Exclusion of scientists from drugs council 'worrying'

By Wesley Johnson, PA

Monday, 6 December 2010

Government plans which could potentially see no scientists sitting on its drugs advisory council are "worrying", campaigners said today.

Neuroscience professor Colin Blakemore said scrapping the statutory requirement for scientists to sit on the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) was wrong and urged ministers to listen to scientific advice even when it was inconvenient.

But the Home Office said the move was intended to give the Government greater flexibility in the expertise it was able to draw on.

Prof Blakemore told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "You can see why evidence and advice might be inconvenient to a minister who is confident in his or her own judgment.

"But, as (US President) Barack Obama said just before his inauguration, 'We should listen to the scientists even when what they say is inconvenient'.

"I think another look at the range of expertise that was required statutorily on the advisory council was overdue. But the deliberate exclusion of any reference to any scientist on the committee is obviously worrying."

The proposals, which were contained in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, remove the requirement for the ACMD members to include a doctor, a dentist, a vet, a pharmacist, a drugs industry expert and a scientist from another branch of chemistry.

Crime Prevention Minister James Brokenshire said: "Scientific advice is absolutely critical to the Government's approach to drugs and any suggestion that we are moving away from it is absolutely not true.

"Removing the requirement on the Home Secretary to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with experience in six specific areas will allow us greater flexibility in the expertise we are able to draw on.

"We want the ACMD to be adapted to best address the challenges posed by the accelerating pace of challenges in the drugs landscape."

Last year, ACMD chairman Prof David Nutt was forced to resign by then-Home Secretary Alan Johnson after saying ecstasy was less harmful than alcohol.

  • Sorry--I clicked 'like' before I realised that you're an imbecile.
  • angrydave
    U.K Deaths attributed to cigarettes per annum - 114,000 ( probably higher ) U.K Deaths attributed to alcohol per annum - 10,000 ( probably higher ) U.K Deaths attributed to cannabis - 0 Marvel at how the elite of our country organise our recreational activity by using their own moral compass. They really are criminals.
  • What never fails to amuse me about the Tories and right-wing mouth-breathers everywhere, is that although they gas endlessly about '...getting the state out of our lives...people taking responsibility for their own lives..' etc etc, when it comes to drugs, they seem to revert to type (i.e. doltish ignorance and knee-jerk authoritarianism). OK, listen up, nit-wits; I'm only going to say this once: people have sought out mind-altering substances since time immemorial. Deal with it. And while you're at it, do some f**king reading, you pig-ignorant sacks of sh*t. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859 Get it, you goddamned simpletons? You stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Deal?
  • prmcdon
    Even then they tend to do damage to us, the doctors prescribe those that will hopefully prevent more damage from happening due to disease. If drugs are illegal for the damage they cause to health and society, why are alcohol and nicotine readily available?
  • Oh, you may scoff...but Gaviscon leads to the hard stuff: aspirin. First you take one a week, then it's two, then it's daily--the next thing you know, you're not getting cancer. It's a slippery slope, my friend.
  • No, when one is seeking votes, one does not wish to be confused by scientific fact.
  • gravy_train_dunker
    I assume you are a qualified medical person, to be making this kind of statement. Should we beware the dangers of Gaviscon?
  • So...in short: Don't Make Our Heads Hurt With Science Say Politicians Compare and contrast- LibDem policy pre-election: "Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government." Latest LibDem/Con policy- "A further amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would allow the home secretary to place temporary controls on substances for a year by statutory instrument." Was there anything in the LibDem manifesto that wasn't bullshit?
  • This doesn't make a huge amount of sense but then again drugs policies have never ever made any sense. If this goes through, expect every class of kids in England to look pretty damn confused when they're told drugs are harmful but scientists have no say in the matter.
  • simondelancey
    Because the majority of the government are only half-educated, in that studied the Humanities, and have only a hazy grasp at best of what "scientific evidence" means.
  • And this statement is based on...? Your reading of the Daily Mail? Your CORGI plumber's certification? Your access to a computer keyboard? Your long experience as a fatuous nincompoop? Do tell...
  • angrydave
    Fuelled not fueled.
  • EdwinStratton
    Could it be that the reason why the government plan to remove the requirement for scientific advisors on the ACMD is due to a failure to recruit that required expertise? The ACMD currently lacks its mandated scientists, and is therefore inquorate. Decisions made by the government subsequent to consulting an inquorate ACMD may be legally questionable, which would be untenable for government. The ACMD lost its requisite personnel in the wake of the sacking of Professor Nutt, and the subsequent mephedrone madness, which prompted the scientists on the ACMD to resign. The Home Office then advertised for a Chair and eight members to replace those who had left. The advertisement is available here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/acmd1/acmd-ad-appoint-nov10?view=Standard&pubID;=840117 After the dismissive behaviour of Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson towards its scientific advisors, it would be a surprise if the Home Office was flooded by applicants. Indeed, we believe they drew a blank. To conclude: in spite of James Brokenshire's assurances, the desire to abolish scientific expertise from the ACMD seems more probably a result of the government's inability to fill the vacant positions. Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, we shall write to the ACMD to ask how many applications they received by the closing date, November 18th 2010. If this is the real reason for the new proposal for the ACMD, then clearly we are in deep trouble: due to political interference, mutual trust between government and scientific advisors has been blown apart, with appalling consequences for policy in the United Kingdom. Edwin Stratton Drug Equality Alliance www.drugequality.org
  • I would also just llike to say a huge thank you the scientific community for standing firm on this. We must continue to demand truth and rational decision-making, based on facts from our politicians and deny them the liberties they are taking with our democracy. The decisions they are taking, like this one, are taken purely to serve their own narrow, politically-motivated ends and there is no consideration of the wider public good or of democracy. It is utterly undemocratic of elected politicians to remove expert opinion and advice from the policy-making process. When governments act in this way they should no longer have the right to govern.
  • gravy_train_dunker
    I have a question that even these non-scientific advisors could probably answer; 'Who would you rather meet on a dark night, say around 3am; a drunk, or someone who is stoned?' Lets see who is the more dangerous to society
  • The ACMD has fairly consistently presented a balanced picture of the risks of various substances. Failure to address the harms caused by drugs is a function of the policies implemented by politicians. The scientists analyse the research and make suggestions, the politicians make their policies based on whatever Paul Dacre thinks.
  • waterbase
    Truly silly ... scientists may tell the truth and facts ... this is what is important for our future. Otherwise, why do we spend so much time to do qualitative and quantitative study? You may as well ask a 3-yr-old for your drug policy if scientists are opted out.
  • bishbashbong
    Since when did Government take any notice of any opinion, scientific or otherwise, which does not agree with their agenda?
  • douglondon
    I was thinking that your comment might actually be quite fair and balanced after reading this: "I see some of the posters here are in the thick of the pantomime season here with pastiche villains and cliches such as the " Daily Mail Reader " etc." And then you said this: "don't let the ditherers and the intolerant clientelist Lefties blow you off course" What was that about "pastiche villains and cliches". Childish, you say?
  • Legal_Beagle
    Your figures don't quite square with the BMJ estimate of c. 30,000 deaths per year from Cannabis.
  • As if any of the governments have ever listened to the scientists! At least the current are going to be honest and not even attempt to dress up their laws with a veneer of paid-for supporting factual evidence.
  • Lol
    And you are?
  • Daily mail readers this way please...
  • it's not 'worrying' it demonstrates to all rational,logical people in the country that 'politicians' who are basically just people without any real ideas and who believe they are the masters and we are the servants when in fact it's the complete opposite. Collectivism i'm afraid only works with small groups, not islands with 60 plus million people living on them. No that's just called serfdom
  • Munkstar
    Its a Tory u-turn if you consider their pre election comments a few months ago.
  • so who's on the committee? Your gran, the Daily Mail and whichever pharmaceutical giant makes methadone? And wow, how on earth have the government missed out on the tax inducing idea of legalising drugs? Mr Methadone must be Osborne's cousin.
  • Yes ... we should rely on real experts like the editor of the Daily Mail instead.
  • gunabut
    The absurd irrational drug laws are a global thing. No one really knows why. All recreational drugs should be legal and subsidised. I mean it is illegal for wild hemp to grow in this country, If land owners find wild hemp on their land they are obliged to destroy it. This policy is certainly europe wide. This is nothing to do with drug control. Wild hemp has no narcotic effect whatsoever. Drugs are banned globally, Even countries that are not part of the western world have strict drug laws - North Korea for example, no matter what anyone says, and the fact that Nutt claimed xtc is actually not very harmful or if it was claimed that weed was good for you it would make no difference, drugs are banned, there is no debate, they are just banned. Hemp ,it could be said is a wonder plant, it does not have any narcotic effect yet it must be destroyed if growing wild & to grow it legally lots of hoops have to be jumped through to get a licence. It is so absurd you couldn't make it up.
  • politicalone
    Nope, doesn't look like it. Perhaps they should put it up for the Orange Prize for Fiction. Only it doesn't read so well as most.
  • This corruption, plain and simple. The government doesn't like the facts so it seeks to cover them up. http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/broken-promises-broken-britain-brokenshire/
  • alexfuzz
    "Worrying" doesn't quite sum it up really does it? How exactly is an advisory body supposed to advise if they are not guaranteed to contain the knowledge required to advise? Not that it matters, they will end up as puppets or just getting ignored anyway. And as for the question from another user as to whether all of the lib-dem policies were bull or not? Simple answer; yes. I think they are pretty damn blue now.
  • "The absurd irrational drug laws are a global thing. No one really knows why." I would say we do. This is what I suspect: The drugs laws (or the 'war on drugs'), much like the war on terror, are a useful political tool to control and subjugate the ordinary, generally law-abiding population. Using various stimulants and/or psychedelics (or even religion) etc. to alter one's state of mind and escape our immediate reality are essential elements of being human. By criminalising ordinary, psychologically balanced human behaviour the ruling elites then criminalise and subdue a huge section of the population and put the fear of losing one's livelihood or even one's liberty, right at the heart of our recreational time. The invasion of this lifestyle policing into the workplace through drug-testing (note, generally only drug testing and not alcohol) is a clear infringement of human rights. Legislation already exists to allow employers to act if they believe someone's behaviour is abnormal or may be putting others at risk. To use the threat of someone's job to control their behaviour outside the workplace is unacceptable. A psychiatrist friend of mine once explained to me, it is not using drugs or aclohol or some other means of release that is abnormal behaviour but the not using of any release mechanism that is abnormal and deeply suspicious. Ever wonder why politicians seems so removed from the world the rest of us live in???
  • Unless you propose that all things that do harm be banned, the sensible answer to your point is "So what"? What harm adults might choose to do to themselves alone is no business of the state.
  • glueball
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html http://www.naturalnews.com/028116_psychiatric_drugs_elderly.html Stop confusing truth for neo-con lies.
  • glueball
    Absolutely spot on bill. But look at Lansley stealing the health service for his eugenicist mates, jackbooting his way over all opposition and not even bothering to consult us, the people, whose NHS it is!. All criticism is silenced by the nazi state and its appendages, in similar fashion to the corporations doing the US's dirty work regarding Assange, with their junior-poodle partners here ever willing to chase any bone . This is indeed an illegitimate government. Usually when we find those we are encouraged to pull them down, or is this that dreaded nimbyism rearing its ugly yellow head again?
  • Scientists excluded ? Problem? Not really seeing how they brought their prejudices to the table in the past. Most of them depend on distorted statitics fixed to reflect their particular 'angle' so as to maximise their research grants. Not much actual science is involved. A white coat often disguises a fool.
  • What makes you think that scientists are interested in fact. A nice idea but rarely found in practice.
  • kawasakiman
    ..the government are not interested in facts, they just deal in figures, the financial ones.
  • You could also have added that most politicians are wary of scientists because they tend to use ' big ' words that the average politician doesn't understand and this makes them uneasy.
  • mind_ful
    Trouble is most 'scientists' connected to drugs are in the pay (directly or through funding) of pharmaceutical companies, so they cannot be considered independent.
  • andyned
    Prof David Nutt was sacked for saying quite corectly that ecstasy was less harmful than alcohol. If the home sec is just going to hear what he wants then there is no point .
  • Hesperidean
    I am fully in agreement with you. How many up there also are is something that I don't dare to say. The power of money is something practically impossible to weaken. Congratulations.
  • capa75
    Good post! Is it because, like expenses, they just don't get it ?
  • pauldark
    It's OK it mirrors the health commisar.. run by big business.. let decisions about drugs be made by business, just like our health policies are decided by Big Mac... and people complained about Johnson who at least tried to get another scientist to replace Nutt (Professor Les Iverson, a retired pharmacologist).. this lot want only PR people to decide policy!.. come on nudge nudge..
  • like many of this governments policiesill advice seems to be at the core having no scientists on the drugs council is foolhardy and leaves drus policy in the hands of those who would play politics with the issue rather than make decisions based on scientific and medical fact.As every day passes the inexperience of this government results in dubious policy making on the hoofThere seems to be nobpody around who can arrestour nations decline int oblivion under Cameron and the fibdems
  • alexfuzz
    "Worrying" doesn't quite sum it up really does it? How exactly is an advisory body supposed to advise if they are not guaranteed to contain the knowledge required to advise? Not that it matters, they will end up as puppets or just getting ignored anyway. And as for the question from another user as to whether all of the lib-dem policies were bull or not? Simple answer; yes. I think they are pretty damn blue now.
  • waterbase
    All drugs do no good to our kidney and liver unless it is prescribed by qualified health advisors (doctors, surgeons) ... Stop confusing people with your drug-fueled nonsense.
  • capa75
    Good question, perhaps they should bring in Alan Johnson, and maybe a few TV celebrity chefs, and the odd gardener and maybe the odd footballer...
  • wutang33
    and what about U,K Deaths due to lung cancer from burning plant material at b400c with a lighter and sucking in all the particles with ur weed?, im pro weed etc and live in holland currently but i doubt many smokers in the uk use a vaporiser which is the only method that is 96% certain to remove all toxins asscoiated with burnt plant material(it heats it to 190c not 400c) Anyway regardless, this is one fact people always seem to ignore - the majority of people smoking cannabis smoke it with or without tobacco rolled up and burned at 400c+(which btw removes a lot of the th content) They need to legalise all drugs and tax/control them/offer help to addicts - people will azlways find drugs whether they are legal or not and they want to have them.So why not restore our economy by taxing them to death and stopping the majority of drug related crime all in one go - nah that would be too sensible
  • Fuss over nothing, who needs qualified professionals when you can have kneejerking policy puppets involved in policies over which you wish to maintain ideological control despite peer reviewed evidence? If we can't trust our politicians to hold our interests closest to their hearts, who can we trust?
  • MightyDrunken
    Beer in the 60's was a relatively harmless drug. Not a gateway drug, not addictive and considerably less harmful than smoking. I can remember it well, there were many varieties - Hadley Special Pale Ale, Beamish, Manns Original Brown Ale, Pilsner, small beer etc., etc. Treating it as a serious drug danger caused all of these to disappear and all that remained was "lager" (made of god knows what) and "Special Brew" which had been bio-engineered in Wigan to produce lots of alcohol which was considered to be the psycho-active ingredient. Beer went from something that was amusing and lightweight to something that was dangerous. For those of you who have ever been unfortunate to experience extreme pain and have been given a morphine derivative which turns you into a zombie, Special Brew isn't far off. It's no surprise that this artificially created version of beer has caused mental health problems in some. All of this because of the interference of politicians and the police. If they'd left well enough alone there would be one less dangerous drug on our streets and they could have found a better way to spend taxpayers'
  • MikeBoyes
    "Skunk" is a term created by the media from a trade name of a single cannabis variety and used to fuel hysteria. The strains of cannabis referred to as "skunk" are no more engineered or unnatural than the varieties of cereal grown in the 1950s and before. Both were created using the same time tested horticultural techniques of selective crossing of plants which showed desirable characteristics over many generations. No genetic manipulation involved, no exotic chemicals, no frankenstein plants. Little or no evidence is presented that users of "skunk" smoke the same amount (weight) as they would have done of older, supposedly more innocuous strains. Users modify their dosage according to strength in the same way that they would drink beer by the pint, wine by the glass and spirits in smaller measures still.
  • Legal_Beagle
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cannabis-smoking-could-cause-30000-deaths-a-year-study-claims-537872.html Admittedly that was from 2003, so someone might have a more up to date reference. As, for 'curious statistic', it's no more fanciful than claiming zero deaths, which is probably based on wishful thinking.
  • uanime5
    Your post contains some notable errors. 1) All cannabis contains THC, skunk is just a type of cannabis with 10-20% higher levels of THC. 2) The evidence shows that all forms of cannabis, including skunk, can cause mental health problems in some people. As skunk is stronger it is more likely to cause mental health problems than other forms of cannabis.
  • Why is the Obama administration capable of a mindset that even an Englishman isn't?
  • Epiphron
    If drug-advising scientists are anything like the morons involved in the global warming scam then the Government is right to ignore their biased advice.
  • bristoled
    'Don't confuse me with the facts.'
  • prmcdon
    Why do you lot always have to bring climate change into everything...? Go and get high; you might actually crack a smile.
  • Tribeless
    During WWII when their own flabby lives depended on it.
  • MightyDrunken
    "But the Home Office said the move was intended to give the Government greater flexibility in the expertise it was able to draw on." Flexibility is telling the Government what it wants to hear! I mean you give the scientists a chance, put them on the board to give it some legitimacy, and then they have the gall and do their 'sciency' thing speaking of evidence and facts. Can't you see we have votes to chase after? Pointless moralising and blaming other people for our problems is a vital tactic. Now the scientists want us to spend billions on renewable energy and nuclear to avert climate change. Luckily we have a truck load of special scientists from the oil industry, well once the Republican Party lets us have a few.
  • OK lets admit it - we're going to do a 'Big Society' initiative - we'll just appoint a panel from the Daily Mail readership - they've seen the articles and know a thing or two about these things. Plus maybe a financial advisor to the big drug dealers. They have to good chaps as they don't pay taxes, but possibly may consider a party donation and a free seat in the Lords. Next let's appoint experts on obesity from the food lobby and let's scrap planning laws so that those nice developers can improve our landscape. Instead of jailing criminals let's appoint them as voluntary community safety officers. Let's sack all council employees and get all their work done by people on unemployment training schemes. Makes you proud doesn't it.
  • bishbashbong
    Typical Austalian... always think they are the best at everything.
  • awakenedmind
    Can't have the truth interfering with governments bigotry and criminal protection of the alcohol industry. that will never do. So it's official the war on drugs is now a war on reason
  • irishaxeman
    Hilarious really - you couldn't make it up. But this is from a Government that habitually leaves business to regulate itself, so logically they should get the drugs gangs to regulate themselves, including jail sentences etc and forget actual evidence, logic, commonsense and so on.
  • cants_ahoy
    why not just follow the US approach to drugs, have the CIA import it, proliferate poor run down preferably ethnic communities, you can then arrest the 'felons' and get $40,000 a year per person for the private prison industry, then you can use them as slave labour on chain gangs as well, it's the product that just keeps on giving....
  • Having evidence-based policy on cannabis could be the gateway to much stronger sorts of evidence-based policy. Where would it end? Outcome-based crime and punishment legislation? A fit-for-purpose education system? A better, fairer NHS? So many of Britain's most cherished political footballs would be lost from politicians - and placed into the hands of mere rationality. We can't have that. What would government do? C.
  • sjbolton77
    Yea, what would scientists know? They're all a bunch of sodding experts!
  • waterbase
    The scientists argue about facts among one another ... that's why you have a good view about the issues from both sides (pro- and con-) If you have only politicians or bankers, then it is always either one way or another. Choose your destiny.
  • quizbook
    If you dont want the smoke, make tea with it. Queen Victoria did !
  • prmcdon
    Careful mate, the please-stamp-on-my-face-forever right-wingers will take you seriously...
  • angrydave
    Sic him fang!
  • Are you suggesting Epiphron is a socialist?
  • not just that but that the truth tellers are the evil and dangerous ones who should be destroyed!! The question should be asked.....what the hell are we going to do about it?
  • prmcdon
    Most will probably just get drunk, stoned, high, or saturated with p!ss-poor telly and ignore it...
  • I hear anecdotal evidence is the best.
  • BOAGUSDOAGLIO1874
    Actually , it was Labour who started by sidelining the experts eg Prof. Nutt was sacked by one , Alan Johnson , no less . I see some of the posters here are in the thick of the pantomime season here with pastiche villains and cliches such as the " Daily Mail Reader " etc. - hiss , hiss ........"he's behind you ! "etc. That's the level . How childish . How simplistic. How daft . Get on with it Cameron , get on with reforming the country , and don't let the ditherers and the intolerant clientelist Lefties blow you off course .
  • I think you'll find that, in the exciting world of pocket-lining politicians, 'anecdote' is, in fact, a synonym for 'scientific evidence'.
  • capa75
    AND YOU ARE ?
  • herrmann1211w3rd
    Quite possibly the funniest post I have ever read.
  • Clearly an insane policy in the making. It's good to see that stupidity is not just restricted to Australia. I was beginning to think we were special.
  • forber
    All around us we are being told 'truth is bad'
  • mind_ful
    Truth is not absolute. What you mean is being a zealot! Not at all scinetific in fact, which requires essentially having an open mind.
  • please quote your source for this curious statistic
  • angrydave
    I take it you refer to the report issued in 2003? The report was discredited immediately due to its lack of fact based scientific evidence. The article was at best guess work and at worst entirely made up. Smoking cannabis has never killed anyone and never will. There may be an added chance of respiratory problems but not cancer. It is not a killer like the legally inhaled combustible so beloved of our tax hungry leaders and their allies in the tobacco industry. e2a.. Do you seriously think that if that report had any basis in reality that it would not have been trumpeted from the Westminster rooftops for the last 7 years. The government has an agenda against cannabis and its users and any report that genuinely came up with evidence that it will kill you would have been broadcast as loudly as possible in the intervening years. The BMJ article was BS hence the silence from government over its content.
  • ChrisClarkGold
    We have academics, scientific and legal advocates saying it makes sense to legalise drugs and assist the addicts. And cartel leaders who openly say the biggest profit motivator they have is governments insisting on making drugs illegal, thereby pushing demand and cash for illegal highs to the sky. We (and the Americans) have our troops getting killed by drug traffickers in Afghanistan, where the opium export volumes are the highest they have ever been. And we have the Portuguese example of a collapse in drug taking, the Lisbon drug gangs and the drugs culture, which drove dealers off street corners, when Portugal decriminalised major drugs in 2001. Decriminalising drugs cuts prices forcing the dealers out of business, and allows addicts a chance to get rid of their addiction. Switching supplies to authorised European growers would decimate the drugs funding to the Taliban and other smugglers, allowing the Afghan farmers to grow food instead. So why is the Government suppressing the scientific view with this nonsense? And why are our boys and girls getting killed hunting down drug smugglers in far off places when the cure is on our own doorstep? And where exactly are all the profits going from the drug smuggling anyway? Because sure as hell the Taliban are not getting to keep it all. And how many people got murdered by criminal gangs after repeal of Alcohol Prohibition in 1933? Even the Temperance Society admitted they were wrong because of the murder and mayhem criminalising that drug created.
  • herrmann1211w3rd
    This such a classic political solution to the problem, "if you don't like the message shoot the messanger."
  • ... and carry on filling the supermarket shelves with booze.
  • capa75
    Would be a first Bish !
  • Ah........ Belief is always much more important to egotists than the Truth
    This is why we are still have the same attitudes to drugs and use the same methods to fight them. -Methods that plainly don't work and never have. Not only do they not work but they are counter-productive.
    Cannabis in the 60's was a relatively harmless drug. Not a gateway drug, not addictive and considerably less harmful than alcohol. I can remember it well, there were many varieties - red leb, gold leb, morroccan peppercorn, thai sticks, temple balls, sensemillia, afghani black etc., etc. Treating it as a serious drug danger caused all of these to disappear and all that remained was "soap" (made of god knows what) and "skunk" which had been bio-engineered in Holland to produce lots of THC which was considered to be the psycho-active ingredient. Cannabis went from something that was amusing and lightweight to something that was dangerous. For those of you who have ever been unfortunate to experience extreme pain and have been given a morphine derivative which turns you into a zombie, skunk isn't far off. It's no surprise that this artificially created version of cannabis has caused mental health problems in some. All of this because of the interference of politicians and the police. If they'd left well enough alone there would be one less dangerous drug on our streets and they could have found a better way to spend taxpayers' money.
    When they remove the experts and rely on biased opinions - what hope is there? none.
  • Sorry to tell you, but you've been deceived. Skunk isn't dangerous (outside of government ad's) it's just a slang term for cannabis in general, something they knew the general populous wouldn't know and would make for easy scaremongering. I'm not sure what you mean by 'bio-engineered'; most of it has been selectively grown to be stronger (requiring less to be smoked) but that's it.
  • capa75
    Exactly the response one would expect, ephitroll ,morons, Scams, not a trace of bias of course, you socialist are all the same.
  • TyStix
    Come off it Hamish. Skunk is actually a hybrid strain bred in California in the late 60s/early 70s. It is not bio-engineered (wtf??) or genetically modified as I guess you mean. It can be very strong and almost "narcotic" in effect when fresh and not cured correctly in the same way that very new wine can be rather aggressive in its effect. The old-style Afghani, Nepalese and Thai sticks to which you refer were certainly no weaker!
  • capa75
    Even cricket !
  • capa75
    Not able to reply bogus directly to your great news re son of Straw, as there is no reply button just the "like" one. Very irritating that, stops the flow of things sometimes having to go all round the house, what keeps happening and why, to the reply button ? Something to look forward to then.....
  • qlty_not_qty
    /me sticks fingers in ears and sings lalalalalalalala Pesky scientist types getting in the way of Daily Mail Think
  • BOAGUSDOAGLIO1874
    cap , well now that you menton it ... Straw is another bogeyman .... and there is a son of Straw coming on the scene too !
  • prmcdon
    "Druuugs 're baaad, Mmmkaaayy...?" Why waste the resources hiring them, when they're just going to be ignored anyway?
  • BOAGUSDOAGLIO1874
    CAP , JOHNSON IS BY NO MEANS THE WORST of the Brown/Blair crew ! ps next year will you sign as "CAP76 "? GOD BLESS , { IF YOU BELIEVED IN HIM !] CAP
  • capa75


    Johnson rides again, but then it IS the panto season as mentioned.

    Was he right then, the coalition seem to think so.

    Who would have thought ?
  • BOAGUSDOAGLIO1874
    you may have a point on reflection !
  • meles
    The truth is out there... but not for long.
  • DevonshireDozer
    What's the problem? They're just bringing it into line with the global climate change industry. Work on doing something similar to the medical profession started some time ago.
  • BOAGUSDOAGLIO1874
    yes , and there's one conceited old �"$%^&*( from OZ who sometimes posts here who positively KNOWS he knows it all .....am surprised he has not been giving us the benefit of his soi-disant 'wisdom' - tee hee - for a while ( I say " surprised " but should add also " relieved " !)
  • capa75
    For me Straw was the most odious, hypocritical of the lot, by a long way. I will not be upgrading the 75, it will remain at my I.Q. level !
  • stewartpa
    What do you really expect from this Home Secretary : we may do this or on the other hand we may not, I may decide by May!
  • 2blue
    "The proposals, which were contained in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, remove the requirement for the ACMD members to include a doctor, a dentist, a vet, a pharmacist, a drugs industry expert and a scientist from another branch of chemistry." Sounds like sense to me...having to have all of the above is perhaps a bit cumbersome.....seeing as how the ACMD has failed to make any significant difference.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date

Sponsored Links