The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
For those of you who haven't been following this story in the news, i'll do a quick summary.
Prof. David Nutt, who was the chairman of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, a government advisory body, had been asked to stand down from his position by Alan Johnson (home secretary), for "crossing the line and campaigning against government policy", stating that he had "lost trust" in Prof. Nutt.
Prof. Nutt was asked to stand down because he had recently claimed that ecstasy was less dangerous than horse riding. This was a scientific claim, based on studies that Prof. Nutt had done, and published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, a peer reviewed scientific journal. He repeated those claims in a lecture in July at Kings' College London.
After David Nutt stepped down, he appeared on Sky News, newsnight, and wrote to the Guardian, amongst other media outlets, to argue his side of the story. He has recieved overwhelming support from the scientific community, and from a lot of the public. Two other members of the ACMD panel have already stepped down.
David Nutt argues that the government are taking a hard stance to illegal drugs, while being extremely lenient on the two drugs causing the most harm to our society - alcohol and tobacco. In his article to the Guardian he wrote:
Quote:
One problem is that sometimes you get into what I think of as an illegality–logic loop. This is an example of a conversation I've had many times with many people, some of them politicians:
MP "You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one."
Professor Nutt "Why not?"
MP "Because one's illegal."
Professor Nutt "Why is it illegal?"
MP "Because it's harmful."
Professor Nutt "Don't we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?"
MP "You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one."
I have been surprised how difficult this concept is to get across to some people, whether they are politicians, fellow scientists or members of the general public.
My questions are:
What are your opinions on David Nutt being asked to resign? Do you it was fair? What do you think the position of a government advisor is, and is there a line, if so where should it be drawn?
Do you think the public understanding of science, and the way that scientific studies are done, is good / could be better / you think the public have no idea at all about what it entails.
What do you think of the artificial division between drugs AND alcohol, or drugs AND tobacco. Do you think the law should contine to classify these things seperately, or do you think there should be one "index of harm" by which all substances are measured and regulated?
More to come.. I'd just like some responses before I add more questions.
Last edited by Ashante; 05-11-2009 at 14:46..
Reason: Adding link to Journal of Psychophamacology article on "Equasy"
Its silly to sack him on the surface, maybe there was more to it though i dunno.
Im still very anti legalising cannabis or anything else really, id probably be the same though against alcohol and tobacco if it was already out of the loop. What it comes down to to me is the way it is used, not the way it can be used if that makes sense..
Cannabis imo has way more negative impacts than are quantified by studies into the medical side effects. Rather than talking about comparing liver disease with psychosis/schitzophrenia, i think cannabis use has a lot of negative impacts on people both in terms of socially, in relationships and in choices they make - perhaps in regard to motivation.
Its clearly a difficult arguement because theres scales of use both in time and intensity, very different effects and such. The cannabis vs alcohol arguement does get stronger as more and more people seem to abuse alcohol and screw themselves up, although if cannabis were easier to get hold of youd probably get a new breed of stoner morons using it without any respect at all and the balance may change.
Do you consider drug taking to be a valid regular recreational choice, something that he was right to compare to horse riding? Thats the only thing he said that i thinks ******ed, you could probably compare horse riding to sniffing bleach bottles.
Kinda off topic but its what the slant of the post implied imo
Hey pura, just to clarify, David Nutt isn't advocating legalising cannabis. Under the current system of classification, he only recommended that it be downgraded from class B to C, to reflect the relative harms relative to other drugs.
Cannabis has had many negative attributes attached to it over the years. The schitzophrenia link is tenuous, at best, as schtizophrenia rates have decreased, while cannabis use has increased, over the last 30 years. The social effects you talk about, I know people who act as you say, but again I think it's unfair to blame the drug. The lazy people I know are just lazy... they're just as lazy when they don't smoke weed. The social problem in that it makes you feel paranoid / self-conscious, I used to feel this, until I realised it was just a consequence of feeling a sort of guilt, that I was doing something that was illegal. And not just that it was illegal, but it was something that other people, e.g. my family looked down upon, and that I couldn't be honest about my drug use to them. The fact that I wasn't able to talk to my family and be completely honest is what made me feel down - not using drugs.
Quote:
Do you consider drug taking to be a valid regular recreational choice, something that he was right to compare to horse riding?
Completely. Horse riding IS dangerous, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's safe. Drug taking is a valid regular recreational choice, for almost everyone in this country. Most people drink alcohol, or caffeine based drinks. Some people smoke cigarettes or cannabis, and some use ecstasy and cocaine. Amongst other things.
But if you mean just illegal drug taking, the use of cannabis is normalised in my house, and in my general daily life and interactions with others. The only hurdle I need to overcome is getting the guts to talk to my parents. James has already spoken to his and we can smoke freely around them (although we like to be discreet and go out the back or something). I don't really use other drugs anymore, apart from some mushrooms when I visit Amsterdam, but I'd still consider them a valid recreational activity for other people, or for myself on a special occasion.
Cannabis imo has way more negative impacts than are quantified by studies into the medical side effects. Rather than talking about comparing liver disease with psychosis/schitzophrenia, i think cannabis use has a lot of negative impacts on people both in terms of socially, in relationships and in choices they make - perhaps in regard to motivation.
Was just thinking about the comment about cannabis use leading to lack of motivation - and how silly it is - when checking on the updates of Edwin Stratton, a medical marijuana user who is fighting a charge of cultivation. His arguments are some of the most well thought out I've read, he works tirelessly with lawyers and campaigners to get a change in the way the law is applied (The MDA is great, he argues, but it's not being applied properly). Eddie is going through intense pain because he's been denied his medication, yet he still fights on, he's an inspiriation to a lot of people.
Character traits like lazy and anti-social are just that. Parts of your character. There is a wide demographic of people who use illicit drugs for a wide range of reasons. To pigeon-hole them all as "stoners" does nothing for your argument. Need I list the amount of successful, well-rounded people, who use drugs as a recreational pastime? The more people like Brad Pitt come out and admit it to the general public the better.
David Nutt resigns from the ACMD
Linear Mode
