The row over the reclassification of cannabis has been reignited after the government's chief drug adviser accused ministers of "distorting" the evidence.
Professor David Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, says it does not cause major health problems.
He accused ex-home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of "devaluing" scientific research.
The Home Office said these opinions "do not reflect the views of government".
A spokesman said: "Prof Nutt's views are his own."
He added: "The government is clear: we are determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a whole."
It comes after Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College in London and briefing paper to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs.
Precautionary measure
The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness, and claimed those who advocated moving ecstasy into Class B from Class A had "won the intellectual argument".
Public concern over the links between high-strength cannabis, known as skunk, and mental illness led the government to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C last year.
The decision was taken despite official advisers recommending against the change.
Ministers said they wanted to make the move as a precautionary measure.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of cannabis classification, which was ordered in 2007, was the result of a "skunk scare", according to the professor.
In his lecture and briefing paper, entitled Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business?, he repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse.
Prof Nutt also warned that the reclassification decision may lead to more people taking the drug.
"It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet" he said, adding the government's approach "starts to distort the value of evidence".
He cited research which "estimates that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia, we would need to stop about 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 years from ever using the drug".
He said skunk has been in wide usage for about 10 years but, he claims, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia.
The professor accepts cannabis can sometimes cause mental illness, but argues it is safer than tobacco and alcohol and, overall, does not lead to major health problems.
Prof Nutt said: "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 at this stage of their lives.
"We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."
Following these comments, a spokesman for the ACMD said: "The lecture Prof Nutt gave at King's College was in his academic capacity and was not in his role as chair of the ACMD.
"We acknowledge that the lecture has prompted further debate on the harms of drugs."
> The row over the reclassification of cannabis has been reignited after the > government's chief drug adviser accused ministers of "distorting" the > evidence.
> Professor David Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of > Drugs, says it does not cause major health problems.
> He accused ex-home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of > "devaluing" scientific research.
> The Home Office said these opinions "do not reflect the views of > government".
> A spokesman said: "Prof Nutt's views are his own."
> He added: "The government is clear: we are determined to crack down on all > illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a > whole."
> It comes after Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College in London and > briefing paper to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of > alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs.
> Precautionary measure
> The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" > of psychotic illness, and claimed those who advocated moving ecstasy into > Class B from Class A had "won the intellectual argument".
> Public concern over the links between high-strength cannabis, known as > skunk, and mental illness led the government to reclassify cannabis to > Class B from C last year.
> The decision was taken despite official advisers recommending against the > change.
> Ministers said they wanted to make the move as a precautionary measure.
> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of cannabis > classification, which was ordered in 2007, was the result of a "skunk > scare", according to the professor.
> In his lecture and briefing paper, entitled Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky > Business?, he repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no > worse than riding a horse.
> Prof Nutt also warned that the reclassification decision may lead to more > people taking the drug.
> "It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet" he > said, adding the government's approach "starts to distort the value of > evidence".
> He cited research which "estimates that, to prevent one episode of > schizophrenia, we would need to stop about 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 years > from ever using the drug".
> He said skunk has been in wide usage for about 10 years but, he claims, > there has been no upswing in schizophrenia.
> The professor accepts cannabis can sometimes cause mental illness, but > argues it is safer than tobacco and alcohol and, overall, does not lead to > major health problems.
> Prof Nutt said: "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 at this stage of their > lives.
> "We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If > you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."
> Following these comments, a spokesman for the ACMD said: "The lecture Prof > Nutt gave at King's College was in his academic capacity and was not in > his role as chair of the ACMD.
> "We acknowledge that the lecture has prompted further debate on the harms > of drugs."
It is interesting to speculate on the real reason for the damaging war on drugs, which is responsible for serious shortages of pain management morphine in many countries, used in the relief of cancer and dying patients. The usual excuse is that the legislation against drugs is there to prevent harm to the user, which largely ignores the harm already being caused by legal alcohol and tobacco.
In my view the real reason is that drugs promote altered consciousness and therefore non-compliance with authoritarian norms. All that State conditioning painstakingly imposed during school years and later on in a standard working environment can be quickly stripped away by drugs and cause widespread rebelliousness, which might ultimately lead to the overthrow of repressive governments by outraged citizenry.
-- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's regime.
On BBC 5 Live they just had Debra Bell on to give the counterpoint to common sense. She said her son suffered from 'cannabis psychosis', but that he is fine now "THANK GOD".
Don't thank God, thank cannabis for being as harmless as it is.
Obviously, there is no correlation between alleged increases in cannabis strength and an increase in psychosis.
But this story is evidence how policy is driven by superstition and the unchecked lies told by prohibitionists. But of course the bottom line is, that action is only taken when, politicians think it is good politics to ban drugs.
Which is what is really driving 'the debate'.
"John Watson" <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote in message
> The row over the reclassification of cannabis has been reignited after the > government's chief drug adviser accused ministers of "distorting" the > evidence.
> Professor David Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of > Drugs, says it does not cause major health problems.
> He accused ex-home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of > "devaluing" scientific research.
> The Home Office said these opinions "do not reflect the views of > government".
> A spokesman said: "Prof Nutt's views are his own."
> He added: "The government is clear: we are determined to crack down on all > illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a > whole."
> It comes after Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College in London and > briefing paper to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of > alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs.
> Precautionary measure
> The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" > of psychotic illness, and claimed those who advocated moving ecstasy into > Class B from Class A had "won the intellectual argument".
> Public concern over the links between high-strength cannabis, known as > skunk, and mental illness led the government to reclassify cannabis to > Class B from C last year.
> The decision was taken despite official advisers recommending against the > change.
> Ministers said they wanted to make the move as a precautionary measure.
> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of cannabis > classification, which was ordered in 2007, was the result of a "skunk > scare", according to the professor.
> In his lecture and briefing paper, entitled Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky > Business?, he repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no > worse than riding a horse.
> Prof Nutt also warned that the reclassification decision may lead to more > people taking the drug.
> "It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet" he > said, adding the government's approach "starts to distort the value of > evidence".
> He cited research which "estimates that, to prevent one episode of > schizophrenia, we would need to stop about 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 years > from ever using the drug".
> He said skunk has been in wide usage for about 10 years but, he claims, > there has been no upswing in schizophrenia.
> The professor accepts cannabis can sometimes cause mental illness, but > argues it is safer than tobacco and alcohol and, overall, does not lead to > major health problems.
> Prof Nutt said: "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 at this stage of their > lives.
> "We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If > you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."
> Following these comments, a spokesman for the ACMD said: "The lecture Prof > Nutt gave at King's College was in his academic capacity and was not in > his role as chair of the ACMD.
> "We acknowledge that the lecture has prompted further debate on the harms > of drugs."
Noticed at Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:53:34 +0100: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
> On BBC 5 Live they just had Debra Bell on to give the counterpoint to > common sense. She said her son suffered from 'cannabis psychosis', but > that he is fine now "THANK GOD".
I wish somebody would be given the opportunity to take her on.
On BBC News last year she admitted that her brother (or brother in law) had schizophrenia. Somebody should take her up on this, the most likely cause of psychosis in a case like this is genetic.
I'd also like to know how keeping cannabis as it was when her son took it will prevent anyone else from taking it and what a possible 5 year prison sentence would have done to his mental health.
Noticed at Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:53:34 +0100: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
> On BBC 5 Live they just had Debra Bell on to give the counterpoint to > common sense. She said her son suffered from 'cannabis psychosis', but > that he is fine now "THANK GOD".
> Noticed at Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:53:34 +0100: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
> > On BBC 5 Live they just had Debra Bell on to give the counterpoint to > > common sense. She said her son suffered from 'cannabis psychosis', but > > that he is fine now "THANK GOD".
Debra's been using a pseudonym, although fuck knows why when she gives away enough to make it perfectly obvious who he is to anyone who knows him
Her son's real name is Oliver Woodbridge and that's his facebook page linked.
And given that he's already appeared on gmtv and he's now attempting to charge people for consultations on behalf of an anti-cannabis organisation then i would say its in the public interest that he has pictures on his facebook profile of him in the same frame as people who appear to be holding spliffs
> "John Watson" <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7ktoapF3afs00U1@mid.individual.net... >> Noticed at Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:53:34 +0100: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
>> > On BBC 5 Live they just had Debra Bell on to give the counterpoint to >> > common sense. She said her son suffered from 'cannabis psychosis', but >> > that he is fine now "THANK GOD".
> Debra's been using a pseudonym, although fuck knows why when she gives > away enough to make it perfectly obvious who he is to anyone who knows him
Is her real name "Debra" Woodbridge?
> Her son's real name is Oliver Woodbridge and that's his facebook page > linked.
> And given that he's already appeared on gmtv and he's now attempting to > charge people for consultations on behalf of an anti-cannabis organisation > then i would say its in the public interest that he has pictures on his > facebook profile of him in the same frame as people who appear to be > holding spliffs
|
