Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Two more drug experts quit in row over sacked professor

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 02 November 2009
TWO experts have resigned in support of the government's chief drugs adviser – sacked for claiming cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.
Dr Les King yesterday quit the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), saying Home Secretary Alan Johnson had denied Professor David Nutt's "freedom of expression."

Meanwhile, it was reported Marion Walker, who represented the Royal Pharmaceutical Society on the council, has also resigned.

The controversy erupted last week when Prof Nutt was sacked after saying cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine, and that the drug had been upgraded to Class B against scientific evidence.

He also argued that the reclassification had been for political reasons and "on the whim of the Prime Minister". After being sacked via e-mail by Mr Johnson, Prof Nutt predicted there would be further resignations from the government advisory body that he headed.

Yesterday Dr King, author of a book on the Misuse of Drugs Act and previously head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service, said there was "very strong feeling" among the council's members over Prof Nutt's sacking.

He said: "I'm not going to say just how many I think might resign but there is an extremely angry feeling among most council members.

"Amongst the scientists, I think a number will resign. It doesn't need the whole council to resign for the thing to stop working."

Dr King said the government's attitude to the panel had been shifting in recent years and home secretaries now had a "predefined political agenda" when they asked for its expert advice.

He said: "It's being asked to rubber-stamp a predetermined position." Dr King added: "If sufficient members do resign, the committee will no longer be able to operate."

Dr King said he believed the panel needed to become "free from government interference" in the same way as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the organisation that advises on medicines and clinical practice.

He said: "I don't see why drugs can't be done the same. It can be totally de-politicised. It's all about harm. It's a scientific issue."

Yesterday Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he thought his former chief drugs adviser was "wrong" on cannabis, but sacked him for "crossing a line" into politics.

Prof Nutt responded, saying: "What you cannot have is politicians stepping into the scientific arena – and that is exactly what they have done."

The government was also criticised by Labour peer Lord Winston, who said he agreed with Prof Nutt's scientific opinion on cannabis and was "very surprised and disappointed" by Mr Johnson's actions.

He said: "If governments appoint expert advice, they shouldn't dismiss it so lightly."

He warned the government would be ignored if it gave advice to the public that did not take account of scientists' opinions and said Prof Nutt had made a "very reasonable" point about the relative dangers of illegal and legal drugs.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 November 2009 12:11 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Drugs policy
 
1

Cynicus Unbound,

01/11/2009 23:15:10
Good riddance to these plonkers. They are scientists, not policymakers.
2

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 02/11/2009 00:10:46
To alienate the scientific community this close to an election is pretty suicidal of Brown.
3

Fletty,

02/11/2009 00:11:07
Good riddance to Labour. They are authoritarians not unprejudiced.
4

Julian.,

edinburgh 02/11/2009 00:12:54
How can it be two more experts resigning in row over sacked professor? It's two experts not two more experts.
5

Julian.,

edinburgh 02/11/2009 00:15:26
#2

It's like someone given only 5 months to live dicing with death.
6

danbob,

02/11/2009 00:21:40
Who cares? Did any of these so called experts ever stop any druggie being a druggie? No. Did they stop a alchoholic getting drunk? No. For all their self importance they have changed nothing, and nothing will change by their going. Just saved the taxpayer a bit of money. Just legends in their own minds people like these.
7

Barney Thomson,

Reading 02/11/2009 00:27:30
Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.'

George Orwell (1984)
8

Blue Tooner,

02/11/2009 00:29:39
Why employ experts to give their opinion and then sack them when they give their opinion? We all know that hospitals continue to deal with large numbers of patients suffering nicotine related illnesses and accident units everywhere regularly treat victims of alcohol related violence, so why "shoot the messenger" ?
9

R J Boyd,

Glasgow 02/11/2009 00:55:57
Another day, another NEW LABOUR/BNP fiasco! Everything - yes everything this filthy mob do turns to dust. Even John Major's Govt was more effective than this bunch of cretins and ignoramuses.
10

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 02/11/2009 01:17:43
RJ/Blue Tooner...

Oh and there more...The imigration fiasco has reared its head again..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b009qdpp

11

Stephen Wayne Foster,

Miami, Florida 02/11/2009 01:52:52
If you have to choose between science and the prophet, you must choose the prophet (advice recently given to the Mormons). If you have to choose between science and New Labour, you must choose New Labour (advice recently given to the British voters).
12

Clive Webbe,

Alford 02/11/2009 02:42:42
So cool to see Alan Johnson throw his toys out of his pram when pushed by Adam Boulton. Surely he will put the fear of god into the rest of his advisory team. BYE BYE
13

David McDade,

Forfar 02/11/2009 04:28:53
appoint experts then dont listen to them, good way to spend taxpayers money.
14

John Cameron,

St Andrews 02/11/2009 05:52:03
Of all the mind boggling statements to escape the lips of Gordon Brown, his claim to want a ‘government of all the talents’ was far and away the most weird. Those of us who have know him since his Edinburgh University days know that he cannot stand to have really clever people near him. His Cabinet of clowns and buffoons, his kitchen cabinet of thugs and bloggers, his Gotterdammerung days chewing the Axminster in the No 10 Bunker, all tell the same story. When the PM says he wants a “debate” he means he wants you to listen in silence while he relates his version of some parallel universe. The only thing I find surprising about this fiasco is that seriously intelligent people such as Malloch Brown, Adair Turner, Digby Jones, David Nutt, etc could ever have believed that Bonkers Brown was going to listen to a word they said.
15

Locutus,

Airdrie 02/11/2009 06:47:07
Cannabis has been used for medicinal reasons for centuries! It is still legally prescribed in the UK under the brand name "Sativex"
In Canada, Australia and 13 states in the USA, people suffering from MS are allowed to grow their own for purely medicinal reasons - maybe Broon/Johnston will be lobbying for Obama to sack his experts now?
16

Rabhairt,

Cannons Creek 02/11/2009 07:11:33
Some politicions just make my mind wonder,, er wander... er what were they saying, I forgot.
Brown is in the sky with diamonds da da da da
17

Morry,

Scotland 02/11/2009 07:16:51
14, love the sentiments, mine too, you made me smile :)
18

Walter Ego,

Durness 02/11/2009 07:36:17
An adviser is there to give advice, not to go in the huff when that advice is ignored. Professor Nutt should have done the noble thing and resigned.
19

tommytommy,

02/11/2009 07:38:41
Can the public be confident that the drugs being prescribed are suitable for purpose as recommended by the scientific community or are they available because the politician likes the look of them?

Can we be assured that vaccines are scientifically approved /recommended or are they "value based" vaccines approved by Mr.Johnston?

Why should any scientist offer Alan Johnston advice if he is intent on making his own "scientific" interpretation of the information based on his experience as a postman?
A postman dictating the scientific validity of the scientists research to the scientific community.

It is a ridiculous situation.Brown needs to get a grip of it before it descends into a pantomime.

20

tommytommy,

02/11/2009 07:43:40
No 18

You are possibly qualified to fill Mr.Johnstons job but you are certainly not qualified to comment on the scientific validity of David Nutts research.

You might be able to apply for that vacancy very soon because Alan Johnston's position is increasingly untenable as the scientific community withdraws from public service.
21

Walter Ego,

Durness 02/11/2009 07:53:37
20

This has nothing to do with my ability to fill the good professor's boots. He offered advice (which may be 100% correct) but it was ignored, as was his previous advice. If he was unhappy, he should have resigned. He is in the cream puff.
22

Laird Drambeg,

Andover 02/11/2009 07:55:28
The real trouble now is that the balance of "expert" opinion is tipped in favor of the busybodies who get their kicks from meddling in other peoples' lives. Of course it plays into the govt. strategy of: if you can't effectively enforce current laws against serious problems/drugs, create a whole new class of criminals with hard laws against less serious offenses.

That this govt. does not have a clue about how large a portion of the population indulges in occasional pot-smoking just further illustrates how deep they have their heads in the sand. I don't partake myself but I see it all around.

It's an absolute disgrace that the "lower classes" get severe punishment for having a small personal portion of grass or cannabis, while the same lawyers prosecuting and defending are getting distribution quantities acquired from the police evidence impound. Yes, it's true.
23

Walter Ego,

Durness 02/11/2009 07:55:49
20

The "scientific community", to whom I assume you belong, are like engineers and accountants ie black and whiters - they cannot cope with shades of gray.
24

Maurice,

02/11/2009 08:00:02
#18, Walter Ego,Durness. Surely youre not for real????

The bottom line on the cannabis debate is that to date the has never ever been a single recorded case of overdose by cannabis in any form or strength. In other words you can smoke as much as you can and will not die from it. A similar amount of tabacco smoked will kill or at the very least, put one in hospital. Alchohol takes a lot less to kill and does regularly. Prof Nutts point was exactly this. Cannabis is less harmful than the afore mentioned 2. Hey even water can be overdosed on. My point is ganja is less harmful than water. lol

#115 Locutus,Airdrie "Sativex" is a synthesised version of Delta-9 THC and is manufactured in Labs and costs a fortune. Its benificial effects on MS and other diseases like glaucoma are negligable as proper medical marajuana (not hashish) has other Chemicals such as CBD (Cannabidinol) and alcaloids wich work in conjunction. If it wernt for legislation, cannabis would be very inexpensive. All Sativex really is, is a very expensive appitite stimulator and works as an anti-emetic for cheamotherapy patients. (if they can keep a tablet down that is)
25

tommytommy,

02/11/2009 08:21:04
We have politicians reinterpreting science to suit their political agenda.

When the scientist points this out he is sacked for giving the public the facts.Gagged for speaking the facts.

We have in this case a Home Secretary who has redefined the scientific recommendations of an advisory committee for his own political purposes.
He has put pressure on the committee to legitimise his decisions and they have refused to do so.

These are the policies you expect to unearth in a one party state run by an iron fisted dictator not in a liberal Democracy.

This bizzarre decision by Johnston was taken without reference to Lord Drayson the Science and Innovation Minister minister.This will come back to haunt him.

It will create untold problems for every scientist on government committees because they will believe that their advice will be redefined to suit a political end.

They are already walking out to express their disapproval of Johnstons'knee jerk decision.
26

Road to the isles,

02/11/2009 08:31:36
#21

Have you got some sort of learning difficulty or what? The prof gave his advice as asked and when the advice didn't suit he was sacked. It's got nothing to do with him being in the huff. He's rightly angry because he was fired for doing what he was asked.
27

Alice Cooper,

02/11/2009 08:36:01
what is it they say about rats deserting a sinking ship?.... just a thought
28

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/11/2009 08:56:13
This is a terrible mis-step by Alan Johnson. The professor's advice was absolutely correct, and he was also absolutely accurate in pointing out that the drugs classification scheme is being used as a political tool rather than a scientific one, which renders it useless.

The big question now is who will now take over the chair of the ACMD, since anyone who does so is publicly accepting the principle that politics sits above evidence in that body. So what principled scientist will take the King's shilling?

Terrible, uncharacteristic mis-step from Johnson.
29

tommytommy,

02/11/2009 09:22:37
Mark Easton has written an excellent article on the BBC site at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/why_was_david_nutt_sacked.html

30

Eugene john,

Borders 02/11/2009 09:24:22
I have always had some regard for Alan Johnson who I have considered to be one of the better Labour MP's at Westminster but he's got this call wrong. Why employ a panal of "experts" when you are not going to listen to their advice.
31

Boab,

Glasgow 02/11/2009 09:27:06
Drugs policy is a shambles. When the drugs laws changed in the 1970s, there were only a few thousand addicts in the UK; now there are hundreds of thousands. Everyone, (Broon, Johnson, Bez) knows that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol; this is just posturing. We made it illegal following America's lead; they made it illegal it for its dangerous effect on 'Negroes'. Google the story, it's an interesting read.
32

Isonomia,

Lenzie 02/11/2009 09:36:21
It's funny how they "have to listen" to the scientific community (a few very bad "scientists" who cherry pick results) on climate change, and they had to listen to the experts on WMD, but when it comes to the obvious thing that canabis is not as harmful as horse riding (I've read the statistics horse riding is quite a dangerous sport) suddenly its crossing the political line to state the evidence - evidence based on good statistics and not cherry picked data.
33

Walter Ego,

Durness 02/11/2009 09:41:08
26 Road

You really don't have a clue, do you? When are you and your like going to start living in the real world? If Johnson is out of line, so is Sturgeon. She shares his views on cannabis.
34

Walter Ego,

Durness 02/11/2009 09:43:08
I am sure that Alex and Nicola will be interested in the posts from the libertarian nats on this issue. Out of line with SNP policy but hey, who's worried?
35

Ham Mei Si,

Hong Kong 02/11/2009 09:45:58
Here we go again!
Drunks & Addicts.
A pair of scumbags the both of them!
36

A Crofter,

Reshponshible Arce 02/11/2009 09:48:22
And still these drunkards just won't concede that their drug of choice is infinitely more dangerous than many illegal ones. Nobody has ever died of cannabis, whilst thousands perish annually from booze. Is it that hard to work out?

Our politicians are so out of touch, they don't even realise you're supposed to inhale.

Since Jim Callaghan notoriously buried the Wootton Committee's conclusions, successive governments have stubbornly refused to accept the truth. Endless research - commissioned on both sides of the Atlantic - has proved the relative harmlessness of cannabis. Not the "correct" decision!

Much of the blame for this ongoing ignorance lies with our equally ignorant media, a profession well known for its thirst. Every time someone dies from ecstasy, the red tops scream for the death penalty; thousands of deaths caused by alcohol - not worth reporting!

tellfrankwheretogetoff.com
37

The Strategist,

02/11/2009 09:58:09
Another example of how the commissariat operates. No wonder the economy is in such an appalling mess.
38

Arthur G,

Glasgow 02/11/2009 10:36:08
#22 Laird Drambeg

"...The real trouble now is that the balance of "expert" opinion is tipped in favo[u]r of the busy bodies who get their kicks from meddling in other peoples' lives..."

My experience differs from yours. 'Expert' opinion is often sought by the government and big business but in many cases what theese organs actally desire is a 'rubber stamping' of what they wish the public (consmer) to accept. In other words lots of money pblic and private is spent on what is basically and advertising campaign, with an "expert" or "specialist's" analysis tacked on in order to legitimise the findings.

A classic from several years ago was the attempt by the booze indstry to revise up the amount of units of alcohol one could safely consume by 50%. The 'experts' involved were paid an enormous amont of money to give the industry the answers it wanted.

Call me an old cynic but, I believe a government at Westminster, of any political hue, would love to legalise, purify and tax all illicit drugs as the benefits to the treasury would be almost incalculable.
The problem arises with this pplan when governments run terrified away from the synthetic moral outrage generated by the tabloid media.

There is also the vested interests of the swathe of orginisations, including police forces, whose funding and career structure would collapse, were we to abandon the already lost 'war on drugs'.
39

Arthur G,

Glasgow 02/11/2009 10:50:58
#36
"And still these drunkards just won't concede that their drug of choice is infinitely more dangerous than many illegal ones. Nobody has ever died of cannabis, whilst thousands perish annually from booze. Is it that hard to work out?"

Thousands die of drinking annually, true but to say no one has ever died because of cannabis is, frankly, absurd. It is not something you can prove and is not actually the point. I've worked beside people handle dangerous machinery under the influence of alcohol or hash. These people are equally as dangerous to themselves as they are to others.

The real point is that whether it is a choice of alcohol, the legal taxable, revenue earning for the government dangeruos drug or any of myriad other dangerous, not legally taxable and thus of no benefit to the treasury, drugs does not matter. What matters is that people will always wish to consume said drugs and therefore it would be better for us all if they were legalised, purified, standardised; the distribution controlled and the products taxed in the manner that crrently controls alcohol and tobacco.
40

Auldtroot,

Edinburgh 02/11/2009 11:15:20
We seem to be surrounded by 'experts' offering advice that is completely at odds with our common sense.
I find it very scary to live in a society where a vast swathe of the population can't seem exist, or enjoy themselves, without being doped-up.
41

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 02/11/2009 11:26:32
#32 - this is off topic but Imust comment -

"It's funny how they "have to listen" to the scientific community (a few very bad "scientists" who cherry pick results) on climate change"

The "very few" are the decredited ones that are the climate change deniers.

back on topic:

Alcohol sits at the fifth worst drug, up their with heroin. Tobacco sits at no. 9, above cannibis.

Just how much tax is raised by selling alcohol and tobacco?
42

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 02/11/2009 11:41:00
There will be no such advisers in the Scottish socialist republic. Vote SNP.
43

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 12:25:07
Well that's the comments pulled on the Mrs Brown thread.
44

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 12:25:33
I'm sure this happened in previous elections.
This is really a silly newspaper.
45

Fitba Krazy,

02/11/2009 12:29:36

LABOUR IN CAHOOTS WITH PHARMACEUTICAL CO's SHOCKER

"The involvement of pharmaceutical companies with government agencies has allowed the industry to develop a unique system of protection for its products, from suggested production, through licensing, and finally to its 'no fault' compensation scheme, which stops claimants from taking their cases to court. . ."

See:- http://www.communicationagents.com/emma_holister/2004/12/21/the_ghost_lobby_new.htm

This below is the sort of people Labour are in cahoots with

http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/pharmaceutical-medicine/
46

Fitba Krazy,

02/11/2009 12:40:00
The hypocrisy of Labour is mindblowing. Much much more than anything cannabis can do to you.

http://www.communicationagents.com/emma_holister/2004/12/21/the_ghost_lobby_new.htm

http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/pharmaceutical-medicine/

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns01345.html

Full story;- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214224/Government-plans-crack-binge-drinking-causes-cabinet-rift.html
47

,

02/11/2009 12:59:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

,

02/11/2009 13:05:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 13:13:23
47

More people die every year by falling off a horse than taking E. Fact.
50

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 13:14:16
In other words ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding.
51

,

02/11/2009 13:15:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

,

02/11/2009 13:21:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

,

02/11/2009 13:22:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Desmo,

lumphinnans 02/11/2009 13:31:12
#51 union united

Perhaps you could provide evidential proof that "THAT IS A LOAD OF CR*P", because the Advisory Commitee on the Misuse of Drugs provided ample evidence to prove that more people die as a result of horseriding than die as a result of taking ecstasy.
55

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 02/11/2009 13:33:28
#53 - Found a link have you?

The word "may" is in there, the evidence of fatalities compared with the no. of users shows, thankfully, deaths are quite rare.


You are manifesting the whole problem with the lack of a grown up discussion of the drugs debate. The prof was trying to get some consistency in the rankings which the government didn't like (i.e. alcohol at No.5 ABOVE ecstasy, tobaco at no. 9 ABOVE cannibis).







56

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 13:52:23
2007

"It is estimated that tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is involved in more than 50 percent of all visits to hospital emergency rooms."

Ten most dangerous drugs in order are

1. Heroin - popular street names include smack, skag, and junk.
2. Cocaine - often referred to as snow, flake, coke, and blow.
3. Barbiturates - popular slang names include yellow jackets, reds, blues, Amy's, and rainbows.
4. Street Methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine - a powerful hallucinogen, often referred to as Special K.
7. Benzodiazepines - a family of sedative drugs.
8. Amphetamines - known as greenies among baseball players.
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine - also called bupe or subbies.
57

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 13:52:51
Above list. No "E" or dope.
58

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 13:55:54
Therefore, if you're at a party and are offered horse, remember more people die by falling off a horse than taking "E"
59

CRAGman,

02/11/2009 14:36:46
Half the posters above should be drugs-tested.
60

Maurice,

02/11/2009 14:46:13
53
union united,
"Tardive dyskinesia is a variety of dyskinesia (involuntary, repetitive movements) manifesting as a side effect of long-term or high-dose use of dopamine antagonists,"

Its called dancing to trance music. I agree, it is repetative
61

,

02/11/2009 14:46:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

Ham Mei Si,

Hong Kong 02/11/2009 14:53:09
No. 56

I don't know what shirt you are on, but your list is a load of rubbish. We all know that alcohol is at the top of the list. Ask a Bobby in Glegae on a Saturday night, an' he will tell you about the wife bashing efter a poor fitba match.
63

Desmo,

Lumphinnans 02/11/2009 14:53:36
BBC News have just covered this story and there is another point to be made about the way it is being portayed as a difference of opinion between an advisor and a minister.

Alan Johnson, and before him, Jaqui Smith chose to publicly disregard the scientifically researched, evidence based findings of a panel of 23 qualified scientists and other experts, the ACMD.

They had no scientific or evidential backing for the stance they adopted, but didn`t let that stop them dismissing the councils findings out of hand.

Of course, it could be helpful to the Home Secretary if he could convey the impression [swallowed already by some on this thread] that he is protecting the public from some rogue element in the scientific community, but that should not blind us to the truth, a truth Labour ministers are desperate to conceal.

As far as I`m aware, Professor Nutt has not made his views public.

The points he has put forward in this debate do not represent his views, but the findings of the ACMD, and as such, are somewhat harder to dismiss as the rantings of a renegade agitator, as mr. Johnson seeks to do.
64

,

02/11/2009 14:53:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

,

02/11/2009 15:05:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

Desmo,

Lumphinnans 02/11/2009 15:12:55
#64 union united

At no point has anyone in this debate argued that there is no problem with ecstasy.The tragic deaths that have occurred have all received mass press and media coverage.

The findings of the council illustrate the RELATIVE harm attributed to each individual substance and at no point describe any substance as "safe" or "harmless"

How much media coverage has been devoted to the several hundred deaths that have this week been caused by alcohol or tobacco ?

Nil.

People also die from ingesting traces of peanuts, so should we ban them too ?

As you seem to be scouring the internet for straws to clutch at, why not look for the amount of deaths that have ever been attributed to cannabis use
67

Maurice,

02/11/2009 15:18:57
This debate has been raging for years. As a project manager on the South African Hemp Project which was implemented in 2000, I learned some facts that I would like to share:
The whole reason behind the prohibition of cannabis has nothing to do with its narcotic properties. It is pure and simple economics and that is what pulls government’s puppet strings;

At the turn of the 20th century, hemp was in large supply and demand was also huge. The main reason was for fibre production.
The DuPont Chemical Company realised that there were certain other benefits which could become a serious threat to their investments. OIL! They campaigned heavily for its prohibition and started the propaganda war against it. They made many allies.

Cannabis oil (derived from the seed and is not narcotic in any way) produces one of the finest grade lubricant oils known. This is similar to sewing machine type oils. The only processing required was cold-pressing which compared to petroleum oils was grossly inexpensive.
It is a highly efficient bio-fuel and the raw oil can easily be refined to volatiles.

Another big aspect was the fact it required no pesticide use. This was also a huge threat as the company was developing pesticides for the fickle crop called cotton.
Cotton uses over 1 third of the pesticides in the US who uses the most pesticides worldwide. The financial value is immense.

Then there’s the fibre. Far superior to other fibres in strength and easy to grow and process.
Paper is another. One of the highest grades of white paper available and still used today for important archival documents as it doe not yellow with age. It is also environmentally safe to manufacture unlike wood-pulp paper.
Next are the polymers. Biodegradable plastics which are easily processed. No oil rigs or wells required.
Nutrition comes next which food aid being an enormous industry, hemp is the most complete vegetable protein available (again the seed). As most starving nations are closer t
68

Maurice,

02/11/2009 15:23:02
union united, The LD50 (toxidity rating - the lethal dose required to kill 50% of the test population) is higher than that of water. It is fact.
In other words it is easier to overdose on water than it is on cannabis. simple ban water
69

Maurice,

02/11/2009 15:23:57
Continued from #67

As most starving nations are closer to the equator, it would be highly suitable to grow as a crop. Further away from the equator, the fibre becomes the desired crop. This is because of the plants day length sensitivity.
Last but certainly not least in the pharmaceutical benefits. Many of these are already known and undisputed : Asthma ,Glaucoma, MS, Aids, cancer, tuberculosis, muscular dystrophy, obesity and appetite stimulation to name a few. Remember very little research has been allowed so there may be many more benefits.
The pharmaceutical companies don’t want it around either.
This is why cannabis is illegal and the drug barons just love it. It allows them to sell their smack etc as it is easier to conceal and can be sold very cheaply resulting in more dependencies.
70

Maurice,

02/11/2009 15:26:51
Incidently, the SA Hemp project was abandoned over night, way into the project, as the US government threatened to withdraw all aid and economic grants in the dpartment was to continue this reserch.
Thius was not an idle threat. Now why do you think they did that?
71

BraveLungs,

02/11/2009 15:33:49
The politicians are ignoring the scientists advice when it doesn't suit them, but when it does suit them, they will take the scientists advice and then hide behind them.
72

Greenhilljohn,

02/11/2009 15:35:09
There are too many clowns on this thread. Two wrongs do not make a right and neither do multiple wrongs make a right.

We have enough problems with alcohol and tobacco without legalising more drugs just to avoid hypocrisy.We do not need more Genies let out of their bottles.

Smoking three spliffs a day is as harmfull as having a whole packet of 20 fags. Those who promote the health benefits are massive liars.

73

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 02/11/2009 15:39:22
#64 & #65 - As I said before, your contributions do not help the debate. I could list the 1,000s of alcohol related deaths as evidence of why alcohol should be banned.

74

Greenhilljohn,

02/11/2009 15:41:47
RE 73

The Genie is out of the bottle with alcohol we cannot put it back.You just want to add more misery. What a fool.
75

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 02/11/2009 15:43:06
#72 - "Smoking three spliffs a day is as harmfull as having a whole packet of 20 fags. Those who promote the health benefits are massive liars."

And the evidence for this is were exactly? The push for moving cannibis back up the classcification was due to mental healht issues not just physical harm.

Secondly, it has been proved to help MS sufferers, so your second point there is mince.

76

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 02/11/2009 15:45:24
#74 - Cocaine wasn't banned orginally, either was opium (oh and there is a whole great story about the British Empire in that one).

I am not asking for aolcohol to be banned, i want a grown up debate on the issues, not the knee jerk reactions of people like you.
77

Lance Boyle,

Linlithgow 02/11/2009 15:47:12
75 Nit

Mince is not good for you.
78

,

02/11/2009 15:48:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

Maurice,

02/11/2009 15:50:21
72
Greenhilljohn

Read my above posts. This is all fact, not fantasy. The prohibition is not because of Cannabis' mild narcotic effects. By the way, mace which is the outer covering of nutmeg is just as narcotic but tastes horrible and is harmful in large doses. I bought some at tesco on Saturday and will be using it sparingly for cooking.
Salvia divinoflorum is an extremely strong halucagenic as is San Pedro catus. These are legal.
80

Greenhilljohn,

02/11/2009 15:54:30
re 75: "Secondly, it has been proved to help MS sufferers"

That is a cheap back door argument for general legalisation.It has too many negative side effects.Drugs have to pass strict tests.
..............................................
Re Danger of smoking 3 spliffs

"Large lung bullae in marijuana smokers"
Dr Martin K Johnson

81

Greenhilljohn,

02/11/2009 15:57:53
Well 79

What an idiot.Who is going to take large doses of nutmeg? You are not comparing like with like.

Cannabis as consumed in the real World is harmfull. Your comparison is fatuous
82

,

02/11/2009 15:59:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

,

02/11/2009 16:04:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
84

stan free,

Cowtown, Alta 02/11/2009 16:14:13
there always seems to be a suggestion that low level toking etc will lead to an interest in the harder stuff ? not sure there's any stats on this, but a view that a number of people share - any thoughts ? - what about the number of deaths from over use of square sausage etc
85

,

02/11/2009 16:23:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
86

,

02/11/2009 16:28:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
87

Maurice,

02/11/2009 16:30:02
Greenhilljohn: Did anyone on the above postings say "it is OK. The Prof says weeds no bad so lets all get stoned?"
The debate is not about weather we should smoke it or not. It is about its relative harm compared on a 3-tier scale with other "recreational" drugs. Due to its low toxcidity, its non-adictiveness etc, etc it is less dangerous than alchohol or tabacco. For this reason it should be downgraded (not legalised) and for this the Nutt as you called him was fired. The extc debate I will not enter. I have never tried it but do not like the effect it has on those that use it. The fact is as he would know, is that it is less harmfull than alchohol or tabacco. At no stage did he, or I for that matter, advocate its use to get high. I do advocate the use of cannabis however for all its other benifits.
This was and is another case of "Shoot the messenger"
88

,

02/11/2009 16:37:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
89

,

02/11/2009 16:40:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
90

Maurice,

02/11/2009 16:44:59
88
union united. Yes! as I said so is water. Cannabis however doesnt seem to be. Alchohol and tabacco more so but lethal yes. I fact life is a terminal disease.
Since time began, man has found ways to get high in all cultures. Good or bad, it happens so its up to governments, acting under scientific fact and advice, set up measures to limit the damage. Now again, Cannabis is less harmful than alchohol or tabacco. Why is it on a higher scale?
Money!
91

Maurice,

02/11/2009 16:47:52
89
Greenhilljohn, I certainly didnt agree with the horseriding thing but he only stated fact recently. The truth should not bring a government into disrepute unless they're not telling the truth in the 1st place.
92

Allan(handofgod137),

02/11/2009 17:51:02
My, this has certainly got the mouth breathing knuckle draggers out in force today, perhaps some of you decrying the good professor's comments would like to share your educational qualifications with the rest of us, so that we may more accurately assess your contributions to the debate.
93

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

02/11/2009 18:14:48
Has some junkie sold the comments boxes on most of the other threads to get his next fix?
94

Stef,

Edinburgh 02/11/2009 18:30:32
#28 Duncan in Edinburgh,
I fully agree with how you presented the current situation, and it is deplorable. However! I cant agree with the last line of your post,

"Terrible, uncharacteristic mis-step from Johnson."

Johnson is closely associated with the War criminal Blair, and is subject to the autocratic Stalinist,leader Brown.He has has actively played his puppet role as Brown's Health Minister. He has been actively involved in 'cherry picking' all research studies, and data before media release, unless of course, they suited the policies of Broons 'junta' and to those to whom they are servile too within Big Pharmaceutical companies.
Cannabis/Ecstacy are just a distraction in this debate. It is not the policies of Broon's regime, it would be a total lack of any sensible policies at all, that has them sacking their own, most competant advisors.
The public are regarded by all these politicians, of all colours, Broon/Cameron/Salmond along with Frau Sturgeon as simple peasants. With their views and aspirations of how they wish to live their lives, totally ignored or thwarted because of thier fanatical "policies". Where things are normal and working their 'control freak' personalities, want to have that de-normalised. We can expect to see a big increase in the next few months of drinking to excess, from booze purchased through supermarkets.We will also see increases in smoking levels and drug taking. Policy has destroyed local pubs, so now drinking has decended into homeward, 'drinking dens' with all the consequential increase in domestic violence and alchoholism. These politicians have factionalised and disenfranchised whole sectors of our communities, created unemployment and social exclusion. I guess the problem with Mr Johnson might be, himself and his other morally bancrupt colleagues have to sustain the status quo to disguise, so many failed policies and corruption on a fantastic scale. Lets not forget the Banks crisis, the Expense' scandal, there are f
95

Stef,

Edinburgh 02/11/2009 18:35:30
cont: far to many pigs still feeding out of the trough. Professor Nutt's comments and their outcome, along with Johnson's response, just merely emphasise, how deep the snouts of the political elite are in that trough.
96

Jimmy Fae the West,

In the Land O' Green Ginger. (HULL) 02/11/2009 18:40:59
"Meltdown labour sack advisers in favour of agreers".

"Unionist Scotsman Newspaper appeals to SNP for advertising money".

"Wobbly Labour unable to confirm it's opposition to SNP independence vote".

We can all see why all the unionists stories contain only a shard of the truth in them. RIP ZANU LABOUR.

Two drugs advisory panel members quit in protest when Prof David Nutt was fired for advice on cannabis policy.
Others have questioned whether they can seriously continue in "good conscience". Does Labour, their confused supporters and this rag truly believe advisors should be paid huge sums to repeat the lies of an ignorant fraudster lobbied by the drink and alcohol companies?

97

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 18:47:08

I reckon it’s the substances that these drugs are often laced with on the street that makes them dangerous, if at all. People can and do die from all sorts of things there is no safe life; death is inevitable.

I agree that politicians would be better agreeing with the science and at least having the bottle for once to come out and state that their opposition is based on some moral grounds or some other probable logical error!

Also if there were a way to sell it and TAX it like fags and booze, they probably would endorse it in half a minute!

Prescription meds peddled by the licensed drug dealers kill thousands and little is talked about it!

This government seems so lost now it’s a joke.

Boom and a lasting HUGE BUST, illegal war, lies, an almost bankrupt UK, corruption, MP's equivalent of benefit fraud...come on folks, how much more of this can we take!

We need an election now, time to get this lot out on their a.r.s.e where they belong and on that note, end this non-working union!
98

Anec Dotal,

Ukraine 02/11/2009 18:51:14
In Ukraine we have name for adviser. Parasite.
99

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 18:55:27

98 Anec Dotal

"In Ukraine we have name for adviser. Parasite. "

What ALL Advisors, All of the time, on every issue?

What nonsense!
100

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 18:59:52

I wonder how much the government paid for this advisory panel to come up with their findings, only to throw them out on a political whim, in an attempt to look tough on 'crime' and win votes.

I say 'crime' as while making those decisions many politicians appear to have been milking their expenses in what, in layman’s terms on the lower end of the social scale would be classed as benefit fraud!

Now talking about 'parasites'!
101

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 19:01:04
union united

"It seems to any sane thinking person that all drugs are lethal,and that includes cannabis and ecstasy."

Have you a degree in duh? All drugs have side effects. Twice as many people die in the UK from taking anti-depressants than from ecstasy.

Did you also know that 16.6% of deaths due to poisoning in Scotland involved paracetamol? Let's re-classify Paracetamol.

102

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 19:04:13
2007 Drug deaths in Scotland

Heroin/Morphine: 289
Methadone: 114
Diazepam: 79
Cocaine: 47
Ecstasy: 11
103

All the good names are gone,

02/11/2009 19:05:14
86% were male.
104

,

02/11/2009 19:24:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 19:35:47
104

Had a look at some sites:

Between 1994 and 2000 inclusive there were 3878 deaths due to poisoning in Scotland, 644 of which involved paracetamol. Thus 16.6% of deaths due to poisoning in Scotland involved paracetamol.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874442/

However, research shows that 97-98% of paracetamol overdoses are taken deliberately. In the remaining 2-3% of cases the paracetamol may have been taken for therapeutic purposes but with a reckless disregard for the dosage instructions.

http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpic4.html

At the lesser 2% figure, non-intentional paracetamol deaths still look to be higher than Ecstasy at 11.

Taken at the right volume v time, 'water' or 'salt' kills too.
106

vitesse_skye,

Antwerp Belgium 02/11/2009 19:38:32
##All the good names are gone##
You are so much in tune with me got nothing to add. Maybe we met somewhere on a trip.....hehe
107

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 19:45:56
1. The expert Dr Nutt has now admitted that the findings of his advisory group were NOT unanimous.

2. Nutt's views only concern the actual number of DEATHS from Cannabis or E compared to alcohol or tobacco, and not the actual HARM that these do. He fails to take into consideration the paranoia and aggression factors (just ask emergency services staff anywhere)

3. The Head of Psychology (BBC News 021109) was highly critical of Dr Nutt and said that he'd "skewed the argument" and had completely ignored the harm factors relative to the abnormally high psychosis levels in drug abusers, especially those on cannabis or E.

The above suggests that Dr Nutt and his "scientific" ilk are the ones in the huff. Good riddance.
108

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 02/11/2009 19:46:05
Grenhilljohn and Union - Thanks for proving you are incapable of a grown up debate on drugs. Prof Nutcase ?? Is that your best? If you are trying not to come across as a thicko brainless wonder, you could have come up with something better.




109

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 02/11/2009 19:51:25
107 - Funny, last week it was reported there is no evidence of an increase in psychosis from cannabis use in the last 10 years. Which was the main argument for reclasscifying.

And anyway, the Prof at no time did he say any of these drugs were safe, or did he argue for legalisation. In fact he made it plain he was against legalisation. But lets not let the facts get in the way of the ill informed opinions here.

110

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 19:55:08
107 uno.who

"harm factors relative to the abnormally high psychosis levels in drug abusers, especially those on cannabis or E."

Do we have studies to show whether these individuals were predisposed to or were already suffering from mental illness prior to drug use, was it causal or incidental? Were they taking drugs as a form of self medication?

"He fails to take into consideration the paranoia and aggression factors (just ask emergency services staff anywhere)"

If asked, what would these same staff say in response to the question of aggression and alcohol that they see in patients?

“The expert Dr Nutt has now admitted that the findings of his advisory group were NOT unanimous”

I have yet to see listed exactly who disagreed with the vote their reasons, whether they were scientists viewing the same information or members of the police etc.

It’s all too easy to skew the argument.

I think however that the drug advisory panel would likely have viewed such scientific findings as part of their research and their conclusions stand.
111

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 20:02:43
#109 Well try and keep up to date (and watch this week's news) .... There IS an increase in psychosis. In fact, the Advisory Committee's advice has been found to be based on flawed science TWICE.

I know I'd rather believe the EXPERTS at the sharp end than the so called "expert" (paid) advisers. Have you ever been at a Rave, or A&E on a weekend night? Don't you have a regular "night of the living dead" in your area, or don't you bother looking outside after dark?

Reclassification is required to ensure stiffer penalties. There's no use f@nnying about, else we'd be as well legalising the lot.


112

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

02/11/2009 20:07:05
#100 Sumlogic - "I say 'crime' as while making those decisions many politicians appear to have been milking their expenses in what, in layman’s terms on the lower end of the social scale would be classed as benefit fraud!"

When I was driving home tonight, there was a radio ad telling us how the government was protecting us from benefit fraudsters and had caught 342 of the blighter's every day last year and will catch even more if we phone up to rat on our friends and neighbours.

Arriving home I switched on the telly just in time to catch a piece about a crackdown on the evil swines who told fibs in order to get their kids into a better school.

Don't do as we do...do as we say - It's the New Labour way.

Or so it would seem.
113

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 20:08:08
#110 YES to each of your questions.

Also, I do agree that it is easy to skew an argument, but Nutt's job is to advise - not make policy. He's neither elected nor is his (paid) viewpoint more valid than others on the panel.

Your assumption that Nutt and his colleagues would have viewed such "scientific" findings as part of their research is incorrect and is a major basis of the criticism by the Royal College of Psychiatrists - who also pointed out errors in previous research by this Advisory Committee.
114

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 20:13:12
#110 Who takes illegal drugs as self medication for psychosis? Are you making this up as you go along?
115

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 20:15:01
111 uno.who

"Have you ever been at a Rave, or A&E on a weekend night?"

Have you?

Are you sure that the ""night of the living dead" as you say IS caused by one drug, a combination of drugs, drugs laced with other chemicals, alcohol etc.

“I know I'd rather believe the EXPERTS at the sharp end than the so called "expert" (paid) advisers.”

The members are not paid for their work.

http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/ACMDADVERT200712__1_.pdf

I personally don’t take drugs and don’t encourage others to, however the lies of the government will not build trust in the communities, individuals who are at the sharp end of the drug market.

If you want to tackle drugs the answer is as it always has been in MONEY, get the money, the bank accounts and you will stop the trade.

Someone, bankers etc must be involved in handling and laundering the hundreds of billions in drug money, that’s where the solution is!

116

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 20:21:45

113, "#110 YES to each of your questions."

Please post your evidence, I’m sure the ACMD would be interested too.

114, You have absolute scientific proof and research that says categorically that all psychosis apparently caused by illegal drugs was not caused by some other factor either in conjunction or in entirety?

I think you’re the one making it up as you go along.

Incidentally, my post (110) was in question form, not a statement!
117

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 20:28:09
#115 Yes to both questions in your first paragraph. I've been to both and met people who were victims / users.

"Are you sure that the ""night of the living dead" as you say IS caused by one drug, a combination of drugs, drugs laced with other chemicals, alcohol etc." .... As sure as I can be that people I know (not all close friends, but well known to me) behave in a very different way when drugs INCLUDING (but not exclusively) cannabis and E are added into the equation. I can also be sure that these two are major saleable items as in most villages / towns the sellers are rarely strangers.

Do you seriously believe that the term "Members are not paid a fee but travel and subsistence expenses will be reimbursed" means that they don't get huge allowances, given what you now know about Govt expenses? These people are also PAID their wages when absent from work as current employers consider the link "advantageous". Anyone believing otherwise would be somewhat naive.

As to your last three paragraphs, I agree wholeheartedly, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

118

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 20:35:45
#116 Questions usually end with a "?". Statements usually end with a full stop or exclamation mark.

I repeat my question to you ... " Who takes illegal drugs as self medication for psychosis? "

Do I have absolute scientific proof? No, I doubt that any layman has absolute scientific proof on medical or psychiatric issues but I'm happy to believe the Royal College of Psychiatrists (over Dr Nutt) who will, no doubt, have more to say on the issue tonight on BBC News (watch the real experts instead of asking me for absolute scientific proof).
119

JH Ross,

raleigh 02/11/2009 20:37:55
That's what we need. More potheads in the world.Good Riddance

Now let's get on with something more important, like hunger. I don't think anyone has come up with any good ideas when they are stoned.
120

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 20:38:28

117, I hardly believe "As sure as I can be that people I know" counts as any scientific evidence at all, which seems exactly the argument.

I believe Ecstasy has been trialled / used and used by medical community in treatment of Post traumatic stress etc

I know people who used to take 5 or more a day (weekend) of ecstasy, there now older wiser and are working and bringing up families but I don’t count that as evidence of the drugs safety either just as I don’t say it must cause psychosis.

I would say from personal experience, alcohol combined with say cocaine causes far more aggression and trouble.

While I agree that ALL drugs can be dangerous, including and especially sometimes prescription drugs I don’t agree that the scientific ACMD panel made up their claims to suit themselves in spite of the available evidence, something that even the government are not suggesting.


121

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 20:41:07

120 "I would say from personal experience, alcohol combined with say cocaine causes far more aggression and trouble."

I need to qualify that lol, not personal as in I have tried it, I mean from experience of being in social settings!
122

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 20:43:13

118 Yes I agree thats why I wrote

"Do we have studies to show whether these individuals were predisposed to or were already suffering from mental illness prior to drug use, was it causal or incidental? Were they taking drugs as a form of self medication?" in 110, 'note' the question mark!
123

Sumlogic,

Cause or affect 02/11/2009 20:51:53
"Among those with a mental disorder, the odds ratio of having some addictive disorder was 2.7, with a lifetime prevalence of about 29% (including an overlapping 22% with an alcohol and 15% with another drug disorder). For those with either an alcohol or other drug disorder, the odds of having the other addictive disorder were seven times greater than in the rest of the population. Among those with an alcohol disorder, 37% had a comorbid mental disorder. The highest mental-addictive disorder comorbidity rate was found for those with drug (other than alcohol) disorders, among whom more than half (53%) were found to have a mental disorder with an odds ratio of 4.5. Individuals treated in specialty mental health and addictive disorder clinical settings have significantly higher odds of having comorbid disorders. Among the institutional settings, comorbidity of addictive and severe mental disorders was highest in the prison population, most notably with antisocial personality, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders."
124

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 20:53:51
#120 - 122 You say "I would say from personal experience" .... well, so do I, so we'll have to agree to disagree as neither of us appears to be scientist nor psychiatrist ?

"Do we have studies ... etc" Well WE don't, but the RCofPschiatry do (please watch them on BBC news tonight). Additionally, here is some other research info on which I base my OPINION (as opposed to evidence) in much the same way that you do ...

"This is the man who previously said ecstasy was less dangerous than horse riding. This fatuous argument was shredded by one of the country's leading experts on ecstasy, Professor Andrew Parrott, who said that 'nearly every statement Nutt made about the effects of ecstasy was incorrect' and 'displayed a staggering disregard for the empirical evidence' which showed that ecstasy was at least as powerful as cocaine. Other scientists have also come out against Nutt. According to experts such as psychiatrist Dr Robin Murray, there is significant evidence that cannabis triggers psychosis and schizophrenia. Even the Government's own National Director for Mental Health, Professor Louis Appleby, told the Advisory Council last year that cannabis should be reclassified as more harmful because there was now sufficient evidence that it could contribute to a pattern of relapse and risk in mental health patients. Nutt claims his arguments are 'scientific'. Does that mean that scientists such as Professors Parrott and Appleby or Dr Murray are not scientific? And just how rigorous is Nutt's science anyway? For his comparison of the relative risks of alcohol, tobacco and soft drugs is distinctly unscientific. Any proper comparison of the risks involved can be made only with similar levels of consumption. But, clearly, the general level of consumption of illegal drugs is very much lower than that of alcohol or tobacco. So Nutt is not comparing like with like. "


125

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 20:57:06
#119 Your sentiments I can agree with wholeheartedly.
126

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 21:02:14

124, it seems a shame these two were not chosen to be represented on the panel with such views.

By the way I think the wording is important "Dr Robin Murray, there is significant evidence that cannabis 'triggers' psychosis and schizophrenia"

I believe that in some, pre-disposed this trigger can happen even with alcohol, I quote

"Drug and Alcohol Abuse: A distinction must be made between “drug/alcohol induced psychosis,” which may be temporary. Yet, it can trigger full-blown schizophrenia. So, substance use and abuse including marihuana can trigger schizophrenia if one is genetically or otherwise predisposed to it."

http://www.schizophrenia.sk.ca/what-are-the-facts-about-schizophrenia/what-is-schizophrenia/causes/

127

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 21:06:10

I reckon you need to be half daft in the first place to mess with drugs sold by some dodgy guy in a boozer, but sadly it seems many are (see 123, no offence meant to anyone suffering btw), and their self medication attempts, due to the stigma and massive under investment in effective psychological techniques such as CBT on the NHS and in schools is fundamental in drug misuse in the UK and worldwide!
128

Sumlogic,

02/11/2009 21:43:07
The UK...the nation where.

If you take a pill to try make yourself feel better (good) as in Ecstasy for instance maybe due to a rough or otherwise traumatic upbringing and social deprivation, ignorance and poor overall education system, we will call you a criminal and throw you in prison, if you decide to join our illegal war in Iraq, shoot and kill some unknown individuals, blow people up, we will give you a medal!

If you out of desperation claim some additional rent help etc on your flat even when your not entitled to it, we will class you as a benefit fraudster and give you a criminal record, possibly cost you a job and the chance of getting one in future, if you are an MP and claim money for a mortgage that has finished or does not exist, we will allow you to say sorry and forget it!

If you are a banker and do a lousy job, ruin your business and the businesses of others and cost thousands of jobs, we will allow you to walk off with a massive bonus!

Britain under NuLABORE!
129

cataibh,

Bo'ness 02/11/2009 21:49:45
Horse riding is an act of keeping a horse between the rider and the ground.
130

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 22:15:59
#128 I can't argue with that logic as it's based on actual and recent events.

I'm no lover of NuLab but I question whether it would be different under an alternative administration, as everything we once held sacred now seems rotten to the core. Ordinary people have been taken for a ride for years by Government and big business, unfortunately believing that expert opinion gave us the best people for the job (in all the fields) and at the going market rate. Oh how we have awakened to the fraud / misuse of public funds on a giant scale.

Example: chief executive (London Olymics 2012) David Higgins whose £804,000 package includes a £210,000 bonus, half of which he deferred until 2012 !!!

131

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 22:19:37
City minister Lord Myners said the pay and identity of up to 20 of the highest-paid employees at companies should be disclosed. He also called for the pay of all employees to be banded in grades to illustrate the divergence from the boardroom. "It would inform decision-making and it would act as a sheet anchor to counterbalance the insidious influence of the benefit consultants who have enabled the extension of remuneration to a point at which it is unpalatable," said Myners.

132

uno.who,

Livingston 02/11/2009 22:21:54
Is it any real wonder that people descend into their own substance misuse to get away from an "unpalatable" reality, or an establishment that cannot be trusted in any form.
133

Fitba Krazy,

02/11/2009 22:22:37
So, the conclusion is:-

Labour are the biggest bunch of dopes on the planet.

In the pockets of Big Pharmaceuticals, the Alcohol mob and the Tobacco industry.

Thus the anti-cannabis stance.
134

Arthur G,

Glasgow 02/11/2009 22:42:15
All the good names are gone
#102

2007 Drug deaths in Scotland

Heroin/Morphine: 289
Methadone: 114
Diazepam: 79
Cocaine: 47
Ecstasy: 11

(alcohol: 4500)
(Tobacco 20,000)
135

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 02/11/2009 22:52:30
Herion or for that matter cannabis is not the obvious thing you'd put in a mouthwash but alcohol is just the thing. It depends on what you want out of a drug. Social use and safety could perfectly well be applied to all recreational drugs by local bye laws. This is called participating democracy.
136

Fitba Krazy,

02/11/2009 23:18:19

Yoks Multi- Flavoured Moothwashes & Co Ltd

Lime and Vodka

Irn Bru and Irish Whiskey

Ginger and Gin

Rum and Marzipan

Coconut Milk and Tequila

Malt and Whisky

Pomegranate Juice and Pernod

Brandy and Blueberry Juice

Dae ye find that hard tae swally Yok?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.