Nutt's remarks were immediately criticised by Tory MPs on the committee who said the idea that horse-riding and taking ecstasy were "morally equivalent" was completely irresponsible

He didn't say they were morally equivalent, whatever that even means in this context, his point was about danger. It's impossible to discuss this rationally with politicians. It's as if they've taken something a bit dodgy.

@Ian70: They're probably p*ssed.

It is quite surprising that MP's refuse to acknowledge the billions of tax revenues that would flow to the Treasury were cannabis and ecstasy onsale and controlled.

Prof David Nutt you are making too much sense, politicians hate that

Horse-riding may well be potentially more dangerous (to the rider at least) than taking ecstasy, but at least the dangers are localised. A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone .

Nutt's remarks were immediately criticised by Tory MPs on the committee who said the idea that horse-riding and taking ecstasy were "morally equivalent" was irresponsible.

These are the same people who think that being poor is a moral failing, no matter how morally suspect the 'comfortable' classes are.

Prof Nutt is a man of integrity who enquiers deeply with his own mind. He is an inspiration.

As Mark Henderson says in "The Geek Manifesto", we shouldn't always expect politicians to adopt a policy just because the science indicates that it's worth pursuing.

We should, however, expect politicians to be honest enough to accept the scientific evidence and then explain why they have chosen to ignore it. That's where they usually fall short.

Mp's still living in fear of The Daily Mail. When will they apply their common sense when looking at issues like this?

"Responsible government"? They have those?

So Mario Dunn was involved in Alan Johnson's Nutt sack? I've always wondered what special advisers actually do.

Thousands of violent deaths, drug overdoses from impure drugs, increased drug use and billions of pounds wasted. These are the only products that have came from the war on drugs that has plagued the past few decades. We are in desperate need of change, and still the opinions of politicians takes precedence over the scientific opinions of drug experts who are looking out for the safety of the population. The situation is bad enough in the UK, but it is the countries like Mexico which have become the battleground for the war supporting drug prohibition. Bodies are being dumped out of trucks in their tens by cartels, just to show the west that they are losing and will always lose, and it will continue until we have a regulated market. It is easy for politicians to turn a blind eye to mass murder when there is an ocean separating them from it.

Frankly, I am flabbergasted that an MP from either this or the last government can bring in a morality argument.

David Nutt makes excellent evidence-based analysis, whereas politicians think only about what the Daily Mail will say.

With Labour he had a slim chance that his opinion would be properly considered, but this Tory shower aren't interested in pesky facts and reason. They have never lived in the real world, and believe in only dogma.

Mixing booze and cannabis is always a bad idea. I would never mix drink with it when i used to smoke, so i used to drink less as a result.

Indeed, and we could also save shit loads of money on policing, court time and prison spaces by not criminalising half the population.

Well, most modern politicians seem to subscribe to the idea that if you give a poor person something for nothing, it encourages laziness and dependency, but if you give bankers something for nothing, then . . . ponies!!!11!1!

You wrote:

Horse-riding may well be potentially more dangerous (to the rider at least) than taking ecstasy, but at least the dangers are localised. A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone .

From the article:

[Nutt's] call for the decriminalisation of the use of all drugs was backed by a second former government drug adviser, Prof Lesley King, who told MPs that most people who took ecstasy did so without harming themselves or inflicting wider harms on society.

What would disgusted of Tunbridge Wells say about all this...?

Another round of subsidised 24 hour booze in the commons bar Minister?

I mean, what sort of hipocr......sorry, meant democracy do you think you're living in?

@lierbag
If you read the article you will find he is comparing "the relative harm that their use caused society." His analysis explains clearly how he has assessed the relative harms, based on the real world, rather that knee-jerk emotional responses like yours and the "Tory MPs" quoted.

alcohol consumption would fall by as much as 25%

Drinks lobby drugs policy = government drugs policy
It really does appear to be that simple.....

Nutt's remarks were immediately criticised by Tory MPs on the committee who said the idea that horse-riding and taking ecstasy were "morally equivalent" was irresponsible.

But presumably taking ecstacy and having a bit of a dance is morally inferior to companies that advertise and profit from a drug that kills on the roads, on the streets and in homes through violence and costs billions in health care and policing, causes addiction, depression on a massive scale and causes massive losses in productivity due to ill health. That'd be ok then.

Tory MP defines hypocrisy on drugs yet again.

Horse-riding may well be potentially more dangerous (to the rider at least) than taking ecstasy, but at least the dangers are localised. A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone

Alcohol is far more likely to addle minds , having experienced clubs full of people drunk where women are groped and fights are frequent in comparison with clubs full of people on ecstacy where people are all very friendly and having a good time with the bouncers bored i understand the differing effects of these drugs. Please take a second to cast away you preconceptions about certain drugs until you have experienced or researched them better. Nothing would improve problems of binge drinking more than the legalization of ecstacy and cannabis.

i will give anyone a 100 quid if they can send me a research paper (which hasnt been widely discredited) suggesting that cannabis definitley leads to long-term healh problems and should definitley remain illegal.
i wrote a dissertation on drug crime - couldnt find one.

No political party has the courage to decriminalise cannabis and allow Dutch style coffee shops. They would love to have the money that would come from it, but scared of losing the votes. I seem to remember a party manifesto a few years ago that a coalition party had to this effect on cannabis but now they are in power, they probably wouldnt consider this.... I work in a hospital assessment unit I dont see that many drug related incidents. Alcohol, now thats another story.... Perhaps if cannabis was decriminalised, the could control the use of cannabis with high levels of THC which can potentially be harmful. Street drugs and euthanasia - the elephants in every government's room.

Nutt's remarks were immediately criticised by Tory MPs on the committee who said the idea that horse-riding and taking ecstasy were "morally equivalent" was irresponsible.

I'm interested to hear how they justify classing smoking cannabis as immoral. Surely the only immoral aspect is that it is against the law, the ineffectiveness of which is exactly what they are supposedly discussing...

Closed-minded Torys? Well I never....

We do have a community where the members' minds are habitually addled by psychoactive substances; alcohol and tobacco.

That we are restricted by law from taking other psychoactive substances which the empirical evidence shows have a lesser harm is utterly ridiculous.

Once again words of immaculate and considered wisdom from Prof Nutt. Unfortunately we do not have - and never have had - a government prepared to listen and take action by admitting that alcohol and tobacco are 'killers' and cannabis is not.

Compounds in cannabis may protect the human brain against alcohol-induced damage, according to clinical trial data published online by the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.

Investigators at the University of California at San Diego examined white matter integrity in adolescents with histories of binge drinking and marijuana use.

They reported that binge drinkers (defined as boys who consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, or girls who consumed four or more drinks at one time) showed signs of white matter damage in eight separate regions of the brain.

By contrast, the binge drinkers who also used marijuana experienced less damage in seven out of the eight brain regions.

“Binge drinkers who also use marijuana did not show as consistent a divergence from non-users as did the binge drink-only group,” authors concluded. “[It is] possible that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death.”

In 2005, researchers at the National Institutes of Mental Health reported that the administration of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) reduced alcohol-induced cell death in the hippocampus and etorhinal cortex of the brain in a dose-dependent manner by up to 60 percent. “This study provides the first demonstration of CBD as an in vivo neuroprotectant … in preventing binge ethanol-induced brain injury,” investigators concluded in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

Commenting on the findings, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, “Alcohol and cannabis appear to have contrasting effects on the body,” he said. “Ethanol is clearly toxic to healthy and developing cells whereas cannabinoids appear to be relatively non-toxic and possibly even neuroprotective.”

San Diego, CA–(ENEWSPF)
August 27, 2009.

Source: norml.org

I had a quick smoke yesterday for the first time in months. Damn knocked me out for hours.

It's not immoral to waive major transnational companies tax bills and encourage hate crimes against those on benefits, but to suggest that cannabis is legalised??!

That's just despicable.

How do I support this and where do I sign up? There used to be a pub in Camden that operated coffee-shop rules but since the police closed it down I've had to smoke at home, which is kind of unsociable.

A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone .

Presumably you are referring to alcohol since that does more mind-addling than any other drug in the UK. I suggest an end to all advertising and plain packaging. Prohibition though certainly shouldn't be tried, we know that it doesn't work.

It's impossible to discuss this rationally with politicians. It's as if they've taken something a bit dodgy.

Heh.

See, I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I used to be of the opinion that all drugs should be legalised; then I find myself unable to live with that as a point of view when, for example, Bath Salts come along and innocent people start getting their eyeballs sucked out and their faces chewed off.

I certainly think that heroin should be legalised, if only to ensure some degree of quality control and needle hygiene. I think that cocaine should be legalised, if only to cut off the vast tide of cash enjoyed by despot drug barons and the fear & death caused by every stage of the supply chain. On this particular issue I think Professor Nutt has the right idea, just so long as the type of cannabis sold isn't the ludicrously-strong gives-you-schizophrenia-type...

Be ironic though, wouldn't it, for tax-revenue from pot sales to go towards the NHS having to replace the livers of alcoholics...

Evidence based medicine for the war on drugs? Don't me so amoral.

LOL!!11

DC

XOXOX

lierbag
19 June 2012 2:15PM
Horse-riding may well be potentially more dangerous (to the rider at least) than taking ecstasy, but at least the dangers are localised. A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone .

On the same basis, surely the cheap and easy availablity of alcohol means that you would expect most members of the community to be drunk all the time - certainly not the case.

If it were only legal to smoke cannabis in a cafe, and at a cost, cannabis would still be harder to source than alcohol, but at least it would mean many people like myself who suffer from mental health issues wouldn't be forced to self-medicate with alcohol in order to escape from the realities of having an untreatable problem and could instead take a far more appropriate drug with far less damaging consequences.

I'm sick of a self declared "moral" minority of people in this country telling the rest of us what we should and should not be doing!!

and all these comments from MP's off the back of the Leverson enquiry. I thought they were supposed to be sticking up for themselves in the face of the press and be brave enough to speak out without fear of what the Sun & Daily Mail are likely to say. Deep down they know David Nutt is right, but they don't have the balls to say it. I'm a professional person in my mid 30's who earns a good wage, has a very responsible job and generally contributes a lot to society. I've also been taking ecstasy & smoking pott on / off for the last 17 years, and as far as i can tell it hasn't done me any harm, which i suspect is the case for 95% of peope who use these drugs ...... unlike alcohol. However if i were to ever be caught in posession of either of these drugs i'd lose my job and then be exposed to all the social problems that come with that...... and for what?!!! ..... having a night out and getting high?!!. ....something which in no way impacts on anybody except me. The drug laws are completely ridiculous and just end up criminalising people that are otherwise law abiding, functioning citizens.

The only place you tend to find a voice of reason is with people who have genuinely studied their fields at the highest level with an open mind.

Could we please get all these people round a table to form a technocratic party.

Seeing as almost every economics professor disagrees with Gideon's plan, coupled with the fact that Gideon himself studied History and, as such, does not know what the fcuk he's doing, maybe it's about time for a rethink.

The government has " NO " scientific ( evidence based ) reasons for the current , unfair , unjust and immoral stance against cannabis .
More than half the world uses cannabis beneficially . ( without problems )

Without reason or evidence of harm from cannabis , it is the " drugs laws " themselves that are the cause of harm and politicians should be held to account for this .

Bring back " judicial review " of parliament , the " People " should have over site of the " irrational , delusional , immoral and unjust practices of the " political class " .

Horse-riding may well be potentially more dangerous (to the rider at least) than taking ecstasy, but at least the dangers are localised. A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone .

Any science to back up your assertions, or did you arrive at your conclusions by guessing? Funnily enough, there has been research into this area, by Prof Nutt. His conclusions are the opposite of yours, but I'm sure you have just as much data as him, right?

Cannabis before or with booze is quite pleasant.

Cannabis after a session on the booze is a damn-near guaranteed whitey.

Surely the only immoral aspect is that it is against the law

Indeed, where is MAM to tell us you'd have to be a sociopath to smoke cannabis. Why? Because it is illegal. If there there was a law that said you had to kick your dog most Tories would consider it immoral not to do so.

"...no responsible government would have David Nutt as a drugs adviser".

An insightful comment, considering that no responsible government ever has hired David Nutt as a drugs advisor.

'for what it's worth, my step-mother is also a horse-rider who fell off her horse about 5 years ago and broke her hip. She then couldn't go to work for almost 4 months. The worst pott or ecstasy ever did for me was a groggy & tired monday morning.

Riding horses and taking recreational drugs are not morally equivalent: one involves a person altering their own body chemistry in order to enjoy themselves while the other involves a person putting an animal in leather bonds and sitting on it in order to enjoy themselves. The prime minister has (allegedly) done both, perhaps he has an opinion on their equivalence, moral or otherwise.

not only that but a state monopoly on cannabis production and wholesale supply would knock billions off the deficit. Come on George, here's your silver bullet.

A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone

Do you actually open your eyes as you wonder this planet....the extent to which drugs are used is quite alarming. And guess what......most of them you don't even realise are high.

Horse-riding may well be potentially more dangerous (to the rider at least) than taking ecstasy, but at least the dangers are localised.

And on your first point, Dr Nutt mentioned the harm done by horse riders on the open road. That may be localised, it is also indiscriminate. I wouldn't like to be unluckily in that locale. I have, however, been in many nightclubs in very localised situations with ecstasy users and never felt threatened.

Imagine the boost to international Tourism if pot cafe/shops were introduced....good source of foreign exchange earnings.

It's so sad that Nutt was branded a nut and then removed from Government. The man simply asks people to think rationally about drug policy.

As for the morality of drug use, I happen to think that personal use is amoral: how exactly can someone choosing to smoke a joint or bomb some MD ever become a moral issue for others?

The miseducation of the masses and the prohibition of mostly safe substances is immoral for this is the catalyst to the majority of drug-related harm. If young people keep hearing lies about soft drugs like cannabis and MDMA, they're not going to listen when they hear that a substance has the potential to genuinely cause harm like heroin or crack cocaine. Furthermore, if a substance is potentially harmful, how is forcing the supply into the hands of criminals going to make it any safer?

Finally, it seems a rather significant breach of the principles of free trade to legislate the country into a drug monopoly.

Horse-riding may well be potentially more dangerous (to the rider at least) than taking ecstasy, but at least the dangers are localised. A community with its member's minds habitually addled by psychoactive substances, risks negative consequences for everyone .

So by using MDMA on an occasional weekend (note it stops working if used too often, one of its plus points) I bestow negative consequences on my community. What would these be? Do you know anything about MDMA and the push to make it available for psychotherapy? It's an amazing chemical if used fairly wisely and I'd rather be in a club full of people on MDMA than on booze.

Nutt talks sense. Shame it always falls on deaf ears.

I note there is condemnation of his comments, even his peers distancing themselves.

But no disagreement on rational grounds. How about it it Guardian ? Ask Mario Dunn why, "no responsible government would have David Nutt as a drugs adviser".

Ask the Tory MP's why he's being irresponsible ?

Surely they can and should explain their comments ?

In any case, they're not morally equivalent. Clearly horse-riding on roads is putting more people at risk than just yourself; an ecstasy user is putting only their own brain / body at risk.