Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked

[iain62a]

[link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm[/link]

The chief drugs adviser to Britain has been sacked by Alan Johnson, the home secretary of Britain for critisising the governments move to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug.

This man states a scientifically backed fact, and he gets sacked for it. I can't describe how angry I am right now.

As Chris Huhne, the liberal democrat home affairs spokesman said:
What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?"
He also said:
"If the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy"

And that's the crux of the issue, and what makes me angry. This has fuck all to do with the science, it's just fucking political bullshit.

On a slightly different note, I resent the fact that the government tells us what we can and can't put into our bodies. It's my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I like with it.

EDIT:

To put things into context, this is a graph of harm to dependence.

 

[Cargando]

On a slightly different note, I resent the fact that the government tells us what we can and can't put into our bodies. It's my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I like with it.

They're just looking out for you - or so they think. But yes, it was bloody stupid of the Government to get rid of him, he had a bally good point.

 

[iain62a]

They're just looking out for you - or so they think.

I don't need them to look out for me, and neither does anyone. Whatever happened to freedom?

 

[orangebandguy]

Yes, it seems desperate doesn't it? But so is everything the government throws at us these days.

 

[DannyBoy451]

Look guys, the government needs to do something about all the hundreds of pot-fiends and LSD-freaks who end up in A&E every Friday and Saturday night...

Oh, wait...

 

[Cargando]

They're just looking out for you - or so they think.

I don't need them to look out for me, and neither does anyone. Whatever happened to freedom?

Mmm, I rather feel the Government has lost touch with the public.

 

[iain62a]

What is the argument for prohibition of drugs anyway?

I mean, people can fucking look after themselves, we don't need any fucking government to tell us what we can and can't do.

 

[DannyBoy451]

They're just looking out for you - or so they think.

I don't need them to look out for me, and neither does anyone. Whatever happened to freedom?

Mmm, I rather feel the Government has lost touch with the public.

Are you implying that the Government was ever in touch with the public?

 

[Dogstile]

This is more common then you think in britain. at the moment my family is going through a 3 year court case involving social care, my brothers and sisters...ect

they have hired and fired about 7 different psychologists that were all tasked with diagnosing if my family had anything wrong with us, the first 7 times we were all diagnosed with not really having anything wrong with us, besides the typical brother sister arguments.

3 years later and they're still trying to diagnose us.

remember people. this is the modern world, where it doesn't matter what the facts are, and you can believe whatever the hell you like, as long as you can keep hiring more people!

 

[Cargando]

They're just looking out for you - or so they think.

I don't need them to look out for me, and neither does anyone. Whatever happened to freedom?

Mmm, I rather feel the Government has lost touch with the public.

Are you implying that the Government was ever in touch with the public?

Yes. Well, what about the English civil war?

 

[DannyBoy451]

They're just looking out for you - or so they think.

I don't need them to look out for me, and neither does anyone. Whatever happened to freedom?

Mmm, I rather feel the Government has lost touch with the public.

Are you implying that the Government was ever in touch with the public?

Yes. Well, what about the English civil war?

Are you suggesting we form a peasant army and execute Alan Johnson?

 

[hamster mk 4]

On a slightly different note, I resent the fact that the government tells us what we can and can't put into our bodies. It's my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I like with it.

It is their society that has to put up with you when you are high. It is their prison system that has to hold you if you do something stupid while high. It is their road crews that have to scrape you off the pavement if you get in a car accident or decide to jump off a bridge. So it is very much their business what you put in your body while you are within their borders. Go to Holland, their government allows you to do stuff like that and they are ready to handle the consequences.

As for the rest of the article I totally agree with you. Governments ignoring science to play politics is a dumb idea. Cannabis is probably not a major threat to society. It is just the argument: "It's my body..." doesn't hold up. Our bodies what we do with them effects society as a whole. Basically I don't want my tax dollars spent buying food stamps for some stoner too lazy to get a job.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

They're just looking out for you - or so they think.

I don't need them to look out for me, and neither does anyone. Whatever happened to freedom?

Mmm, I rather feel the Government has lost touch with the public.

Are you implying that the Government was ever in touch with the public?

Yes. Well, what about the English civil war?

Are you suggesting we form a peasant army and execute Alan Johnson?

Good plan!

 

[Therumancer]

[link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm[/link]

The chief drugs adviser to Britain has been sacked by Alan Johnson, the home secretary of Britain for critisising the governments move to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug.

This man states a scientifically backed fact, and he gets sacked for it. I can't describe how angry I am right now.

As Chris Huhne, the liberal democrat home affairs spokesman said:
What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?"
He also said:
"If the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy"

And that's the crux of the issue, and what makes me angry. This has fuck all to do with the science, it's just fucking political bullshit.

On a slightly different note, I resent the fact that the government tells us what we can and can't put into our bodies. It's my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I like with it.

Well the problem is that when what you put into your body can affect other people it becomes an issue. Truthfully I will generally accept that "pot" is no worse than alcohol, but then again I also think that banning Alcohol was a good idea and we simply didn't stick to our guns long enough. As far as I'm concerned it comes down to the fact that it's better to have one substance like that out there than two making the problems even worse.

See, it's amusing to sit back and watch "Cheech and Chong" movies and all the stupid stuff they do while stoned. The thing is though, that in a movie they say get stoned, drive off the road, and then take hours to realize that they smashed into a telephone pole (gently) and aren't driving anymore. In reality when stuff like this happens people usually die.

One of the things I've noticed about the pro-drug lobby is that a lot of them feel they are fighting misinformation, so have no real issue with presenting misinformation of their own. Such as claiming that pot doesn't impair people anywhere near as much as it does (I've heard a lot of arguements about this before, but frankly to me anyone who claims they can drive while their stoned is a moron for even trying).

Simply put I feel that if pot is legalized, and even if "vice taxed" to the sky, we're still going to see a massive upswing in accidents caused by so many people running around in public stoned. At least making it illegal means that most drug users are at least FAIRLY careful about where they use.

Also while it's one of the hardest things to prove, *I* personally feel that there is truth to the idea of it being a gateway drug. Maybe it's not one for everyone, but it has been in enough cases where I think that if we legalize pot we will eventually see an upswing in the usage of other substances as well.... no, smoking a couple of joints is not going to mean someone is going to start shooting heroin into their eyeballs. BUT someone who is stoned constantly is probably going to eventually cease to get the same kind of buzz, and go
looking for other stuff to try and recapture the thrill. Heroin, Cocaine, abuse of prescription painkillers, etc... it doesn't matter.


One thing I think people tend to miss is that societies don't change quickly. I feel the Probition failed becayse a lot of the people who saw it start also saw it end. Your not going to see any changes or be able to evaluate until generations have gone by. When it comes to "The War On Drugs" it might as well have started yesterday. Most people saw the "campaign" officially begin at the current level, heck I myself remember Reagan being President as a kid. For it to work you really need to wind up in a situation where nobody alive will have known anyone who was alive during the Reagan Presidency. Meaning we're talking the great grand children of Generation Y are the only ones who can really make a fair desician.

Just my opinions, I don't expect a lot of agreement within the thread.

 

[DannyBoy451]

On a slightly different note, I resent the fact that the government tells us what we can and can't put into our bodies. It's my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I like with it.

It is their society that has to put up with you when you are high. It is their prison system that has to hold you if you do something stupid while high. It is their road crews that have to scrape you off the pavement if you get in a car accident or decide to jump off a bridge. So it is very much their business what you put in your body while you are within their borders. Go to Holland, their government allows you to do stuff like that and they are ready to handle the consequences.

As for the rest of the article I totally agree with you. Governments ignoring science to play politics is a dumb idea. Cannabis is probably not a major threat to society. It is just the argument: "It's my body..." doesn't hold up. Our bodies what we do with them effects society as a whole. Basically I don't want my tax dollars spent buying food stamps for some stoner too lazy to get a job.

And I'm not happy with my taxes paying to keep a pot smoker in prison for getting high, which I assure you is a hell of a lot more expensive.

That doesn't really matter anyway, since the vast majority of recreational drug users function perfectly well is society, just look at the thousands upon thousands of borderline alcoholics and full-blown nicotine addicts who manage to somehow turn up for work every day, not to mention all the illegal drug users.

 

[iain62a]

On a slightly different note, I resent the fact that the government tells us what we can and can't put into our bodies. It's my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I like with it.

It is their society that has to put up with you when you are high. It is their prison system that has to hold you if you do something stupid while high. It is their road crews that have to scrape you off the pavement if you get in a car accident or decide to jump off a bridge. So it is very much their business what you put in your body while you are within their borders.

Don't spout such bullshit about what people do when they're on drugs. Granted, the occasional person will do something stupid, but they're isolated incidents. They only have bad effects on society as a whole right now because of the fact that they're illegal, so they get ostracised by the government annd society as a whole.

Basically I don't want my tax dollars spent buying food stamps for some stoner too lazy to get a job.

Don't give the fucking stereotype that every stoner is lazy and unemployed. Plenty of them have jobs, families, and are generally productive members of society.

Don't you care about your own freedom to do things, or do you want to be tied down by society?

 

[shotgunbob]

Even thouggh its not that bad it still does bodily harm though :\

 

[DannyBoy451]

Even thouggh its not that bad it still does bodily harm though :\

Alcohol does far more bodily harm, and the government makes money from that.

Besides, it's not the government's job to stop you from hurting yourself, it's your job.

 

[axia777]

Yes, the government is full of douche bags who think they know what's best for us no matter what country we live in. Unless you happen to live in the Nation/State of California that is most likely going to legalize weed in 2010. As in legal, not "decriminalized".

Sorry to hear that from the British side of the world, but American politicians rattle off the same anti-pot crap all the time. Usually the argument devolves in the old "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" crap. Then people have conniption fits and start a cycle of wailing and slobbering on themselves in utter illogical panic and fear. It would all be very amusing if it weren't for the massive amount of tax payer dollars being spent on prosecuting and jailing pot offenders.

 

[iain62a]

1. Well the problem is that when what you put into your body can affect other people it becomes an issue. Truthfully I will generally accept that "pot" is no worse than alcohol, but then again I also think that banning Alcohol was a good idea and we simply didn't stick to our guns long enough. As far as I'm concerned it comes down to the fact that it's better to have one substance like that out there than two making the problems even worse.

2. See, it's amusing to sit back and watch "Cheech and Chong" movies and all the stupid stuff they do while stoned. The thing is though, that in a movie they say get stoned, drive off the road, and then take hours to realize that they smashed into a telephone pole (gently) and aren't driving anymore. In reality when stuff like this happens people usually die.

3. One of the things I've noticed about the pro-drug lobby is that a lot of them feel they are fighting misinformation, so have no real issue with presenting misinformation of their own. Such as claiming that pot doesn't impair people anywhere near as much as it does (I've heard a lot of arguements about this before, but frankly to me anyone who claims they can drive while their stoned is a moron for even trying).

4. Simply put I feel that if pot is legalized, and even if "vice taxed" to the sky, we're still going to see a massive upswing in accidents caused by so many people running around in public stoned. At least making it illegal means that most drug users are at least FAIRLY careful about where they use.

5. Also while it's one of the hardest things to prove, *I* personally feel that there is truth to the idea of it being a gateway drug. Maybe it's not one for everyone, but it has been in enough cases where I think that if we legalize pot we will eventually see an upswing in the usage of other substances as well.... no, smoking a couple of joints is not going to mean someone is going to start shooting heroin into their eyeballs. BUT someone who is stoned constantly is probably going to eventually cease to get the same kind of buzz, and go
looking for other stuff to try and recapture the thrill. Heroin, Cocaine, abuse of prescription painkillers, etc... it doesn't matter.


6. One thing I think people tend to miss is that societies don't change quickly. I feel the Probition failed becayse a lot of the people who saw it start also saw it end. Your not going to see any changes or be able to evaluate until generations have gone by. When it comes to "The War On Drugs" it might as well have started yesterday. Most people saw the "campaign" officially begin at the current level, heck I myself remember Reagan being President as a kid. For it to work you really need to wind up in a situation where nobody alive will have known anyone who was alive during the Reagan Presidency. Meaning we're talking the great grand children of Generation Y are the only ones who can really make a fair desician.

Just my opinions, I don't expect a lot of agreement within the thread.

I've numbered the points to help us both work out what we're replying to. Just to make it easier for both of us.

1. I believe that people should govern what they do with themselves, so I don't see what gives a government the right to decide what we want

2. I don't see how that applies to the discussion.

3."One of the things I've noticed about the pro-drug lobby is that a lot of them feel they are fighting misinformation, so have no real issue with presenting misinformation of their own. Such as claiming that pot doesn't impair people anywhere near as much as it does"
I've never heard that one before, but whatever. Of course it impairs peoples judgement and ability to do things.

5. I don't agree with the gateway drug argument. People who take drugs do so of their own accord. If they want to do them, then let them. People would only go from a less dangerous drug(like Marjuana) to a more dangerous drug if they were doing it to seek dependence, and if that's the case laws aren't going to stop themselves from fucking themselves up.

6. See, I think the main difference in our opinions is what constitutes a perfect society. Whereas I think a very free society is ideal - a society where your own personal responsibility governs how you conduct yourself. I think you prefer safety to freedom. They're both valid opinions though, so it doesn't really matter.

As a general point though, it seems like your argument hinges on the fact that people on drugs in cars are dangerous. Obviously laws for criminalisation of drug driving would still be in place, and that's a matter of those laws.