http://frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/a-muddled-moral-and-political-agenda/

x-no-archive: yes

firemonkey wrote:

> http://frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/a-muddled-moral-and-political-agenda/

Four thousand scientific papers on the use of ecstasy? Wow, I remember a 
time not too long ago when nobody had heard of it.

I think some of what Alan Johnson is saying makes a fair point - if you 
are a party to formulating government policy, then you have channels 
open to you to provide input towards that policy. You shouldn't also go 
to the press slagging off that policy.

Evil Nigel

nigel wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> 
> firemonkey wrote:
> 
>> http://frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/a-muddled-moral-and-political-agenda/
> 
> Four thousand scientific papers on the use of ecstasy? Wow, I remember a 
> time not too long ago when nobody had heard of it.
> 
> I think some of what Alan Johnson is saying makes a fair point - if you 
> are a party to formulating government policy, then you have channels 
> open to you to provide input towards that policy. You shouldn't also go 
> to the press slagging off that policy.
> 
> Evil Nigel
> 



http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/01/prof-nutt-death-by-a-bar-chart/

x-no-archive: yes

firemonkey wrote:

> nigel wrote:
> 
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> firemonkey wrote:
>>
>>> http://frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/a-muddled-moral-and-political-agenda/
>>
>>
>> Four thousand scientific papers on the use of ecstasy? Wow, I remember 
>> a time not too long ago when nobody had heard of it.
>>
>> I think some of what Alan Johnson is saying makes a fair point - if 
>> you are a party to formulating government policy, then you have 
>> channels open to you to provide input towards that policy. You 
>> shouldn't also go to the press slagging off that policy.
>>
>> Evil Nigel
>>
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/01/prof-nutt-death-by-a-bar-chart/

The argument seemed credible until he used the term 'wrong-headed'.

Evil Nigel

nigel  wrote in
news:2eOdnQXT7sggKHDXnZ2dnUVZ7sli4p2d@brightview.co.uk: 

snip

> The argument seemed credible until he used the term 'wrong-headed'.
> 
> Evil Nigel
> 
> 

Yeah, insane is a much better description. Holland closing 4 prisons due to 
lack of criminals, Portugal seeing reduction across the board in drug use 
particularly in the 13-19 age bracket, reduction in crime and major 
reduction in drug related deaths. Of course we don't want that nonsense 
here.

If you are tasked with advising politicians and you give them the best 
scientific evidence you can and you are subsequently ignored for political 
reasons what should you do? The evidence of most of Europes 'wrong-headed' 
approach exists in buckets, positive evidence in thimbles. The public 
should be made aware that the government is deliberately going against the 
best interests of the nation for votes / right-wing public opinion / 
economics and that's all the prof has done. Mr Johnson's decisions have 
been at best been dubious but in this matter 'wrong-headed' is overly 
polite.

Only 4000 papers on MDMA after 70 years of significant use, nearly 40 years 
as a 'street drug' and over 20 years as a popular drug is shocking but so 
is the fact that cannabis has over 6000 years of popular use and is still 
relatively unstudied medically,

MiG

x-no-archive: yes

MiG wrote:

> nigel  wrote in
> news:2eOdnQXT7sggKHDXnZ2dnUVZ7sli4p2d@brightview.co.uk: 
> 
> snip
> 
> 
>>The argument seemed credible until he used the term 'wrong-headed'.
>>
>>Evil Nigel
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Yeah, insane is a much better description. Holland closing 4 prisons due to 
> lack of criminals, Portugal seeing reduction across the board in drug use 
> particularly in the 13-19 age bracket, reduction in crime and major 
> reduction in drug related deaths. Of course we don't want that nonsense 
> here.

Downgrading Cannabis to Class C clearly didn't have the positive effects 
that the liberals hoped for, and returning it to Class B seems to be the 
logical choice. Personally I believe there are a few people for whom 
Cannabis is a useful palliative for their ailments, and if they are not 
in a position to drive or operate dangerous machinery it would be great 
if it could be made freely available to them.

> If you are tasked with advising politicians and you give them the best 
> scientific evidence you can and you are subsequently ignored for political 
> reasons what should you do? The evidence of most of Europes 'wrong-headed' 
> approach exists in buckets, positive evidence in thimbles. The public 
> should be made aware that the government is deliberately going against the 
> best interests of the nation for votes / right-wing public opinion / 
> economics and that's all the prof has done.

No, the prof pointed out that although certain proscribed recreational 
drugs are dangerous, currently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco 
can be even more dangerous. However there is far more of a culture for 
smoking and drinking in this country and legislation against them has to 
be taken slowly.

> Mr Johnson's decisions have 
> been at best been dubious but in this matter 'wrong-headed' is overly 
> polite.

The decision to downgrade Cannabis was certainly wrong-headed, but that 
has now been corrected.

> Only 4000 papers on MDMA after 70 years of significant use, nearly 40 years 
> as a 'street drug' and over 20 years as a popular drug is shocking but so 
> is the fact that cannabis has over 6000 years of popular use and is still 
> relatively unstudied medically,

MDMA came into significant medicinal use in the sixties - that's not 70 
years of significant use. 4000 papers in about forty years means about 
100 papers per year. That figure looks bogus.

MDMA was unheard of as a street drug in Britain before about 1990, and 
even then took a while to gain popularity.

I agree with your point about Cannabis being underexamined medically, 
but that's true of a large number of traditional herbal remedies. Given 
that no pharmaceutical companies would be interested because they can't 
patent the chemicals, how should the government go about testing them 
all and who should pay?

Evil Nigel

nigel  wrote in
news:KsSdnbP3Z4lGInDXnZ2dnUVZ7rudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk: 

> x-no-archive: yes
> 
> MiG wrote:
> 
>> nigel  wrote in
>> news:2eOdnQXT7sggKHDXnZ2dnUVZ7sli4p2d@brightview.co.uk: 
>> 
>> snip
>> 
>> 
>>>The argument seemed credible until he used the term 'wrong-headed'.
>>>
>>>Evil Nigel
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, insane is a much better description. Holland closing 4 prisons
>> due to lack of criminals, Portugal seeing reduction across the board
>> in drug use particularly in the 13-19 age bracket, reduction in crime
>> and major reduction in drug related deaths. Of course we don't want
>> that nonsense here.
> 
> Downgrading Cannabis to Class C clearly didn't have the positive
> effects that the liberals hoped for, and returning it to Class B seems
> to be the logical choice. Personally I believe there are a few people
> for whom Cannabis is a useful palliative for their ailments, and if
> they are not in a position to drive or operate dangerous machinery it
> would be great if it could be made freely available to them.

I passed my driving test very stoned first time. Sanity in drug laws, 
cause and effect based decision making is all I advocate. The illegality 
of cannabis is what is ridiculous and invariably when decriminalised the 
'positive effects' are seen and only under decriminalisation.

>> If you are tasked with advising politicians and you give them the
>> best scientific evidence you can and you are subsequently ignored for
>> political reasons what should you do? The evidence of most of Europes
>> 'wrong-headed' approach exists in buckets, positive evidence in
>> thimbles. The public should be made aware that the government is
>> deliberately going against the best interests of the nation for votes
>> / right-wing public opinion / economics and that's all the prof has
>> done. 
> 
> No, the prof pointed out that although certain proscribed recreational
> drugs are dangerous, currently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco
> can be even more dangerous. However there is far more of a culture for
> smoking and drinking in this country and legislation against them has
> to be taken slowly.

So you agree, despite the opening no. The descision is based on votes
/ public opinion / economics and not science or social science but 
elements of status quo.

>> Mr Johnson's decisions have 
>> been at best been dubious but in this matter 'wrong-headed' is overly
>> polite.
> 
> The decision to downgrade Cannabis was certainly wrong-headed, but
> that has now been corrected.

<facepalm>Yeah lets lock up Thai growers so we have to put rapists on 
the streets after six months, tax the already overloaded criminal 
justice system and ignore the advice of every law enforcement agency in 
the country</facepalm>

>> Only 4000 papers on MDMA after 70 years of significant use, nearly 40
>> years as a 'street drug' and over 20 years as a popular drug is
>> shocking but so is the fact that cannabis has over 6000 years of
>> popular use and is still relatively unstudied medically,
> 
> MDMA came into significant medicinal use in the sixties - that's not
> 70 years of significant use. 4000 papers in about forty years means
> about 100 papers per year. That figure looks bogus.

<facepalm>n-MDA was Shugin's baby, synthesised in the 50's to wich you 
refer, the first widespread MDMA study was on Nazi troops in the 1930's 
which is how long ago?</facepalm>

> MDMA was unheard of as a street drug in Britain before about 1990, and
> even then took a while to gain popularity.

My first experiance was 1989 (which is before 1990). My gay friends had 
known about it for a couple of years by then (since about '86). It was 
about 1991-2 that it really took off.

> I agree with your point about Cannabis being underexamined medically, 
> but that's true of a large number of traditional herbal remedies.
> Given that no pharmaceutical companies would be interested because
> they can't patent the chemicals, how should the government go about
> testing them all and who should pay?
> 
> Evil Nigel

MiG

MiG wrote:

> nigel  wrote in
> 
> I passed my driving test very stoned first time.

Doubtless you're aware of the studies showing that drug intoxication is 
as dangerous as alcohol intoxocation when driving. I hope you have more 
sense nowadays than to drive when stoned.

> Sanity in drug laws, 
> cause and effect based decision making is all I advocate.

So you're happy then. Cannabis was downgraded, it caused far more 
problems than it fixed so it was returned to its previous grade. Cause 
and effect.

>>>The public should be made aware that the government is
>>>deliberately going against the best interests of the nation for votes
>>>/ right-wing public opinion / economics and that's all the prof has
>>>done. 
>>
>>No, the prof pointed out that although certain proscribed recreational
>>drugs are dangerous, currently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco
>>can be even more dangerous. However there is far more of a culture for
>>smoking and drinking in this country and legislation against them has
>>to be taken slowly.
> 
> 
> So you agree, despite the opening no.

The 'no' was because the government was not going against the best 
interests of the nation.

> The descision is based on votes
> / public opinion / economics and not science or social science but 
> elements of status quo.
> 

I don't understand - are you advocating that tobacco and alcohol be 
classified as Class C, or even Class B, drugs?

Evil Nigel

nigel wrote:
> MiG wrote:
> 
>> nigel  wrote in
>>
>> I passed my driving test very stoned first time.
> 
> Doubtless you're aware of the studies showing that drug intoxication is 
> as dangerous as alcohol intoxocation when driving. I hope you have more 
> sense nowadays than to drive when stoned.
> 
>> Sanity in drug laws, cause and effect based decision making is all I 
>> advocate.
>
Prof Nutt’s paper
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf

x-no-archive: yes

firemonkey wrote:

> http://frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/a-muddled-moral-and-political-agenda/

Professor Nutt is at it again, saying the price of alcohol should be 
tripled and that other members will desert the quango he used to work for.

He might be a professor and his science might be right, but he clearly 
has not a single iota of common sense.

Evil Nigel