Lost Login Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I like to trust what such experts say but I have concerns about the message that David Nutt gives on the back of the figures. Just because one drug is less harmful than another drug which is legally available does not mean the former should be made legal. Maybe there should be more restrictions on the latter or it is simply a case that once the Genie is out of the bottle it is very hard to put back. I listened to him a lot at the time he left the Advisory Council and I found him infuriating to listen to, as often he compared the current numbers of say alcohol against an illegal drug such as heroin. Fine but he made no allowance for the different numbers using or whether using one in moderation would have no harm and one would. I also got the impression that he felt that the advisory group should set the policy and left when he believed a softer line could be taken with one drug but government did not. Sorry but if Govt do not want to legalise a recreational drug for whatever reason then that is there decision, and that of the voters. Advisors might believe Fluoride should be added to water or there be am all Island speed limit but that does not mean the Govt will do. I would also point out that David Nutt is looking for funding and Govt recommendation for a drug which mimics the effect of alcohol without giving a hangover and for which an antidote quickly cancels those affect. That does not invalidate what he says but it should lead to questioning whether it is influencing what he says when constantly describing alcohol as more harmful than heroin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I believe the talk was rammed. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Oh yes. That nice young man Glenn was there with his camera, I do hope they put the whole talk on Manx Telecom TV....LOL....seriously though, it would be really great for as many people as possible to see the talk, he knows and is not scared to stand up to governments and corporations. Prof Nutt is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I think they need to legalise cannabis, ecstasy, mushrooms, ketamine, and maybe even cocaine. I think things would be amazing, if they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 There were only 3 politicians there. I am about to email the rest to find out why they were not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 They don't care what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 No no, it is really important what we think - OMG, everyone needs to watch the video of this talk, everyone! People know already, the media moguls are controlling public view with total lies, it is really bad. Safer alternatives - thats all...Check this out, prof Nutt has made a chemical that you can have, it gets you a bit drunk but then you can have another chemical which turns it off so you can drive home - winner...oh but you're not allowed it. Aside from the responsible junky angle is the serious medical research being kept back by laws which are wrong, academically, morally and something else too! (just for good measure) Imagine the Isle of Man saying "We took notice of the UK advisor and have tourists, academics and loads of money" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Safer alternatives - thats all...Check this out, prof Nutt has made a chemical that you can have, it gets you a bit drunk but then you can have another chemical which turns it off so you can drive home - winner...oh but you're not allowed it. Aside from the responsible junky angle is the serious medical research being kept back by laws which are wrong, academically, morally and something else too! (just for good measure) I respect much of what the guy says but I do disagree with him on certain points. Many are those are based on personal opinions and depending on where you stand and your view point on certain issues will colour your opinion. Mine are not necessarily any better or worse than those who take the opposite views. He and many others are in favour of legalised cannabis cafes I am not. He appears to be in favour not becuase he states taking Cannabis is not potentially harmful but rather if it is legalised it is generally less harmful as it is more controllled and regulated. i understand that argument but do not necessarily agree with it as I am not in favour generally of legalising more potentially harmful and mind altering drugs. He takes the view that the problem could be reduced by legalising I take the view that a greater effort should be taken to stop the illegal use and supply. I cannot say what is the right approach. It is a matter of opinion. I am against the drug that Professor Nutt proposes as again I do not understand the point of such a drug. I may be showing my age but I dio not understand the point or pleasure of being drunk. I like the odd pint, glass of wine and in my time I have ended up very messy but that has because I have overdone it. I have never intended to get in that state and would happily drink non alcoholic beer, wine etc if it had the same taste. I know that it is different for many and especially the generations younger than me who aim to go out and get absolutely trollied. The UK and other countries have a problem with binge drinking. Professor Nutt's idea to deal with is a drug which lets you feel drunk without many of the problems arisng from the taking of alcohol. It basically seems to accept that aiming into getting into a state is fine it is just how you get there is the issue. I believe it is the idea of drinking to get drunk that is wrong and needs addressing. In simple terms Professor Nutt's message appears to be that this is a less harmful position than currently applies so that would basically be a good position to adopt. My view is that yes it may be better but it is not the best position and that is what we should continue to aim for rather than just give up the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Could it not be argued LL that by regulating and controlling drug use you are in a better position to obtain your aim of removing dependency? One of Professor Nutt's points is that in Holland when they legalised cannabis they reduced heroin use as the criminal drug gangs no longer could use cannabis as a gateway drug to harder opiates. You increase state revenue, reduce criminal revenue and make sure the drug is safer and better controlled. Prohibition in the USA showed that you don't fix the problem by banning it you just create additional problems trying to hunt criminal gangs and create criminals out of people using the substance. I don't disagree that Britain currently has a binge drinking problem, I suspect that it is not alcohol's fault but a cultural problem and the legalisation or criminalisation of the substance would not alter the cultural issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Prof Nutt, the clue is in the Prof bit - he knows for a scientifically proven fact. LL you don't get it, do you? Alcohol is really really bad, there are safer alternatives, its not about me or you it's about society as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I don't disagree that Britain currently has a binge drinking problem, I suspect that it is not alcohol's fault but a cultural problem and the legalisation or criminalisation of the substance would not alter the cultural issue. I would not disagree with what you have posted. I understand that there are potential benefits from legalsing but I find it very hard to be comfortable with the idea of legalising another potentially harmful mind altering drug. It just not sit comfortably with me. I think in part I do not believe that if we legalise it wil be used responsibly, controlled etc because from the point I have quoted above Britain has developed a binge drinking problem over the last 30 or so years. It was not really an issue when i started drinking as a teenager as there were limited options avaiable and it took a while to become acustomed to drinking beer etc. Now there are a huge range of very strong alcoholic drinks which taste like pop drinks so there is none of the "education" in drinking that you used to go through. Teenagers and young adults also seem to have a lot more cash than I ever had! If we legalise cannabis etc will that really be taken and used resonsibly. Many might argue my concerns may be wrong or irrational but I do not think legalising another drug just because we have a major issue with another is necessary the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Prof Nutt, the clue is in the Prof bit - he knows for a scientifically proven fact. LL you don't get it, do you? Alcohol is really really bad, there are safer alternatives, its not about me or you it's about society as a whole. I appreciate that and I apprecaite that society has a huge issue with alcohol which needs to be addressed. My questioning is whether the right way to try and address one issue is to license and introduce alternatives. That is not a questioning the science etc that Prof Nutt states rather a question of how you seek to address an issue or problem. A totally hypothetical example. I am addicted to a food stuff that has been around for years but it is expected to kill those who take it within 5 years if they carry on taking. There is an alternative not currently available but it is equally addictive but expects to kill the majority who take within 10 years. Do you simply repalce the former with the latter as tis less harmful or try and stop/educate etc with regard to the useof the first. I appreciate that this is a slightly extreme example. Proff Nutt, who I accept is far more knowledgable than me, has proposals on how to address certain society issues. I am not comfortable with certain of those proposals. Not I am not arguing about the science etc. There are plenty of other highly qualified individuals who have may have different views again. I doubt if those views did not agree with your opinion you would simple say ok he's a prof thats ok then. In my view this is not a debate in which there is a right or wrong answer. I am sure that if you asked the majority of medical scientists if there was a simple magic way that stopped people taking alcohol, tobacco, cannabis etc they would be all for it. There is not. There are harmful drugs about, some legal some not, and the question is how do you control in a way society will accept that causes the least amount of harm whilst balancing costs of enforcement, health etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillshepherd Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 why do the "media" constantly refer to the drugs debate by labelling it the "alcohol" and drugs problem,ffs alcohol is a f##king drug and a very dangerous one as well,its well past the time when drugs should be described as drugs,no ifs or buts just the truth as professor Nutts eloquently explains,a great book by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Prof Nutt, the clue is in the Prof bit - he knows for a scientifically proven fact. LL you don't get it, do you? Alcohol is really really bad, there are safer alternatives, its not about me or you it's about society as a whole. It's also, as importantly, about personal liberty and the freedom to make our own informed choices based of scientific research rather than continue to blindly accept the distorted propaganda churned out by the press and Govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Prof Nutt, the clue is in the Prof bit - he knows for a scientifically proven fact. LL you don't get it, do you? Alcohol is really really bad, there are safer alternatives, its not about me or you it's about society as a whole. I appreciate that and I apprecaite that society has a huge issue with alcohol which needs to be addressed. My questioning is whether the right way to try and address one issue is to license and introduce alternatives. That is not a questioning the science etc that Prof Nutt states rather a question of how you seek to address an issue or problem. A totally hypothetical example. I am addicted to a food stuff that has been around for years but it is expected to kill those who take it within 5 years if they carry on taking. There is an alternative not currently available but it is equally addictive but expects to kill the majority who take within 10 years. Do you simply repalce the former with the latter as tis less harmful or try and stop/educate etc with regard to the useof the first. I appreciate that this is a slightly extreme example. Proff Nutt, who I accept is far more knowledgable than me, has proposals on how to address certain society issues. I am not comfortable with certain of those proposals. Not I am not arguing about the science etc. There are plenty of other highly qualified individuals who have may have different views again. I doubt if those views did not agree with your opinion you would simple say ok he's a prof thats ok then. In my view this is not a debate in which there is a right or wrong answer. I am sure that if you asked the majority of medical scientists if there was a simple magic way that stopped people taking alcohol, tobacco, cannabis etc they would be all for it. There is not. There are harmful drugs about, some legal some not, and the question is how do you control in a way society will accept that causes the least amount of harm whilst balancing costs of enforcement, health etc A totally hypothetical example. I am addicted to a food stuff that has been around for years but it is expected to kill those who take it within 5 years if they carry on taking. There is an alternative not currently available but it is equally addictive but expects to kill the majority who take within 10 years. Do you simply repalce the former with the latter as tis less harmful or try and stop/educate etc with regard to the useof the first. I appreciate that this is a slightly extreme example. This isn't just a slightly extreme example,it is an extremely distorted and likely misinformed example. Prof.Nutt did not propose anything remotely like your example and many of the recreational drugs which are currently illegal display no tendency to be psychologically or physiologically addictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.