Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Rekinn, fyrir að segja sannleikann um Kannabis og Ecstacy

3 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Alltaf sama hræsnin í stjórnvöldum.

Ráða sérfræðinga í ráðleggingarstörf og fara síðan ekkert eftir ráðleggingum sérfræðinganna.

Sem dæmi, þá var klárt mál að The Advisory Council of Misuse and Drugs (ACMD) töldu tómt rugl að hækka Cannabisb aftur upp í B flokk frá C flokknum sem það hafði verið fært niður í með góðum árangri.

Gordon Brown blés á ráðleggingar sérfræðinganna og hækkaði kannabis í skaðsemisflokk B.

S.s. Gordon Brown er týpískur stjórnmálahundur, sem vill frekar halda áfram að halda marg afsönnuðum fordómum (ala. Tóta tyrfings) að almenningi, en að fara með rétt mál og fylgja því eftir með lagalegum aðgerðum.

Nei, það er miklu betra fyrir lyfjarisana að hafa þetta bannað og þess vegna verja stjórnvöld allan aðgang að réttum upplýsingum, með því að reka þá sem voga sér að segja sannleikann.

M.ö.o. þá er ecstacy (efnið sjálft) ekki hættulegra en svo, að það eru meiri líkur á því að skaða sig á því að fara á hestbak, en að taka ecstacy.

Canabisið er að sjálfsögðu fyrir löngu borðleggjandi, hvað varðar lögleiðingu.

Sacked – for telling the truth about drugs

Government fires top adviser for challenging its hardline policy on cannabis and ecstasy

By Jeremy Laurance, Health editor

Saturday, 31 October 2009

The Government's drugs tsar was forced to resign last night for stating his view that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol.

The Home Secretary Alan Johnson asked Professor David Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), saying he had "lost confidence" in his ability to give impartial advice.

Related articles

But last night Professor Nutt, who is head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, retaliated, accusing the Government of "misleading" the pubic in its messages about drugs and of "Luddite" tendencies.

He was backed by other senior scientists and politicians.

Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said: "The Government cannot expect the experts who serve on its independent committees not to voice their concern if the advice they give is rejected even before it is published. "I worry that the dismissal of Professor Nutt will discourage academic and clinical experts from offering their knowledge and time to help the Government in the future."

Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, where Professor Nutt made his comments, said: "I'm dismayed that the Home Secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that, when it comes to the Home Office's relationship with the research community, honest researchers should be seen but not heard." He added it was "a bad day for science and for the cause of evidence-informed policy making".

Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year, was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year. He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using" the drug.

Most drugs experts believe his analysis is right. But ministers did not want to hear the truth or at least to be reminded of it repeatedly. The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us. The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed scientific appraisal.

"Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite attitude of governments towards science."

He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that parents should be more worried about alcohol.

"The greatest concern to parents should be that their children do not get completely off their heads with alcohol because it can kill them ... and it leads them to do things which are very dangerous, such as to kill themselves or others in cars, get into fights, get raped, and engage in other activities which they regret subsequently. My view is that, if you want to reduce the harm to society from drugs, alcohol is the drug to target at present."

In a recent broadside, Professor Nutt accused Jacqui Smith, who oversaw the reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B, of "distorting and devaluing" scientific research. He said her decision to reclassify cannabis as a "precautionary step" sent mixed messages and undermined public faith in government science.

"I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm. We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."

The Home Office said Mr Johnson had written to Professor Nutt expressing "surprise and disappointment" over his remarks. Mr Johnson said in the letter that Professor Nutt had gone beyond providing evidence to "lobbying" for changes to policy. He said: "As Home Secretary it is for me to make decisions, having received advice from the [Council] ... It is important that the Government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them ... I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities."

The shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "This was an inevitable decision after his latest ill-judged contribution to the debate, but it is a sign of lack of focus at the Home Office that it didn't act sooner, given that he has done this before."

But Phil Willis, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said: "I am writing immediately to the Home Secretary to ask for clarification as to why Sir David Nutt has been relieved of duties as chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs at a time when independent scientific advice to Government is essential. It is disturbing if an independent scientist should be removed for reporting sound scientific advice."

Claudia Rubin from Release – a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law – said the expert should not have been penalised. "It's a real shame and a real indictment of the Government's refusal to take any proper advice on this subject," she said.

S.s. ef vísindamenn og sérfræðingar segja ekki það sem ríkisstjórnin VILL að þeir segi, þrátt fyrir að það gangi ÞVERT gegn vísingum sem og öðrum gögnum, þá skuli þeir reknir.

Skítt með það að tugþúsundir manna sitji í fangelsi vegna þessara ólaga, skítt með það bara, það sem ríkisstjórnin segir er rétt, hvað sem sérfræðingarnir nú segja.

OG ÞESSUM ÁRÓÐRI TRÚA MARGIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! S.s. Af því að það er bannað með lögum, þá hlýtur það að vera alveg hryllilega slæmt :throwup:



Edited by Grasi

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Meira um þetta mál hjá the Guardian

Sacked drugs adviser accuses Gordon Brown of meddling in cannabis decision

Professor David Nutt warns resignations may result from prime minister's 'absurd' stance on reclassification

The government's former chief drug adviser today accused the prime minister, Gordon Brown, of tightening the law on cannabis for political reasons.

Professor David Nutt warned that other experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) could resign in protest at his sacking by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, yesterday.

Nutt was forced to quit after he accused ministers of "devaluing and distorting" the scientific evidence over illicit drugs when they decided last year to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD.

Nutt told the BBC today that Brown had "made up his mind" to reclassify cannabis despite evidence to the contrary.

"Gordon Brown comes into office and, soon after that, he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a class B drug. He has made his mind up.

"We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, 'No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it's still a class C drug.' He said, 'Tough, it's going to be class B'."

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Nutt said: "He is the first prime minister, this is the first government, that has ever in the history of the Misuse of Drugs Act gone against the advice of its scientific panel.

"And then it did it again with ecstasy and I have to say it's not about [me] overstepping the line, it's about the government overstepping the line. They are making scientific decisions before they've even consulted with their experts.

"I know that my committee was very, very upset by the attitude the prime minister took over cannabis. We actually formally wrote to him to complain about it," he said. "I wouldn't be surprised if some of them stepped down. Maybe all of them will."

Nutt's sacking is likely to raise concerns among scientists over the independence of advice to the government and may trigger further resignations. The Home Office describes the ACMD as an independent expert body that advises on drug-related issues, including recommendations on classification under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act.

It is not thought that the home secretary spoke directly to Nutt before requesting his resignation in writing.

Johnson accused the professor of going beyond his remit as an evidence-based scientist and accused him of "lobbying for a change in government policy" rather than giving impartial advice.

"It is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them," Johnson wrote to Nutt.

"As my lead adviser on drugs harms I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities.

"I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD."

The decision followed the publication of a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London, based on a lecture Nutt delivered in July. He repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

He accused the former home secretary, Jacqui Smith, of distorting and devaluing scientific research when she reclassified cannabis, and repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy were no worse than riding a horse.

The charity DrugScope's director of communications, Harry Shapiro, said: "The home secretary's decision to force the resignation of the chair of an independent advisory body is an extremely serious and concerning development and raises serious questions about the means by which drug policy is informed and kept under review."

Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London, accused Johnson of undermining scientific research.

He said: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion."

það er yndisleg tilfinning að berjast gegn "the public opinion" og fá það staðfest hafa rétt fyrir sér, þótt ég hafi reyndar vitað það sjálfur allan tímann. ;)

Lygaáróður fellur alltaf um sjálfan sig fyrr eða síðar, og nú er þessi lygaáróður fallinn aftur, og aftur og svo enn aftur :)



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hér er grein ágætrar konu um þetta málefni.

Börn drykkjufólks ættu að kíkja á þetta feitletraða, sá hluti ætti að segja ykkur ýmislegt.

My name is Lauren and I am a junkie. An addict to harmful substances, according to the Government’s former drugs tsar, Professor David Nutt.

He was sacked on Friday for claiming that cannabis and Ecstasy are less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes in a new ‘index of harm’ he compiled to warn the public of the relative dangers of various substances.

Thanks to this list I have gone from being a social drinker and smoker to a habitual user of the fifth and ninth most harmful drugs available in Britain.

According to Nutt, who was chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the nicotine I inhale and the Australian merlot I drink most evenings are more ‘potentially harmful’ than cannabis and Ecstasy. So, naturally, I was furious with his statements.

Furious, yes – because it’s taken this long for someone to have the guts to take the legal-illegal drug argument by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shake.

Until now my unhealthy, yet completely legal, habits have been segregated from any debate concerning the relative harm caused by other, less readily available behaviour-altering substances.

Why? The legal habits most of us cling to in order to make modern life more bearable deserve to be scrutinised in the same way as addictions that are less socially palatable. Indeed, as so many of us drink so much, they deserve more rigorous re-examination.

Two memories came back to me as I read Nutt’s very sensible comments. The first was how I used to climb the stairs slowly to our family flat, when I was a school child, sniffing the air as I went. For ‘signs’.

If the pungent fumes of marijuana floated down from above, I would relax and trot up to the front door eager to see Mum and Dad. But if I could smell the sweated, bitter aroma of Carlsberg Special Brew in the air, I would linger, scared.

Because in my home, as in far too many others, the question wasn’t what was legal and what wasn’t, nor what was cool or what was not. It was this: laughing adults, stoned on illegal weed or violent, frightening ones, drunk on legal lager?

I’ve also been thinking about the ill-fated Zammo – or rather the child actor who played him in Grange Hill. Zammo fronted the ‘Just Say No’ campaign in the Eighties. Back then, children were told chilling tales about how drugs would lead to death, epileptic fits or, worse, bad dress sense and loose morals.

When the girls in the year above me resolutely failed to die, but were boasting about popping pills with abandon, all Government information on what risks were involved in getting high was dismissed with the single word: ‘Zammo’.

Research in recent years has analysed the link between the harmful effects of drugs relative to their current classification.

Alcohol, solvents and tobacco (all unclassified drugs) have repeatedly been rated as more dangerous than Ecstasy, and LSD (class A drugs). If the current ABC system is retained, alcohol would – and should – be rated a class A drug and tobacco class B.

Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London, has said Nutt’s controversial briefing paper gave an insight into what drugs policy might look like – if it was based on research evidence rather than political or moral positioning.

Then, Home Secretary, Alan Johnson did what Home Secretaries do when faced with a tricky debate on the ‘war on drugs’. He shot the messenger.

We, the ‘social’ drinkers and part-time puffers of Britain, have another reprieve from censure, thanks to Mr Johnson.

Our legal, taxable poisons will not be classified by the Government in the same way as toxins from which they cannot raise much-needed revenue.

And the debate on how our society relies on substance abuse and what radical measures need to be taken to lessen their stranglehold on us suffers another major setback.



Edited by Grasi

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.