Bollocks to "Professor" Nutt!

This guy wants to make out that LSD is not harmful, likewise for MDMA and for dope.

I've seen enough people lost to drugs to know that Nutt is off his nut!!!

The ACMDs report is based on scientific facts. Rating drugs on a scale of harm. UK drug policy is a shambles. The goverments recent penchant for ignoring the advice of its own experts is deplorable. Prof. Nutt did his job, and they just didn't like the answers he gave them.

If some people choose to 'overdo' their drug use, then that is their choice. We should not discard the science behind this report, because some people don't know when to stop.

Surely it would be better to have a controlled system. Whereby users are aware of the dosages and purity of the sustances they wish to imbibe. It would also encourage people to seek help. Rather than hiding problems they may have, due to the illegality of what they choose to do.

Prohibition doesn't work. People have wanted to get 'high' since the dawn of civilisation. Nothing is going to change that. Make it safe for them to do so. If you want proof that this works, look at what Portugal has experienced after the changes to it's drug laws.

The choice of what substances to take into your body is a fundamental right of a person, not for the fucking government to decide. It's all about control at the end of the day. Alcohol and tobacco just keeps everyone in line, while other substances won't.
LSD and other psychedelics are incredibly beneficial when used responsibly, it's up to people how to use them and where to take the experience. Definitely much, much more beneficial then alcohol and tobacco which are responsible for enormous health damage, stimulating violence in case of alcohol and so on.

I understand Professor Nutt wasn't paid for this. He and the other scientists who form the advisory council do it voluntarily.

What he said was that cannabis and ecstasy are much less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. All he's done is to provide the scientific and medical facts behind what everyone with anything between the ears knows to be true. Shouldn't be necessary, of course, but due to the obstinate refusal of politicians to let facts get in the way of their dogma, Professor Nutt has been to the woods, filmed the bears, shown that they emit material from their anal passages, tested the material and confirmed that yes...wait for it...it's definitely of a fecal character.

Brown, Johnson etc. caught bang to rights twisting things to fit their perverted agenda. They can't stand that.

Anyone else see Alan Johnston on Sky News? He was irrational and aggressive, repeatedly stabbing at the camera with his finger, with bright red cheeks like a childs doll. Soon after that he disappears for a few days at the height of a leadership crisis. Those are classic signs of alcohol abuse, a very dangerous drug known to kill brain cells. Now is this the sort of person who should be lecturing anyone on their personal habits, let alone criminalising them? At the very least it is a clear conflict of interests. The poor befuddled addict should be checked into The Priory asap, and isn't it high time for mandatory drugs tests for politicians? The old argument against decriminiation is that you wouldn't want to be in a train driven by someone who'd had a joint, but worse than that surely is living in a country whose policies are driven by a drunk you'd walk over in the street?

Two more of the advisory panel have resigned tonight, soon it will be solely staffed by career-cops.

I have a lot of respect for straight-edgers and I'm pretty much drug free myself at the moment (including alcohol and caffeine). But I have used LSD, MDMA and cannabis in the past and it has pretty much been a positive experience. As long as you don't have an addictive personality type and you don't overdo it, you should be fine.

I would recommend trying illegal drugs for most people - ones which aren't physically addictive, so excluding things like heroin or cocaine.

The cannabis crop in Scotland is worth £100 million according to Det Supt Alan Buchanan, who says the profits fund other crimes such as prostitution and people trafficking. [1] He wants homeowners to be prosecuted when they have rented their homes to cannabis growers, who he characterises as 'illegal immigrants'.

80% of the price of a packet of cigarettes is tax, not cost.

So if Scottish cannabis was taxed similarly, the tax on the Scottish cannabis crop would be £400 million, on top of the £100 million crop profits being fed back into the 'white' economy.

Plus it would save the cost to the state of imprisoning users, plus the indirect cost to the economy of having users behind bars, and idiots like Alan Buchanan would be free to go after people traffickers and pimps, or maybe even serious criminals.

One of the biggest health crisis Scotland faces is alcohol abuse, which was estimated as directly costing the Scottish economy £766 million, and indirectly £717 million.[2] This would drop significantly if people had legal access to cannabis. I would estimate by about 80% judging from the vastly decreased alcohol consumption of every Scottish emigre I knew in the Netherlands. So that is another annual saving of about £1200 million. Although that is arguable, it is arguable that alcohol is far more damaging than dope both to society and to individuals. And those savings are without even trying to put a financial value on the lives that would be saved.


[1]  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8328612.stm
[2]  http://www.infoscotland.com/alcohol/displaypage.jsp;jsessionid=8F140EFBB98687276DF509149891CBC7?pContentID=45&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show&