle because the government demonise drug use, so in turn the public start to believe their are real dangers. This is obvious in the way people talk about "skunk", as if it is some new mega strain of marijuana. It is a stronger strain, in much the same way as vodka is stronger than beer, that's all.

Finally, the people working at the sharp end with drugs and mental illness are not helped at all by ignorant posturing like the government have shown on this subject. They have to try to do their best to tackle these problems with misinformation being spread by the very people who should be doing their best to help those with problems.

They can't provide proof of a causual link, which is very different from saying there isnt one. Study after study has shown much higher use of mental illness including schizophrenia amongst marijuana users than non-users. The part of the brain that is affected by schizophrenia is the same part that is affected by marijuana use (2nd para) http://bipolar.about.com/od/relateddisorders/a/schizo_pot.htm

Theres enough data in the Lancet report to make your earlier statement 'there is very little evidence to say that Cannabis is bad for you' just plain wrong. People I know working at 'the sharp end' as you put it, see anecdotal evidence of it every week.

[Phil D. Rolls]

They can't provide proof of a causual link, which is very different from saying there isnt one. Study after study has shown much higher use of mental illness including schizophrenia amongst marijuana users than non-users. The part of the brain that is affected by schizophrenia is the same part that is affected by marijuana use (2nd para) http://bipolar.about.com/od/relateddisorders/a/schizo_pot.htm

Theres enough data in the Lancet report to make your earlier statement 'there is very little evidence to say that Cannabis is bad for you' just plain wrong. People I know working at 'the sharp end' as you put it, see anecdotal evidence of it every week.

I stand by my statement that the evidence doesn't really exist to prove the hypothesis. That is not disputed by anyone. To look into the Lancet literature review further it would be necessary to go to the reference list and read the original reports. I had a look at the other link, and there does seem to be proof of some medical link, but not everyone subscribes to a medical model of mental illness (that's another debate though).

I know that the Dutch study cite, (which I think was conducted in Utrecht if it's the one I'm thinking of) used a very small sample size. Sample size seems to be a b*gger when it comes to doing research on this subject.

Is a possible link enough to shape government policy? Where is the increase in diagnosis of schizophrenia to match the increase in use of Cannabis. I have no doubt that there is a strong link between drugs and poor mental health, but I think the theory that drugs cause mental breakdown is "not proven" at best.

My question is what comes first, is it the mental illness that leads the person to self medicate, or is it the use of marijuana that causes the illness? There is a strong link between drug taking and mental illness, that is clear, what isn't clear is how the illnesses develop.

It is a complex issue from what I have seen. If you suffer from schizophrenia then you might find that Cannabis use has a calming affect. The Cannabis didn't cause the illness it helped the person cope with it. We do know that Schizophrenia usually develops around the late teens - at that point in your life there are all sorts of changes going on that might bring on the symptoms.

It seems to me that before anyone can make a definite causal link between the illness and the drug, they have to first develop a greater understanding of how the illness actually occurs. There doesn't seem to be a smoking gun when it comes to schizophrenia, and an abundance of theories exist - any of which could be true for the individual.

It seems to me that given the amount of people who don't develop schizophrenia but do smoke weed, that the risk is minimal. I also think that if someone is smoking a large amount in their teens there could be other things wrong in their life.

As I said before, I think drugs could be dangerous for teenagers, but for the government to be ignoring "expert" advice on the subject is very frustrating and, in a way, a wreckless contempt for people's health. If they were truly concerned about people's health they'd be looking at ways to do the least harm with their drug policy. As it stands, they are merely making the problem worse by listening to ill founded theories - or worse dismissing advice from doctors, police, social workers and others who really have an understanding of the problem.

That's the crux of this issue for me. They have asked people to give an objective opinion on what is for the best, and because they think it is a vote loser they have said that the expert opinion isn't worth listening to. What chance do we have in any aspect of our lives if the government is basing its policy on what will do well at the ballot box, rather than what is best for society?

Health seems to be the new justification for introducing moralistic controls on people's lives. It also appears that making any link to a possible negative affect on health is enough to influence policy.

[Jack]

I think that isn't right. Policy is supposed to be formed by expert evidence,not the other way round. Policy is opinion about how to tackle an issue, evidence is "fact". However this government seems to want to change the facts to suit the policy.

There are ways of dealing with these things internally.

The point I was trying to make, maybe badly, is that when he took on the job and took the kings [governments] shilling he was aware of the restrictions being put on him as far as speaking his mind was concerned.

I’m not saying whatever he said is either factually correct or otherwise. I am saying that to all intents and purposes he breached his contract.

I cant imagine a senior employee of Standard Life coming out and saying ‘All Scottish Equitable’s products are better than ours.’ and staying in his job long. I cant see why anyone should be surprised this guy got the bullet???

Jack
Policy Advisor
The Government.

[Green Mikey]

There are ways of dealing with these things internally.

The point I was trying to make, maybe badly, is that when he took on the job and took the kings [governments] shilling he was aware of the restrictions being put on him as far as speaking his mind was concerned.

I’m not saying whatever he said is either factually correct or otherwise. I am saying that to all intents and purposes he breached his contract.

I cant imagine a senior employee of Standard Life coming out and saying ‘All Scottish Equitable’s products are better than ours.’ and staying in his job long. I cant see why anyone should be surprised this guy got the bullet???

Jack
Policy Advisor
The Government.

Nutt and yourself are advisors, surely you are there to provide advice not toe the party line. I don't understand how can policy be altered and discussed if the advisors are not allowed to have views contrary to the status quo. What is the point in appointing highly regarded professors to provide and then sack them for giving the advice?

In your role as a policy advisor do you ever give provide advice on a policy that is contrary to the governments current stance?

I don't think your Standard Life comparison holds much water. SL are a PLC and wouldn't discuss any shortcomings publically however there will be a criticism of policies within the company, this is how companies improve and progress. Nutt voiced his opinion publically because the public has a vested interest in his work.

[IndieHibby]

Just another example of the methods used by this totalitarian government. The messenger has been well and truly shot. :rolleyes:

For the first time, I think, :agree:

[lobster]

Just like the WMD debacle - this government says "here's what we think reality is, can you scientist people now go away and find some evidence to back it up even if it conflicts with reality". Managerialism is the new Fascism.

[BravestHibs]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/bruce-anderson-lets-be-honest-legalise-drugs-and-society-would-benefit-1813200.html

I agree with what this guy says. the point he raises about the law being originally used to punish breaches of morality vis-a-vis a religious outlook are very interesting. I also liked the point he raised with regard to the illegality of homosexuality 50 years ago. The risks of sex be it hetro or homo are plain for all to see and for us to decide whether we run said risk, what's different with regard to drugs?

[Jack]

Nutt and yourself are advisors, surely you are there to provide advice not toe the party line. I don't understand how can policy be altered and discussed if the advisors are not allowed to have views contrary to the status quo. What is the point in appointing highly regarded professors to provide and then sack them for giving the advice?

In your role as a policy advisor do you ever give provide advice on a policy that is contrary to the governments current stance?

I don't think your Standard Life comparison holds much water. SL are a PLC and wouldn't discuss any shortcomings publically however there will be a criticism of policies within the company, this is how companies improve and progress. Nutt voiced his opinion publically because the public has a vested interest in his work.

You're right, it is our job to seek out evidence and present it to Ministers and/or Cabinet. But it is for them, to these elected representatives, to decide how to take things forward, that is how policy is formed. More often than not there is considerable toing and froing before any final decision is made.

Its not our job to toe the party line at all, although it is (part of) our job to keep the advice we give to Ministers confidential, just as you have said for PLCs and for similar reasons.

Nutt wasn’t employed by the government to make his opinions public however interested the public may be in his work. No matter how important things are that are discussed by PLCs I'll only find out what they want me to find out - in most cases. I would suggest they are very similar.

[Phil D. Rolls]

There are ways of dealing with these things internally.

The point I was trying to make, maybe badly, is that when he took on the job and took the kings [governments] shilling he was aware of the restrictions being put on him as far as speaking his mind was concerned.

I’m not saying whatever he said is either factually correct or otherwise. I am saying that to all intents and purposes he breached his contract.

I cant imagine a senior employee of Standard Life coming out and saying ‘All Scottish Equitable’s products are better than ours.’ and staying in his job long. I cant see why anyone should be surprised this guy got the bullet???

Jack
Policy Advisor
The Government.

As far as the man's contract is concerned, I can't comment. The noises he and his associated are making now are that they were hired to give independent scientific opinion.

What does puzzle me slightly is why this has suddenly blown up. Jacqui Smith ignored these guys' advice ages ago, and I'd have thought that was the time for protests.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/bruce-anderson-lets-be-honest-legalise-drugs-and-society-would-benefit-1813200.html

I agree with what this guy says. the point he raises about the law being originally used to punish breaches of morality vis-a-vis a religious outlook are very interesting. I also liked the point he raised with regard to the illegality of homosexuality 50 years ago. The risks of sex be it hetro or homo are plain for all to see and for us to decide whether we run said risk, what's different with regard to drugs?

I agree, I think the issue is if the government want to be honest enough (no, no, I'm serious) then they should just come out and say that it is not a thing that decent people should do. Instead they want to use health as the issue and the evidence doesn't make a strong enough case.

Like you I think it is about risk management, they don't ban horseriding, potholing or mountaineering, instead they let people make their own choices. If anything, the governments policies make drug taking a riskier pursuit than it needs to be.

Why not just follow the Dutch example and accept that there are things that people will do, and rather than stop them, reduce the harm?

[ancient hibee]

The drugs advisory body of the day passed thalidomide as being suitable for pregnant women-scientists aren't always right.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The drugs advisory body of the day passed thalidomide as being suitable for pregnant women-scientists aren't always right.

Is it not the case that Thalidomide prompted stricter testing of drugs in the UK? If so, you might argue that it was lack of science that led to that particular tragedy.

The problem for me with the cannabis/schizophrenia debate is that we have an illness that no-one knows how it develops and a drug that no-one knows how it works. How can anyone establish scientifically that the use of the drug causes the illness?

[hibsbollah]

Is it not the case that Thalidomide prompted stricter testing of drugs in the UK? If so, you might argue that it was lack of science that led to that particular tragedy.

The problem for me with the cannabis/schizophrenia debate is that we have an illness that no-one knows how it develops and a drug that no-one knows how it works. How can anyone establish scientifically that the use of the drug causes the illness?

The second part of your statement isnt quite true, the drug works on the same neurological pathways as the illness, see the link I posted earlier.

Now a new study from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York has shed light on the reason for the link between marijuana and schizophrenia. With several groups of adolescents as their subjects, they used a special type of MRI called diffusion tensor imaging to compare the brains of those with and without schizophrenia, both users and non-users of marijuana. They found that heavy use of marijuana caused the type of abnormalities in certain areas of the brain as were found in the brains of the subjects with schizophrenia, and these abnormalities were the most pronounced in schizophrenic subjects who regularly smoked marijuana. The abnormalities occur in a brain pathway related to language and auditory functions which is still developing during adolescence.

You are broadly right that there is no 'smoking gun', but the circumstantial evidence is pretty overwhelming; for certain people, marijuana causes mental illness. The point of when 'evidence' becomes 'scientific proof' is always subjective and depends on your point of view.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The second part of your statement isnt quite true, the drug works on the same neurological pathways as the illness, see the link I posted earlier.

Now a new study from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York has shed light on the reason for the link between marijuana and schizophrenia. With several groups of adolescents as their subjects, they used a special type of MRI called diffusion tensor imaging to compare the brains of those with and without schizophrenia, both users and non-users of marijuana. They found that heavy use of marijuana caused the type of abnormalities in certain areas of the brain as were found in the brains of the subjects with schizophrenia, and these abnormalities were the most pronounced in schizophrenic subjects who regularly smoked marijuana. The abnormalities occur in a brain pathway related to language and auditory functions which is still developing during adolescence.

You are broadly right that there is no 'smoking gun', but the circumstantial evidence is pretty overwhelming; for certain people, marijuana causes mental illness. The point of when 'evidence' becomes 'scientific proof' is always subjective and depends on your point of view.

Thanks for continuing the discussion, you're making me work on something that I have not been 100% sure of. It's good to look into things further.

I have to say, I think I more than "broadly right" about the lack of a clear cause for Schizophrenia, it is one of the diagnoses that seems to cause the most debate amongst shrinks and has several different camps who subscribe to their own personal convictions. IMO, none of them has the entire picture, but are right in large parts.

You picked me up earlier for saying there was little evidence to support a link, can I do the same and say - I don't think the evidence is overwhelming, especially given the Lancet doctor's admission that it isn't possible to say that there is a causal link.

I said before that the Albert Einstein evidence was interesting. However it is based on a medical model of how Schizophrenia arises. It fails to include social factors, family environment and other influences that are also thought to impact on the incidence of the illness. Doctors would like us to believe that the answer to every problem comes from physiology and body chemistry, but that's because they can't admit there many aspects of how the brain works that they can't explain.

I can't take the evidence too seriously for the simple reason that if using the drug was as dangerous as some would like to infer then there would surely be a comparable increase in diagnoses of Schizophrenia. There isn't, there is an increase in Schizophrenics who smoke Cannabis, but that isn't the same thing.

Anyway without properly scrutinising the evidence, I am guilty of the same leaps of faith that I am accusing the government of. Before I criticise it any more I'd like to look at things like sample size, whether the reports have been subject to double blind review, whether there have been any studies comparing twins, what the social circumstances of the social population are, family history etc

The other thing I don't know is how much Cannabis the people in the samples were getting through. Dosage is surely an important variable, just as it is for other drugs like alcohol.

We all accept that alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver. However if that news was to come out tomorrow would we accept being told that drink was banned? We would probably ask how much you have to drink to get Cirrhosis and make decisions around that.

The implication, from journalists and government is that one joint can lead to Schizophrenia. No mention of other factors that could also interact with the Cannabis, just a plain A+B=C statement. How else do we explain a government minister describing Skunk as a "killer drug"?

What ignorant, ill founded, scaremongering just to justify a moral crusade. Then again, their level of ignorance probably explains why they aren't making any inroads at all towards "ridding our streets of this evil menace".


At the end of the day, it seems to me that any youngster who wants to spend his teens in a Cannabis induced haze has something they want to avoid. Most people will accept that taking drugs is often a way of doing that. There is also a school of thought that would say where drugs aren't available the mind will invent an alternative reality where the person feels "safe" - this can show itself as Schizophrenic symptoms.

For those reasons, I don't think that the evidence supplied is strong enough to justify a ban on Cannabis. If Cannabis is to be banned for that reason, then the arguments against Alcohol, Tobacco, Abseiling, Scuba Diving are sure 10 x as strong, as we all know with a good degree of certainty that these do cause harm.

If people are to be allowed to manage their own risks in some aspects of their lives, why does the government have a right to say that they can't do the same thing in others. The whole anti drugs thing is a total farce!

[hibsbollah]

If people are to be allowed to manage their own risks in some aspects of their lives, why does the government have a right to say that they can't do the same thing in others. The whole anti drugs thing is a total farce!

I agree with you on that. I think what happened was in 1997 and 2001 a whole new generation of Labour MPs came into power, most of whom were at University in the 70s and 80s and for some of whom 'Legalise Now' was probably as important a political crusade as the anti-apartheid movement.

They come into power, take some tentantive steps at reclassification (in similar terms, grass is safer than we thought but ecstasy is bad cos nice Leah Betts died and cocaine and heroin are very very bad), put up with the Daily Mail negative headlines which disappeared after a while, and then, lo and behold there appears lots of reports of marijuana being not quite as safe as the previous generation had us believe.

Actual medical facts seem to be thin on the ground when it comes to policy making. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do about the explosion in cocaine use, which im sure is as inexplicable to the current generation of policymakers as marijuana was to the last generation...

[Phil D. Rolls]

I agree with you on that. I think what happened was in 1997 and 2001 a whole new generation of Labour MPs came into power, most of whom were at University in the 70s and 80s and for some of whom 'Legalise Now' was probably as important a political crusade as the anti-apartheid movement.

They come into power, take some tentantive steps at reclassification (in similar terms, grass is safer than we thought but ecstasy is bad cos nice Leah Betts died and cocaine and heroin are very very bad), put up with the Daily Mail negative headlines which disappeared after a while, and then, lo and behold there appears lots of reports of marijuana being not quite as safe as the previous generation had us believe.

Actual medical facts seem to be thin on the ground when it comes to policy making. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do about the explosion in cocaine use, which im sure is as inexplicable to the current generation of policymakers as marijuana was to the last generation...

Maybe they could learn lessons from a close European neighbour whose policy of tolerance has been fairly succesful. Or do they take all their instuctions from Washington? (answers on the back of a Rizla).

[RyeSloan]

Apologies for the length of these two posts but this is a transcript from an excellent article in the Economist....basically says all that is stated above, the status quo is an expensive failure and that it would be nothing short of a criminal waste of money and a betrayal of the people for it continue.



A HUNDRED years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission—just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.

That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.

Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.

The evidence of failure
Nowadays the UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has “stabilised”, meaning that more than 200m people, or almost 5% of the world’s adult population, still take illegal drugs—roughly the same proportion as a decade ago. (Like most purported drug facts, this one is just an educated guess: evidential rigour is another casualty of illegality.) The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe.

This is not for want of effort. The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. In Mexico more than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since December 2006 (and the annual overall death toll is running at over 6,000). This week yet another leader of a troubled drug-ridden country—Guinea Bissau—was assassinated.

Yet prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States.

Nowadays the drug warriors claim to seize close to half of all the cocaine that is produced. The street price in the United States does seem to have risen, and the purity seems to have fallen, over the past year. But it is not clear that drug demand drops when prices rise. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the drug business quickly adapts to market disruption. At best, effective repression merely forces it to shift production sites. Thus opium has moved from Turkey and Thailand to Myanmar and southern Afghanistan, where it undermines the West’s efforts to defeat the Taliban.

[RyeSloan]

And the conclusion...

Al Capone, but on a global scale
Indeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UN’s perhaps inflated estimate, the illegal drug industry is worth some $320 billion a year. In the West it makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens (the current American president could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with “blow”). It also makes drugs more dangerous: addicts buy heavily adulterated cocaine and heroin; many use dirty needles to inject themselves, spreading HIV; the wretches who succumb to “crack” or “meth” are outside the law, with only their pushers to “treat” them. But it is countries in the emerging world that pay most of the price. Even a relatively developed democracy such as Mexico now finds itself in a life-or-death struggle against gangsters. American officials, including a former drug tsar, have publicly worried about having a “narco state” as their neighbour.

The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” (such as encouraging addicts to use clean needles). This approach would put more emphasis on public education and the treatment of addicts, and less on the harassment of peasants who grow coca and the punishment of consumers of “soft” drugs for personal use. That would be a step in the right direction. But it is unlikely to be adequately funded, and it does nothing to take organised crime out of the picture.

Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors should remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post-tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.

Selling even this flawed system to people in producer countries, where organised crime is the central political issue, is fairly easy. The tough part comes in the consumer countries, where addiction is the main political battle. Plenty of American parents might accept that legalisation would be the right answer for the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa; they might even see its usefulness in the fight against terrorism. But their immediate fear would be for their own children.

That fear is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.

There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.

What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.

By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope.

A calculated gamble, or another century of failure?
This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago (see article). Reviewing the evidence again (see article), prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Apologies for the length of these two posts but this is a transcript from an excellent article in the Economist....basically says all that is stated above, the status quo is an expensive failure and that it would be nothing short of a criminal waste of money and a betrayal of the people for it continue.


Good article. One of the things in it made me think of that woman in the Simpsons who always says "will nobody think of the children". Politicians justify spending huge amounts on the drug war, to save the young from moral corruption.

They are so out of it now that all the chemists have to do is alter one atom of a substance to make it legal again. Still, governments waste money which could be better spent on genuine health issues.

[sleeping giant]

I was reading today (ok it was in the Sun) that some expert is concerned about the strength of homegrown weed in Scotland.
He says this weed is called Skunk:confused: and its 5 times as strong as your normal grass:confused:

He also says that "skunk" is comparable to someone either having 1 pint of lager compared with 1 pint of Port:faf:

Honestly , where do they get these guys ?

"Skunk" is soooo 80's:greengrin
Its also not very good compared with the hybrids of today!

I will go and find out who the expert is when i can be bothered as the paper is on the bunker and i'm at the kitchen table. Goddam that Amnesia Haze:dizzy:

[sleeping giant]

Expert Dean Ames of the Forensic Science Service:xtree2

[Woody1985]

I was reading today (ok it was in the Sun) that some expert is concerned about the strength of homegrown weed in Scotland.
He says this weed is called Skunk:confused: and its 5 times as strong as your normal grass:confused:

He also says that "skunk" is comparable to someone either having 1 pint of lager compared with 1 pint of Port:faf:

Honestly , where do they get these guys ?

"Skunk" is soooo 80's:greengrin
Its also not very good compared with the hybrids of today!

I will go and find out who the expert is when i can be bothered as the paper is on the bunker and i'm at the kitchen table. Goddam that Amnesia Haze:dizzy:

I think it's funny that they always go on about skunk. Skunk is far too heavy and unless you smoke it just to get wasted you'd be a lot better with other types as SG says.

They should be worried about stuff like soap bar which is mixed with carrier bags etc to increase the weight.

That type of thing would be erradicated through legalisation.

[sleeping giant]

I think it's funny that they always go on about skunk. Skunk is far too heavy and unless you smoke it just to get wasted you'd be a lot better with other types as SG says.

They should be worried about stuff like soap bar which is mixed with carrier bags etc to increase the weight.

That type of thing would be erradicated through legalisation.
:agree:

Bitumen:grr:

[Mike777]

I think it's funny that they always go on about skunk. Skunk is far too heavy and unless you smoke it just to get wasted you'd be a lot better with other types as SG says.

They should be worried about stuff like soap bar which is mixed with carrier bags etc to increase the weight.

That type of thing would be erradicated through legalisation.


Contanimated weed is very rarly mentioned in the media,anything from Sand,Anti-Freeze, Fiberglass,glue or steam from the kettle increases the weight and profits for the dealers, a large proportion of smokers will not relise this.
This is probably the main reason people turn to growing there own, not for profit but for the quality of the smoke

[Phil D. Rolls]

Contanimated weed is very rarly mentioned in the media,anything from Sand,Anti-Freeze, Fiberglass,glue or steam from the kettle increases the weight and profits for the dealers, a large proportion of smokers will not relise this.
This is probably the main reason people turn to growing there own, not for profit but for the quality of the smoke

Stoners also tend to overlook the affect of mixing tobacco with Cannabis. This combination increases the Carbon Monoxide content of the smoke by 5 times, which would indicate that other toxins are also increased by a similar factor.

I'm afraid I can't give a scientific source for this, I got the information from a smoking cessation nurse.

Needless to say, I consider this co-toxicity another reason for legalising the supply of weed, and ensuring that - as the Economist suggest - that we do "least harm".