that is pretty naive Luke. Many politicians are self serving and do not have the interest of the country at their forefront, you just have to look at the expenses scandal that is continuing to unfold.
The expenses scandal has nothing to do with the way in which the country is being run. Since the start of the "scandal" I have always insisted the media attention should be dropped and let the politicians get on with running the country, especially at these times when there is lots to be done. The media just wasted more government time and money. Yes expenses required reviewing, just the same as it has been for all other oganisations in the financial crisis. Let's not bother jumping on that irrelevant bandwagon.
As for the people posting in this thread not having the capacity to run the country I think you are wrong. The government is not made up of super human beings, very far from it in fact. I would hazard a guess and say the people posting in this thread are probably more in touch with real social issues than members of the government are.
No they are certainly not super human. Clearly none of us here would sacrifice our life in such a way for the benefit of the general public. These people are dedicated to politics, from my perspective they sacrifice their health in terms of stress, diet and social aspects in order to assist in running the country. There are plenty of other career paths they could have chosen.
I think you are still missing my point on this thread and the point of the scientific expert who was forced out by the government. Drugs are drugs... you say a person can take a drug and become a victim to it because they do not have the mental capacity to handle it. I agree. But that drug could be alcohol or anything else. As far as I can see the report classified the risk each drug poses to health and scientific proof classed alcohol higher than most other drugs that are illegal.
A drug is a drug but this is truely only about the classification of a specific drug, that classification should exist.
People
can drop dead instantly from the majority of Class A drugs, solvent abuse etc. People do not drop dead from one pint of beer or a cigarette.
Also don't pretend you have seen any report, because you haven't! There is simply 'a report' somewhere by one group that is still unable to scientifically confirm a link between cannabis and mental health issues. That does NOT mean the link doesn't exist, that means more needs to be done to investigate the issue.
-------------------------
A Facebook Conversation:
Liat Norris said:
"Lets quote from one study published in Volume 370, Issue 9584 of the Lancet: "The authors conclude that the risk of psychosis increased by roughly 40% in people who have used cannabis, and that there is a dose-response effect, leading to an increased risk of 50... Read More–200% in the most frequent users." "If there is a true causal relation, the increased risk of 40% would mean that 14% of psychotic outcomes in the UK might not occur if cannabis was not used."
As you say no one has been able to apply it to rigorous scientific proof through a "large-scale placebo-controlled randomised trial of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol", but do you know why that is? As "such a trial cannot be done because of practical and ethical reasons" as "cannabis is illegal in most countries and its harmful effect on cognitive function is already well established". However two such trials "have been published that indicated that cannabis is responsible for transient exacerbation in psychotic core features. "
Another article in the same issue states: "we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life" as "[t]he evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects"
Free London said:
yet the meta-study as referred to by Professor Nutt found no such results
one paper does not amount to proof, especially on a subject which has so may scientifically unmeasurable factors
Liat Norris said:
What study is this? Can you link to it or at least provide a reference?
One paper? It was a meta-analysis.
So because of various considerations that mean we cannot carry out rigorous trials, that means that we should ignore the large amount of research that is in existence? It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have, and it would be wrong to ignore it.
... Read More
As I said, the fact that Cannabis causes mental illness doesn't change anything in the debate. Arguing that people should be allowed to make their own choices with their bodies is a much more effective argument than the naive one being expressed here that suggests Cannabis is essentially harmless.
-------------------------
As for your comments about the information being there if you research it and this not being an attempt to silence anything.. The information is there but how many people conduct research on these matters? News media tends to be the information source for a lot of people. These experts have apparently being conducting research for many years and reporting their findings to the government only to be ignored. They speak out and they are sacked and you say that is not silencing someone??
Look at this from another angle, maybe if the information these experts have being supplied to the government was actually acted upon the government could have done something to save young people from alcohol related deaths?
Anyone that is interested in their health, people like me. If others have not researched the subject then as far as I'm concerned they don't care about their health. Or perhaps they are not educated enough in the first place, but that's another topic.
I can't help but notice your basing your whole reports from that of one group... ACMD.
Do we really know why this person was sacked? You assume from the media reports that is what happened, perhaps this is simply an excuse to do so for other reasons.
Funnily enough, look whats just cropped up in the news:
Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said he sacked his chief drugs adviser because he had "lost confidence" in his ability to do the job.
Mr Johnson told MPs his proper role had been "to advise rather than criticise" the government on drug classification.
So really maybe he was simply sacked for defacing government decisions. I don't think a decision on drug legaility or classification can be deemed upon scientific facts only. Science is a world full of things that are yet to be discovered.
Look at this from another angle... indeed. What about the angle were ACMD have ignored evidence from Mental Health charities, this is real world evidence.
You say people are aware of the effects of alcohol, well then why is it so abused and killing so many people? Why are the government doing little or nothing to tackle it?
A great example of how oddly society looks at different types of drugs is a report that is all over the Irish news since yesterday. 3 people are in hospital after taking liquid ecstasy at a party on Saturday night. Now I wonder how many dozens of people were in hospital all over the weekend from alcohol?? Why isnt that reported in the news? It just doesnt make sense to me.
Because this legal drug is already enough of a problem. But at least medication and treatment is known, at least there is long term study of the effects in place and that society can "cope" with it and has done for hundreds of years. Can we afford to introduce other drugs into society? Or give the effect that cannabis and other drugs are soft and encourage their use?
As above:
There is simply 'a report' somewhere that is still unable to scientifically confirm a link between cannabis and mental health issues. That does NOT mean the link doesn't exist, that means more needs to be done to investigate the issue.
I don't agree in trialing this against the public.
