"Since setting out an entirely different system of classifying drugs in terms of their relative harms in 2007 David Nutt has been on a collision course with the government. Why? Because the system of drug classification that he proposed effectively dissolved the distinction between the legal drugs and the illegal drugs and created a single ranking of harmful substances. In doing so he was in effect proposing the dissolution of the distinction between the legal drugs and the illegal drugs that has been a cornerstone of our drug laws well before the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. If one is going to argue against that distinction it hardly makes sense to do it from the position of being the person responsible for advising government on the current laws relating to the illegal drugs." Professor Neil McKeganey, Scottish Herald - 2 November.
With help of the news media ever hungry for a good story, ‘Sacked - for telling the truth about drugs', The Independent; ‘Like Drunks in denial, MPs blow off the truth about drugs' (Rod Liddle, The Sunday Times), Professor Nutt did his best, in a frenzied tour of the TV studios over the weekend, to turn himself into a martyr for dispassionate scientific advice; in between issuing ever bolder challenges to the government and traducing both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
Much has been made of this row, which has thrown the government's relationship with its scientific advisors into crisis. Yet political commentators and scientists alike would be advised to hold their breath.
In media management terms David Nutt's ‘it's a bleak day for science and worse one for politics' sound bite worked a treat. It set the editorial agenda for the reporting of his sacking. It ensured a media pursuit of ‘TV scientists' prepared to pontificate on this apparent issue of principle, some of whom may indeed have been ready and waiting. Even my favourite sceptic, Rod Liddle, fell for some of it, opining that ‘we have a serious drugs problem and the sacking of Professor Nutt suggests that there is not the remotest political will to address it.'
Political will or not (though the jury is still out on Alan Johnson's tenure as Labour's sixth Home Secretary since 1997) Rod is wrong to think that Professor Nutt's position was either contributing to or supporting our drugs policy, which however poorly or mistakenly applied, has the clear and correct purpose of tackling and controlling the illicit narcotic trade. As Neil McKeganey pointed out in yesterday's Scottish Herald, the Professor's collision course with the Government pre-dates his curious appointment to chair of the government's arcane Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Nutt got a pretty clear run over the weekend. Yet he has been the one to spark the feud with government in the first place and to keep it alight. Ever since the government rejected the ACMD's advice for the reclassification of ecstasy and cannabis he has been on the attack, using the public platform offered by his post to advocate the dissolution of the distinction between licit and illicit drugs. Many might agree with him but that does not make his position the any the less untenable or indeed any the less hypocritical.
Whether intentional or not, Nutt's public stance has been to trivialise the drug problem, particularly the harms of so called recreational drugs, at a time when evidence is mounting of greater, not lesser, harms associated with both cannabis and ecstasy than previously thought and over a period which has seen a drop in the age of initiation and an increase in drug deaths.
The fact that these drugs have effectively been normalised through lax enforcement and media sanctioning should matter not one jot to the ACMD's formal advice. Equally irrelevant to their ‘scientific' judgement is resort to national statistics which suggest that cannabis use is going down - the argument they used to persuade Charles Clarke not to revoke their classification of cannabis. As any decent scientist or social scientist working in the drugs field will tell you the data base about cannabis use (prevalence, frequency and intensity) is alarmingly inadequate. The ACMD, for all its harm reduction credentials, has been sadly lacking in its attention to the precautionary principle.
On Saturday night on Radio Five Live a cannabis dependent and former LSD user expressed his horror at hearing Professor Nutt's casual approach to drug harms and the entirely misplaced reassurance he was (possibly unwittingly) relaying to listeners. Free now from LSD but hating his cannabis dependence, this one caller anxiously described the spliff wrappers he walked through everyday on his Ladbroke Grove estate stairwell and his concern for the kids who dropped them there.
Nutt of course has form on bizarre and eccentric advice and on being out of touch in his laboratory. Amongst the incorrect statements about MDMA made in his famous ‘alcohol and tobacco are less harmful than cannabis and ecstasy' Lancet article (Nutt, Blakemore et al, 2007) the strangest was that ecstasy generated less pleasure than smoking a cigarette, begging the question of why this drug is so popular at raves and used more by kids here than anywhere else in Europe.
So before any more scientific knights charge into battle on his behalf they might, as Professor Parrot has, check how well Nutt and Blakemore's Lancet classification stands up on the basis of published scientific research about these drugs. Commenting on the low scores given to MDMA on every harm scale - 18th out of 20 - Andy Parrott wrote, ‘Unfortunately none of these statements was based on cited referenced sources'...... "When I rescaled these scores using scientific data, the MDMA emerged as the fifth most harmful drug on the list (lower than heroin and cocaine, but broadly similar to some of the other Class A drugs)."
He has not been alone in questioning this singular harm index. Just last week Professor Robin Murray attacked Nutt's contrast of a 2.6 fold increase in the risk of psychosis carried by using cannabis with a twenty fold increase for lung cancer for tobacco smokers: ‘Unfortunately he is not comparing like with like. The twenty fold increased risk is not carried by just being a cigarette smoker but rather by being a long term heavy smoker". Cannabis of course is normally smoked with tobacco - and without a filter. Attention has also been drawn to the low response of professors on whose views the harm index rested.
I suspect that Behavioural Pharmacology Professor Stollerman's conclusion from Nutt's sacking (that the Government places no value on scientific evidence and his stricture that scientific advisors all now risk being branded as ‘collaborators with government') will prove as hasty and as intemperate as the Professor he defends.
Much as he and the Liberal MP, Dr Evan Harris, a staunch supporter of Nutt's approach to drug harms and drugs liberalisation, are determined to elevate Nutt's resignation into an issue of principle, scientific infallibility and freedom of speech, the sad fact is that there has been little of principle in Nutt's conduct, even less of constraint and not always the best of science.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs would do well to reflect on this as they ponder their future and before they rush to resign in his support.
Comments
Kathy,
Yours is a restrained but telling piece of analysis, in the midst of over-excited exchanges elsewhere. Please find enclosed one ACMD - Award for Commendable Media Deposition.
Professor Nutt's media-seeking quote 'a bleak day for science and worse one for politics' sounds rather like 'one small stumble for a professor, a giant tumble for mankind'. Time will show whether this prediction is as accurate as his others, but I am sceptical, and also suspicious of the tactics he deploys as much as the company he keeps; a common approach of radicals is to first thoroughly distort and disrupt what exists and then offer a brave new world to a confused but grateful populace. Nutt is neither the first nor the only proposer of dismantling and rebuilding drug classification systems; this proposal comes also from the pen of Colin Blakemore, who as long ago as 1996 was at Rosie Boycott's Sunday Independent conference supporting her push for cannabis law relaxation. But both of them were several years behind radicals in the EU who proposed much the same thing, with cannabis being found less harmful than coffee etc. Both EU and Nutt schemes suffer from the same inaccuracies in purporting to measure harms - they only address harm for the user (ignoring the rest of us), confine themselves to looking at medical harms, and take no account of prevalence which would be a key parameter in measuring 'total harm to the community as a whole'. For these reasons, as much as for his inappropriate ventures outside his brief and into politics, Professor Nutt got what he deserved - not a stumble but a push.
I was surprised today to receive an invitation from The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London, to "an audience with Professor David Nutt...one of the most distinguished and respected experts on drugs in the world... on the early evening of 11th November".
Is Professor Nutt planning a new career? "An audience with..." is usually the preserve of celebrities from light entertainment on ITV. It is with regret that I will have to decline this invitation as I will be away. It would have been interesting to compare his performance with theirs.
What a ridiculous article. Professor Nutt and his committee have delivered exactly what they are supposed to deliver - an accurate scientific assessment of the effects of various substances - Johnson and that imbecile Grayling have delivered pathetic weasel words.
Kathy
You have raised the views of other scientists, including Mckegany, Parrot and Murray, to contrast them with Nutt, and apparently not only suggest he was wrong in his views but somehow sinister: trivialising the debate, normalising drug use and so on - as if, ridiculously, his aim is somehow to increase drug harms (er why?). But differences of opinion are the essence of scientific debate, they will always exist and rightly so, as part of the scientific discourse. Nutt has his views on relative drug harms, some think he understates them, some that he overstates them. These issues are thrashed out in published journal papers, letters, public debates and so on.
You clearly see his views/findings as objectionable and opposed to your world view, which is fine, but responding to them with personal attacks and insinuations is hardly the rational scientific response - nor is likely to further your position, whatever that may be. I disagree with a lot of Nutt's analysis but see the way forward as mature debate. Ive put my concerns to him and the committee in person, written about them and published them - on the issues, not the personalities.
Refering back to a debate we had on the addiciton today site: here http://www.addictiontoday.org/addictiontoday/2008/ 11/acmd-acronym-or-anochronism.html
I think you need to make your position clear - either the classification system is based on scientific rankings of drug harms (as established under the Act - which, for all its manifest failings, is at least clear on this) or it is something else, at which point the law and UK drug policy more generally needs to be changed. If it is something else - a message sending instrument for example (one not based on science or harm rankings - but public/media opinion as the Government seem to be suggesting), in which perhaps, all drugs should be moved to class A on the precautionary principle - then make that case. Otherwise the one-sided criticisms in this debate (moves by the ACMD up the scale are applauded or uncommented on, moves down are deplored as part of a wicked pro-drug conspiracy) lose any potency.
If not the ABC system of ranked harms then what?
Peter -
The Nutt Lancet piece does include rankings of external harms. I suggest you read it.
If you are privy to some secret research showing that changes in classification have a significant impact on use or prevention please share them with us. The Home Office have been unable to find any (or commission any - which is strange if you think about it), the Home Affairs and Sci-Tech select committees likewise.
Firstly, the distinction Kathy refers to about legal and illegal drugs is entirely incorrect in that drugs are either controlled under the schedules to the MDA, or, they are (at any given time) not so controlled. Of course it is not drugs that are ‘illegal’, rather it is specific human activities pertaining to them that are restricted. This is vital as the law concerns itself with proportionate interference with HUMAN liberty, and to achieve this it must distinguish between these activities, namely misuse of a drug which carries social cost (the reduction of which is the purpose of the law), and the peaceful use of a drug which does not have significant effect upon others.
Thus by using sections 7,22 and 31 of the Act, the government can allow various activities by various groups of persons to be legal whilst achieving the objects and principles of the law. Vitally, being in the (presently) non-scheduled category does NOT make such drugs, eg alcohol and tobacco carry a special exemption status – they are not outside of the remit of the MDA. This is a huge error in popular understanding. All drugs that cause, or may cause harm to society are duty bound to be included in the MDA (which does not equate to prohibition of those drugs). It is the role of the ACMD to monitor harmfulness of all such drugs and make appropriate recommendations. Given the irrefutable truth that alcohol causes the highest level of social cost and harm to society, had Nutt remained silent, he would have been perpetuating the dereliction of duty that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of hapless drinkers and smokers. These drug users and their suppliers have been led to believe entirely falsely that their activities are safer, and more morally sound than the choices made by users of controlled drugs (who suffer from a complete absence of consumer protection and legal sanctions). The key words must be equality, and treating like cases alike.
Most of Kathy’s and Neil’s contributions are just so tedious I cannot bring myself to go through the motions again of correcting them. I would say that even the scale of harm used by Nutt is too heavily weighted towards individual health concerns when contrasted with the actual law which respects the right to self-harm. Actually alcohol ought not to be coming behind heroin, cocaine, barbiturates etc, but ahead of them. This is not to say that it is safer for a given individual to inject heroin on a particular occasion than have half a shandy, and people that claim Nutt is saying this are clearly not reading any of this properly.
The point about all of this from the legal perspective is how to stop the harm drugs are doing to society - how pointless it is to have a flawed scale of harm and then lie about it to somehow send a message that stupid people will be able to understand.
Explain New York between 1920 and 1933. Prohibition as a cause of social harm has been widely documented for decades now, dis-crediting Nutt for establishing facts considering the health aspects of using said drugs pales in comparison with the social and economic destrction caused by the policy itself anyway.
This comment really sums up the idiocy of this article;
'I wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where the pilot just had a quick toke of a spliff'
Alcohol is legal but you do not see drunken pilots.
Congratulations for writing an amalgamation of weak arguments on a moral and ideological groud while simultaneously ignoring all evidence of history and science. Whether you belive drugs are bad or good is entirely irrelevant, the current legislation does nothing to 'control' or 'curb' the use of drugs nor does it provide any restrictions to whom the drugs are sold to and to what purity. Did I mention all the organized criminals? You are honestly advocating that drugs found to be safer than the current drugs within the legal status demands we allow the black market and organized criminals to gain enormous amounts of money and power while simultanously flooding our streets with drug related gun crime with theft, burglaries and robbery due to the elevated price of the illegal product. Look around you. The social impacts from drug have been maximized by this policy.
To what do you think warrants more concern, organized crime or alcoholism?
Prohibition is a disaster and has always been a disaster.
Kathy
Thank you for this excellent article. Professor Nutt's harm promotion approach (mislabeled as harm reduction) has finally caught up with him. So-called harm reduction that doesn't have abstinence as it final goal encourages drug use and enslaves individuals in their addictions. People can and do recover from the pit of hellish addiction and go on to lead very productive lives but, do not do so when enabled and even encouraged to continue their destructive patterns of drug use through so-called harm reduction. Professor Nutt has for too long applied pseudo-science in his approach to dealing with drugs at the cost of too many precious lives. It was way past time for him to take leave.
Hi Kathy,
The scouser in me finds alot of it all tough reading. But here goes. Firstly people will be split into camps, those who believe it's fine and nowhere near as harmful as alcohol. And those who are against for a whole host of reasons etc. The problem as I see it is mixed messages from all sides and there are valid points from each camp. Then there is the hypocricy of the people who are telling us what is good for us are the same people who break the rules or turn out to be shocking examples/role models. So the first crisis is the breakdown of trust or belief.
I'm of a mind that we stop telling people what and what they shouldn't be doing because that route is completely ineffective but maybe promote quality services, with real choice, headed by people with real experience in all areas and when I say experience I mean experience. So when people do need help and support, it's there.Of course I see that the wrong message could be sent out by de classifying but at the same time people genuinly don't believe it is more harmful than alcohol. I find myself in a unique and priviliged position with Inexcess as I travel around the country interviewing and meeting people and the feedback I get is that alcohol, cocaine and prescribed drugs are the really big issues. Family breakdown, Unemployment and a sense of nothingness or lack of purpose are having a deep and negative impact on families and communities.
One thing is for sure, Nutt has opened a can of worms that makes both he and the Govt look amateur and the media are having a field day. What does interest me however is that California has relaxed it's laws to the extent that they recognise medical marajuana and have "Farmacies" and if modern history is right then we are usually 10 years behind them
Kathy - concise and well researched piece concerning the top of an iceberg on drug treatment research and at the same time something which ordinary parents and NGOs (non government organisations) can understand.
Reading the comments to your article obliges me to consider the enormous differences that exist in our country over the same topic - political, medical, scientific and social.
Emotional reaction by those at the coalface of drug addiction, including the users, their families and the general public will be myriad and hardly likely to be appeased by consistent debate of the sort that this highly qualified scientist has provoked.
Madame "Drogue" Pelletier (French Drug Tsar from the sixties) welcomed people of like mind to join to debate the global situation - and forty years later we are still talking.
There is no question of providing informed choice of drugs or creating a scale of harm done.
Drugs are dangerous and so illegal. STOP
Ask a parent.
What this whole episode has done is to provide proof - if any were needed - that the present regime of prohibition is not based on any form of logic or evidence, but on nothing stronger than belief.
Thing is, Prof Nutt was sacked for no more than putting information in the public domain that the government thinks will undermine it's faith based policy.
The result, I predict, will be a level of scepticism amongst people interested in using drugs even higher than already exists. The “message”, I’m afraid, has been shown to be little more than the moral panic of authoritarian bigots. The danger is of course the baby might get thrown out with the bathwater – after all ‘if they lie about alcohol and cannabis they are probably lying about heroin’ is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw from all this.
To my mind the encouraging aspect of all this has been the lack of support for Johnson's action. Other than (most) politicians and a handful of "usual suspects" - Professor Neil McKeganey, Andy Parrott, Mary Brett et al - there has been justified outrage at Prof Nutt's sacking.
We have a drugs problem - that is obviously true. But alcohol and tobacco are drugs and should therefore be treated as such and if a policy is good for alcohol it should also be good for cannabis. There is no logic whatsoever for treating these substances as polar opposites, especially when we can all see the harm the two legal drugs cause.
The cat is out of the bag now and with luck the Misuse of Drugs Act is damaged beyond repair. Something good may yet come from the wreckage, we can only hope.
Having followed this link via the Daily Dose I was expecting a forthright opinion on the current affair, which, yes, has seemed to focus on the sacking itself rather than its implications. I was therefore pleased to see a range of views expressed.
Firstly, I couldn't help but note the references to Prof Parrot and McKeganey's opinions (note opinion not research), both of whom are well known for their particular views, and are frequently cited by opponents to Nutt. Please note that the ACMD's advice on ecstasy was the result of independent systematic review of hundreds of scientific articles and reached a balanced decision about harm. The advantage of these types of review is that the methodology is transparent and uses validated means to assess the quality of papers and the robustness of findings. This is why this technique is the standard in clinical and public health evidence synthesis. Parrott has yet, as far as I'm aware, failed to write a single systematic review on ecstasy related harms, his analysis of Nutt's harm matrix has not been subject to peer review, and he has yet to gain substantial UK research council funding. So for Kathy to therefore to suggest that we have a greater understanding of ecstasy (and cannabis) related harms by listening to one opinion, is disingenuous and does not accurately represent the nature of the scientific evidence. Over the last few years new studies have lead to an appreciation that a lot of the harms associated with these drugs have in fact been overstated in the past, which has undermined evidence based prevention approaches. Ecstasy for example, has always been either portrayed as a 'killer' or to lead to 'brain damage' or crippling depression. Both views are no longer sustained.
"Nutt's public stance has been to trivialise the drug problem".
In what way has this occured Kathy? In fact, the debate around drugs and the consequences of use have been more vibrant this last week or so than for many years. People who would ordinarily accept the Government's position on how laws on drugs should be set are now questioning whether the Act is fit for purpose, and perhaps more importantly, recognising that the biggest substance related killers in this country are both legal. I'm certainly no supporter of legalisation and neither is the ACMD or Nutt, this is apparent by the fact that where evidence existed they have recommended that all the drugs they have considered should be subject to legal classification. How does this carefully considered view, part of a transparent process, trivialise the drugs problem?
I note that other commentators on this post are representatives of prevention organisations. Indeed, with respect to the current and previous situations, such organisations have appeared as media commentators more than once, so it is mischievous to suggest that Nutt alone courts media appearances. It is my view that prevention should be proportionate, reflect the experiences of young people, and most importantly of all, be evidence based. I note with concern the lack of an evidence based foundation in the current media quotes attributed to many prevention organisations. Reconsidering the harms associated with some drugs (whether up or downgrading them) helps young people make sensible, healthy decisions about their drug use. Comparison with other risky lifestyle activities (horse riding in the UK, or cheerleading in the USA) allows young people to make informed, cost benefit decisions about the role of risk in their lives, and perhaps gain a greater and more accurate appreciation of it.
Kathy, this is nonsense.
'the harms of so called recreational drugs, at a time when evidence is mounting of greater, not lesser, harms associated with both cannabis and ecstasy than previously thought'
Replace evidence with column inches and you get somewhere near what is actually the case.
Why not say simply what you think should be done rather than hand-wringing and sniping?
I take it you are not trained in science and seek only to misrepresent and cherry pick snippets of it to back up your preformed, prejudiced opinions.
Kathy, this is the third time I have asked this question, perhaps you'd care to reply now or maybe Peter or Mary would.
In your letter to The Times 30/07/09, you say: "As cannabis use rises so, too, does psychosis."
I have been looking for statistics that show this, as it would be almost certain proof that cannabis causes psychosis. However, I have been unable to do so.
I have found "Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005." (PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900 ), "Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. [...] In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005."
Which seems to contradict your statement.
Where did your statistics come from, please?
I don't think I've ever seen Kathy engage in the discussions that follow her blog posts. Its rather a shame really - sort of misses the point of blogging.
Easier questions:
if cannabis can be shown to be less harmful than other class B drugs and more like class C should it be class C?
if ecstasy can be shown to be less harmful than other class A drugs and more like class B should it be class B?
If not, why not?
ps Would you prefer an A* class for heroin and crack to make things easier?
Kathy, I think you should read this comment piece in the British Medical Journal: http://bit.ly/2cCUbx
The highs and lows of policy based evidence, by David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology, University College London
Kathy, I think you are mistaking drug use with drug abuse, and anecdotal experience with scientific evidence.
Drug Abuse is a serious problem for society, for both legal and illegal drugs. Alcohol easily ranks with Heroin and Cocaine when it comes to damaged lives and criminal activity, and nicotine surpasses all three when considering health problems. This is the issue addressed by Professor Nutt, and supported by both the British Medical Journal and The Lancet.
If as a society we wish to prohibit the recreational use of certain chemicals, we should do so on an honest basis. Currently the political establishment is being dishonest in its rhetoric and propagandising, and much of the population can see this.
Most of the crime resulting from the use of illegal drugs comes from the fact that these drugs are illegal, not from the effects these chemicals have upon the user.
Drug abuse should be treated as a health issue, especially for the most addictive drugs; Heroin, Meth Amphetamine and Nicotine. Alcohol ranks high with these, as it is one of the only drugs that can kill an abuser simply by going "cold turkey". (source: http://www.riverwoodcenter.org/poc/view_doc.php?ty pe=advice&id=910&at=2&cn=14&ad_2=1 )
Ultimately, it should be society that judges whether or not certain chemicals are acceptable. To allow society to do this we need an honest debate on the facts and evidence, not propaganda and barefaced lies.
Kathy,
It appears you are unable to justify your claim that "As cannabis use rises so, too, does psychosis."
I have shown evidence from Schizophrenia Research journal, the PubMed citation I gave you above, that "this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005".
I can only come to the conclusion that you have not justified your claim because you cannot.
Surely, with your experience of cherry-picking data to prove your own preconceived ideas, you could find something? I know the NDPA has a library of research, or so David Raynes told me.
If, as it appears, you have invented this claim, why should anyone believe any of your other claims, whether true or false?
Kathy,
Seems John Watson has a pretty good point here which you've totally failed to answer. Almost all your blog posts about drugs are nothing more than ideologically-driven personal opinions (and pretty half-baked ones at that). Time to call it a day, I think.
Professor David Nutt blames his drug policy critics for ignoring the principles of science. For their part, his critics claim that the professor is out of touch with reality, specifically the reality of drug abuse. At question here is whether these are mutually exclusive positions. It would appear that we are served well when science and reality are not pitted against each other in the way that Professor Nutt has attempted to steer the debate. By misusing science in a way that characterizes and trivializes the consequences of drug abuse, Professor Nutt has forfeited whatever credibility he may have had for providing useful advice on the subject. The real issue here is not Professor Nutt but, instead, drug abuse and what to do about it. On one side are the naive, the “lucky” ones, those, perhaps, like Professor Nutt, who, despite all the warnings, see only safe enjoyment in the use of banned drugs. On the other side are the wizened, the heretofore naïve who since have come face to face with the demon and have lived to tell their stories. It would be foolish of us to ignore them.
If you think Nutt knows nothing aout the dangers of drugs then you know nothing of his work and passion, zilch John. If this is the best that you can do, to say that he represents a pro-drug position where he sees safe enjoyment in the use of harmful drugs then you cannot be taken seriously. You have entirely missed the point that the biggest demon barr none is alcohol in this society. Once you have got your head round the fact that the most harmful drug is legal to give to a child aged 5, then start to think about equal treatment and the people who get their doors smashed in, familiies traumatised, goods taken, private computers/phones etc seized and inspected and then imprisoned for a personal use cannabis grow and tell me that is equal treatment. Nutt never trivialised drug abuse John, he just understands that the law must distinguish between abuse and peaceful use - abuse being where others are adversely affected. Only bigots think that all use of drugs is abuse, except alcohol of course where you can enjoy a nice glass of wine, never mind the fact that misusers are the biggest threat to themselves and more importantly to the nation of all drug users.
As cannabis use rises so, too, does psychosis.
you could put anything in there
"As mobile phone use rises so, too, does psychosis."
"As bankers bonuses rises so, too, does psychosis."
And you might say as govt hype about you getting psychosis rises, so does psychosis, or the truth is that cannabis increases sensitivity to the social context of opprobrium. This in turn creates anxiety, fear of detection and exclusion which leads to problems with some individuals.
Paul,
one could indeed put anything there. But for it to be anything other than wishful thinking, a scientific reference would be required.
I have provided references, Kathy has provided none.
""dissolution of the distinction "" is all your kathy
propergander is putting you on the same side as the criminals, you all seem to be making money from it , liers never like to admit the truth, they tend to dig a hole then hide in it untill it goes away or if they are that stupid they keep on telling lies, face the facts
Kathy you are wrong and clearly a coward for refusing to reply to questions posed to you. Stop writing, you're not very good at it.
Kathy
An excellent piece, cutting through all the noise by and about Prof. Nutt.
It seems to me that Nutt's current predicament is the logical end of a single minded harm reduction approach - effective legalisation of all drugs and if everything is reletaive, why not.
Real life is much more complicated than just ranking everything by harm - we must cross reference with the law, the age of the user, the circumstances the drug is used under - I wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where the pilot just had a quick toke of a spliff, regardless of where it was on the harm index - context has a bearing on potential harm. Neither would I be happy if an adult gave a three year old a cigarette to smoke!
Alan Johnson should dig a little a deeper. If he has lost confidence in the ACMD chair he should look again at the others that advise him and help set policy.
If he did he would find that Drug Dependance is not a "chronic relapsing condition" but is in fact curable and as the Home Office is lead agency for the delivery of the national drug strategy maybe he should look again at the advice underpinning the current system of methadone and subutex prescribing that keeps tens of thousands of users trapped in what has effectively become state sponsored addiction. The resultant year on year spending committment leaving local drug action team commissioners between a rock and a hard place and unable to commission rehabilitation or other abstinence based services.
Getting rid of Nutt was a good start (even if he did shoot himself in the foot) but pressing on to root out the "Nutts" would be a good plan going forward!