Another Drugs adviser quits, #7!!

[Mojocvh]

..A government adviser has quit the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs over the criminalisation of mephedrone.

Eric Carlin said ministers had pledged to ban the drug so as to appear "acting tough" in the run-up to the election.

Mr Carlin is the seventh member of the body to resign following the sacking of former chairman Professor David Nutt...




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8600911.stm

Well going down like ten pins now!

[Eric Mc]

It's called " Hissy Fit Syndrome".

[Mojocvh]

More like you ain't letting ME take the blame..

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 2nd April 21:17

[grumbledoak]

Spin and PR > Science and integrity. At least for this shower it is.

I'm just surprised it took him/them this long to work it out.

Edited by grumbledoak on Friday 2nd April 21:24

[Mojocvh]

Well his resignation letter pulls very few punches indeed!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8600929.stm

youmighthavetoldmeyabass

Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 3rd April 19:24

[WhoseGeneration]

Hey, I get high on the joy that NewLabour has brought to my life.
Why would I want any other form of intoxication?

[Parrot of Doom]

Good for him. I like it when people who actually have a clue what they're talking about stand up for their principles.

Typical result of ignorant government interference.

[hidetheelephants]

Government moves to ban recreational drug use in order to save lives; in other news 8000(that's the small figure, if you want to cherrypick the big number is the sunny side of 40k) people died in the last 12 months through chronic abuse of the legal drug alcohol, government reports tax revenues rising... I could add deaths from smoking and doing other stupid stuff that's still legal but despair and ennui induced by government cant have rendered me stupified.

[Oakey]

hidetheelephants said:

Government moves to ban recreational drug use in order to save lives; in other news 8000(that's the small figure, if you want to cherrypick the big number is the sunny side of 40k) people died in the last 12 months through chronic abuse of the legal drug alcohol, government reports tax revenues rising... I could add deaths from smoking and doing other stupid stuff that's still legal but despair and ennui induced by government cant have rendered me stupified.

My uncle died just last night after his liver and kidneys packed up. The result of a decade of drinking himself into oblivion.

[10 Pence Short]

Oakey said:

hidetheelephants said:

Government moves to ban recreational drug use in order to save lives; in other news 8000(that's the small figure, if you want to cherrypick the big number is the sunny side of 40k) people died in the last 12 months through chronic abuse of the legal drug alcohol, government reports tax revenues rising... I could add deaths from smoking and doing other stupid stuff that's still legal but despair and ennui induced by government cant have rendered me stupified.

My uncle died just last night after his liver and kidneys packed up. The result of a decade of drinking himself into oblivion.

If he had moderated his use would he be OK now? You can die from drinking too much water in one go.

The issue is where a drug can be physiologically harmful even through very limited exposure. Alcohol isn't thought to be life threatening through 'normal' exposure.

Either way, what is clear is that the Government are once again playing politics with something they shouldn't. At least the people who know what they are talking about have the balls to vote with their feet. The only danger now, which an election may avert, is that the advisory panel is furnished with 'yes' men with no independent will of their own.

[Oakey]

10 Pence Short said:

Oakey said:

hidetheelephants said:

Government moves to ban recreational drug use in order to save lives; in other news 8000(that's the small figure, if you want to cherrypick the big number is the sunny side of 40k) people died in the last 12 months through chronic abuse of the legal drug alcohol, government reports tax revenues rising... I could add deaths from smoking and doing other stupid stuff that's still legal but despair and ennui induced by government cant have rendered me stupified.

My uncle died just last night after his liver and kidneys packed up. The result of a decade of drinking himself into oblivion.

If he had moderated his use would he be OK now? You can die from drinking too much water in one go.

The issue is where a drug can be physiologically harmful even through very limited exposure. Alcohol isn't thought to be life threatening through 'normal' exposure.

Either way, what is clear is that the Government are once again playing politics with something they shouldn't. At least the people who know what they are talking about have the balls to vote with their feet. The only danger now, which an election may avert, is that the advisory panel is furnished with 'yes' men with no independent will of their own.

Yes of course he would be okay, I'm not disputing that. I'm in the 'everything in moderation' camp. You say that 'alcohol isn't thought to be life threatening through 'nromal' exposure' but is that basis for what substances should and shouldn't be illegal? What about cigarettes, are they life threatening through 'normal' exposure? Cannabis? I think we should be free to do as we please so long as we don't have a detrimental effect on other people in society.

[The Riddler]

Hmmm, the link aint working now!

[rypt]

10 Pence Short said:

The issue is where a drug can be physiologically harmful even through very limited exposure. Alcohol isn't thought to be life threatening through 'normal' exposure.

Weed has relatively few major long term effects if used in moderation and yet it is still banned ...

[10 Pence Short]

Oakey said:

Yes of course he would be okay, I'm not disputing that. I'm in the 'everything in moderation' camp. You say that 'alcohol isn't thought to be life threatening through 'nromal' exposure' but is that basis for what substances should and shouldn't be illegal? What about cigarettes, are they life threatening through 'normal' exposure? Cannabis? I think we should be free to do as we please so long as we don't have a detrimental effect on other people in society.

Alcohol and smoking are their own exceptions, due to the history involved. If smoking was invented today, knowing what we know, it would be banned.

My yardstick would be that if the substance is used recreationally, it should be safe to use in the 'recommended' dose without serious side effects. If it cannot be used without the risk of seemingly random, negative side effects, then it shouldn't be legal. Of course, that standpoint leaves you open to suppositions such as "shouldn't we then ban nuts, or even shell fish?", but not everything can or shuld be so black and white.

As for cannabis- what are the psychological effects of continued use? It's a genuine question. Is it related to the volume or the duration of exposure to it? Does it affect people negatively at all? If it doesn't, then why ban it?

[clarksonisawilly]

10 Pence Short said:

Oakey said:

Yes of course he would be okay, I'm not disputing that. I'm in the 'everything in moderation' camp. You say that 'alcohol isn't thought to be life threatening through 'nromal' exposure' but is that basis for what substances should and shouldn't be illegal? What about cigarettes, are they life threatening through 'normal' exposure? Cannabis? I think we should be free to do as we please so long as we don't have a detrimental effect on other people in society.

Alcohol and smoking are their own exceptions, due to the history involved. If smoking was invented today, knowing what we know, it would be banned.
...

Have cannabis, opiates and coca leaves not been been used throughout the past?

[rypt]

My view is that everything bar very addictive substances should be legal

[10 Pence Short]

clarksonisawilly said:

10 Pence Short said:

Oakey said:

Yes of course he would be okay, I'm not disputing that. I'm in the 'everything in moderation' camp. You say that 'alcohol isn't thought to be life threatening through 'nromal' exposure' but is that basis for what substances should and shouldn't be illegal? What about cigarettes, are they life threatening through 'normal' exposure? Cannabis? I think we should be free to do as we please so long as we don't have a detrimental effect on other people in society.

Alcohol and smoking are their own exceptions, due to the history involved. If smoking was invented today, knowing what we know, it would be banned.
...

Have cannabis, opiates and coca leaves not been been used throughout the past?

Of course, but without anything like the immediate take up in the 'civilised' world. Smoking and drinking are pretty much universals and for right or wrong socially accepted, along with their side effects. The use of many drugs for recreational reasons don't seem to be, for whatever reason.

Once something is so ingrained into society it takes an awful lot of removing- hence prohibition in the States never really working. There's a bit of a Pandoras box in legalising anything that's been unlawful and socially unacceptable for such a long time.

Personally I don't bother with anything stronger than a beer or two (or three etc...), but I've nothing against people having a Joint or even a few occasional lines to keep them going socially, as long as they don't have a negative impact on my life.

[Jasandjules]

grumbledoak said:

Spin and PR > Science and integrity. At least for this shower it is.

What integrity?

[grumbledoak]

Jasandjules said:

What integrity?

I was referring to Mr Carlin and the other six...

[RYH64E]

Does anyone think that banning a drug will make it go away? When has that ever happened. Surely better to legalise, regulate and tax them.