British drug scientist sacked in government row.

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

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.:)

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

Go to 1minute 5 seconds.