British drug scientist sacked in government row.

wudangclan

A british government drug adviser ,David Nutt,was sacked today for stating during the week that he believed cannabis and ecstasy to be less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
He says he is being sacked because he chose to relate what he believes to be the scientific truth, for recommending these substances be reclassified and for refusing to underpin the governments moral line as regards the use of these substances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6087824/Chief-drugs-adviser-sacked-by-Home-Secretary.html

WIZE

Drinking and smoking Kills more people the soft drugs

Biggins

Statistic-wise he is absolutely correct.
Sadly that don't go down well with politicians, the revenue they make from other more "legal" drugs and the way they want to spin things on behalf of lobbying companies.

Just read the posted comments to the same story here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224162/Drug-tsar-claimed-ecstasy-LSD-harmful-alcohol-sacked.html

My name is URL

Just saw this on the BBC news, disgraceful that he was sacked

He's a professional in his field and has the public's best interests at heart, and he can be humiliated and overruled like that by the people responsible for enforcing stuff to protect the public

The same thing goes on here, the magic mushroom ban was just a moral scramble to gain political support, not protect people

TomCo

I don't know why people don't just overthrow the bastards.

dlofnep

BVB wrote: »

Drinking and smoking Kills more people the soft drugs

More people drink and smoke than take soft drugs.

But he's right about alcohol and smoking being more dangerous than cannabis on a physical level. Cannabis is more dangerous than smoking on a mental level. I think we'd see far more ecstasy related deaths each year if the same amount of people who took them, than drank alcohol.

The average person who has a casual pint or two a week is in very little danger of any damage done as the liver can handle it. Can't say the same about ecstasy.

00112984

Heh heh heh heh Nutt heh heh heh heh

Euro_Kraut

I think this is appalling. The head of the Governments Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been sacked for citing evidence on Drugs Misuse that does not suit a political agenda.

Where does this leave the person to fill this post? Can they honestly advise the Government or will they fell they can only give them advise that suits them? Does the UK Govt only want a certain type of advise?



*My fellow West Wing nerds will remember this very issue coming up in the 2nd season. Bartlett, despite political pressure, did not sack the Surgeon General for making comments eerily similar to David Nutt.

wudangclan

dlofnep wrote: »

The average person who has a casual pint or two a week is in very little danger of any damage done as the liver can handle it. Can't say the same about ecstasy.

apparently science,or at least one scientist,disagrees with you.

Guy:Incognito

BVB wrote: »

Drinking and smoking Kills more people the soft drugs

A lot more people drink and smoke than take drugs.


Bah. beaten too it.:)

Sorry

Pathetic. Extraordinary cowardice from the politicians. Hard to believe that in this day and age there can't be an open, factual discussion on drugs.

lugha

It's not clear to me why he had to say anything. All drugs, legal and illegal carry some risk, some if used excessively, some if used at all. It's not as if only the single riskiest drug will be tackled by government education programs and other initiatives and the rest will be ignored. Where is the point in pointing out that one drug causes more harm than another? If he felt that the government were not doing enough to address alcohol abuse say, then he could just say so.

dlofnep

wudangclan wrote: »

apparently science,or at least one scientist,disagrees with you.

Have these said scientists ever take ecstasy? Have they ever seen their friends go off the track because of habitual use of them?

The liver can break down 1 or 2 pints of alcohol. The impact of 1 or 2 E's every week will destroy you over a long period of time.

Takeshi_Kovacs

I think one of the most dangerous thing about ecstasy, is that there is a lot of bad ecstasy ie impure MDMA. A lot of it contains fillers and dangerous contaminants such as meth and barbituates by drugdealers who dont care about safety of their end product.

JupiterKid

This is small minded politics at its worst here. The guy is a victim of pathetic political posturing.

wudangclan

dlofnep wrote: »

Have these said scientists ever take ecstasy? Have they ever seen their friends go off the track because of habitual use of them?

The liver can break down 1 or 2 pints of alcohol. The impact of 1 or 2 E's every week will destroy you over a long period of time.

that may be.
but the point is the scientist considers alcohol to be more dangerous than ecstasy,he wanted a reclassification of ecstasy and a new classification for all drugs,including legal ones ,according to the harm they cause.
for this,amongst other things,he was sacked.
this shouldn't be.

Nulty

Wow......why am I surprised?

What ever about everyones opinions about this, the guys a scientist.

Dont kill the messenger.

dlofnep

wudangclan wrote: »

that may be.
but the point is the scientist considers alcohol to be more dangerous than ecstasy,he wanted a reclassification of ecstasy and a new classification for all drugs,including legal ones ,according to the harm they cause.
for this,amongst other things,he was sacked.
this shouldn't be.

I don't feel he should have been sacked either, but I don't believe he is right with his findings. It depends on the context like I said. Someone drinking a casual pint or two every week is not in any danger, unless they have severe liver issues. Someone taking ecstasy every week will suffer long term mental issues however. So I'm not sure, on what basis he finds alcohol to be more damaging. It must be on the basis of someone getting hammered every week - in which case, if someone takes lots of e's every week - they are equally at risk to destroying themselves over a long period of time.

I think the classifications of drugs are fine. Cannabis should be legalised. The rest, should be kept where they are - illegal.

wudangclan

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't feel he should have been sacked either, but I don't believe he is right with his findings. It depends on the context like I said. Someone drinking a casual pint or two every week is not in any danger, unless they have severe liver issues. Someone taking ecstasy every week will suffer long term mental issues however. So I'm not sure, on what basis he finds alcohol to be more damaging. It must be on the basis of someone getting hammered every week - in which case, if someone takes lots of e's every week - they are equally at risk to destroying themselves over a long period of time.

I think the classifications of drugs are fine. Cannabis should be legalised. The rest, should be kept where they are - illegal.

i also have no idea on how he came to his conclusions but i do notice that in his classification according to harm levels he has alcohol on the list as the 5th most dangerous drug ,with ecstasy at 18th .

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:BE46vWWewlsJ:homepages.tcp.co.uk/~ukip/the-hard-truth-about-drugs.pdf+david+nutt,ecstasy+safer+than+alcohol,tables,fifth,eighteenth&hl=en&gl=ie&sig=AFQjCNFhAvOQ7hkMQuQoeWfMHAd6tdPVhg

Takeshi_Kovacs

It was from a study done by The Lancet in 2007 where they sought to arrive at a science-based assessment of the comparative harms of various substances, both licit and illicit.
They found that drugs such as tobacco, alcohol heroin, cocaine, cause more harm than other drugs such as lsd ecstasy, cannabis, steroids.

The report can be found here http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext describing their findings and how the assesed the harm different drugs caused. Note you will need to register to view the full report, but it is quick and free.

builttospill

dlofnep wrote: »

The average person who has a casual pint or two a week is in very little danger of any damage done as the liver can handle it. Can't say the same about ecstasy.

Right yeah very good,

Shame though that the majority of "average" people have a whole lot more than a casual pint or two a week. Anyone I know gets hammered most weekends. The amount they drink would be much worse for the liver than a pill would be. I used to abuse alcohol and yokes. Alcohol fcuked me up way more than the yokes did. I don't drink anymore cos it destroyed me and I have abused every other drug bar heroin but they didn't do me any lasting harm. Alcohol is second only to heroin on a destructive scale and I think this scientist along with others before him said something along the same lines.

I can't believe people still subscribe to this backward notion that because certain drugs are illegal they automatically are worse than alcohol and cigarettes. Doh!

Also I will point out that I refuse to go out with my mates when they are drinking cos they turn into obnoxious cnuts. When they are taking pills though I'll be up all night having the craic.

Go figure...

builttospill

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't feel he should have been sacked either, but I don't believe he is right with his findings. It depends on the context like I said. Someone drinking a casual pint or two every week is not in any danger, unless they have severe liver issues. Someone taking ecstasy every week will suffer long term mental issues however. So I'm not sure, on what basis he finds alcohol to be more damaging. It must be on the basis of someone getting hammered every week - in which case, if someone takes lots of e's every week - they are equally at risk to destroying themselves over a long period of time.

I only read this post now. Hilarious. So you're actually disagreeing with a scientist on his findings? Tell me doctor what lab do you work for and could you tell me what research methods you used to come to these conclusions?

Yes someone taking ecstasy every week could well suffer from long term mental health issues but I'm pretty sure if you rifle through some real statistics you will find that alcohol causes a lot more mental health issues in this country than quite possibly all of the illegal drugs put together.

Yes and it probably is on the basis of someone getting hammered every week because most people do get hammered every week!

And lastly like I've said in my previous post, speaking from experience alcohol is much much worse than ecstasy. It's a slow slow killer and people are blinded by society's acceptance of it.

dlofnep

builttospill wrote: »

Shame though that the majority of "average" people have a whole lot more than a casual pint or two a week. Anyone I know gets hammered most weekends. The amount they drink would be much worse for the liver than a pill would be.

Nowhere did I state that pills do more damage to the liver. They damage the user in other areas - especially psychologically.

builttospill wrote: »

I can't believe people still subscribe to this backward notion that because certain drugs are illegal they automatically are worse than alcohol and cigarettes. Doh!

And who stated that because something is illegal, they are automatically worse than alcohol on that premise? You don't think we've all not had the same life experiences as you?

builttospill wrote: »

Also I will point out that I refuse to go out with my mates when they are drinking cos they turn into obnoxious cnuts. When they are taking pills though I'll be up all night having the craic.

Yeah, I can see why a bunch of people, chewing the jaw off themselves, chatting about asinine bollox, would make great company.

builttospill

dlofnep wrote: »

Nowhere did I state that pills do more damage to the liver. They damage the user in other areas - especially psychologically.

Yes if you abuse e's they will cause psychological damage but look at my previous post. Alcohol is a lot more psychologically damaging unless, as you said, people only have 1 or 2 casual drinks a week which let's face it is never the case.

And yes I do rather being around people when they are taking pills. No fights, less aggro, more coherent believe it or not (I should know, I'm sober every night I go out) and a lot less obnoxious.

And lastly regarding my life experience, I'm just giving my two cents having abused both drugs for about 10 years. They aren't even in the same league when it comes to mental and physical damage.

dlofnep

builttospill wrote: »

Yes if you abuse e's they will cause psychological damage but look at my previous post. Alcohol is a lot more psychologically damaging unless, as you said, people only have 1 or 2 casual drinks a week which let's face it is never the case.

Sure it is - My parents only go out once a week for 2 or 3 drinks. But the question isn't - which is more dangerous, based of the probability of consumption per week - it's, which is more dangerous. Period. Don't get me wrong, I think alcohol is very dangerous. And if abused, can cause serious mental and health problems. I just don't like the idea of watering down the dangers of other drugs.

builttospill wrote: »

And lastly regarding my life experience, I'm just giving my two cents having abused both drugs for about 10 years. They aren't even in the same league when it comes to mental and physical damage.

I beg to differ. But then again, it's subjective based on life experience. So it is what it is.

builttospill

dlofnep wrote: »

Sure it is - My parents only go out once a week for 2 or 3 drinks. But the question isn't - which is more dangerous, based of the probability of consumption per week - it's, which is more dangerous. Period. Don't get me wrong, I think alcohol is very dangerous. And if abused, can cause serious mental and health problems. I just don't like the idea of watering down the dangers of other drugs.



I beg to differ. But then again, it's subjective based on life experience. So it is what it is.

Come on! Alcohol abuse is endemic in this country. Almost everyone from our generation drinks too much. You can't use our parents as an example. My parents rarely drink either but that's completely irrelevant. I'm talking about the pubs and clubs bursting at the seams every weekend with revellers who get absolutely destroyed on booze. I have doctor friends who give out about the state of A & E at the weekend because of booze. They never mention anyone coming in messed up on yokes. And then we all see the destruction first hand when we get out onto a street at 3 in the morning after a club. To be honest it fcuking shocks me what alcohol does and I'll be the first to admit that I used to be as bad as anyone else.

The dangers of other drugs aren't being watered down here. We are simply comparing alcohol to "soft drugs" and in particular ecstasy. It has been proven by scientists that alcohol, when abused, is worse both mentally and physically and if you look around every weekend I think this is plain to see.

And yes you are right when you say that our life experiences are subjective and they are what they are. I don't know the first thing about your experiences with alcohol or drugs and nor you mine. With regards to this we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sea Sharp

It should be interesting to see what the political stance is when people born in the 60s & 70s are in power as opposed to people born in the 40s & 50s (These days).

But for the time being, grumpy old men won't budge their stance irrespective of scientific evidence that goes against the propaganda they grew up with. :rolleyes:

Don't hold your breath until enough of the public want drug legalization for it to be an election promise.

Midnight_EG

Go to 1minute 5 seconds.

Pace2008

I'm disappointed to see him go; he always came across as pragmatic and rational. To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't step down sooner considering the government shunned his recommendations when they didn't suit their tabloid agenda.

Pygmalion

W.r.t. Ecstacy, of those of you who say you've known people to have bad experiences with it do you really think any of them were taking pure ecstacy? Drugs sold on street corners don't usually come with a seal of approval and tests for impurities or toxins.

Not saying that it's not more dangerous, I'm not a scientist and I've never tested it, but there has been research done on ecstasy finding it to not be as bad as perceived, perhaps because people never consider whatever other **** was thrown into it before sold to increase profits.

anonymous_joe

Pure ecstacy's a lot safer than stuff cut with loads of chemicals. Duh. Same applies to anything.

And sure if alcohol was invented tomorrow it'd be illegal.

Chucky the tree

dlofnep wrote: »

The average person who has a casual pint or two a week is in very little danger of any damage done as the liver can handle it. Can't say the same about ecstasy.

lol, this is the stupidest point ever. Someone who has a pint or two a week wants a quiet relaxing life so why the hell they would decide to pop 2 pills instead is beyond me. you'd be far better of comparing the damage 2 pints have verus 2 joints and then compare a major night out on drink 10+ pints and then some compared to two pills.

msg11

Drugs are bad

Podge_irl

dlofnep wrote: »

Someone drinking a casual pint or two every week is not in any danger, unless they have severe liver issues. Someone taking ecstasy every week will suffer long term mental issues however.

I'd love to know what scientific study you're basing this particular gem on. I'm not a massive fan of illegal drugs, and would never countenance taking ecstasy, if for no other reason than its not regulated, but you need to approach these issues from a fact based stand point, not an emotive or anecdotal one.

The_Minister

My name is URL wrote: »

The same thing goes on here, the magic mushroom ban was just a moral scramble to gain political support, not protect people

The thing was that technically magic mushrooms were already technically illegal.
There was just a massive loophole which was ignored.

Once someone died, and the airwaves filled up, they had to close the loophole (there was no support for legalisation).

Calibos

The_Minister wrote: »

The thing was that technically magic mushrooms were already technically illegal.
There was just a massive loophole which was ignored.

Once someone died, and the airwaves filled up, they had to close the loophole (there was no support for legalisation).

I always wondered, why do these gob****es who think they can fly. Why do they never try to take off from the ground?

waitinforatrain

The_Minister wrote: »

The thing was that technically magic mushrooms were already technically illegal.
There was just a massive loophole which was ignored.

Once someone died, and the airwaves filled up, they had to close the loophole (there was no support for legalisation).

There's only been no support because someone has yet to be charged for picking them.

Funny thing about natural drugs is they all seem to have these inherent safety mechanisms in a way. Learning to identify the right kind of mushrooms naturally leads you to do a lot of research before taking them. Knowledge and preparation are key to a safe trip.

mattfender

00112984 wrote: »

Heh heh heh heh Nutt heh heh heh heh

What a Nutter.

/night

Nick_oliveri

I think this is a wonderful contribution to the pro soft drug establishment. This is exactly what the pro cannabis movement need to cling to and start moving forward. There needs to be a strong movement here and abroad to "expose" this hypocrisy.

Clare_Guy

well I'm ''asmobhosca'' on legally available drugs that are available from high street shops everywhere and are, all things considered, the best drug I've had in ireland. Thank god they made BZP illegal coz it's after bringing some great chemicals to the market. Thanks mary ''huge piece of meat'' harney...

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't feel he should have been sacked either, but I don't believe he is right with his findings. It depends on the context like I said. Someone drinking a casual pint or two every week is not in any danger, unless they have severe liver issues. Someone taking ecstasy every week will suffer long term mental issues however. So I'm not sure, on what basis he finds alcohol to be more damaging. It must be on the basis of someone getting hammered every week - in which case, if someone takes lots of e's every week - they are equally at risk to destroying themselves over a long period of time.

I think the classifications of drugs are fine. Cannabis should be legalised. The rest, should be kept where they are - illegal.

Thousands of people in the UK and Ireland take Ecstasy weekly, the consumption used to be even higher. Not many people dying from it. Don't know how many are suffering from it psychologically or otherwise, but its not often mentioned as causing harm by public health psychologists.

Medical grade cannabis vs medical grade ecstasy I'd say ecstasy would be safer physically and psychologically.

I'd disagree the classifications are fine. I can't see how heroin, crack and powder cocaine should be in the same category as ecstasy. That's sending out a very dangerous message about cocaine if you ask me.

Helix

TomCo wrote: »

I don't know why people don't just overthrow the bastards.

like we've done in ireland?

oh.... hang on

builttospill

Calibos wrote: »

I always wondered, why do these gob****es who think they can fly. Why do they never try to take off from the ground?

Nice bit of plagiarising of Bill Hicks' material there :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

He's the only one who ever thought that :S

wudangclan

i notice on the table compiled by prof.david nutt (which i posted earlier), drugs are classified according to the harm to the individual and the harm they do to society which may go some way to explaining why alcohol is so near to the top of the list.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:BE46vWWewlsJ:homepages.tcp.co.uk/~ukip/the-hard-truth-about-drugs.pdf+david+nutt,ecstasy+safer+than+alcohol,tables,fifth,eighteenth&hl=en&gl=ie&sig=AFQjCNFhAvOQ7hkMQuQoeWfMHAd6tdPVhg

hidinginthebush

dlofnep wrote: »

Have these said scientists ever take ecstasy? Have they ever seen their friends go off the track because of habitual use of them?

Probably not, though I'd wager that they've seen some of their friends go off track from constant drinking / smoking

dlofnep

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'd love to know what scientific study you're basing this particular gem on. I'm not a massive fan of illegal drugs, and would never countenance taking ecstasy, if for no other reason than its not regulated, but you need to approach these issues from a fact based stand point, not an emotive or anecdotal one.

Then you might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.drugs1

There have been a vast range of studies on ecstasy and it's side effects. If you don't believe that there is, you're living in the clouds I'm afraid.

wudangclan

dlofnep wrote: »

Then you might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.drugs1

There have been a vast range of studies on ecstasy and it's side effects. If you don't believe that there is, you're living in the clouds I'm afraid.

great example.
they reckon this guy was taking about 3 pills a day,every day.
that's about average.

El Weirdo

dlofnep wrote: »

Then you might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.drugs1

There have been a vast range of studies on ecstasy and it's side effects. If you don't believe that there is, you're living in the clouds I'm afraid.

Hardly a normal, run-of-the-mill, case.

kraggy

dlofnep wrote: »

Have these said scientists ever take ecstasy? Have they ever seen their friends go off the track because of habitual use of them?

The liver can break down 1 or 2 pints of alcohol. The impact of 1 or 2 E's every week will destroy you over a long period of time.

Proof?

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

Then you might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.drugs1

There have been a vast range of studies on ecstasy and it's side effects. If you don't believe that there is, you're living in the clouds I'm afraid.

Ah come on, 40,000 pills over nine years and 25 pills a day for 4 years at the height of it!. That's like being on a massive four year booze bender and expecting not to have any problems. And he was also a heavy cannabis user!