What's new

New UK Drug Czar Once Supported Cannabis Legalization, No More

Skip

Active member
Veteran
Looks like hypocrisy will never cease in the UK. The newly appointed, yet temporary Drug Czar, Les Iversen, once called for the legalization of cannabis saying it was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, exactly what caused the previous Drug Czar, Dr. David Nutt, to be fired.

But of course this new Drug Czar is going to toe the gov't line that marijuana has suddenly become a dangerous drug due to the "introduction" of "skunk" cannabis into the UK market. Of course most skunk is better for you than soapbar, so long as it hasn't been adulterated with harmful things like glass beads or lead to make more profits.

And he also thinks that mental diseases are CAUSED by cannabis, not even considering that cannabis actually RELIEVES the symptoms of those mental diseases... That's why ppl with mental problems LIKE cannabis, because IT HELPS THEM deal with things like PTSD.

Read more:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gFAddbxHST1fIpl-nGaY8PiIhoEw
 
Last edited:

Skip

Active member
Veteran
That's okay. Well, it's not really, but Professor Nutt is still on the case -- he's setting up his own Independent Council on Drug Harms:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447222.stm

That's GREAT! An independent council should be free from political manipulation. And since these are all scientists, they can provide critical evaluations that so far have been suppressed by the UK gov't and others.

It also sounds like the Drug Policy group that Dr. Nutt left has become impotent, with so many members resigning!

This is becoming a big deal cause the gov't isn't able to force them to issue more LIES about drugs now. In fact they aren't issuing anything, they have also lost all credibility, or they should!
 

oldpink

Un - Retired,
Administrator
Veteran
the drugs advisory council only advise the government they don't set policy
If they did cannabis would be reclassified down or legal
Proff Nutt and the council were the ones that advised going to Class C the government decided to ignore them and go back to B

the new guy seems Ok and he has made demands that the government inform them of Why the over rule them when they do
but anyone on the council thats PRO Canna is good, they could have dug deep to find
some one Anti to head it up them we would be screwed

I also support a fully independent council with powers to set the laws but I doubt it will happen
 

Blimey

Take A Deep Breath
Veteran
A sane government would give the council proper independance to set criminality for drugs, in the same way that the Bank Of England has independance to set interest rates.

But until the political mindset - that "drugs" are a ciminal problem, rather than a medical one - changes, I can't see them willingly give up that power.

Plus, no doubt any such independant council would want control over tobacco and alcohol policy - they're just drugs, after all. And that's just too much power for the Govt to lose.

Anyone know who's bankrolling Professor Nutt's new "shadow council"? Expect them to be tarred and feathered in the media.
 
A

alpinestar

its funny because they do these comparisons saying pot causes this or that mental problem, then they prescribe drugs like paxil and zoloft, which actually do cause people to become even more depressed and suicidal - real mental problems not fake comparisons.

Its just blatant lying to everyone's face and Im getting sick of it. Its as if they regard everyone as children.
 

Open Eyes

Member
Good find skip!

Mods feel free to delete my post as i am quoting same reference.

"He said during an interview on BBC Radio 5: “I don’t remember saying that. It’s certainly not my position now. We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness. I think it’s quite free for a scientist to change his mind when faced with new facts.” ""

He does not remember saying that BUT he does remember the fact that he changd his mind about cannabis when faced with his "facts".

Just another government stooge if you ask me.
 

SuperConductor

Active member
Veteran
We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness.

He's talking about a meta-analasys (which is basically using statistics from every other piece of research they could find and crunching the numbers) which showed that people who used cannabis were 40% more likely to be affected by mental illness than people who didn't.

What they never mention is that for alcohol that number goes up to 200%!!! Cigs are similar. Now you could be an idiot and say that alcohol and cigs cause mental illness or you could use your brain and say that most people with mental illnesses use alcohol and tobacco as a form of relief from their symptoms.
 

HempHut

Active member
He's talking about a meta-analasys (which is basically using statistics from every other piece of research they could find and crunching the numbers) which showed that people who used cannabis were 40% more likely to be affected by mental illness than people who didn't.

What they never mention is that for alcohol that number goes up to 200%!!! Cigs are similar. Now you could be an idiot and say that alcohol and cigs cause mental illness or you could use your brain and say that most people with mental illnesses use alcohol and tobacco as a form of relief from their symptoms.

Exactly.

Or to put it more formally: correlation does not imply causation.

Also, the correlation itself is still not "fact". As you say, it's sloppy meta analysis done piecemeal.

Also notice how "40% more likely" is a much more dramatic way of saying "increases from 1% to 1.4%."

The new reefer madness is on no more solid ground than the old reefer madness -- they're both just smears with no weight behind them.

In fact, here's a recent study that really never received any media attention, but it specifically looked at the number of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia over a nine year period when cannabis use was increasing. The conclusion is as follows:

We examined trends in the annual psychosis incidence and prevalence as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005 and found it to be either stable or declining.

The casual models linking cannabis with schizophrenia and other psychoses are therefore not supported by our study.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.u...is-denied/article-1288926-detail/article.html

The study was even partially commissioned by the ACMD.
 

SuperConductor

Active member
Veteran
Yes well put. I find it difficult to believe that a scientist of this new guys standing (a former Oxford University pharmacology professor) doesn't know these things or isn't open to the new information at least. I can believe he's enjoying his new salary though.
 

stihgnobevoli

Active member
Veteran
its funny because they do these comparisons saying pot causes this or that mental problem, then they prescribe drugs like paxil and zoloft, which actually do cause people to become even more depressed and suicidal - real mental problems not fake comparisons.
tell me about it, those antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs i took made me way "crazier" than i thought i was before i started using em. like 100x more so. im so crazy now its all i can do to keep my shit together. thanks a lot abilify, thanks a lot lexapro. i have no idea whats real and whats not anymore.

weed is illegal, shit that fucks you up is legal. love america.
 

HempHut

Active member
Yes well put. I find it difficult to believe that a scientist of this new guys standing (a former Oxford University pharmacology professor) doesn't know these things or isn't open to the new information at least. I can believe he's enjoying his new salary though.

While I agree he's likely to be aware of the more recent study, it should also be said his position is a voluntary one.

However, that doesn't preclude him being influenced in some other way not related to the receipt of a salary.

If he's saying he can change his mind in light of new evidence, then we must ask why he sees information from 2003 as the newest when we clearly have data from 2009 that contradicts the 2003 data. Surely he should have changed his mind, once again, back to his previous position (pro legalization) if he's up to date on the science and basing his position solely on scientific data.
 
Top