Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie_Zoom on 01 November 2009, 17:02:25
-
In a very familar fashon to the problems of government vs true science as highlighted by Nick, yesterday their Chief advisor, Professor Nutt, was dropped from the Advisary Council on Drug Misuse.
Why? Because Nutt had the audacity to tell the Government of the scientific fact that alcohol and tobacco is far more dangerous than cannabis, and they don't like the truth! Gordon Brown has already made up his mind that all and every drug is the menace contary to scientific advice.
Now another member of that Council, Dr. Les King has resigned over the Government's stance, and the Labour Peer, scientist Lord Winston has supported Professor Nutt's view that alcohol and tobacco IS more dangerous than cannabis, and the situation that has been created by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson. "is a mess"!
Once more this Government of ours is always looking for the answers it wants (like with Afghanistan and the adequate equipment debate and those on the environmental issue) not what is the truth, provided by genuine experts in their fields of specialist knowledge!! >:( >:( >:(
-
The Government are renowned for employing panels of experts, or in some cases "experts", at great expense, and then simply ignoring the advice if it doesn't fit in with what it wanted to do in the first instance. Or, more often, working it's way through several panels until it finds ( creates) one with which it agrees.
-
I commented on this subject on another thread about it yesterday,but I am completely convinced that the government is right.Have seen the results of this so called safe drug up close and personal - its horrific for those susceptible to its effects.
-
I commented on this subject on another thread about it yesterday,but I am completely convinced that the government is right.Have seen the results of this so called safe drug up close and personal - its horrific for those susceptible to its effects.
You may be right Albs, although I have found cannibis very soothing, but the main point is that you could say that far more about tobacco and drink which I have seen close up and personal with people around me and in hospital.
If the Government were really serious about this subject they would restrict tobacco and alcohol far more than now which costs this country untold millions / billions in health treatment, along with police and the courts time. ;) ;)
-
I commented on this subject on another thread about it yesterday,but I am completely convinced that the government is right.Have seen the results of this so called safe drug up close and personal - its horrific for those susceptible to its effects.
You may be right Albs, although I have found cannibis very soothing, but the main point is that you could say that far more about tobacco and drink which I have seen close up and personal with people around me and in hospital.
If the Government were really serious about this subject they would restrict tobacco and alcohol far more than now which costs this country untold millions / billions in health treatment, along with police and the courts time. ;) ;)
I think there are two alternatives:
1) Criminalise all tobacco, alcohol, non-prescription drugs (but where do you stop there ... aspirin, hay fever antidotes ...etc etc ??? ). Naturally the Government will loose the tax revenue. (Does the tax revenues outweigh the cost to the NHS etc ???)
2) Legalise the drugs in line with tobacco and alcohol. Slap a tax on it and triple the revenue overnight. We still pay for treating mis-use at present, so at least some of that will then be offset. Supplies will be controlled, so safer and cheaper. The underground drugs industry will shrink somewhat, along with the criminal infrastructure it has created.
Simplistic ??? Maybe
Ill thought out ???? Probably. I am no authority on these matters.
What say you, the real people of this land ?
-
Im probably repating myself from the other thread but..........Some people who use cannabis suffer terrible damage to their minds as a result - self harming,great loss of self esteem and confidence,attempted suicide and actual suicide.Many mental health workers will testify to the fact that there is an epidemic of young people in particular having horrific mental health issues after using cannabis,the wards of mental health units are full of them.There are also many suicides as a result of it.
Alcohol and tobacco have been legal for centuries and therefore the argument is a bit different,particularily with alcohol as it doesnt cause anyone any problems if used sensibly.
Tobacco has been in use for a long time but it is only relatively recently that the dangers have become apparent.In reality,if tobacco was banned or alcohol sale restricted the treasury would probably be insolvent in a very short time due to the loss in revenue,and that is probably the biggest reason that politicians dont try to ban it.
There are also personal choice issues around alcohol and tobacco as products which have been legal and generally socially acceptable for hundreds of years,whereas cannabis is and always has been illegal and also considered socially unacceptable in many parts of society until quite recently.
-
I commented on this subject on another thread about it yesterday,but I am completely convinced that the government is right.Have seen the results of this so called safe drug up close and personal - its horrific for those susceptible to its effects.
You may be right Albs, although I have found cannibis very soothing, but the main point is that you could say that far more about tobacco and drink which I have seen close up and personal with people around me and in hospital.
If the Government were really serious about this subject they would restrict tobacco and alcohol far more than now which costs this country untold millions / billions in health treatment, along with police and the courts time. ;) ;)
that will never happen liz, they make far too much money out of it in tax :y
as for cannibis, don't use it myself but know plenty of people that do including 2 people who suffer from ms.
again cannibis will never be legal because it is too easy to produce :y
the goverment of the day could never tax it
-
Im probably repating myself from the other thread but..........Some people who use cannabis suffer terrible damage to their minds as a result - self harming,great loss of self esteem and confidence,attempted suicide and actual suicide.Many mental health workers will testify to the fact that there is an epidemic of young people in particular having horrific mental health issues after using cannabis,the wards of mental health units are full of them.There are also many suicides as a result of it.
Alcohol and tobacco have been legal for centuries and therefore the argument is a bit different,particularily with alcohol as it doesnt cause anyone any problems if used sensibly.
Tobacco has been in use for a long time but it is only relatively recently that the dangers have become apparent.In reality,if tobacco was banned or alcohol sale restricted the treasury would probably be insolvent in a very short time due to the loss in revenue,and that is probably the biggest reason that politicians dont try to ban it.
There are also personal choice issues around alcohol and tobacco as products which have been legal and generally socially acceptable for hundreds of years,whereas cannabis is and always has been illegal and also considered socially unacceptable in many parts of society until quite recently.
I doubt that --- I would imagine it would have bbeen in common usage ( possibly as pain relief) for quite a while before the ill effects were considered to warrant banning, as was the case with many of the opiate family.
-
There's only one reason why the government don't want anything to do with cannibis & that's because they can't tax it.
They're not gonna say drink & fags are worst are they ::)
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
-
Im probably repating myself from the other thread but..........Some people who use cannabis suffer terrible damage to their minds as a result - self harming,great loss of self esteem and confidence,attempted suicide and actual suicide.Many mental health workers will testify to the fact that there is an epidemic of young people in particular having horrific mental health issues after using cannabis,the wards of mental health units are full of them.There are also many suicides as a result of it.
Alcohol and tobacco have been legal for centuries and therefore the argument is a bit different,particularily with alcohol as it doesnt cause anyone any problems if used sensibly.
Tobacco has been in use for a long time but it is only relatively recently that the dangers have become apparent.In reality,if tobacco was banned or alcohol sale restricted the treasury would probably be insolvent in a very short time due to the loss in revenue,and that is probably the biggest reason that politicians dont try to ban it.
There are also personal choice issues around alcohol and tobacco as products which have been legal and generally socially acceptable for hundreds of years,whereas cannabis is and always has been illegal and also considered socially unacceptable in many parts of society until quite recently.
I doubt that --- I would imagine it would have bbeen in common usage ( possibly as pain relief) for quite a while before the ill effects were considered to warrant banning, as was the case with many of the opiate family.
your probably right HC,but it has been illegal since what we would call modern times,certainly throughout my lifetime. :y
-
the government look more ludicrous every day i'm afraid and say what you like about the tories but they'd never consult an expert unless they knew without fail he was singing from the same hymn sheet
cigarettes and alcohol are the worst drugs imaginable for long term ill effects and fags don't even get you high - so whats the point exactly?
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Very true ---- as I recall, in my younger days booze came from three places, the pub, the "offie" or a specialist wine shop -- all were stricly licensed and strongly monitored. Far easier in those circumstances to control abuse of the age restrictions.
-
There's only one reason why the government don't want anything to do with cannibis & that's because they can't tax it.
They're not gonna say drink & fags are worst are they ::)
If they opened up their own supply line they could ! ::)
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Spot on I think Albs! :y :y :y :y
-
Although I accept that cannabis can become a trigger for mental health issues, in most cases underlying social issues would be the actual cause. You only need to look at a typical council estate to see how some people think they should bring up their kids. Physical and emotional neglect will cause more mental health problems than cannabis ever will. The goverment have picked cannabis at their scapegoat and they are sticking to it despite scientific evedence to the controrary.
-
I feel a lot of sympathy for the argument that scientific advisers should be used by governments but as with most things, they have an agenda too.
A lot of what they say can have massive affects on funding for research so it is quite right to examine the impartiality of their recommendations.
It is quite possible too that advisers from different areas of scientific research will come up with legitimate information that will have conflicting solutions.
What society needs is some body that can rationalise the findings and create an appropriate legislation. That should be parliament; but.... oh dear! :(
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
You could well be out of the frying-pan into the fire if you think that scientists/experts are necessarily unbiased.
This rot of serving self-interest is VERY far-reaching (at least in our UK society). :'(
-
I feel a lot of sympathy for the argument that scientific advisers should be used by governments but as with most things, they have an agenda too.
A lot of what they say can have massive affects on funding for research so it is quite right to examine the impartiality of their recommendations.
It is quite possible too that advisers from different areas of scientific research will come up with legitimate information that will have conflicting solutions.
What society needs is some body that can rationalise the findings and create an appropriate legislation. That should be parliament; but.... oh dear! :(
That's the one Chris :y
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
In one Kevin. :y
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
You could well be out of the frying-pan into the fire if you think that scientists/experts are necessarily unbiased.
This rot of serving self-interest is VERY far-reaching (at least in our UK society). :'(
....and that's the other one Chris :y
-
You could well be out of the frying-pan into the fire if you think that scientists/experts are necessarily unbiased.
This rot of serving self-interest is VERY far-reaching (at least in our UK society). :'(
I didn't mean to suggest that all scientist / expert advice is unbiased. That is far from the case, especially as expert advice is generally sought "for free" from the private sector by the government these days. Only those with a vested interest need apply. >:(
Our current government appear to be a mixture of ex-union officials and career politicians with no industrial grounding. God knows they need some advice from somewhere, because they are uniquely unqualified to run the country without.
Kevin
-
Well we would not want facts to get in the way of politics now would we.
-
If it's not a government of one complexion making a Hash of something it would the other of a different colour. Opinions are formed by potential votes, no common sense or science.
Nobody enters politics for altrustic reasons.
(I think the sudden crop of poppies on the forum sends out the wrong message ;))
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
You could well be out of the frying-pan into the fire if you think that scientists/experts are necessarily unbiased.
This rot of serving self-interest is VERY far-reaching (at least in our UK society). :'(
Where I agree that all experts are not necessarily unbiased, but I fail to see what Prof Nutt would have to gain by his report. He has looked more 'favourably' at an illegal industry over the rich alcohol and tobacco industries. He has also placed himself very much in the spotlight which could bring him unwanted attention. I would actually go as far to say that he has been brave to speak out as he has.
To accuse him of being biased, just because you do not agree with his report sounds like the same 'head in the sand' tactics of the government. I would be surprised if any of them would even know the difference between a class B like cannabis or a class A like heorin. People have been conditioned for many years to believe that 'all drugs are bad' and if you take any of them you are going to end up a junkie out robbing old ladies. This is not the case, but some people are so stubborn with ignorance that they will dismiss anything to the contrary.
-
If it's not a government of one complexion making a Hash of something it would the other of a different colour. Opinions are formed by potential votes, no common sense or science.
Nobody enters politics for altrustic reasons.
(I think the sudden crop of poppies on the forum sends out the wrong message ;))
Now that is something I agree with. Middle England, or middle Scotland's opinion will never change. It would be political suicide to go against the (unfounded) opinion of the masses.
-
If it's not a government of one complexion making a Hash of something it would the other of a different colour. Opinions are formed by potential votes, no common sense or science.
Nobody enters politics for altrustic reasons.
(I think the sudden crop of poppies on the forum sends out the wrong message ;))
I don't see why not PF.
What message is my poppy sending out in your view PF?
-
Although I accept that cannabis can become a trigger for mental health issues, in most cases underlying social issues would be the actual cause. You only need to look at a typical council estate to see how some people think they should bring up their kids. Physical and emotional neglect will cause more mental health problems than cannabis ever will. The goverment have picked cannabis at their scapegoat and they are sticking to it despite scientific evedence to the controrary.
Not far off being spot on, Generally an underlying mental health condition may never rear it's head but it's well documented that cannabis can bring this to the forefront. I speak as the manager of an inner city drug service that deals with the tragedy and chaos of drug and alcohol use on a daily basis. I have met Prof Knutt at a conference and he seems a stand up guy.
In terms of what he has said, It's fact that alcohol and tobacco are more detrimental to health than ecstasy and cannabis and his sacking is nothing more than a confirmation that the government chat siht/reconfigure the truth for the sake of gaining voters confidennce.
Classifiation of illegal drugs means nothing at all in real life terms and despite the ever changing policys and laws people will use what they want , when they want and how they want.
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
You could well be out of the frying-pan into the fire if you think that scientists/experts are necessarily unbiased.
This rot of serving self-interest is VERY far-reaching (at least in our UK society). :'(
Where I agree that all experts are not necessarily unbiased, but I fail to see what Prof Nutt would have to gain by his report. He has looked more 'favourably' at an illegal industry over the rich alcohol and tobacco industries. He has also placed himself very much in the spotlight which could bring him unwanted attention. I would actually go as far to say that he has been brave to speak out as he has.
To accuse him of being biased, just because you do not agree with his report sounds like the same 'head in the sand' tactics of the government. I would be surprised if any of them would even know the difference between a class B like cannabis or a class A like heorin. People have been conditioned for many years to believe that 'all drugs are bad' and if you take any of them you are going to end up a junkie out robbing old ladies. This is not the case, but some people are so stubborn with ignorance that they will dismiss anything to the contrary.
I've no intention of taking sides in the Nutt/Gov barny, it's just that having asked for advice from the scientific community, one then needs to confirm its validity in the context of its scrutiny (harm to human bodies in this case I would suggest) then amalgamate that advice with other relevant factors such as impact on commerce, crime, operation of hazardous machinery etc. some of which is well outside the expertise of those self-same scientists.
It is also relevant to consider how long a drug has had its status. Alcohol and tobacco have been regularly consumped for many decades and would probably need to be re-classified gradually to prevent adverse reactions from those who are dependent on them. In fact steadily-increasing taxation IS progressively putting these two outside of people's reach.
What message is my poppy sending out in your view PF?
I think that's the opium thing :D.
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
You could well be out of the frying-pan into the fire if you think that scientists/experts are necessarily unbiased.
This rot of serving self-interest is VERY far-reaching (at least in our UK society). :'(
Where I agree that all experts are not necessarily unbiased, but I fail to see what Prof Nutt would have to gain by his report. He has looked more 'favourably' at an illegal industry over the rich alcohol and tobacco industries. He has also placed himself very much in the spotlight which could bring him unwanted attention. I would actually go as far to say that he has been brave to speak out as he has.
To accuse him of being biased, just because you do not agree with his report sounds like the same 'head in the sand' tactics of the government. I would be surprised if any of them would even know the difference between a class B like cannabis or a class A like heorin. People have been conditioned for many years to believe that 'all drugs are bad' and if you take any of them you are going to end up a junkie out robbing old ladies. This is not the case, but some people are so stubborn with ignorance that they will dismiss anything to the contrary.
I've no intention of taking sides in the Nutt/Gov barny, it's just that having asked for advice from the scientific community, one then needs to confirm its validity in the context of its scrutiny (harm to human bodies in this case I would suggest) then amalgamate that advice with other relevant factors such as impact on commerce, crime, operation of hazardous machinery etc. some of which is well outside the expertise of those self-same scientists.
It is also relevant to consider how long a drug has had its status. Alcohol and tobacco have been regularly consumped for many decades and would probably need to be re-classified gradually to prevent adverse reactions from those who are dependent on them. In fact steadily-increasing taxation IS progressively putting these two outside of people's reach.
What message is my poppy sending out in your view PF?
I think that's the opium thing :D.
You got it, but who noticed the other pun in my posting??
-
I believe that the age limit for buying tobacco products should be raised to 21,and there should be very harsh penalties for shops etc, who break the rules.I also think there could be a good case for doing the same thing with alcohol.
Most people who smoke start young,if they havent started at 21 most wont start at all imo.
Problem is, teenage kids will meddle with something. You only have to look at some areas in the US where they are draconian in pursuing under-age drinking - drugs take its' place. Whatever is easiest to get hold of.
I don't believe a large proportion of teenagers who drink end up having their lives ruined by it, especially if their parents are sensible about introducing them to drinking alcohol in moderation. I would wager that proportion is higher for drugs but, unlike the government, I would prefer to see scientific evidence before making such sweeping statements. ;)
I also don't believe classification of drugs makes the slightest difference to anybody in the real world. Does a drug user have a bad day and decide it's time to make the transition from class C to class B? I don't think so. I reckon they go from substance to substance depending on what's available and what their peers are using.
The big story here is that it has highlighted what I feel has been endemic in this government for years. A total contempt for unbiased advice from the scientific / expert community in favour of making policy up according to their own prejudices and mistaken beliefs.
It has been happening in far more important areas than pot smoking too. "Climate change", energy supply, schools, the NHS, policing..... all in a mess because ministers (who are expert in nothing but canvassing public support) are "winging it". >:(
Kevin
You could well be out of the frying-pan into the fire if you think that scientists/experts are necessarily unbiased.
This rot of serving self-interest is VERY far-reaching (at least in our UK society). :'(
Where I agree that all experts are not necessarily unbiased, but I fail to see what Prof Nutt would have to gain by his report. He has looked more 'favourably' at an illegal industry over the rich alcohol and tobacco industries. He has also placed himself very much in the spotlight which could bring him unwanted attention. I would actually go as far to say that he has been brave to speak out as he has.
To accuse him of being biased, just because you do not agree with his report sounds like the same 'head in the sand' tactics of the government. I would be surprised if any of them would even know the difference between a class B like cannabis or a class A like heorin. People have been conditioned for many years to believe that 'all drugs are bad' and if you take any of them you are going to end up a junkie out robbing old ladies. This is not the case, but some people are so stubborn with ignorance that they will dismiss anything to the contrary.
I've no intention of taking sides in the Nutt/Gov barny, it's just that having asked for advice from the scientific community, one then needs to confirm its validity in the context of its scrutiny (harm to human bodies in this case I would suggest) then amalgamate that advice with other relevant factors such as impact on commerce, crime, operation of hazardous machinery etc. some of which is well outside the expertise of those self-same scientists.
It is also relevant to consider how long a drug has had its status. Alcohol and tobacco have been regularly consumped for many decades and would probably need to be re-classified gradually to prevent adverse reactions from those who are dependent on them. In fact steadily-increasing taxation IS progressively putting these two outside of people's reach.
What message is my poppy sending out in your view PF?
I think that's the opium thing :D.
You got it, but who noticed the other pun in my posting??
That would be the hash up I reckon -- but maybe a bit too obvious :-?
-
I think that's the opium thing :D.
You got it, but who noticed the other pun in my posting??[/quote]
Have just noticed the other one PF - very good ;D :y
-
Praise be..................
It's all done with speed & ease!!
-
Praise be..................
It's all done with speed & ease!!
Indeed so PF, I'm too old, jaded, bitter and twisted to do much subtlety nowadays :( :(