Gordon Brown backs drug adviser's sacking
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Gordon Brown publicly backed the decision to sack the Government's chief drugs adviser today.
The Prime Minister said Professor David Nutt's comments gave the impression the Government was sending "mixed messages" about drugs.
He said the Government could not risk sending out the message that it was acceptable for young people to experiment with cannabis, as this could lead to more becoming addicted to hard drugs.
He told an audience of police, council workers and members of the public in Shoreditch, east London, today: "Advisers advise and ministers have to make decisions."
He said: "I think Alan Johnson made the right decision because we cannot send mixed messages.
"Scientific advice is very important and we value it. You can see that with swine flu, with climate change and with all sorts of environmental problems.
"But advisers advise and ministers have to make decisions.
"In the interests of the public we have to show we are tough on drug dealing and the problems that drugs are causing in our communities."
He added: "We cannot send out a message to young people that it's OK to experiment with drugs and to move on to hard drugs. We have to send out a message to young people that it's simply not acceptable."
Mr Brown said young people needed to be protected from dangerous new strains of "adulterated" cannabis.
He went on: "I think the issue here is we did have advice that we should not reclassify cannabis. We did not accept that.
"We have to take a broader view in the round that was more than just the scientific advice. It's about the effects on young people that drugs are harmful and not acceptable."
He said Prof Nutt's "consistent disagreement" of opinion undermined the Government's message on drugs.
Prof Nutt was sacked by Mr Johnson on Friday, sparking a row between ministers and the scientific community.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
This was after all the prime minister that took the decision to reclassify cannabis, before asking the ACMD for its opinions on the subject, and then rejecting the advise provided.
If this government is going to make policy on the basis of the unelected prime ministers presbytarian beleif systems, rather than informed science, the least they can do is admit this is the basis of their policy. Rather than sacking the scientists, who provide the evidence that the policy is misguided.
"...the Government could not risk sending out the message that it was acceptable for young people to experiment with cannabis, as this could lead to more becoming addicted to hard drugs."
MILLIONS of young people have already experimented with cannabis (and discovered that the government simply lies on drugs). Many will be lifelong smokers. Don't their interests count? At all?
Mr Brown is about to lose a job he never stood for. He backs a president in Afghanistan who is all but unelected. He refuses to introduce any electoral reform in Britain. And let's not even start with Europe. What "message" does this send out?
The man is a charlatan.
With somebody like that at the top one can understand why the practice has spread through the Labour party. It was not that long ago when they started the downturn (losing votes) that they started "we must listen more" - but like so many things it was always just talk.
Fantasyland:
"He said the Government could not risk sending out the message that it was acceptable for young people to experiment with cannabis, as this could lead to more becoming addicted to hard drugs. "
Reality:
"Current drugs policy creates the environment whereupon the young are introduced to people who will offer them hard drugs"
Fantasyland:
"In the interests of the public we have to show we are tough on drug dealing and the problems that drugs are causing in our communities."
Reality:
"In the interests of picking up votes from citizens with no real knowledge or experience regarding cannabis, we are reinforcing the moral panic surrounding it's use. In actuality, we ourselves are increasing this market in the first place through drug laws more restrictive than those of almost any other country... amzingly, this now includes the USA"
Fantasyland:
"We cannot send out a message to young people that it's OK to experiment with drugs and to move on to hard drugs"
Reality:
"While making it perfectly acceptable to lose the trust of those young people by quite patently promoting the absurdity that cannabis use, rather than the illegal market that cannabis inhabits, can lead to the use of harder drugs"
Fantasyland:
"Mr Brown said young people needed to be protected from dangerous new strains of "adulterated" cannabis"
Reality:
"Because Drug dealers are well known from wanting to protect youngsters. Unfortunately, the continuation of an illegal market will ensure that stronger strains are always available to anyone who wants to purchase them...irrespective of age"
Fantasyland:
"We have to take a broader view in the round that was more than just the scientific advice. It's about the effects on young people that drugs are harmful and not acceptable."
Reality:
"We have to take the broader view in ensuring that we win the 'Strong on Drugs' epitaph. The destruction and criminalisation of vast swathes of our society are simply an unfortunate by-product of this thinking but, nevermind, just so long as certain parts of the media cannot label as as 'Weak on Drugs' it'll be OK for us"
Fantasyland:
"He said Prof Nutt's "consistent disagreement" of opinion undermined the Government's message on drugs"
Reality:
"Prof Nutt's opinion consistently reinforced the scientific studies related to the use of Cannabis. Unfortunately, he needs to be punished for furnishing a coherent, sensible and scientifically reviewed opinion that some may construct into a new moral panic ... like the Pill .... legalisation of homosexuality .... Violent Computer Games ..... ad nauseum"
Oh, yes, for full disclosure, I am a cannabis smoker. I have been for 22 years .... since the age of 12. And I have said it before and I'll say it again by quoting Bill Hicks:
"Never robbed anybody, never raped anybody, never beat anybody, never lost a car, a house, a job, a wife, a girlfriend, kids .... laughed my ass off .... and went about my day"
Also, just finished a degree with the OU .... 1:1 thank you very much .... Cannabis is bad?
Gutless politicians who are happy to sell out their society and its citizens seem to be the only bad thing going on here!
"The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is also based in large part on historical and cultural precedents"
. This is contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act's legitimate aim to control "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" and contrary to the wishes of Parliament in enacting the Act as well as against the interests of the people. The Government further admits that the criteria for drug classification include
"social values, political vision, historical precedent, cultural preference"
– the same criteria which in the past underpinned laws which discriminated on the basis of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation.
The Government goes on to state that it
"acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs" but that "a classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning"
Therefore, the government is knowingly administering drug laws in order to appease the majority whose drugs of preference are currently socially accepted, at the expense of minorities whose drugs of preference are no more harmful than those preferred by the majority.
This unequal treatment is deliberately enforced in order to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon the Government if larger numbers were affected by these laws.
This is a clear case of majoritarian scapegoating, resulting in extreme discrimination towards specific minorities who find themselves subject to draconian criminal sanctions for peaceful behaviour which is in essence no different from that of the majority who enjoy the consumption of alcohol and tobacco.
I think one of the flaws in this debate is bench marking illicit drugs against cigerrettes and alcohol. The burden on the country of banning both and then having to police the illegal trade would cripple us. Not to mention all those unemployed former tabacco and alcohol employees claiming job seekers allowance with no hope of a job any time soon. Plus people forget that a little alcohol can be beneficial - i have yet to see the evidence that a bit of crack or LSD everyday might extend your life and improve your health.
The fact that we have to deal with the health and social problems created by cigarretes and alcohol is one of the reasons for keeping illicit drugs illegal. If people genuinely want illicit drugs to be legalised for recreational use (medical use is a different subject and i would not deny anybody medicine of any sort) then i want a tax system whereby every penny spent on the health problems caused by tabacco, alcohol and drugs, along with the full cost of alcohol related violence/policing/law & order/drug driving/drink driving etc be paid for from the taxes levied on these goods. I would also apply extra tax to sugary foods to pay for type 2 diabetes treatments, high fat foods to treat obesity and it's health problems, and a salt tax to pay for high blood presure, coronary and circulatory problems.
Introduce this fairer tax system and you can do to yourselves what ever you wish to!
BTW, suggest you type in "cannabis does not cause cancer" into google and hunt around. You'll find a fair amount forums and advocacy groups stating this of course, but you'll also find the scientific studies that also highlight this (some have even shown cannabis to provide some protection from carcinogens). There will, however, still be some potential damage through the heat of the smoke in a Pure cannabis joint i.e. regular cannabis-only smokers will still have a smokers cough.
Of course, most people smoke cannabis in conjunction with tobacco in a joint, and are therefore actually under threat from the legal component in this method of using this illegal substance. I like a joint, I like to smoke through a bong (still heat-related damage can be caused though), but for preference these days I regularly use a vapouriser .... basically THC, the active ingredient within Cannabis, is inhaled as a steam vapour .... no carcinogens in cannabis anyway and no heat-related damage from smoke ..... just responsible, happy, high people.
There's more possibilities of improving your health by vaporising or eating cannabis (with moderation) than by drinking alcohol, though, as anyone can testify with a bit of research (why not start with "wikipedia"? = "some recent studies found that moderate consumption of alcohol did not decrease heart disease and that the positive effects may be due to methodological flaws in research studies" ... "the small number of benefits of alcohol consumption are greatly outweighed by the large amount of negative effects on health of moderate alcohol consumption including injuries, violence, fetal damage, certain forms of cancer, liver disease and hypertension. Moderate alcohol intake is therefore not recommended by doctors as the risks greatly outweigh any small benefits."
While cannabis:
"literature review on the medicinal uses of Cannabis and cannabinoids concluded that established uses include easing of nausea and vomiting, anorexia, and weight loss; "well-confirmed effect" was found in the treatment of spasticity, painful conditions (i.e. neurogenic pain), movement disorders, asthma, and glaucoma. Reported but "less-confirmed" effects included treatment of allergies, inflammation, infection, epilepsy, depression, bipolar disorders, anxiety disorder, dependency and withdrawal. Basic level research was being carried out at the time on autoimmune disease, cancer, neuroprotection, fever, disorders of blood pressure.
"Clinical trials conducted by the American Marijuana Policy Project, have shown the efficacy of cannabis as a treatment for cancer and AIDS patients, who often suffer from clinical depression, and from nausea and resulting weight loss due to chemotherapy and other aggressive treatments." ... "Medical cannabis is also used for analgesia, or pain relief. It is also reported to be beneficial for treating certain neurological illnesses such as epilepsy, and bipolar disorder.[99] Case reports have found that Cannabis can relieve tics in people with obsessive compulsive disorder and Tourette syndrome. Patients treated with tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive chemical found in Cannabis, reported a significant decrease in both motor and vocal tics, some of 50% or more. Some decrease in obsessive-compulsive behavior was also found. A recent study has also concluded that cannabinoids found in Cannabis might have the ability to prevent Alzheimer's disease. THC has been shown to reduce arterial blockages.
Another potential use for medical cannabis is movement disorders. Cannabis is frequently reported to reduce the muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis"
You are as well right in that prohibiting alcohol and tobacco wouldn't work; but prohibiting any other drug doesn't either, as is clear if you look at the consequences of such a prohibition!:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/nod
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/facts
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
It was absolutely to be expected that our none elected and imposed on us PM Brown would issue communications from the Bunker to say he was backing Alan Johnson.
The former post office union militant Alan Johnson is now a loyal Brownie.
Alan Johnson too boot is ignoring his former post office colleagues now he has joined the Bunker dictatorship politics of New Labour on his road to Damascus.
Brown obviously conveniently missed the Alan Johnson TV emotional and none rational out bursts that clear indicated to voters that he is unfit for office. Is Brown fit for office? Remember he said that we were best placed to weather the recession. We are the only country still in recession. Remember the Brown chants of best economy, best period of sustained growth and immigration under control. All New Labour words are pie in the sky.
New Labour have obviously rejected science and I can not see how they think it is vote winner to be on a collision course with their scientific advisors.
Professor Nutt did not medal in politics. He simply gave the findings of his scientific colleagues. Alan Johnson with his union militant ideologies thought he could make political capital out of sacking Professor Nutt since the finding did not match New Labour policy. So Alan Johnson got upset and emotional on TV and sacked Professor Nutt.
All Alan Johnson did in New Labour dictatorship style was shoot himself in the foot. Clearly his ambitions to lead New labour are gone. We simply can not have an emotional PM. Not when the PM controls nuclear weapons. At least Brown appears less prone to emotion and a safer person on the nuclear trigger.
Charles Clarke is the only one in the sunken New Labour ship that is prepared to speak the truth and defend Professor Nutt. Defend democracy and the freedom of speech that New Labour tries to deny. For his defence of the findings of the scientific community, honest man Charles Clarke is totally despised by New Labour.
What else can we expect from a none elected PM but to back someone like Alan Johnson who is clearly part of the Bunker dictatorship. A dictatorship rejected by that British public in all the European, local and bye elections these last few years. Defeat after defeat for New Labour and still they deny the public democracy and will not call an election.
When New Labour are defeated by the SNP in the Glasgow bye election next week. What are we they going to say? It will be. We must listen to the public.
How many times have we heard that one? Repeated like a mantra after defeats like Crewe and Nantwich and the lost deposit at Putney when they finished behind the Greens and BNP.
We need PR like the Lib Dems advocate. So please back them. They are the only party that have defended Professor Nutt and the scientific community.
Else all we get is dictators and the reality is. Dictators do not listen. They only dictate.
Indeed thirdman01, Johnson's ambitions to be PM, despite having got past the awesome Harridan Harman, are shot, not merely because he is patently unstable, but because the only way he could be PM is to murder Brown, on the sly.
Having seen his display on TV at the weekend I would not put that past him. Apart from the volume and bluster of Johnson's attack, it is always a bad sign when wagging index fingers get pointed at the camera in wild gesticulations. Of course, failing homicide, there is absolutely no chance after the next election, of ANY Labour Party member ever getting to the chance, as there will be no Labour party.
Of course, Mandelson will not call any election until the last second of the last day before he has to, in the badly mistaken belief that things may get better. How out of touch can they get ?
You know a young person could drink a beer, and that could lead him onto whiskey, or that casual wine over dinner, could make you wanna more hard core mixed drinks, like a martini or scotch and water.
There are facts that they cannot deny, tens of thousands of people are killed every year from alcohol related problems. Thousands die in car wrecks, the hospitals are full of alcohol related health problems, millions of people have had their lives completely destroyed by alcohol, that has led to child abuse, divorce and job loss.
And they try to tell us that cannabis which has none of these statistics attached to it is bad for our health. And then they can't imagine Y people don't believe them don't listen to them and think they're a bunch of old cronies that are just pissed because they can't control and tax cannabis.
2) any correlation between the increase in cannabis use and altzheimers?
3) any link between cannabis ingestion and stomach/bowel cancer?
4) any correlation between cannabis ingestion during pregnancy and birth defects?
5) what do we do if we legalise illicit drugs and it goes horribly wrong and is the worst mistake we ever made. Do we just have to live with it?
http://www.phoenixtears.ca/
Cannabis might well be the only known cure against Alzheimer disease:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannab
This prohibition experiment has only been going on for a few decades, and things are worse than ever.
The prohibition experiment is killing millions of people, and everybody who research a little bit about it reach the same conclusion: the experiment has utterly failed.
everyone knows he slightly distorted in the ways of the world.
is it not a fact that this man ought to be concentrating on more pressing
matters then the scotch swallowing side effects. there is nothing like mescaline
to sort him out and get his god given priorities straight. live is structured .
better get to know it. 2x 2 x2 equals a cube .
The Catholic magazine, "The Tablet" had wine tasting columns running in 2009, written by a priest. I have, along with several others, witnessed Roman Catholic priests indulging in binge drinking sessions of strong french lager on Archdiocesan pilgrimages to Lourdes. My Catholic parish church as I grew up had a licensed premises attached in the form of a social club. It appears, from at least Wikipedia, that the Roman Catholic church was against the prohibition of alcohol during North American alcohol prohibition. All of this suggests that, in addition to every parish Catholic church carrying a store of alcoholic red wine (before it transubstantiates into the blood of Christ on the alter), partaking of this dangerous drug is not considered to result in going to hell as the Pope proclaimed in 2008.
I find it a curious coincidence that the Pope's assertion of a new mortal sin, predated the current Government's decision to ignore scientific advise and I wonder if it may lie behind the stubborn reluctance to acknowledge that alcohol does indeed pose a more serious health threat than many currently illegal drugs?
achieved via some kind of transfiguration of your
mind and soul. the human mind cannot do so on its own.
it is the god given potency in plants,insects crystals etc.
god provides this insights. and man finds out about it very easily.
perhaps there is a sort of jealousy going on with people ignorant of
this simple fact.i sure know where i am at
gordon ,you are a most addicted person to ,well to church that is.
if you don t like you must go on a crusade within this country.
all this makes me think of bush and blair. blah blah blah
don t worry we just about had it with jerks like you. paganism
is a lot better than worshipping some obscure jewish person.
no matter how popular. is religion not a drug ?should it be classified?
the only real truth is that drugs will always there and always have been there.
it takes a real human being to understand and guide. so mr brown ,
just bugger off.
Yeah ,bugger off you slag !
YOU do not read them at all!!!
YOU do not accept them at all!!!
YOU do not get advised by the Adviser’s Council at all!!!
YOU try to advise and order reports and results of your own…
something has gone wrong!
organicgrowth09.wordpress.com
Get the nurse in, Gordon's been at the pills again.
I remember hearing recently that Brown (or maybe the home secretary) actually admitted that cannabis is not to people who are well into adulthood, it is only dangerous on the developing brains of teenagers. They admit this yet they honestly believe that keeping it illegal makes it harder to get, when in fact it does the complete opposite. Making it class 'B' to send out a message is idiotic, it will probably cause cannabis use to increase, as teenagers will think they're more 'bad ass' by doing a class B drug.
But do people honestly believe that the government would allow the UK to be the first country to legalize cannabis (not including the Amsterdams decriminalisation), plus with us being Americas bitch you can bet they would do everything in their power to stop us.