Dingdongler

I think he should have been. Though I'm broad minded about drugs, to say ecstasy is less dangerous than alcohol is madness. Even if it were,alcohol is already here and established doesn't mean we need more problems.

As he ever seen kids grinding their teeth, sweating like pigs and hallucinating their nuts off on ecstasy? Does he really think something like that should be readily and legally available to 16 year olds?

G00ner

Who's alias is this? PSL back for another go?

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Not much point in having an advisory committee if you are just going to sack them when they express their opinion. More appropriately they should have discussed the evidence behind his claim. After that discussion if his views were ill formed, then it would be time for the chop.

scoobynutta555

Nutt, not Nut. I take it you have read his previous reports and conclusions and are not just parroting the editorial from some tabloid, or even worse, the musing of an ignoramus?

Dedrater

Fact - ecstasy is less dangerous than alcohol.

Bubba po

He has pointed out that, according to research, the government's present classification of drugs according to the level of harm is wrong. What is the point of being a scientific advisor to the government if you are just meant to be a mouthpiece for the government party line?

Martin2005

I think his exact words were 'ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding' which may or may not be true.

I bet horse riding after taking ecstasy is really really dangerous then

wrighty338

iTrader: (33)

and sleeping tablets iirc, and it doesnt give anti social side affects like alcohol does!

the sacking, just goes to show how ****ing stupid this country and its government are

RA Dunk

Yup, It seems to be a case of Lets employ someone to be our scientific advisor, then sack him when he dosent tell us what we want to hear

Trout

iTrader: (1)

If alcohol came to the market as a new drug nowadays it would surely be Class A.

Given the pervasive use of ecstasy and the tiny number of primary deaths, and the also miniscule number of secondary deaths it is clearly safer than alcohol. Alcohol has primary deaths measured in their scores, if not hundreds, every week.

paulwrxboro

more advisers quit today...they must have had the same way of thinking

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

A usual with new labia, they are not interested in anything that does not conform to spin. Prof Nut was clearly off message and had to go!

You can take a politician to an educated view, but you can't make him think

dsmith

The point is advisors...."advise". The government makes policy having taken that advice (and more) in the context of many other factors.

he seemed agahst that the government had taken a moral rather than purely scientific view on drugs....well duh!. no sh*t.

If he took the job thinking his word would become policy with only a thin veneer of politicians in between he was naive and unsuited for the job.

dont get me wrong I think this labour government make a ***** up of almost every bit of policy they touch.....but they are the elected government and the ***** up is theirs to make.

MJW

Just another example of the government being totally out of touch with anything that goes on outside the walls of parliament. Disagreeing with a scientific panel is one thing, but I think Alan Johnson has dropped a major bollock by sacking an unpaid scientific expert. It's all a very obvious play for the populist vote, even someone whacked on drugs can see that.

Dingdongler

Ok, I have to admit I haven't read the actual report. Also if you'd asked me the same question in my 20's, I would have agreed that alcohol is worse than cannabis and alcohol.

Now that I'm a bit older, my out look has changed. Even if scientific data proves ecstasy causes less harm than alcohol, doesn't mean that needs to be trumpeted in the way Nutt did. We already have to endure the harmful effects of alcohol, be impossibke to ban it, do we really want to encourage youngsters to take ecstasy?

Also, I'm still not convinced alcohol is just as harmful as ecstasy, though I accept the former does cause huge physical and physcological damage to society.
I know people who have taken a small regular alcoholic intake all their lives, some are now in their 80's and very active and fit. Everybody I knew who took drug's (ecstasy) in their 20's gave up by their 30's because they were beginning to suffer insomnia, personality changes, paranoia etc

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

So "Postman Pat", who left school at 15, knows more than the drugs adviser, then?

Typical Lying Labour bullsh*t.

They've done the same with the Cambridge report into Primary Education: what the report said was NOT government policy, in fact it flew in the face of many flagship government policies, so they were rubbishing before it was released.:mad;
Many ministerial statements showed they hadn't even read it before starting to rubbish it

Leslie

I don't agree with his pronouncements on ecstasy or cannabis, the dangers of leading on to far worse drugs are too great.

It is however all wrong on a point of principle that he should be sacked for saying what he thought because it disagreed with the official govt. view. That is tantamount to suppression of free speech.

Les

Dream Weaver

If out walking at night I would much rather bump into a group of pilled up teenagers than a group that had been downing White Lightning all night long.

I would hazard a guess he is correct, although not sure if I would advise youngsters to take drugs myself.

MattOz

Is it just me that finds that headline funny?

my06 ppp silver

iTrader: (2)

is someone trying to say horses are NOT dangerous?

YouTube - Horrific Accident - Reporter Mangled By Horse

unclebuck

Stupid Marxist postman knows best.

It's a government of 'all the talents' remember.

David Lock

Alcohol deaths to drugs deaths is around 50000 to 2000. It really is a non-starter.

Seems odd to me that other crucial factors are not mentioned. If you have dope when you're a kid chances are you will stop this as you grow up but if you go the alcohol route you will probably still be boozing at 50.

Also the amount that is taken must be relevant. 4 fat smokes of skunk every day could be worse that a few pints surely?

Whichever, Alan Johnson has behaved like a ***** on this one.

dl

+Doc+

Its not the drugs themselves that are the problem, its the pushers, addicts and general crime that surrounds them.
With that in mind he had to go or the Govt would be seen to be sympathising.
No one reads full reports, they just read Tabloid headlines.

David Lock

Nutt was asked to report on the drugs themselves not the wider implications so why should he go?

If HMG are worried about the legitimate things you describe it's up to them to do somehing.

dl

boomer

...so what better reason to legalise them, under similar (but stronger) rules to those imposed on legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco?

Pushers will be no more, as you can buy your "fix" at an approved store, and it can be of a known quality and strength (and at a fraction of the current street price). In addition, the gubmint can raise tax revenues to help keep their snouts in the trough!

"addicts"? Well we are all addicts, whether drugs, beer, baccy or Scoobynet

General crime would be reduced because the "pushers" and everyone else in the (illegal) supply chain would no longer be required.

Other benefits include buying all the poppies from The Stan, thus giving the locals a trade and maybe allowing us to withdraw from this unnecessary "war".

Rules on "intoxication" could be formally enhanced to cope with the impact on society - certain jobs would require enhanced testing, so that, say, bus drivers were not driving whilst still "high". Other jobs (such as being an MP) may require a zero tolerance because of their significance for an ordered society

but Postman Pat knows better

mb

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Sort of agree with you here.

I'm not entirely sure why they don't just legalise at least some drugs, then they have some control of that issue, and better still, they can raise revenue from it.

Maybe there is more to it, and it can never be that simple.

As for sacking him, that seemed harsh to me. He was an adviser on drug safety and reported his findings. There's not much point in having/using advisors if you are just going to sack them if you don't like their findings. At the end of the day the government could easily have given their reasoning behind policy regardless of 'safety' issues (social/moral reasons).

Jamz3k

Good way of getting the UK out of a Recession, start selling wingers!

Luan Pra bang

We should allow tolerance zones within each city centre where shops can sell, and druggies consume, weed mushrooms and pills provided all purchased substances are consumed on the premises. This way drug takers can enjoy their drugs and the rest of us don't have to interact with pilled up idiots or hippies during everyday life.
THe bloody hippies **** me off the worst, those yogurt weaving basket eating rejects need a wash, a job and a haircut.

+Doc+

I don't agree with it I'm just saying how the mentality of the Govt. would have worked.
It would be interesting to see what impact legalising and taxing cannabis would have, hasn't done the Dutch too much harm

wrighty338

iTrader: (33)

gotta agree with what one conservative mp said today in houses of parliament. he shot the messenger as he didnt like the message he brought. this country winds me up so much, im actually going to vote for the first time at the next gen election and get labour out - eejits.

does anyone else think the answer to drugs problems, is more drugs? and legalisation? at the end of the day, dealers are only making money (living) the addicts are the ones who are a problem who turn to crime to pay for their addictions..and users, at their own risk use drugs - just like drinking alcohol right?