"Alan Johnson sacked the Government’s chief drug adviser tonight over his remarks that drugs were less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.

The Home Secretary wrote to David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, asking him to resign after he had attacked Jacqui Smith, Mr Johnson’s predecessor, over the decision to make cannabis a Class B drug."

Full story here: timesonline.co.uk

Thoughts?

Anyone hear him on BBC Five Live this evening? Personally I agree with him, he had a job to advise the public on drugs and his advice based on scientific research has now got him sacked! I'm actually feeling quite annoyed on his behalf!

I think it can be addictive for certain people.

The tax I would pay on my substance of choice would cover this, should I need it. As it stands that money goes elsewhere, yet the NHS would be obliged to treat me regardless.


Which they not only choose to ignore (for fear of threads such as this) but also sack those who present it to them. And if they do have more information than the public they have a duty to share it with us, free from bias. Rather than sack those who feel morally bound to disseminate it.......


I have personal experience to the contrary! My family could be used as a case study on the dangers of alcohol, yet I strongly believe that prohibition would only make matters worse. I don't wish to see a large proportion of society criminalized because of the addiction of someone who was close to me. Someone who took addiction to it's inevitable conclusion.

Lack of addictiveness....? I beg to differ.. the only reason a lot of people in this country aren't labelled as alcoholics is because people think its acceptable and see it as normal..... other countries see us as pissheads and for good reasons..

after the Iraq debacle, that is extremely naive. Have they found the WMDs yet?

Indeed - considering how you hear people gasping "Ooo I need a glass of wine" etc and knocking them back every night. It's addiction, it's just socially acceptable.


And you expect it not to be promoted in any way by making it legal? For a lot of those who might be interested in the effects of weed, but don't use it, it's the boundary of breaking the law which stops them. You don't want people to abuse weed, but if it was legal it's inevitable that abuse would occur. Just as people abuse alcohol in society now.

Keeping the parts of the public on side - legalisation would be extremely unpopular with a vociferous minority

Party sponsorship by alcoholic drink manufacturers amongst others.

Unilateral legalisation would be difficult as has already been noted - especially if the US weren't heading in the same direction.

None of the above have anything to do with the potential harm it causes (I'll leave that deliberately ambiguous)

Indeed. This Government has outlawed almost all tobacco advertising and banned smoking in public and some private places. They even actively try to stop people smoking with free clinics and information campaigns. QED.

I'd be quite happy for them to have similar programs regarding the potential dangers of cannabis. I just don't want to be at risk of imprisonment if I decide not to heed them.

As a side note, although I don't wish to see alcohol prohibited, I would happily see the back of it's marketing and promotions. It is a drug after all.


Prohibition doesn't prevent that.


And I'm branded a criminal for these people?

It's also that illegality which attracts many young people to it in the first place.

David Nutt: Governments should get real on drugs - newscientist.com

Give yourself a pat on the back. You are successfully managing to turn someone who didn't have a strong opinion either way as to whether cannabis should be legalised or not, into someone who is now probably going to become very anti-cannabis by reinforcing the stereotypical view they already had of a cannabis smoker.

If we ever get a chance of voting on this, i think i'll be going with a big fat no!

Realistically, i don't think cannabis will be legalised, at least not in our lifetimes and not in it's original form.

Tough shit.

Like Spesh said, it won't make any difference as to how the people who currently smoke it, use it anyway.

Nail-head.

yes, but these people have been drinking for years. I meant that "I'll just have one. ever." turning instantly into "I need another one. now" happens over a much longer period of use than most illegal drugs.


I disagree; I actually believe the loudest shouters to be the ones wanting to make it legal.


Does drug abuse reduce alcohol intake? Not from what I've seen in the past, but I may well be wrong.

interesting that the US has an impact. smoking isn't illegal indoors in all US states, although I guess that's different.

agreed :)


what I have seen inthe media about the governments reasons for going into Iraq does not amount to any truth, but that is not my point - they made decisions and I accept them as reasonable for whatever the reasons, no matter if they tell me the reasons or not. Of course I would prefer the reasons to be made known, but I don't expect that to ever happen. I also may disagree with the reasons if they were to be made known, but without all the facts, I remain on the fence and accept their decisions.

You've got to love the Daily Fail: dailymail.co.uk

Huh?!

Yeah completely agree, but I think to be honest that makes it a lot more dangerous.. and then a lot harder to get out of. Its compared to heroin in terms of giving it up, except its socially acceptable to drink.. i guess its do with how your heads wired as to whether you start increasing the frequency and amount you drink... but it can creep up on you and before you know your feeling a genuine need to drink a lot of the time, its also dangerous because you can generally lead a noral life throughout (like smoking weed too), until its too late and its gone a bit too far...

Need more genuine, unbiased education on legal and illegal drungs IMO in this country. There's people who are constantly taking legal painkillers for minor ailments to the point there livers & kidneys are shot and need much heavier doses and strengths to relive pain. Its fookin your body up. And if you've got an addictive personality, you'll keep taking them.

I think that they are trying to say as loudly as possible, "Opinions are more important than facts".

"The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts."

LOL. It's always best to ignore empirical facts...........

Tabloid reporting at its best...

Well they've never let the facts get in the way of a good story before - why should they start now?

They won't all the time people take what they write as fact :-(

Indeed.