Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vxlnut]

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.

[Chris_H]

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!

[Kevin Wood]

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

[Chris_H]

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).

[Dishevelled Den]

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

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

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

[Kevin Wood]

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

[Marks DTM Calib]

Well we would not want facts to get in the way of politics now would we.

[Pitchfork]

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  )

[vxlnut]

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.

[vxlnut]

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

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?

[omegod]

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. 

[Chris_H]

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 .