To listen to some of the reactions to Alan Johnson's decision to sack Professor David Nutt, the Government's leading adviser on drugs, you'd think it was a re-run of the Catholic Church imprisoning Galileo for claiming that the Earth goes round the Sun.
But Prof Nutt isn't a martyr to science who lost his job merely for confronting the Government with incontestable facts. He was sacked because, as Mr Johnson insisted, "he cannot be both a Government adviser and a campaigner against Government policy".
Prof Nutt and his supporters think that this just shows how unreasonable Government policy on drugs has become; if Mr Johnson was rational, he would change that policy so it was in line with the science and Prof Nutt's recommendations. But Prof Nutt's views on policy matters – for example, that the Government is wrong to classify cannabis as a class B drug (which means people convicted of possessing it can face five years in prison) – are not straightforward inferences from the scientific facts. It takes several additional steps, some of them highly debatable, to get to his conclusions.
Prof Nutt's own summary of the relevant science is itself far from uncontentious. For instance, he recognises that "cannabis is associated with an increased experience of psychotic disorders", which include schizophrenia, but he then minimises the significance, claiming that "schizophrenia seems to be disappearing, even though cannabis use has increased markedly in the last 30 years". But there is no consensus at all that schizophrenia is disappearing: on the contrary, most psychiatrists and psychologists think the incidence of the illness is increasing, or at least constant.
Furthermore, the best study on the relationship between cannabis and psychotic disorders, from Dunedin in New Zealand, found that teenagers who use cannabis heavily are significantly more likely to develop symptoms of psychosis. That finding is very much in line with the discovery that the brain keeps on developing until about the age of 22. After that, the detrimental effects of cannabis diminish. But before it, the risk that cannabis will trigger psychotic disorders is very real.
Prof Nutt does not seem to have recognised this important fact – which may explain why he thinks cannabis isn't a very dangerous drug and doesn't need to be classified as one. But while its use may not have consequences if you are Prof Nutt's age, it is definitely dangerous for young people.
Maxine Sacks, a clinical psychologist who works in north London, sees the damage cannabis can do to mental health on a regular basis. She notes that in societies such as India, where cannabis has been in widespread use for hundreds of years, there is a strong – and pretty effective – taboo against young people using the drug.
The harm that cannabis can cause in teenage brains is a good reason for, as the Government says, "erring on the side of caution" and classifying cannabis as a class B drug, with heavy penalties for those convicted of possession. The science does not force you to that conclusion – but then it does not force you to the conclusion that cannabis should be downgraded to class C.
And indeed, Prof Nutt's argument for downgrading cannabis has nothing to do with science at all: he simply claims that a higher classification may encourage youngsters to use the drug, because "it has greater cachet". He provides no evidence whatever for this claim.
He does agree, however, that "what we should be doing is to protect [young people] from harm at this stage of their lives". The Government thinks that imposing serious penalties for cannabis use is a reasonable way of achieving that goal. So do I. Prof Nutt is entitled to take the contrary view, but he should not claim that it is merely the result of "science": it is about as scientific as advocating that handguns should be as freely available as swimming pools, because every year, fewer children get shot than drown.
One or two respondents nearly got it, but not quite. Illicit drugs are supplied by gangsters so more should be done to stop the gangsters. Legalising drugs will not work as there has to be control in consumption and distribution and this will surely fail as users will go to the black market to top up. Or conversely those who get too much by legal methods will offload their surplus on to the black market. The lives of drug abusers are often described as chaotic - not true. Those who are regular users are extremely focussed on their needs and are well organised (and devious)on obtaining their next fix.
"Research carried out on New Zealand teenagers has confirmed cannabis use is a serious risk factor for schizophrenia."
a quote from the the Dunedin study
"There is a small but significant minority of people who have a predisposition to psychosis and who would be well advised to steer clear of cannabis," a Dutch researcher, Jim van Os, said in the latest New Scientist magazine,"
never let the facts get in the way of a good demonisation eh
I find this whole debate depressing. I've known and associated with cannabis users for all of my adult life and the hundreds if not thousands of tokers I've met have ALL been well adjusted, sensible members of society, working, paying taxes etc etc.
A quarter of under 25's in this country have used it. 80% of the US has used it at some time in their life, in fact a good few million use it every day medicinally. 31% of Italians, 22% of the Dutch the list goes on. There are huge number of adults using this plant every day across the world without ANY ill effects at all and the only answer the governments of the world can up with is "lock 'em up". Millions worldwide have been branded criminals, unable to get work, education, mortgages etc.
The rates for schizophrenia have remained stable across the world, at around 1 or 2% for decades because cannabis does not CAUSE mental illness, it can mask the symptoms so they go undetected, it also helps a LOT of people with mental illnesses. There are different strains of the plant that have different effects on the user. Sativas are more of a cerebral high, (probably not good for mental illness) then there are indicas which give a more "stoned" or "couch lock" effect. If it were legalised the people would know what they using and be able to get the right strain for the effect they want without the "pot luck" situation we have now.
This isn't "one mans personal crusade" as is being implied, the ACMD gathered research from across the world, for 10 years to come to the conclusions they did, and if they were SO far off the mark why did the Government agree with every other recommendation the ACMD submitted?
This government will not decriminalise or legalise cannabis while the UN drug treaty is in place because if they do they will incur sanctions from the US. The arguement of harm does NOT come into the governments reckoning where cannabis is concerned, it is illegal because of "cultural and historical precedents".
It would be far easier for the police to only have to deal with youngsters who were using cannabis than the population as a whole, cheaper as well, if cannabis were legal.
Prohibition does not work!
Legalise, Regulate, Tax & Educate.
Prohibition of Cannabis simply isn't working. If the governmenmt was really interested in keeping it away from minors that would assure that it was properly regulated.
I think the Government is failing to administer the Misuse of Drugs Act correctly - by failing to follow the scientific evidence. There is simply no causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia.
How can any credible system of drug 'control' arbitarily exclude two of the most dangerous recreational drugs in society?
I have never taken any drugs (Including alcohol!), but I can't see why we don't legalise them all for adults, with robust controls.
"..."what we should be doing is to protect [young people] from harm at this stage of their lives". The Government thinks that imposing serious penalties for cannabis use is a reasonable way of achieving this aim."
A reasonable extension of this logic then is to substitute "tobacco" for "cannabis" since tobacco of course is also responsible for serious health problems. Why does no-one in government consider making tobacco illegal? Because there are big profits (and therefore taxation) to be realised from this particular drug.
I don't think you should comment on something you have clearly not read Nor understand , there is no reference to prof nutts number work, nor is there any evidence backing up anything you write ,it seems you are more worried about loosing your drink and smoke than helping the situation . you are further hindering confusion by writing rubbish!. go and read prof nutts paper !
.cannabis can only be advised by experts who look at the facts not paid to find faults ,,
people who smoke dope don't want kids smoking it either ! and what one does to ones body shouldn't have anything to do with anyone else ! GIVE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO VOTE ON ,,, NOT COVER IT UP, LEGALISE ,REGULATE ,EDUCATE IS THE BEST MODEL
This is a well argued article. Another reason for criticising Prof Nutt's view is that he seems to believe that death is the only measure of harm, for instance when he says cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol because you can die of an alcohol overdose but not of a cannabis overdose. But dying is not the only kind of harm. A lifetime's sentence of psychosis is a very serious kind of harm which skunk can trigger, but alcohol much less so. And although you may die of falling off a horse, you don't get schizophrenia if you stay in the saddle, whereas you may if you keep taking skunk. So I agree with Alasdair Palmer that Nutt was completely wrong on this issue, and Johnson got it right.
I have never used drugs and used to be of the "drugs are bad and should be banned" school of thought. I have however seen that current drugs policy has been an abject failure. Anyone who wants to take drugs can and does. Street prices are generally falling, meaning greater availability - fleeting signs of stabilisation is taken as a sign of "success". The full legalisation of drugs (with proper safeguards) has much to commend it. Read the Economist on this subject.
By the way on the criminal statistics, Alasdair, you will find upon further inspection that crimes while under the influence solely of cannabis are relatively few and far between, the only significant number of offenses being the actual possession of the substance itself and/or its sale. Fighting, theft, destruction of property, etc. are very rare. Where these enter in are when weed is combined with first, alcohol, second, other drugs/substances, and third with weed combined with both alcohol and other drugs either taken separately or as part of the weed. Weed alone is rarely the culpret.
Many of those arrested will admit to alcohol to get off with an offense relating to a legal intoxicant. If forced or caught with weed they will admit that. Usually that provides the arresting officer with enough evidence to complete the file and make the charges. Rarely will the user admit to pills/powders unless caught first hand and on his/her person. And the user cannot name to the officer what is in the cannabis if it has been cut with other chemicals except that he might know it by its street name such as "Black Death" or other names given to non-documented cannabis concoctions.
The kids (and adults) and the constabulary are falling into an "identification-consumption trap" which confuses many but of course not all of the issues. If weed was legalised it would "slow teenagers down" in many ways, some very damaging, but the weed would not contain the other substances, and there would be less reason to hide the consumption, which adds glamour and naughtiness to the event of smoking... as well as a high element of chemical combination danger, especially when the cannabis additives are combined with alcohol, which alone is a drug that is well-documented to increase violence, other anti-social behaviors and severe mental problems.
Why oh why are commentators like these so illogical? If there is evidence that cannabis harms young people's brains - then ban it for young people but not the whole population. As the author rightly acknowledges - the key danger of cannabis is mental health issues in the young and the dangers, past a certain age, are minimal. Please, let's move on from the blanket approach to policy which fails to get any nuance. Law enforcement agencies would prefer legalisation. The Prohibition period has proven beyond any doubt that crime rises as a result of the ban but does not reduce the consumption of the drug. Yes, let's start calling alcohol a drug and be honest about it. Alcohol's legality is both arbitrary and popular. In the name of Justice - stop this idiotic drugs policy that has failed for forty years.
And now we have another Nutty Professor attempting to turn over the Kelly reeport for the sake of his own ego and his paymaster's reputation.
God preserve us from the vanity of the academic
One thing your readers might already know but needs restating. Police oficers who have to handle the drug issues are predominantly in favour of legalisation, control and education. Enforcement doesn't work and never will.
Charlotte
on November 08, 2009
at 08:42 PM
I'm not sure if you mean just generally or in respect of drug use. Attempts to stem the use of drugs have been an abject failure haven't they. The problem seems to me to be that the passing of a law does not prevent the behaviour nor does it stop the desire of people to alter their perception by intoxicating themselves.
My experience of cops in general is that most try to make a positive difference, and often fail.
Most of them run towards the things that most other people run away from. Most of the time.
Man on Waterloo Bridge
on November 08, 2009
at 08:42 PM
You sound as if you have been through the mill. I wrote with no intention to sneer, nor to appear to be arrogant, though I may be so I suppose.
Neither did I intend sarcasm, nor do I now.
On the subject of prostitutes I do not say all prostitutes are crack addicts. Merely that the ones that I came into contact with in the last few years of my career were. As you suggest, my experience of prostitutes was limited to the most vulnerable and most abused women who engage in prostitution to satisfy their need for money. I have no experience of those prostitutes who have the where-with-all to protect themselves from the dangers that are part and parcel of their behaviour.
You seem to think that I am condeming prostitutes in some way. I am not. I am condeming some of the causes and results of prostitution. I simply made the observation.
The de facto prohibition of prostitution seems to me to contribute to the risk they run.
Whatever the cause or causes of the mental illnesses you describe, when those you have met or who are dear to you were harmed, did the fact that those drugs were or are illegal stop them from taking them?
No one here is saying that there is no risk to taking drugs. Any of them. Neither am I.
I suspect that Professor Knutt knows full well about incidence and consequences of cannabis and its consequences. He emphasises the dangers of alcohol because this has become such a socially acceptable drug, now especially amount the young, whose emphasis is on spirit mixes,that he feels this should need attention. But he is up against it. Alcoholism and the consequences of an over-indulgence of alcohol receive relatively small attention. The drug is easily available, enjoyable (up to a point)and carries with it humour and funny stories -. being one over the eight etc. Young people, moving with the times prefer their hedonistic lives without any fear of the consequences. These consequences are very widespread and very serious for many, many people. All drug addiction is wrong but alcohol's legality and tax raising ability make it an acceptable way of killing oneself.
Alasdair Palmer's article has
made a strong case for rejecting
cannabis, because of possible
deleterous impact if it falls
into the hands of minors and
underaged children--especially
those under age 22. For much
I have written about marijuana
and cannibis, I donlt have any
background or practical exeperience to indulge the graphic analysis and explanations. But, it's a
serious public-relations,
public-health, constabulary,
criminal-justice issue deemed so
by the editors as it's pushed
forward. That's where I come in.
I did so because, also, cannabis
has been deemed and ruled less
harmful than abused substances--
as simple as alcohol which kills
9,000 people annually in the
United Kingdom. This is the
radical contention of David Nutt
a professor of neuropharmacology
and the Brown administration
drug czar. The bone of dispute or contention is magnified when
Brown administration rejected
earlier recommendations by a
competent government drug-advisory panel, suggesting that the government downgrade marijuana from Class B--whose possession is deemed unlawful like in substances such as ampitamines, Ritalin, pholcodine could result up to
5 years in jail.
Only drugs in Class A has
higher illegality and more
phamarcologcal harzards, carrying more severe penalties.
Marijuana was upgraded from
the least harmful Class C to B
by Prime Miniser Gordon based
on just personal, religious instincts. In an interview given
to SkyNews Television of
Australia published in an article written by AAP writer Raphel G Satter on the Oct 31
edition of the Yahoo News,
Nutt expressed disappointmment
by his sacking by the Brown
administration.
Nit claimed that politics and
the general election expected
by or before June next year, is
responsible for the Home
Secretary dismissing him at the pleasure of the prime minister.
"Politics is politics and science is science and there
is a bit of tension in between."
But, home scretary, Alan Jackson, also, determined that David Nutt has become a public servant in the administration and its harshest critics.
According to SkyNews, David Nutt's comments have embarrassed
the British givernment (Brown
administration) which has
toughened the penalties for
posessing marijuana ealier this
year over the protest of many
promiment British scientists.
The fact that political
expediency other than pure,
medical-scientific evidence of
cannabis abuse, make Brown's
position on this delicate
issue circumspect, disingenous
and discreditable. It's not that
cannabis usage doesn't carry
risks; especially for teenagers.
Nutt pointed out that it's below
alcohol in direct negative, injurious impact to the society.
Yet, abuse and consumption of the productd remain unabated.
My major reason for apparently leaning toward cannabis-usage liberalization is because, there are more violent crimes facing the society, taxing and overstretching the Police and Law Enfircement budget. Decriminalization will shift attention to other more urgent, more resources more dangerous crimes as some cities have done even on medical-use grounds.
I dealt with the charged cannabis unlawful- consumption issue in my Nov. 5 commentary under Telegraph View's Nov. 4 "losing the pot," (10:40 AM). Palmer is apprently right in his dangerous-canabis thesis
justification for classification
criminalization, but downgrading
and decriminalization or
liberalization offers some
enticing and productive trends
in an increasingly more violent
society.
Igonikon Jack, USA
B Wildered
on November 08, 2009
at 04:02 PM
It is to your credit that you have researched these statistics. I wonder how many of the people studied were confirmed as cannabis users compared to those who were not users?
Further, I wonder how many had a history of depression in their families or had life experiences that may have contributed to their depression or anxiety?
How many turned to cannabis in an effort to self medicate?
The problem with so much of the research is that it is sponsored by Governments who, like our own, have a preconceived political dogma to reinforce.
If anyone wants to see the effect of this sort of preconconceived political agenda on the weight given to research, compare the coverage given to scientists who endorse Anthropagenic Global Warming to those who dispute it. Or research into the effects of smoking sponsored by the tobacco industry or of alcohol by the distilling industy.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the Piper refuses to play the tune called for, he is sacked.
I do not dispute the research that you quote. I merely debate it and attempt to set it in context.
There is an axiom in German that we could all do to remember,
"Nicht denken. Nach denken."
It means "Don't think. Think it through."
Robert T and that is working super well isn't it? 7 out of 10 visits to a and e are for alcohol related problems.
Phaedrus
The police are the least credible commentators in a debate about drugs. The public can see what a great job you and your colleagues did over the last 20 years.
Phaedrus
on November 08, 2009
at 12:44 PM
Your post reminded me of why I dislike the police so much these days. Your semi-sneering , sarcastic and 'know-all arrogance
was exactly as I recall my last encounter with The Police Service ( The Met in my case).
As a police officer I would have expected you to have had a 'special relationship' with
prostitutes as some men never miss the opportunity to exploit vulnerable women and some police officers are 'men', aren't they.
You say that you haven't met a prostitute who isn't addicted to crack . There are many women involved in what is technically
'prostitution' such as Massage Ladies , Escorts and others and I would submit most are not crack-heads. Many do not take any drugs.
So I challenge your information as being perhaps releated to 'street walkers' and their loathsome pimps.
You say you think Professor Nutt is spot on . I suspect that you were not a very clever police man and hearing you were involved in
'child protection' may explain why so many little folk are tortured and murdered under the noses of the many 'protection' agencies ,
including the police, by their carers(sic).
I have had no special experience in this matter but I know what I see and hear. My beloved niece was sectioned after having
started smoking cannabis at 13. She then fell in with scum and became a drug addict. She suffers what was called 'schizophrenia'
and hears voices , although now at 32 and on medication she leads a reasonable life under caring supervision.
One of my daughters had a lovely boyfriend of 18. He and she went off to different universities. He fell in with pot heads
and he too is seriously mentally damaged and lives in sheltered , supervised accomodation. Like my niece , he was a normal
healthy young person with no mental health isues before this.
Over the years at AA meetings , I have met many ex-drug users. They are mostly very seriously mentally damaged
(as are many alcoholics, I grant you) and they all started with pot.
Some of the most terrible cases of shootings , stabbings and random killings , as well as the murder of little Baby Peter
and his unfortunate unwanted and uncherished ilk have bee committed by people who are regular cannabis users.
Other factors , like alcohol and other drugs, play a part , but the common denominator (apart from sheer bloody wickedness)
is cannabis and drug abuse in general.
Professor Nutt and your good self my care to give us one example of a prostitute beating up a pensioner
or stamping on a gay man's head till he is unrecognisable or even a case of wife beating by a man sent crazy through
cigarette smoking.
I was a practising alcoholic for 25 years and I never hit anyone through drink because I am not a violent brute.
I did however once deck a man who was attacking a police officer , something I would never do again , sadly.
I've never felt the need to disagree to an article more in my life.
Harry Lyme, how do you know that your teenage daughters are not smoking cannabis whilst out horse riding? Or popping E?
You posit a (purely imaginary)correlation between grubby bedsits and the consumption of these drugs.
Michael, yes, Mr Palmer's opinion is based on a creed, not science.
I remember all the policies of which you speak. I have also read and heard of the era when masturbation was believed to be a major cause of insanity.
No doubt there are, in New Zealand, Australia and indeed in the UK teenage girls who suffer from anxiety and depression, and who self-medicate with cannabis.
Brian W. had any of the hard drug users you dealt with convictions related to drunkeness? Did any of those whom you must have met with serious alcohol problems start with drinking wine or beer socially, in reasonable amounts.If so,are you calling for beer and wine to be made illegal? If not,why not? Do you drink at all?
Alasdair should read the recently published (September 2009) research article on the incidence of Schizophrenia in the UK between 1996 to 2005. This study, led by Dr Martin Frisher of Keele University and 3 other co-authors, examined the UK records of almost 600,000 patients each year, aged between 16 and 44, but failed to find a link. They found no increase in the diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders during 10 year study period. In fact some of the data suggested the incidence of these conditions had decreased.
Peter
on November 08, 2009
at 02:34 PM
Unless you kill your self and others in a car crash or jump from a high building because of paranoia, no would O.D. on cannabis and die as a result. Lung cancer might ensue over the years but smoking cabbaged leaves would have the same effect on the lungs.
The proff probably doesn't have teenagers who have smoked it in enough quantity to have been detectable. Mood swings and changes in personality are pretty obvious, so is the lethargy it induces. But it wont kill in the short term. From a personal point of view it's the parents that suffer the most when seeing their promising off spring become even fairly mildly addicted.
And frankly i think like all matters this particular government are totally out of touch with reality, it does not suit their purpose to relate to or tell the truth about anything at all.
The deaths related to ecstasy were probably due to complications or impurities in the tablets.
Ralph You are being selective with your evidence. How do you explain that cannabis effects brain use and memory in teens?
You are quite sure are you that Cannabis does not have an effect on the developing hippocampus? Many researchers from many different countries are not.
And as for your crack about psychologists seeing people at the bottom of the pile that is just not true when dealing with adolescence.
According to the Australian government website NCPIC Cannabis makes depression and psychotic symptoms worse and can predispose to an on going anxiety disorder. The younger someone starts smoking the greater the chance of negative effects.
The NCPIC has a great deal of factsheets about current research and they do not agree with you. They site for the young, memory and learning problems, movement and balance problems, and a moderate decrease in IQ.It also impairs emotional and social development.I would add to that laying down neural pathways to addiction. The substance is not addictive but the behaviour makes addiction to something more likely later on. It is a brain process but just on a casual level one can see that would be the case. Get used to dealing with life by self medicating and that is what you will do.
So the only question is how to deter without criminalizing?
Fine people don't charge them. And if kids don't have the money they can work it off.
Anecdotally I will never forget the terror of the young man who was clear himself anyway that his Cannabis use tipped him into a world of nightmares from which he could only awake for brief periods. It was like watching someone being sucked into hell. Cannabis may have been the trigger for a genetic vulnerability but it left him in terror possibly forever.
Very many years ago I smoked my one and only joint, it did not do much for me at all!. When I kicked the fag habit 10 years ago I was smoking upto 60 fags day, I perhaps would have a been healthier and safer on a couple of joints a day!. (and have a few more bob in my pocket)
So your argument boils down to: "cannabis might cause psychiatric problems in some minors, therefore nobody should ingest it on pain of a five year prison sentence"?
This article is utter drivel. Do we ban alcohol because it's bad for a developing child? No, we license it so that it is not available to children. Same thing should apply to cannabis. It has been used for thousands of years by many, many different societies and cultures. We don't need further 'tests'. It should be legalised immediately.
Brian W
on November 08, 2009
at 04:31 PM
You refer to what is often called the Gateway Theory.
Most heroin and Crack users have also used Cannabis therefore, one leads to another.
The fact remains that only a very small proportion of cannabis users progress (is that the right word in this context?) to harder more addictive drugs. In much the same way that most people who drink beer regularly do not progress to drinking a bottle of Scotch a day. However, the beer drinker is placed in the same environment as the spirit drinking alcoholic because the commodity is purchased from the same outlet.
If cannabis was legalised and regulated the user would be seperated from the supplier of illegal drugs and would not be contributing to the backlog of cases in courts which so often lead to the delays that leave victims of crime feeling hard done by.
As an aside, how many offenders have told you that they commited their crimes whilst under the influence of Cannabis...particularly skunk?
Of those who have asserted this mitigation how many were tested positive for the drug at the time of their arrest. For that matter, when is mitigation of any sort ever explored unless it is given during the investigation?
If it is not explored during the investigation how do you as a Magistrate know how much weight to give it?
Is it not about time that the Magistrates exerted pressure to ensure that all those arrested for violent crime be subjected to drug testing?
It may make an interesting study and place much of the deceptive mitigation offered by offenders in doubt.
By no means are all thieves drug users and by no means are all violent offenders addicts.
Whichever way you cut it, I have never known a prostitute sell the viginity of her pre-teen daughter for a quarter of cannabis. I wish I could say the same about crack.
If Magistrates really want to make a difference they could be effective in severing the link between cannabis and hard very addictive drugs by advocating the legalisation and regulation of cannabis. The money saved and generated could be used to support education (based on empirical research) and treatment of addicts.
Iknow that i would much prefer my teenage daughters to be out horse riding than sitting in some grubby bedsit smoking pot or taking one of the ecstasy pills prefered by this Nutt.The goverment handled it badly but i think the professor showed no real life experience.When you have a beer it leaves your blood stream at the rate of 2hrs for every pint,smoke a joint and it shows on a blood test for weeks,many people loose there jobs with such blood tests.You can't work on the Olympic site without a clear test.
Dear Mr Phaedrus - like you I have been involved in the drug containment busuness for over 20 years. My involvement has been as a J P dealing with the after effects of drug use. Whatever the medical problems associated with the MIS-USE of cannabis there is a further problem that has to be addressed. This is that the use of cannabis by some, not all, becomes so ineffective in providing a hit that they move on to other drugs such as the Crack you abhor. Very rarely have I seen a heroin or other hard drug user's record without seeing that their first convictions were for use or possession of cannabis. It may be relatively harmless in itself but it does lead on to harder drugs which in turn normally lead on to theft type crimes and eventually to violent crimes
Its not true to say that links have not been shown between illeffects and cannabis in studies. One study suggested that frequent cannabis use can trigger depression.
In another study researchers found further evidence cannabis can significantly increase the risk of schizophrenia.
The risks were set out in three papers in a previous issue of the British Medical Journal.
It is simply not true to say that Cannabis is a risk free drug. People needs to be aware of the potential risks of triggering mental illness whether that is because it is directly caused by the drug, or whether some people have a predisposition.
Researchers say their findings demonstrate a need for action to limit frequent and heavy use of cannabis.
The first paper, by Australian doctors, found frequent cannabis use among teenage girls in particular can trigger depression.
Their seven-year study of 1,600 teenage girls found girls who used the drug everyday were five times more likely to become depressed and suffer from anxiety compared to those who did not use the drug.
Those who used the drug at least once every week were twice as likely to develop depression compared to non-users.
A second study, by doctors in Sweden, confirmed previous research suggesting that cannabis can increase the risk of developing depression.
Their study of more than 50,000 men found those who had smoked the drug in the late 1960s were 30% more likely to have developed schizophrenia.
The authors said their results suggested that as many as one in eight cases of schizophrenia in the UK could be prevented by stopping people from using cannabis.
The third study, by British scientists, suggests the risks of developing schizophrenia are highest for those people who use the drug when they are a teenager.
Their study of more than 1,000 people in their early twenties in New Zealand suggested that one in 10 people who used cannabis as a teenager have since been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
All of the researchers said the ill-effects were linked to cannabis and not to any other drugs.
They also said there was little evidence to suggest that occasional use of cannabis had a similar effect.
In an accompanying article Joseph Rey, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Sydney, said the studies backed up previous research.
"These findings strengthen the argument that use of cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia and depression."
But he added that further research is needed.
"Whether the use of cannabis triggers the onset of schizophrenia or depression in otherwise vulnerable people or whether it actually causes these conditions in non-predisposed people is not yet resolved."
"A creed and not science"
I agree - as in many judgements based on scientific evidence there is a subjective factor which depends on how much weight is given to different pieces of evidence.
FYI, figures from the official statistics for the number of deaths in England and Wales in 2008 where a legal or illegal drug was mentioned on the death certificate. To present the clearest comparison, these are the cases where only one drug was mentioned.
Heroin and morphine 587
Methadone 193
Antidepressants 185
Paracetamol 108
Cocaine 86
Dihydrocodeine 37
Benzodiazepines 35
Codeine 33
Tramadol 29
MDMA/ecstasy 15
GHB 13
Aspirin 12
Barbiturates 10
Cannabis 2
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/HSQ43.pdf
I was wondering which paper would post the first article from a government shill trying to muddy the waters on the Nutt sacking.
And this one's a doozy, it repeats the government talking points, tosses in a few half lies, adds a bit of innuendo, and wa-laa! Nutt becomes a real nut-case.
Hopefully the scientists who give the government their recommendations, and advise will call them on using propaganda to address what is actually a profit problem.
The government's drug buddies can't profit if there are no criminal penalties attached to the use of their product, because, gosh, simply everyone will grow their own doncha know.
Phaedrus, well said. I served over thirty years and came to the inescapable conclusion that the "war on drugs" is very costly, ineffective and counter-productive. No drug is made safer by its production and sale being in the hands of greedy, violent criminals.
I thinkthis sorry episode shows that the government is simply scared of engaging in a proper debate, irrespective of whether David Nutt is right or wrong. They flatly refuse to conduct a cost effectiveness analysis of the enforcement of the drugs laws. I suspect they already know what the results would be.
No wonder the government don't want people to give up smoking, the revenue from it IS STILL ENORMOUS after all the years of give it up campaigns.
Sorry. Looks I must be suffering from short term memory loss...Must be red wine and age! The conurbation I referred to has a population of 250,000 not 25,000. I managed to forget 225,000 people without the aid of cannabis.
First can I say that I hold a masters in clincal and cognitive neuroscience and am studying a doctorate in the same discipline.
Point 1: cannabis use HAS NEVER (and I have this on the authority of a prominent psychopharmacologist who works with cannaboid derivatives) been linked to schizophrenia. In fact some schizophrenics say that the use of it reduces their symptoms. This may explain why teenagers who use it develop schizophrenia down the line - they are self medicating. Even if not, there is such a jumble of social and economic nuisance variables that this kind of research just makes no sense (unless of course a random sample where forced to smoke cannabis!).
Point 2: A clinical psychologist is always going to see those at the bottom of the heap. Their job entails them seeing cannabis smokers and those with mental health issues on a regular basis. We already know that those with mental health issues tend to use cannabis - this is correlation, not causation!
Point 3: Erring on the side of caution! The fact is that a 5 year prison sentence is going to cause much more harm than the drug they are smoking - this isn't harm reduction, it's a war on drugs.
Finally, something that is often overlooked. Cannabis psychosis is not the same a schizophrenia or any other psychosis for that matter. The former is an acute condition that persists while the user is high; the later is a mental illness. I think if people understood this then they might be better able to evaluate the evidence quoted in the press.
Stu
No it doesn't for the group of kids we should care about. That is ,the group of kids who have a future and will not engage in illegal behaviour because they have a future. Neuroscience has moved on. The effect on teeenage brains can be seen on MRIs. Saying to the kids with a future it is legal, is the same as saying it is OK to smoke it. For that group of kids it's not OK. It makes thinking abilities worse and the brain activation is abnormal. Their brains have to work harder to perform simple tasks even after stopping use.We cannot afford as a society to condone lots of youth
harming themselves or engaging in activities that will activate
the addiction circuits. Any repeated substance used in teen years will do that. The addiction chosen later will vary.
There is no pleasurable activity humans can engage in that they self regulate well. Wire up a rat in his pleasure centre and he will press the bar till he dies.
God is dopamine.
Make it legal or any following "not too instantly poisonous drug" and what we will get at the very least is a lot of people being very inactive and a bit knocked off , and that is the least of it. We will soon have an explosion of problems with gambling since it became instantly available online.
That is what happens when something becomes easier to get.
There is a conflict here between adolescent health and adult pleasures that is not easy to resolve.
If, as Mr Palmer tells us, the incidence of schizophrenia is either stable or (possibly) rising, then the role he assigns to cannabis as a cause of that illness cannot possibly be true, since cannabis usage is rising.
Perhaps what we are seeing is that those who are suffering from, but not yet diagnosed with, this terrible illness, are inclined to use cannabis, which, they may (rightly or wrongly)believe to be a help to them. Certainly alcohol and nicotine are used to quell such symptoms.
Of one thing we may be sure. A serious and very damaging effect of (illegal) mood altering drugs is that discussion of them causes some apparantly intelligent, mature individuals to lose their sense of proportion, and become totally irrational.
Indeed, since irrational beliefs that cannot be reasoned away are a major symptom of schizophrenia, we may say that psychotic illness is triggered in some unfortunate individuals by such discussion.
I myself have never used any recreational drug except alcohol. After a couple of periods in my life when it was impairing my ability to function, I cut down my consumption to negligable amounts.
As a member of the public, albeit one with a relevant science degree, I must say I was not surprised to see this chap sacked, having heard his previous comments. Over the previous few days I was suprised to hear the tone coming from this chap who seemed to be an adviser campaigning against government policy. It seemed inappropriate, and suggested to me that he probably wouldnt be long in his post. It turned out to be the case. It concerns me that this chap has tried to suggest his sacking was an attack on the position of science in government, when it seemed to me to be nothing of the kind. Perhaps the finger of blame should be left where Alan Johnson pointed it. I am in entire agreement with the concerns raised about Professor Nutt by the other experts in this article. Time to move on and put some less emotive and considered experts on the committee perhaps? As a scientist I am entirely in agreement with Winston Churchill who has often been quoted this week saying that scientists should be on tap but not on top. Scientists have to publish papers and attract funding, and a bit of notoriety sometimes doesnt hurt. They are human like anyone else, and frequently they should be considered as competing lobbyists for their own pet viewpoint / hypothesis / research group, which is why you have a committee of scientists, and not just one! I remember the various health scares that have been started by misguided scientists who wanted to generate public interest and funding for their own specialist area.
Oh dear, more ill informed and deliberately misleading prejudice masquerading as educated reasoning.
Although there may well be mental health issues in the heavy use of cannabis in a small number of teenagers whose brains are still developing, it's a straw man argument. Nobody is suggesting allowing kids to use cannabis (or any other psychoactive drug for that matter) for the same reasons they aren't allowed to drink alcohol, which is backed up by law.
The real debate is about adults using cannabis, not children. You can come up with screaming headlines about the dangers of cannabis as much as you like, but you can't get away from the simple fact that the problems of cannabis are miniscule when compared with the big killer drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Even when taken as a proportion of users, the mortality rates for those two drugs far outstrip all illegal drugs put together. That's why the prohibitionists have to concentrate their efforts on other issues of cannabis use other than its lethality (despite Browns lie about that) because cannabis toxicity is very low - it just does not kill people, full stop.
Nothing said here that explains why there is one rule for fags and booze, and another for "drugs". No discussion of the major problem of prescription drug addiction, nothing said of the damage to young livers from alcohol, and young lungs from smoking.
Why should anyone take any notice of such a partial discussion?
Why can we not have an adult discussion about drugs in this country? All the indications are that legalisation has worked well in Portugal.
I was 20 yrs a Detective in a poor urban conurbation of some 25,000 people which included outlying rural villages. I spent 4 years working on the drug squad mostly covert where I was immersed in the drug sub-culture.
This was at a time when Ecstasy and Crack-Cocaine was just beginning to hit the streets.
Heroin was, as it still is, an entrenched problem.
As I finished my career I had responsibility for investigating all forms of child abuse and crimes against against especially vulnerable victims.
In those last few years I never met a prostitute who was not addicted to Crack.
The vast majority of those people I met who used Cannabis used no other drug.
The occasional operation we mounted against Cannabis supply was against the importation of the commodity. Few people grew their own. On the whole, the cannabis users (and those who used LSD) were very non-violent though fairly non-productive members of society.
Crack has changed the whole scene. It is dependendant on cocaine production which puts huge amounts of money into the South and central American Drugs Cartels. It is so massively addictive that those in need of a hit will do practically anything to quench the hunger. It is probably the most destructive and easily available drug I have encountered. Right up there with heroin.
Cannabis is now mostly home grown. The strength is mainly down to the quality of the product which has increased greatly with the common practise of users growing their own or buying from those who do. Sinsemilla (the unfertilised flowering tops of the plant) was quite rare 20 years ago. Now it is the industry standard.
The truth is that Professor Nutt is spot on.
The classification of Drugs is assessed and changed if appropriate based not on bias or prejudice nor polital dogma, but on research and empirical assessment of the harm to the individual and society. To make cannabis a class B drug is unjustified.
To make Ecstasy a class A drug is unjustified. The recommendations of the advisory panel are based on empirical research and are required by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Act was clearly intended to allow the classification of drugs to be moved in line with research and to allow the inclusion of other drugs as they became developed and available. To classify or reclassify drugs contary to the advice is almost certainly against the spirit of the Act.
Prohibition does not prevent nor end the behaviour prohibited. It merely allows the state to punish transgressors against the law. Drugs classification is intended to make the punishment imposed proportional to the harm that the drug causes.
All that will happen now is that the punishments for those involved in the supply chain of cannabis from production to possesion risk being disproportionate. The law will be held in contempt and those drugs which ARE appropriately classified way be considered wrongly classified.
As a first step to the effective control of drugs the production, supply, possesion and use of cannabis should be tolerated and regulated outside of the Criminal Law.
This would remove the source of illicit gain to criminals. It would avoid the criminalisation of people who, frankly do not deserve to be labelled as criminals and allow the various law enforcement agencies to concern themselves exclusively with those drugs which cause the most harm both to the individual and society in general.
Finally. There are about 560 swimming pools in London. How many handguns does Mr Palmer think there are in London?
Why don't ANY OF YOU REALISE the completely obvious truth?
Even if Cannabis was proven to be harmful and all of that, MAKING IT LEGAL MAKES IT SAFER.
No criminal market. No contaminated Cannabis. People are going to smoke it anyway. YOU HAVE LOST. They have always smoked it and will smoke it forever more.
Might as well accommodate it best you can. Sure Cannabis is not perfectly safe, but do the MAJORITY get on fine with it? Yes.
Legal = Safer. It's simple logic.
I smoked dope a few times when I was in my mid-twenties (I am now 60), so presumably was not in danger of becoming schizoid but do remember that the next day I suffered (amusingly at the time) short-term memory loss. And this was just grass, grown in a friend's greenhouse), not the extremely potent "skunk" now smoked by regular users. Therefore, although I agree with Nutt's contention that alcohol is far more dangerous than the politicians will admit (follow the money, as usual - taxes), I think he overreacted to Johnson's statement. His "sacking" was purely a blow to his ego, since i understand he was unpaid. He didn't take into account the wealth of anecdotal evidence from sufferers and families, of mental illness caused or exacerbated by regular use of cannabis from a young age. For my part, once I realised how my memory had been affected by grass, I never used it again. It was fun, but it worried me nonetheless. But in your mid-twenties you have more maturity and are able to consider things more rationally. At sixteen, undoubtedly it's harder. How we can prevent the very young using it, however, is another matter. This is why I believe that all drugs should be legalised. The government could benefit from tax on them, just as they do on alcohol and tobacco. Legalisation would mean control and an end to the criminality caused by the need to obtain them from corrupt and ruthless dealers.
@Jerome.
There is no such thing as a 'freeborn Englishman' anymore. We are not free to do anything other than agree with our government, we are discouraged from calling ourselves English because that would imply that we were somehow racist, and the use of the term 'Englishman' is to risk the wrath of Harriet Harman who abhors anything that even sounds masculine.
@the original author.
Why is it that the telegraph seems to fluctuate between utter drivel that I wouldn't use to wipe my backside with and creative genius? Can we not have some sort of consistency vis a vis the reporting standards, please?
Oh, and I'll give you a clue. This report doesn't fall into the creative genius category.
What price the classification system? Set out in 1971 the (then) experts tried to line up the serious and/or harmful effects of a number of substances within the schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act. These substances were all deemed to have harmful effects beyond accpetable levels - clearly more so that alcohol and tobacco(?). The classification system was introduced to provide a variation of penalties available to a court of law. There never was any mention of treatment, advice or support for the substance user or anything about educating (mainly) young people about the effects of the commonly used substances. It seems incredible that nothing else happended until the National Drug Strategy (of which there have now been at least four!) was published in 1995 - some 24 years after the MDAct 1971.
The problem started and remains in the belief that one substance may be more or less harmful than anoher so instead of focussing on the harm that substances do (or not as the case may be) we have wasted almost 40 years on "comparisons"! No wonder "we have a problem". Just who are "the experts"? Not me, I'm just a commentator who sees red at the profligate waste of energy and money!
I wonder what has the deeper phycological impact on the youth; A spliff, or 5 years in Prison...
"But while its use may not have consequences if you are Prof Nutt's age, it is definitely dangerous for young people"
*Millions* of people smoked weed when a school and the vast majority are not permanently deranged by the experience. I does not make you credible to claim otherwise. People see what they see. Some people cannot handle booze and so should not drink... same applies to weed... for the vast majority of people, both are really not harmful. It really is that simple. Millions know that even if you do not.
The way I read Prof Nutt's comments conflicts with the contents of this article, which I think misrepresents the Professor's views.
As I understood it, the statement was one of comparison between different drugs, in particular including tobacco and alcohol, not a clean bill of health for cannabis.
Perhaps it is time alcohol prices went up very considerably through taxation following alcohol content, and that tobacco is made a prescription drug.
Funny how you can be a respected expert one day and a pariah the next because some know-nothing clown throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.
This article is predicated on the view that having cannabis in Class B will deter people form using it. I quote from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report of 2006.
"We have found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin the Government's policy on classification. In view of the importance of drugs policy and the amount spent on enforcing the penalties associated with the classification system, it is highly unsatisfactory that there is so little knowledge about the system's effectiveness."
Cannabis can be harmful, particularly to the young, so we should be finding effective ways of limiting that harm and not engaging in macho political posturing.
It's extraordinary that comments like those from Mike are still being made. Where cannabis sits on a list of dangerous drugs is irrelevant (and Mike there's more opinion than science in what Nutt produced. I could find another equally qualified scientist who would disagree with Nutt's order). The issue that matters is that cannabis does have an effect on perception and behaviour (something Nutt does not disagree with). the question then for politicians is: do we want ANOTHER drug (whether worse or not than alcohol) to be legitimised? We are where we are with alcohol (made worse by labour's 24 hour drinking regime) but we can try to reduce the uptake of cannabis. The answer then becomes self evident (and non-political): no.
PS
for Mike's benefit: I have a string of scientific qualifications but that does make my view any better than anyone else's. I also suspect Nutt is unconsciouly trying to justify the fact that his own children have taken drugs.
It's extraordinary that comments like those from Mike are still being made. Where cannabis sits on a list of dangerous drugs is irrelevant (and Mike there's more opinion than science in what Nutt produced. I could find another equally qualified scientist who would disagree with Nutt's order). The issue that matters is that cannabis does have an effect on perception and behaviour (something Nutt does not disagree with). the question then for politicians is: do we want ANOTHER drug (whether worse or not than alcohol) to be legitimised? We are where we are with alcohol (made worse by labour's 24 hour drinking regime) but we can try to reduce the uptake of cannabis. The answer then becomes self evident (and non-political): no.
PS
for Mike's benefit: I have a string of scientific qualifications but that does make my view any better than anyone else's.
It is not true that scientific truth is whatever scientists produce; science is a methodology the conclusions of which are subject to refinement, development or even rebuttal. That is how science proceeds, and although there may be consensus achieved at certain points, it is a grave mistake to think that it is as certain as religion or ethics.
Certainty is a psychological condition rather than a cognitive one; and often damaging, though for many people it is essential for them to be able to function. It should not however be regarded as the aim of science. Any scientist who thinks they have achieved indubitability is foolish, and this applies to climatologists even more than physicists. At least the latter produce testable implications with highly tangible demonstrations. And never stop developing.
To assume that everything relevant is known about the risks, so that policy can be reliably adjusted to reflect it, is simply not scientific.
In the end, the politicians are in power, and have available a wide base of advice. Engaged experts can be drawn from groups drawing totally different conclusions from the data before them.
In this case, Johnson found himself taking a reasoned stance of greater resistance to the destigmatising of drugs use within society - and his advisor going beyond disagreeing to actively campaigning against the state which employed him. The position was untenable.
The key thing here appears to be precluding cannabis use early, when there is evidence of psychosis appearing in brains which are still developing. The state cannot legislate, based on differing age-related levels of risk - which means the tougher provisions make sense for all.
As a Lawyer I have practiced in both crime and child protection, in the course of which I have acted for many cannabis users and read their various Psychiatric and Psychological reports and played a small part in unwinding their complicated problems. I have no doubt that cannabis is dangerous to the young for the reasons described and that Prof Nutt is wrong in his conclusions
Only Alan Johnson thinks "he cannot be both a Government adviser and a campaigner against Government policy".
Everybody else knows perfectly well that you can advise someone that they are wrong, and campaign against them to stop doing it. Government is only slowly learning to cope when it is judged to be in the wrong by the experts. The new "Principles" they have signed up to guarantee a scientist's freedom to both advise and campaign.
Here in Amsterdam cannabis is legal. Nothing to get excited about at all and Holland has the lowest number of users in Europe. There are more important issues. And where is the right of the Freeborn Englishman to do what he likes as long as he doesn't harm others?
Martine Sacks the well published, peer-reviewed authority on the subject? or just a useful anecdotal source to reinforce a perfectly reasonable but scientifically indefensible point. What about alcohol you idiot? - lots of evidence of psychosis there. Science writing in this paper has really hit the bottom.
Creed not a science. Such is the conduct of all so called scientific experts. Much like Global Warming - that too is a creed, a religion almost. And any academic who has contrary views is treated like a heretic.
It was medical experts who gave us Thalidomide and more recently Vioxx. Look what happened. Any medic who questions MMR is driven out/hauled before the GMC.
Remember when mixed ability teaching and comprehensive schools were the only answer in providing excellent state education ? Remember when Tower Blocks were the answer for housing the working class ?
For 40+ years the Social Worker Industry has preached that keeping babies with their feckless Mums and Partners was best for the child. Good for these 'Breeders for Benefits' maybe. Good for the pay and perks of say Sharon Shoesmith. But not good for Baby P or Victoria Climbie ?
Heaven preserve us from Experts - be they the Nutty Professor, Social Workers, Architects or MP's.
The latter who run the show developed only one expertese - filling their boots at the expense of taxpayers. And Gordon Brown - the financial genius and expert who knows all the answers to everything but who has bankrupted the UK. Perhaps he should write both a thank you letter and an apology to John Major.
Creed not a science. Such is the conduct of all so called scientific experts. Much like Global Warming - that too is a creed, a religion almost. And any academic who has contrary views is treated like a heretic.
It was medical experts who gave us Thalidomide and more recently Vioxx. Look what happened. Any medic who questions MMR is driven out/hauled before the GMC.
Remember when mixed ability teaching and comprehensive schools were the only answer in providing excellent state education ? Remember when Tower Blocks were the answer for housing the working class ?
For 40+ years the Social Worker Industry has preached that keeping babies with their feckless Mums and Partners was best for the child. Good for these 'Breeders for Benefits' maybe. Good for the pay and perks of say Sharon Shoesmith. But not good for Baby P or Victoria Climbie ?
Heaven preserve us from Experts - be they the Nutty Professor, Social Workers, Architects or MP's.
The latter who run the show developed only one expertese - filling their boots at the expense of taxpayers. And Gordon Brown - the financial genius and expert who knows all the answers to everything but who has bankrupted the UK. Perhaps he should write both a thank you letter and an apology to John Major.
What a load of persiflage.
The evidence - 40 years of throwing billions and billions of pounds at dollars at the "drugs problem" has been a total and abject failure. It's time something else was tried. Drugs are more widely used, and cheaper, than ever before.
Instead of pursuing this prohibitionist cult, how about addressing the real issue and what causes the most problems for both users and bystanders - the CRIMINALITY associated with drug use. Because putting certain substances into your body, and obtaining them to do so, is considered a crime, most users have to resort to criminal acts to find the money to pay for their habit. That's why your house gets burgled, and why you get mugged for your mobile phone. Rich socialites don't worry so much about the money, or a criminal record, as their trust fund will always pay up. The taxpayer of course pays all the salaries and pensions of all the police, customs, lawyers, courts etc involved as a by-product of drugs being illegal. I suppose you could look on it as an employment generator of sorts.
Now, if you decriminalised drugs, the individuals using them could seek help. Clean supplies would be established, officially sanctioned or not. That would take a lot more problems away too, because users could avoid the blood poisoning and infections resulting from contaminated supplies. The cost to drugs producers would fall substantially, also resulting in a cleaner supply, because they wouldn't have the overheads and losses.
Because no-one will actually do anything sensible about drugs, it makes one wonder if some of the invisible government organisations of the world don't actually have a hand in the drugs trade, after all it is a nice sort of black money to fund dubious activities.
Me, I have never touched anything stronger than alcohol, so I have no vested interest other than finding the real issues and addressing them, as its costing me a fortune in tax.
Yes there is harm to teens. Nutt is clear about this too. He compliments "Frank". He then seems to assume that the only teens who will use Cannabis are those who operate entirely on an oppositional basis.
Actually the teens we need to care about most are the ordinary ones. The ones who might pass exams as they skill up in adolescent years. The ones with a future. The ones who think taking a higher class drug is "cool" might not have much of a future anyway. Cannabis makes the brain work harder at simple tasks and in teens the effect persists. If you want to pass exams don't smoke weed.
No one wants to criminalize the young and stupid, but it is not OK to suggest it is harmless for the young. At a period of rapid brain change it isn't harmless at all. Teens who become very fond/addicted to any substance are more likely to become addicted to something as adults.They are wiring their brains for addiction.
The only other way to go would be to fine the dickens out of anyone under the age of 21 caught using and a worse fine for anyone supplying to the young. A direct consequence instead of a criminal record might be the way to go. I also think if you need police or ambulance help because you got drunk you should be fined. Turn up in A and E drunk a fine mate. Why should we pay for stupidity and future addiction.
If the young have the money to buy harmful things they have the money to chip in for the care they need. We do not have to make it legal to tax it. A verbal warning, a fine, and strike 3 you get referred to a drug/alcohol program if you are under 21.
Oh dear Alasdair, as a layman you're doing the same as our Home Secretary. You present an opinion as fact. I have to ask what scientific qualifications you have Mr Palmer, compared to Professor Nutt who has an international reputation in his field.... do you? Please keep up the interesting opinions but keep away from the big boys in science, they really do know more than you.
Yes there is harm to teens. Nutt is clear about this too. He compliments "Frank". He then seems to assume that the only teens who will use Cannabis are those who operate entirely on an oppositional basis.
Actually the teens we need to care about most are the ordinary ones. The ones who might pass exams as they skill up in adolescent years. The ones with a future. The ones who think taking a higher class drug is "cool" might not have much of a future anyway. Cannabis makes the brain work harder at simple tasks and in teens the effect persists. If you want to pass exams don't smoke weed.
No one wants to criminalize the young and stupid, but it is not OK to suggest it is harmless for the young. At a period of rapid brain change it isn't harmless at all. Teens who become very fond/addicted to any substance are more likely to become addicted to something as adults.They are wiring their brains for addiction.
The only other way to go would be to fine the dickens out of anyone under the age of 21 caught using and a worse fine for anyone supplying to the young. A direct consequence instead of a criminal record might be the way to go. I also think if you need police or ambulance help because you got drunk you should be fined. Turn up in A and E drunk a fine mate. Why should we pay for stupidity and future addiction.
If the young have the money to buy harmful things they have the money to chip in for the care they need. We do not have to make it legal to tax it. A verbal warning, a fine, and strike 3 you get referred to a drug/alcohol program if you are under 21.
This comment is itself truly unscientific for ill-effects from drugs are clearly in direct relation to the quantity and frequency of consumption.Have you any clear idea of the numbers of young people with psychotic symptoms unequivocally caused by cannabis to compare with the 'normal'population? The answer of probably negative. The obvious factor is dosage in terms of amount & frequency (abuse).
Do not misunderstand my position,I deplore the distribution and use of drugs. My motive here is to disagree with your reasoning. Personally I think Professor Nutt might have been more prudent to simply resign as his advice was deemed contrary to Govt.thinking.I am sure he has many more satifying things to occupy him -without the 'flak'.
This comment is itself truly unscientific for ill-effects from drugs are clearly in direct relation to the quantity and frequency of consumption.Have you any clear idea of the numbers of young people with psychotic symptoms unequivocally caused by cannabis to compare with the 'normal'population? The answer of probably negative. The obvious factor is dosage in terms of amount & frequency (abuse).
Do not misunderstand my position,I deplore the distribution and use of drugs. My motive here is to disagree with your reasoning. Personally I think Professor Nutt might have been more prudent to simply resign as his advice was deemed contrary to Govt.thinking.I am sure he has many more satifying things to occupy him -without the 'flak'.