Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: U.K.: never mind the science, marijuana is evil
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Community Structure > The Water Cooler > The Boiler Room
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Flatlander
QUOTE
LONDON - Two more drug advisers to the British government have reportedly stepped down amid an increasingly heated debate over the country's marijuana policy.

The resignation of chemist Les King from Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs follows the ousting of the group's chairman David Nutt, who was forced to step down after speaking out against the government's decision to tighten restrictions on marijuana.

Another council member, clinical director Marion Walker, has also resigned, Nutt said in interviews with broadcasters on Sunday.

The debate has its roots in the British government's decision to officially reclassify marijuana as a more dangerous drug.

Previously marijuana was considered a "Class C" drug, whose possession could carry a sentence of up to two years in prison.

But the government recently upgraded the drug to "Class B," meaning that the possession of marijuana could now result in up to five years in prison.

Possession of "Class A" drugs such as Cocaine and Ecstasy could lead to seven years in prison.

King has warned that the group, which has advised the British government on drug issues for nearly four decades, could fall apart.

"It's being asked to rubber stamp a predetermined position," he said, explaining that British ministers were putting inappropriate pressure on scientists to make decisions on drugs for political reasons.

He said others could follow him by leaving the council, a move that would be deeply embarrassing for the government.

"If sufficient members do resign, the committee will no longer be able to operate," King said.

The move to reclassify marijuana went against the advice of Nutt and his council.

The professor of psychopharmacology has consistently argued that drugs such as marijuana and Ecstasy are far less dangerous than alcohol and that the restrictions placed on them should be proportional to their potential harm.

Britain's Home Office rejected his advice last year, calling the scientific evidence uncertain and saying that a message needed to be sent to marijuana users that possessing the drug is a serious crime.

Although Nutt's position has long been known, Britain's Home Office Secretary Alan Johnson forced him to resign after he revisited the issue in recent media interviews and accused the government of distorting scientific evidence.

Johnson said he respected Nutt's views but the adviser had "crossed the line."

"You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against government decisions," he told Sky News television in an interview.

"You can do one or the other, you can't do both."

Nutt's dismissal has caused dismay in the scientific community.

Scientist Robert Winston, a lawmaker with Johnson's governing Labour Party, said Nutt had made a "very reasonable" point about the relative dangers of illegal and legal drugs, telling BBC radio that he was disappointed by Johnson's actions.

"I think that if governments appoint expert advice they shouldn't dismiss it so lightly," he said.

"I think it shows a rather poor understanding of the value of science."

The council has 31 members, three of which have now stepped down.

Johnson said he would be meeting with the remaining members shortly.

As for Nutt, he said he would continue to speak out on the issue.

"I cannot stand by and see the truth distorted for political reasons," he told Sky.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/artic...jectid=10606766
Lamuella
this is a ridiculous decision based purely on politics and prejudice. Scientists are being disregarded because the things they are saying go against the political agenda of people trying to win votes. Disgusting.
edikroma
Has the government tried to link it to rising levels of youth crimes yet?!
Flatlander
QUOTE (edikroma @ Nov 2 2009, 07:07 AM) *
Has the government tried to link it to rising levels of youth crimes yet?!

There must be a serious problem of soccer hooligans throwing empty pipes at opposing fans after matches .....
Foggers
I find it bizarre that someone has been fired for their opinion on a policy that they are supposed to be the advisor for. What did they expect? Someone to agree with all the politics? Looks like they want a bunch of yes men.
Lamuella
he wasn't fired, he stepped down because he wasn't being listened to.
Flatlander
The other guy was forced out: "Britain's Home Office Secretary Alan Johnson forced him to resign after he revisited the issue in recent media interviews and accused the government of distorting scientific evidence."

And I'm not surprised that he was fired if he was going to the media with his complaints ... you can disagree at the meeting, but when you're in a government position, you generally don't get to air your disagreements in the press and still keep your job.

Resigning to make your disagreements public is perfectly normal, however.
Lamuella
this makes me lose time for Alan Johnson, who I had previously liked a lot.
SoxNation
Absolutely rediculous.


Alcohol is far more harmful than most drugs... when will people wake up.

The perfect hypocrisy, Dad grounds son for a month for smoking a joint while he sits down to watch the game with a 6 pack.
Lamuella
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Nov 2 2009, 10:22 AM) *
Absolutely rediculous.


Alcohol is far more harmful than most drugs... when will people wake up.

The perfect hypocrisy, Dad grounds son for a month for smoking a joint while he sits down to watch the game with a 6 pack.


there's a bill hicks routine where he mentions seeing a beer commercial in the ad break from a program telling kids not to do drugs. Kind of sums it all up.
Renolds
Wow Johnson is a complete and utter tit, of course there must be a thorough national debate when the government decides to ignore scientific evidence.
New Inca Empire
And we Americans are going the other way. If weed in legal in your state, it's legal. The only restriction is that it must be for medical use.
Lamuella
QUOTE (New Inca Empire @ Nov 2 2009, 12:26 PM) *
And we Americans are going the other way. If weed in legal in your state, it's legal. The only restriction is that it must be for medical use.


tell that to the people supplying medical marijuana in California who get busted by the DEA.
Flatlander
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 09:28 AM) *
tell that to the people supplying medical marijuana in California who get busted by the DEA.

That is what he meant, the Obama administration just directed DEA to stop busting people if they are in compliance with state law.
Lamuella
did he? Good.
New Inca Empire
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 12:38 PM) *
did he? Good.


indeed. I'm happy now. biggrin.gif

Now for the president to get more gov't out of our lives.
Foggers
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 03:13 PM) *
he wasn't fired, he stepped down because he wasn't being listened to.

I was referring to the first chap, Professor David Nutt who was sacked.

And SoxNation, I am thinking about revising my position on drugs or at least cannabis.... I hope you're happy.
Flatlander
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 09:38 AM) *
did he? Good.

Yes, but remember, he hasn't really done anything or kept any promises since taking office, and everything bad in the world is his fault, personally. wink.gif
Gran the Terrible
At this point I don't really have anything to add that hasn't already been said, I just have to get this out of my system... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/no...johnstone-drugs

HAHAHA NUTT'S SACKING!!!
SoxNation
QUOTE (Foggers @ Nov 2 2009, 12:53 PM) *
I was referring to the first chap, Professor David Nutt who was sacked.

And SoxNation, I am thinking about revising my position on drugs or at least cannabis.... I hope you're happy.



So happy I'm gonna go blow a line of coke.


Just kidding, alcohol is my only drug left and i'm starting to say goodbye to that old friend.
KainIIIC
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Nov 2 2009, 11:54 AM) *
So happy I'm gonna go blow a line of coke.


Just kidding, alcohol is my only drug left and i'm starting to say goodbye to that old friend.


What if they legalize weed in Maine or Vermont? Like, completely.

Think about the monies!

Would you then reconsider?
western skier
i want to see every tobacco tax lifted if marijuana gets legalized and every lunatic is stoned even more...
Lamuella
QUOTE (western skier @ Nov 2 2009, 04:21 PM) *
i want to see every tobacco tax lifted if marijuana gets legalized and every lunatic is stoned even more...


why? what relation do the two things have?
President Nevik
QUOTE (western skier @ Nov 2 2009, 04:21 PM) *
i want to see every tobacco tax lifted if marijuana gets legalized and every lunatic is stoned even more...

So, do you believe only lunatics use marijuana or do you believe using marijuana makes you a lunatic?
western skier
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 04:22 PM) *
why? what relation do the two things have?



im sure smoking cigarettes is healthier than pot...
Lamuella
QUOTE (western skier @ Nov 2 2009, 04:24 PM) *
im sure smoking cigarettes is healthier than pot...


1) the vast majority of medical experts disagree with you. The number of deaths attributable to cannabis is essentially zero whereas the number of deaths attributable to tobacco numbers into the tens of millions.
2) Even if smoking cigarettes was healthier than cannabis, why would the legalization of cannabis mean we should de-tax tobacco?
SoxNation
QUOTE (KainIIIC @ Nov 2 2009, 04:18 PM) *
What if they legalize weed in Maine or Vermont? Like, completely.

Think about the monies!

Would you then reconsider?



I support full drug legalization and have/would do drugs whether they are legal or not.

I've just grown out of that part of my life. I support peoples rights to do what they wish with their body, but at this point in my life my body is more important than momentary fun.


I'm not saying I won't take a hit now and then, or if a line is just sitting there for me, once every decade i might blow it, but I don't buy, and say no 99% of the time.
Gran the Terrible
QUOTE (western skier @ Nov 2 2009, 04:24 PM) *
im sure smoking cigarettes is healthier than pot...


Basically, marijuana is more likely to cause bronchitis, tobacco is more likely to cause emphysema and lung cancer. On top of that, tobacco smokers smoke exponentially more than pot smokers. I have measured the tobacco in cigarette compared with a bunch of different pipes, one cigarette will fill the average pipe three times, so I would need to smoke three times (6 if I'm smoking with another person, 9 with 3 people, so on) just to intake the same amount of smoke as someone who just smoked 1 cigarette. Keep in mind you can only get so high on marijuana, you can never be too addicted to tobacco. My coworkers that smoke go outside for a cig during each of our breaks (4 in a day) and they are smoking before our shift starts. So after 8 hours, they have already smoked the equivalent of 15 servings of marijuana, who knows how much they smoke when they get home.

Even if marijuana is worse pound for pound(have yet to see any proof of this), tobacco is just so addictive that you suck down so many pounds that it gets boosted to a higher weight class and is not allowed to fight marijuana in a sanctioned fight. tongue.gifa
Flatlander
QUOTE (Gran the Terrible @ Nov 2 2009, 02:27 PM) *
Even if marijuana is worse pound for pound(have yet to see any proof of this), tobacco is just so addictive that you suck down so many pounds that it gets boosted to a higher weight class and is not allowed to fight marijuana in a sanctioned fight. tongue.gifa

Yeah, pretty much this ... even if a pot smoker tried to smoke as much volume of material as a pack-a-day nicotine addict does to get their fix, they'd be asleep before making it halfway through.

Don't get me wrong, I think deliberately putting smoke in your lungs is never really "good" for you, but moderation is the key in using any potentially dangerous substance, whether it's alcohol or tobacco or marijuana or processed sugar ..... and the addictive properties of nicotine seem to make it much more problematic to practice moderation than the properties of THC.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (western skier @ Nov 2 2009, 03:21 PM) *
i want to see every tobacco tax lifted if marijuana gets legalized and every lunatic is stoned even more...

Screw that crap, I want to tax cigarettes and I want to tax marijuana too. Politically easy and raises money.
Lamuella
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Nov 2 2009, 06:44 PM) *
Screw that crap, I want to tax cigarettes and I want to tax marijuana too. Politically easy and raises money.


This, absolutely this.

Legalize cannabis. Tax cannabis.
Legalize ecstasy. Tax ecstasy.
Hell, legalize and tax the hard drugs too while you're at it. (I'm up for negotiation on this one)

Cut down the prison population and thus the amount of money we have to spend on housing for convicts. This also increases our available workforce and the court costs associated with putting people on trial.

Funnel some of the tax money into proper drug education, namely how to use substances (including tobacco and alcohol) responsibly.

Use the rest for, essentially, anything you want. Like paying off some of the deficit.

This will take money off the black market and put it back into the regular economy, giving small businesses a boost. This will encourage small farmers as it will give them a new and legal profitable cash crop.

Punish people heavily for driving while high or operating machinery while high.

I can honestly see no downsides to this.
xoindotnler
Why the hell is alcohol not at Class A blink.gif , it causes millions of traffic accidents and etc. But no they want to make marijuana look more bad.

Edit:
Hmm I agree whit Lamuella's post above. Though I do find the alcohol rules in my country FUBAR.
Flatlander
As to taxation, I'd be willing to pay a licensing fee for the right to grow a couple plants at my house, as long as home brewers making beer are paying the same fee.

But this is where I think legalization of this specific drug KILLS organized crime organizations, especially the Mexican gangs, because it is vastly easier to cultivate pot than it is to synthesize ecstasy or safely distill alcohol, for the average person. Make it legal to grow half a dozen or fewer plants for an individual and the criminal market EVAPORATES. Not much tax revenue there and no huge business opportunity and .... okay, so now we see why this always dies at the legislature. If there's no money to be MADE from it, we might as well stop it from happening at all .......
xoindotnler
We could use those taxes for a wide range of uses, just think about how wrong this is now...
Lamuella
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Nov 2 2009, 07:05 PM) *
As to taxation, I'd be willing to pay a licensing fee for the right to grow a couple plants at my house, as long as home brewers making beer are paying the same fee.

But this is where I think legalization of this specific drug KILLS organized crime organizations, especially the Mexican gangs, because it is vastly easier to cultivate pot than it is to synthesize ecstasy or safely distill alcohol, for the average person. Make it legal to grow half a dozen or fewer plants for an individual and the criminal market EVAPORATES. Not much tax revenue there and no huge business opportunity and .... okay, so now we see why this always dies at the legislature. If there's no money to be MADE from it, we might as well stop it from happening at all .......


that's assuming that people are going to grow their own. Tomatoes are easier to grow than cannabis plants, but most people still get them at the store.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 05:59 PM) *
I can honestly see no downsides to this.

I can see no economic downsides to it if it works as advertised (which nothing ever does: unintended consequences are a !@#$%*) but I'm convinced that this would be a good move. Maybe not a great move, and so not worth the political fight that it would take to reverse decades of government policies and advertising and that "drugs are bad, m'kay" but there isn't strong a non-political reason not to do it.
KainIIIC
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Nov 2 2009, 06:15 PM) *
I can see no economic downsides to it if it works as advertised (which nothing ever does: unintended consequences are a !@#$%*) but I'm convinced that this would be a good move. Maybe not a great move, and so not worth the political fight that it would take to reverse decades of government policies and advertising and that "drugs are bad, m'kay" but there isn't strong a non-political reason not to do it.


That and GV wants a quick, cheap and reliable supply.

I don't blame you at all wink.gif
Dennis Von Bremen
Wow... this is ridiculous, why should someone go to jail just because they smoked marijuana? It makes no sense whatsoever to punish someone for doing something to their own body, not to mention that it's a waste of prison space. 2 years in jail is bad enough, now they wanna do 5 years in jail for marijuana usage? Seriously... when I hear this !@#$%^&* I contemplate becoming an Anarchist, because the government overstepped it's bounds WAY too much.
New Inca Empire
You're not expecting gov't to be smart are you? tongue.gif
Gustave5436
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 01:22 PM) *
why? what relation do the two things have?


Both can give you lung cancer.

QUOTE (western skier @ Nov 2 2009, 01:24 PM) *
im sure smoking cigarettes is healthier than pot...


Nicotine is a highly addictive stimulant (i.e. dangerous), and it seems impossible to consume it recreationally without killing yourself with cancer.

Cannabis has no such substance in it. It tends to be mildly psychologically addictive, but then so are a lot of other everyday things.

QUOTE (Lamuella @ Nov 2 2009, 03:59 PM) *
This, absolutely this.

Legalize cannabis. Tax cannabis.
Legalize ecstasy. Tax ecstasy.
Hell, legalize and tax the hard drugs too while you're at it. (I'm up for negotiation on this one)


Drug taxes are highly regressive so for that reason I cannot support them (though having drug taxes support rehabilitation programs is an interesting idea).

QUOTE (Dennis Von Bremen @ Nov 2 2009, 06:48 PM) *
Wow... this is ridiculous, why should someone go to jail just because they smoked marijuana? It makes no sense whatsoever to punish someone for doing something to their own body, not to mention that it's a waste of prison space. 2 years in jail is bad enough, now they wanna do 5 years in jail for marijuana usage? Seriously... when I hear this !@#$%^&* I contemplate becoming an Anarchist, because the government overstepped it's bounds WAY too much.


And the way in which it oversteps its bounds is just retarded. Cannabis a schedule I drug? It's absolutely absurd.
auto98
QUOTE (Dennis Von Bremen @ Nov 3 2009, 02:48 AM) *
Wow... this is ridiculous, why should someone go to jail just because they smoked marijuana? It makes no sense whatsoever to punish someone for doing something to their own body, not to mention that it's a waste of prison space. 2 years in jail is bad enough, now they wanna do 5 years in jail for marijuana usage? Seriously... when I hear this !@#$%^&* I contemplate becoming an Anarchist, because the government overstepped it's bounds WAY too much.



Just to make it clear, the real differences in the classification are to do with supply - you are extremely unlikely to get anything other than a caution for class C or B possession (in fact often they will just confiscate it, won't even be recorded against you)

Usually the same with Class A (except you will normally be taken to the station) - you would be unlucky if they give you more than a caution.

Once you get into supply of course, it is a different story.
SoxNation
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Nov 2 2009, 07:05 PM) *
As to taxation, I'd be willing to pay a licensing fee for the right to grow a couple plants at my house, as long as home brewers making beer are paying the same fee.

But this is where I think legalization of this specific drug KILLS organized crime organizations, especially the Mexican gangs, because it is vastly easier to cultivate pot than it is to synthesize ecstasy or safely distill alcohol, for the average person. Make it legal to grow half a dozen or fewer plants for an individual and the criminal market EVAPORATES. Not much tax revenue there and no huge business opportunity and .... okay, so now we see why this always dies at the legislature. If there's no money to be MADE from it, we might as well stop it from happening at all .......



its pretty easy to grow tobacco and to brew beer too, most people don't bother, if you can buy a pack of joints at your 7-11 most people will do that.

Marijuana industry would be huge and yes it would kill the illegal drug trade.
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Nov 3 2009, 11:06 AM) *
its pretty easy to grow tobacco and to brew beer too, most people don't bother, if you can buy a pack of joints at your 7-11 most people will do that.


QFT

Potheads aren't a notoriously motivated and industrious people. I think people would be way more apt to buy it, rather than grow it themselves. That's where you can get all the tax money, etc.
Flatlander
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Nov 3 2009, 08:42 AM) *
QFT

Potheads aren't a notoriously motivated and industrious people. I think people would be way more apt to buy it, rather than grow it themselves. That's where you can get all the tax money, etc.

Tsk tsk, stereotyping to the rescue again .... are wine drinkers also not notoriously motivated and industrious?

It's just ridiculously easy to do in comparison to brewing ... it's a weed, it's relatively hard to kill, you give it water and light and you get produce. How many people grow their own tomatoes in the back yard, relative to how many home brew? Or have a windowsill herb garden?

I don't disagree, however, that there would be an industry of manufactured goods that would produce taxable revenue. Either way you're killing the criminal gangs' revenue stream, and that's a win-win.
SoxNation
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Nov 3 2009, 11:59 AM) *
Tsk tsk, stereotyping to the rescue again .... are wine drinkers also not notoriously motivated and industrious?

It's just ridiculously easy to do in comparison to brewing ... it's a weed, it's relatively hard to kill, you give it water and light and you get produce. How many people grow their own tomatoes in the back yard, relative to how many home brew? Or have a windowsill herb garden?

I don't disagree, however, that there would be an industry of manufactured goods that would produce taxable revenue. Either way you're killing the criminal gangs' revenue stream, and that's a win-win.



you've never grown have you? Know anything about cross pollination?


Sure you can probably grow some crappy schwag weed pretty easily, but when you can get some killer bud at the 7-11 for 5 bucks a pack.... why bother?


i'm not saying noone will grow, but the industry will be there and there will be tax dollars
Flatlander
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Nov 3 2009, 09:01 AM) *
you've never grown have you? Know anything about cross pollination?

I did not have sex with that wo ......

I mean, while maintaining a state of plausible deniability, let me just say that you don't have to have a degree in horticulture to get some mighty fine produce if you start with decent seeds or cuttings and pay attention to what you're doing.
Gran the Terrible
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Nov 3 2009, 11:42 AM) *
QFT

Potheads aren't a notoriously motivated and industrious people.


A pothead can turn virtually anything into a bong. awesome.gif
Iserlohn
QUOTE (Gustave5436 @ Nov 3 2009, 07:27 AM) *
Drug taxes are highly regressive so for that reason I cannot support them (though having drug taxes support rehabilitation programs is an interesting idea).


That's a good point, but it seems to me that drugs as they are now are even more highly regressive. The poor are already using these drugs, and paying enormously for it. Legalization and taxation will still result in lower prices for them, and using part of the money for rehabilitation would probably affect the poor most.

So yes, still somewhat regressive, but still far, far better than the status quo.
SoxNation
QUOTE (Iserlohn @ Nov 3 2009, 02:18 PM) *
That's a good point, but it seems to me that drugs as they are now are even more highly regressive. The poor are already using these drugs, and paying enormously for it. Legalization and taxation will still result in lower prices for them, and using part of the money for rehabilitation would probably affect the poor most.

So yes, still somewhat regressive, but still far, far better than the status quo.



true would you prefer a regressive tax or jail?


I think i'd pay the regressive tax and keep my freedom.
Iserlohn
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Nov 3 2009, 11:26 AM) *
true would you prefer a regressive tax or jail?


I think i'd pay the regressive tax and keep my freedom.


Well, that's not quite the choice. I think regardless of what we do we need to ease up the drug laws and stop jailing people for smoking pot, if for no other reason than that jails are too crowded for that sort of thing.

The choice, I think, is between paying a whole lot for drugs and funding organized crime or paying less for drugs and funding rehabilitation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.