November 2nd, 2009

“You Can’t Have Politicians Stepping Into the Scientific Arena”

The sacked Professor David Nutt has turned the tables on Alan Johnson.  Johnson keeps repeating angrily that the professor should stay out of politics, the professor is squarely saying that politicians should stay out of the science. Dr. Les King has followed the professor and resigned as a government adviser, a third adviser Marion Walker, is said to be going. Drugs policy in this country is mad. You can get 5 years jail time for smoking a spliff, something millions of Britons do regularly. We hear baseless political propaganda about “skunk” and schizophrenia. The scientists have determined what users already knew, that this scare is myth. Professor David Nutt’s Eve Saville Lecture 2009 – the source of the controversy – is clear on this:

… schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population) even though cannabis use has increased markedly in the last 30 years. When we were reviewing the general practice research database in the UK from the University of Keele, research consistently and clearly showed that psychosis and schizophrenia are still on the decline. So, even though skunk has been around now for ten years, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia. In fact, where people have looked, they haven’t found any evidence linking cannabis use in a population and schizophrenia.

This was the Jacqui Smith and David Cameron excuse to justify their hypocrisy, dope today was different from the dope of their youth, skunk was supposedly some kind of dangerous super-marijuana.  Hypocritically Cameron was, according to his Etonian contemporaries that Guido has interviewed, a regular toker.  A bit of spliff didn’t seem to stop him getting into Oxford or getting a first in PPE.   He really does know better.

DruggiesIf things had gone slightly differently for David Cameron instead of being on the verge of becoming PM, he could be yet another former public school boy who ended up squandering his privileges and doing jail time for possession of cannabis and cocaine. The current President of America could just be another black ex-con from a broken home. Our drugs policy can not be determined by the Daily Mail’s Paul Dacre, who lives in an alternative drug-free reality.  Gordon Brown’s Calvinist mores don’t permit any room for people to do recreational drugs and his misguided claim that cannabis is lethal is just wrong.  Tobacco and alcohol kill far more people than all the other illegal recreational drugs combined.  Psilocybin (“magic”) mushrooms have been used by Britons for millenia, used by druids in the only indigenous religious ceremonies we have because they are found naturally all over these isles.  Guido has munched them on golf courses.  This has now been criminalised.

Nice people do drugs.  We need a grown up political conversation that shifts problem drug addicts out of the criminal judicial system and into the healthcare system.  The same as we do for alcoholics.  The lesson of Galileo should teach politicians that sacking scientists won’t make the earth flat.  Time to deal with the reality, not Dacre’s drug fantasies.

Source : [pdf] Estimating drug harms: a risky business? Professor David Nutt Eve Saville Lecture 2009


  1. 1
    A No 10 Drowning (in Debt) Street Spokes-Pork-Person, reading a prepared statement, says:

    The words of the Glorious and Beloved Leader are not just words, – they are words of pure gold!

    The thoughts of the Glorious and Beloved Leader are not just thoughts, – they are thoughts of pure gold!

    Therefore the G + BL is always right

    And never wrong

    Therefore Prof. Nutcase will be given the honour of being the first Scientist launched into space on a rocket to be launched toady to ‘Celebrate’ (another twisted Noo_Lie_Bore word) the G+BL.

    We know not where it will go – it will just be launched.


    • 5
      Les Crompton says:

      And remember fungi makes you a fun guy””””””””””’


      • 41
        Nadine D says:

        This is a tricky issue, I’ll put one of my top researchers on to it.


        • 44
          Lord Trombone says:


          Please forgive me for not having published a column for a bit. I’ve been pre-occupied sorting out family stuff. That stuff isn’t quite ticketyboo yet. So the blog will go into hibernation for some weeks (please don’t look so pleased)….

          Oh just fuck off!


          • Alan Johnson says:

            Skunk is unnatural, it should have more CBD to mellow out the THC, otherwise it misses the point and messes the head. Of course having the CBD means the mellow can spin in to a wallow, but that’s what separates the sheep from the goats.
            That professor chap hasn’t a clue. From a scientific perspective Jacqui Smith is better qualified since she has a little experience of the matter. Scientists are illogically bound to ‘logic’.



          • Imperator says:

            The thing is, I’m sitting here about to roll a nice joint (as I’m sure many are), i’m sitting with two different varieties of “skunk” the “super weed”, what hasn’t occurred to politicians about this is as follows.

            As with spirits compared with beer, a stronger intoxicant is generally consumed in smaller quantities, in terms of the “rise of skunk” it is actually mainly for cost-benefit reasons, it costs proportionately less for a given quantity of active ingredient.

            It can cause psychosis, and I know people this has happened to, they stopped smoking, much as I would expect someone who had an allergic reaction to alcohol, the local police KNOW the dealers on a personal level and actually have no desire to arrest them due to the fact that there is no causational linkage between the purchase of marijuana and crime, it’s not a drug people get aggressive and fight over, or a drug that people rob/steal to acquire, the worst thing that could be said for it is that it has the same sort of long-term risks as smoking tobacco, and it can in certain people stop them being productive members of the job-seeking community.

            I find that for the work I do it enables me to focus, I am more productive, I leave only to say, we do need to get real, the hypocrisy of David Cameron avoiding the issue altogether is more due to the fact he also wants to avoid anyone mentioning his “right to a previous life” which in his case meant spending vast quantities of trust-fund money on the most expensive drug that exists, who knows, maybe he ever acquired some for a friend now and again (as is commonly the case) maybe he passed some around at a party…

            The reality is that cannabis is so widespread, so completely and utterly commonplace, that it is really only the older generation (who never grew up with it) who still remain scared of its societal impact.

            Essentially it comes down to, as with so much in politics, of people who are one or two generations out of touch dictating policy based on irrelevant knowledge which is, in this case, out of touch with science and observable reality.

            Well done Guido for covering this, we need to (as a society) stop trying to look at worst case scenarios becuase actually, as is pointed out, we want a free society, criminalising things that have no impact on society or its orderly functioning is a pointless activity that continues to be completely and utterly futile.


          • Imperator says:

            Another point that is useful here is that if you actually sack the people who issue the guidance because they object to that guidance being spun/ignored altogether, you end up with scientists who much like in the US legal system, will give any opinion asked for and support it with evidence that wouldn’t make it in to a peer-reviewed journal.

            The comments of “riding a horse” vs “ecstacy” are absolutely true, Alan Johnson said something along the lines of “people in my community aren’t risking their lives being ruined by horse riding”, whilst that may be the case, I’m guessing they aren’t having their lives ruined by ecstacy or cannabis either, probably what is making a life as a habitual user/alcoholic more desirable is the utter depression and despair in such communities that despite 10+ years of nulabour promises hasn’t actually resulted in any noticable development, regeneration or improvement in the communities he speaks of.

            Heavy drug use/addiction is a symptom of despair, rather than a cause.


    • 6
      Stir endlessly says:

      Absolutely, Guido.

      Any attempt at a ‘war on drugs’ will lead to failure. We have lost, and every time, we will lose, we will lose, we will lose.

      The only realistic solution is the restoration of the pre-1960s state of affairs – full legalisation, but hand-in-hand with stigmatisation of drug addicts as the lowest of the low who should be treated as medical cases, not criminal cases.

      Make drugs the really embarrassing thing you have to pick up next to the ointment for your bottom, on the pharmacist’s shelves.


      • 105
        WobblyJim says:

        There is no such thing as a drug addict if (s)he uses only cannabis.
        Cannabis users do not need medical help for it’s use.
        Cannabis users may seek medical help to confirm that cannabis is theraputic.

        Until the establishment of the massive Pharma companies, cannabis was widely used across the planet for thousands of medical issues because it has thousands of years of evidence to support it’s benefits.
        Cannabis is beneficial to mammals.
        Peanut allergies cause more harm to more people each year than cannabis does. – Fact.


        • 256
          DZ says:

          Dr. Nutt says:

          “schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population)” so can I ask in which sector of the population schizophrenia is not disappearing?

          He chose his words carefully, I think.


          • MI6 says:

            Please tell Dr Nutt that the home Secretary is not going to reduce or legalise any drugs as it keeps his Police officers in Work. I mean lets have a grown up discussion about this. Its about Policing Policy. Prohibition built the instruments and illiberal laws of the USA. That is why it has come here. Makes the CIA an awful lot of Cash also.


          • ButcombeMan says:

            seen elsewhere:-

            Professor Nutt has, dishonestly in my view, misrepresented the debate
            about cannabis as a black or white view, in order to justify his
            position. It is in fact shades of grey. Nutt has been proselytising
            about drugs, an action that is incompatible with his former role.

            The decision about cannabis was about putting cannabis back where it
            historically was, before David Blunkett downgraded it. The
            classification had become totemic for people on both sides of the
            cannabis debate.

            Personally I think classification, as advice to users (as against
            priority advice to law enforcement and the courts) is heavily overdone.
            I prefer a system in which drugs are either legal or illegal but that is
            not where we are.

            I attended the ACMD open hearing on cannabis, Professor Nutt does not
            represent honestly to the public, the range of debate. The National
            Director Of Mental Health Professor Louis Appleby was one of those who
            clearly wanted cannabis put back to B, there are many other such

            Professor Murray -the expert on psychosis, said on BBC World at 1, that
            Nutt played “fast & loose” with the statistics. Well exactly.

            At the ACMD there was an attempt to rig some of what was said, the
            importation of arch-legaliser, Professor Simon Lenton from Australia, to
            speak to the public and the ACMD. I spoke to Lenton afterwards, he wants
            changes to the UN conventions. I also established that Lenton’s visit to
            the UK was (quite remarkably) paid for by the UK tax payer-someone fixed
            that! I have my suspicions as to who that was.

            Now what of the ACMD itself? Professor Nutt was almost stunned when the
            fact that the ACMD was not unanimous on the issue was put to him on BBC
            News 24, not a position that he had been telling the public. If the ACMD
            was not unanimous and many other academics were seeing the case
            differently, what was the Government to do? It HAD to err on the side of
            caution so it was right to reclassify.

            Government is very aware of the damage being done to the UK population
            by drugs use and particularly cannabis-remember Blair’s feral youth?
            Kids who use cannabis on the way to school, at school and on the way
            home become unteachable, they become unable to plan or look far beyond
            the next joint, that is, even if they do not succumb to diagnosable
            mental illness.

            What of Professor Nutt’s own position? Well he justifies himself by
            saying the scientists were all agreed, but they only represent a small
            portion of the over 30 voices on the ACMD. The GP representative who
            sees drugs problems on the front line, has spoken out and says she does
            not support Nutt. Nutt himself was not even Chairman when the cannabis
            review was done, it was Sir Michael Rawlins, so Nutt’s own vote carried
            no more weight than that of any other member. He is not even himself an
            expert on the effects of cannabis OR of Ecstasy. Why are we to believe
            in his omnipotence on this issue?

            Nutt has ignored, in his public utterances since being dismissed, the
            important change in the nature of cannabis (of which the Home Office
            must be aware). Home grown cannabis is now dominating the market, this
            contains less or no CBD, a chemical that we heard at the ACMD may be an
            anti-psychotic and may, when present in roughly equal proportions with
            THC, defend against brain damage. I argue that not only (to quote
            Murray) is Nutt playing fast & loose with the statistics, he is playing
            fast & loose with the science. He has personally tinkered with the idea
            of legalisation in a Radio Broadcast in New Zealand-(it can be found
            using Google) which I brought to public and Home Office attention.
            Yesterday he admitted to drug use himself (in the Telegraph interview).
            It seems that the Professor is one of a generation who justify
            liberalisation because of his or their own, earlier folly.

            Language matters in the drugs debate because there is a new generation
            of potential drugs users along every year. They make their decisions to
            use /any/ drug for the first time against the backdrop of culture and

            Professor Nutt by his many unwise statements has been affecting that
            culture and even revelling in the notoriety. Alan Johnson was right to
            relieve him of his position. Of course the Home Office had lost
            confidence in him and because the Professor cannot shut up we will all
            see his real colours in coming months.

            The circling of scientific wagons against what is perceived as an
            external enemy is sadly misjudged, mostly by people who have no idea of
            the detailed science themselves.

            Scientists are not always right, judgements about drugs are not JUST a
            matter of science, relationships between various drugs and the possible
            harms are not susceptible to the spurious accuracy that Nutt claims. His
            Brave New World (subscribed to by a few other fellow scientific
            travellers who cannot get their own way) where scientists decide
            everything, independent of government and no one else has a valid
            opinion, is a sort of madness. The emperor has no clothes.

            David Raynes

            Post scriptum
            How correct was my analogy with Brave New World?
            Nutt (in the Telegraph) advocates inventing some sort of replacement for
            I wonder if he has thought of a name for it?
            Shal we call it SOMA?


        • 418
          pissed off with druggies says:

          Utter rubbish. I would ask you to tell my stepson that it is harmless. In fact it has taken over his life and he cannot be bothered to work or get out of bed or do anything. He is one of those who is now ‘on the sick'; probably the kind of person who you detest. It is all down to cannabis. No other reason. He used to be a very fit person and an excellent swimmer. Since he started with the drugs crowd, he is always in a daze. I drink. I drink lots. But I know when to stop and I dont drink when I am working (I usually dont drink Sunday to Thursday). I had a briefing from a drugs squad Detective Constable. He said that if anyone says that cannabis is harmless, go and have a word with him or his colleagues and they will dispel that myth.


          • Ugly Sister says:

            I sympathise with you as I had the same experience but when I said so on this site I had nothing but abuse.


          • Budgie says:

            Ugly sister – not from me you didn’t. The pro-drugs lobby does not think through its arguments. There are big holes in their reasoning.

            Take the statement “Tobacco and alcohol kill far more people than all the other illegal recreational drugs combined.” This may be true but it is not the whole truth.

            For a start I know of no one who claims that booze’n’fags do no harm. Second, the number of users is disproportionate. If the same number of people took heroin as drink, the pro-druggies claim above would lie in tatters.

            If it is foolish to smoke tobacco and foolish to drink to excess (ie to intoxication) – as it is in both cases – it is no less foolish to take ‘recreational’ drugs. As relatives of drug users are well aware.


      • 253
        SNAF2 says:

        The war against drugs will never be won, as history (and human psychology) shows. There will always be a demand for intoxicants, by making them illegal we achieve little other than criminalise potentially productive members of society, and fuel a narco-economy now big enough to run at least 4 narco-states.

        The only people who do well from the war against drugs are the narco-barons, who are very much against legalisation as it would destroy their economy; the brewers and distillers, for equally obvious reasons; and their stooge parliamentary representatives.

        Different societies allow some drugs and demonise others according to tradition; some Muslim groups, for example, ban alcohol but think hashhish is acceptable. When you consider the current social and medical costs of alcohol, it looks very much as if the Mozzies got it right on this one.

        F’uck Postman Al, the dealers’ pal. He is an anti-rational bigot who would prefer to see more of our children die or rot i jails than do anything to upset his business pals.
        n the process we criminalise our children


    • 7
      Qui Bono says:

      Stats confuse people, and politicos know this. For instance, about 20 people die every year from Ecstasy, none from Cannabis (there is no lethal dose Prime minister!) but about 60 every year from eating Peanuts!


      • 61
        South of the M4 says:

        Quite a few thousand have actually died because we are governed by NuLabour………….


        • 69
          Grayling Thing says:

          I agree with Alan Johnson’s stand on this.Also David Cameron agrees with me.Skunk is too strong.Researchersare asked to advice but politicians have to make the decisions. There are no party political points to be made from this.


          • Dan The Fox says:

            The Lib Dems are making a point.


          • Opportunist says:

            We could do ‘Skunk Light’ y’kno – just like they make that creepy ‘beer’


          • WobblyJim says:

            Boozers know that there is a big difference between drinking a pint of beer, a pint of wine or a pint of whisky.
            Boozers adjust their intake based on their personal preferences.

            Cannabis users know there is a big difference between soap bar and skunk.
            Cannabis users adjust their intake based on their personal preferences.

            We are grown up FFS – more than can be said for the likes of Johnson who appears to be a boozer of the highest order judging from his blotchy complexion and his classic boozer’s nose.

            Johnson is acting the sycophant to enable him to hang on to his pretend job and massive benefits, rather than have to go back to delivering the mail.


          • Ian Dales says:

            Legalise and corporations will be able to produce strains with regulated amounts of active ingredient – hey, just like alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs!


          • Erich Honecker says:

            here’s a idea: if ‘skunk is too strong’ for you, don’t fucking smoke it: otherwise piss off out of other people’s lives.


          • Anonymous says:

            Where does this Skunk myth come from, I want to see the chemical analysis from 60s and 70s samples compared to today’s to prove that it’s getting stronger and not just anecdotal and subjective assessments.


        • 71
          State Pensioner Bill says:

          What are you talking about. do you mean the soldiers killed in war? Will war suddenly stop if DC becomes PM? Do please stop talking nonsense. Many people have lived because of the Labour Party reducing waiting lists and improving cancer treatment.You make me sick with your lies and distortions.


          • Living - just says:

            Oh – and that would be with the added bonus of MRSA and other little freebies would it?


          • South of the M4 says:

            Maybe… but then again this governments incompetence and deceit are legendary and perhaps many less would have died had not been for them.
            Oh, and if your feeling sick you can join one of those waiting lists to get on a waiting list. I don’t BTW, align with any of the current crop of politicians of any party. I just say what i see as indeed you do. Unlike Johnson, I know there is room for a different perspective.


          • west country farmer says:

            yes, waiting lists don’t exist anymore do they?

            just takes a year to get on one!


          • illuminati says:

            No war won;t stop just because Dave gets elected, but the Iraq war may not have started in the first place had not the war mongering Blair been in power. Around 100,000 Iraqi dead. Doensn’t that just make you proud to be a New Labour supporter.


          • Here’s hoping for a REALLY cold winter. Wittle a few of you bastards out for a start.


          • Nurse F says:

            MRSA is not dependent upon politics,it creates its own rules.Rates have dropped a lot with public awareness of hand hygiene.


          • Nurse F says:

            West Country Farmer I can categorically state that it does not take a year to get on a waiting list with this government. You are thinking of the time before 2007. Maybe that was the last time you needed to see a consultant.


          • wats the point anymore says:

            nurse F – you talk bollocks – that’s been my experience – wanna fight you fuckwit


          • Stay Away says:

            ‘MRSA is not dependent upon politics,it creates its own rules.Rates have dropped a lot with public awareness of hand hygiene.’


            Try thinking about filthy, cramped, insanitary, wards and departments. And then staffing them properly with people who work rather than gaze at PC screens.

            Try thinking about reintroducing real nurses – if they haven’t all been run out – or given up in despair.

            But there again – what’s the point? It’s nearly beyond repair. Just keep away from the NHS for as long as you can. And I used to have such huge respect.


        • 73
          Sapper says:

          Post 57 is a tin of baked beans,utter crap.


      • 126
        barefootcontessa says:

        How many from obesity, how many from car accidents, how many from alcohol, how many from smoking, chemical additives, dangerous substances (ie asbestos) etc etc ? The stats the government likes to feed us are always to THEIR advantage. They love (and are dependant upon) the tax they get from alcohol and tobacco, they take notice of the drinks lobby ( viz introduction of 24 licences). They never take altruistic decisions that genuinely help/serve the people.


        • 286
          Sapper says:

          Which government will that be then?All the things you mention have happened under every government I have known. This one is better than most at protecting our services.


          • LABOUR PARTY STATEMENT says:

            IT WAS JUST BAD LUCK
            SO WHAT?


    • 329
      Inspector Cyril Blake says:

      very well put, Guido, a good article and an excellent robust response.


    • 422
      Prof Not so Nutty says:

      Prof Nutt said he was not prepared to “mislead the public about the effects of drugs” in order to convey some “message on the government’s behalf”.

      And that about sums it all up.


  2. 2
    Eileen Critchley says:

    Wonna bring lasting change to Afghanistan? – just legalise drugs!

    Wonna screw organised crime? – just legalise drugs!

    Wonna save hundreds of young British lives a year? – just legalise drugs!

    Wonna fuck everything up? – just read the Daily Mail!


  3. 3
    A No 10 Drowning (in Debt) Street Spokes-Pork-Person, reading another prepared statement, says:

    The Glorious and Beloved Leader, in line for the Nobel Prize in Economics, also wishes it to be known that he got 4/10 for science once, – for a school science essay on chlorophyll.

    This therefore gives him (and Pastman Pote) an unassailable position from which to criticise Prof. Nutcase, – who clearly must be mad.

    That is all.

    Get back to your work – if you have any. (Doesn’t include Diversity Officers – obviously)


  4. 4
    Anonymous says:

    Well said – completely agree.


  5. 8
    objet petit a says:

    Alan Johnson’s an incompetent tit, like the rest of his party. End of.

    * * *


    • 21
      A. Tit says:

      Oh come now, – some tits are very nice.

      Try snuggling up to me big boy.

      But first, – fancy a ‘smoke’ ? (nudge)


      • 25
        Mr Prezza of Scott, a Noo_Lie_Bore Illumination, says:

        someone mentions tits?

        anyone got a sandwich? . . . pasty . . . . ? . . . . pie . . ?


        • 78
          sick of the greed(and lies) says:

          Now don’t forget to be sick afterwards. You can’t be bulimic without it! It’s the rules!


    • 305
      sapper says:

      Now now there’s an angry person.Wrong ,Wrong Wrong.


      • 424
        Sapper says:

        Silly boy the helicopter issue is very complicated.The army can’t fly Hawks.There are times when foot patrols are the only option.Tories are mad to trundle out the helicopter message over and over again.


      • 432



  6. 9
    king chillout says:

    Nice people do drugs ?

    I can say without a shadow of a doubt that all the people who I know that do drugs are complete arseholes.

    Sneaky, devious paranoid little shits that I avoid at all costs. The other thing they have in common is the need to justify their criminal behaviour…much like child molestors.


    • 18
      Anonymous says:

      I take it most of them are politicians.


    • 22
      Anonymous says:

      Comedy post of the week


    • 83
      Dan The Fox says:

      I think I know just the people you’re talking about!


    • 268
      king chillout says:

      Nice people do drugs ?

      I don’t do drugs and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that all the people who know me think I am a complete arsehole.

      I am a sneaky, devious paranoid little shit best avoided at all costs. I have a lot in common with child molestors.


      • 295
        Imperator says:


        A perfect parody of a useless out of date spiel of shite spawned from the piehole of a decrepit grave-dodger or anne-widdecombe-alike member of middle-england whose children (if it could find something else with enough human-dna to breed with) are probably out snorting, honking or gnawing anything that will get them away from a complete and utter fuckwit.



      • 363
        Sminky Pinky Eth Eth Eth. El PRESIDENTE! says:


        Have a tip of the hat. On the house.


    • 275
      Mr Ned says:

      If you avoid them at all costs, how can you possibly know them?


    • 277
      Nice Person says:

      You’re saying people like GF used be like child molestors
      – and might still be. Don’t hold back or anything. Feel
      free to f’uck off and avoid this blog at all costs.


    • 352
      Anonymous says:

      Love it when the morons who actually believe every word they read in DM start spouting off like this King Chillout pratt.

      There are good people and there are bad people – some of the good people take drugs, some of them don’t. The same can be said for bad people.

      Only the terminally thick make sweeping generalisations like this clown has gone for – the kind of people who think everyone of a different [race/religion/sexual orientation/insert your prejudice here] are automatically the spawn of satan.

      Fuck off and find something good to do KC – I think there’s a 10k back and forth dash going on somewhere around junction 21 of the M1 that would suit you a treat.


    • 471
      dm says:

      fuck off you fucking twat! suggesting that cannabis users are in any way like paedophiles proves that its you that is the sneaky devious little shit trying to use sneaky devious and extreme arguments to try to illustrate your misguided opinion. what fucking planet do you live on where you think that not having a problem with smoking a spliff and trying to justify this to others who want to lock you up for it is akin to raping a child and trying to justify this to others who want to lock you up for it, Answer this for me, would you rather be tied up and gang fucked until you cant sit down or have someone pass you a spliff?

      no sorry i take that back giving you anything other than the gang fucking you obviously deserve would be a waste of time and cannabis, you fuckwit!

      oh im not sure if your name is supposed to be ironic but just in case its not, do you realise that the modern use of the phrase chillout is related to coming down off drugs! and anything advertised or sold as “for chilling out” refers to this and is trying to exploit that drug culture you obviously think is as low as paedophilia and this means you are also exploiting it by choosing you screen name.


  7. 10
    Old Hack says:

    Yup you can be sent to prison for five years smoking a spliff (technically).
    You can go down for 10 years for hiring a girl to vacuum your staircase if you don’t check her work permit (unless you’re a member of the House of Lords). You can get five years for not reporting an employee to the ISA…..

    If we expect liberal drug policies from this lot, we must be tripping.


  8. 11
    Gordon Brown’s Calvinist mores, says:

    Oh – He’s SAVED, S A V E D ! S A V E D ! ! oi tell’ee

    He’s perfect – and, having never done wrong, w anked, or seen a pudenda, spotless – and in white a white robe – go to that place where all hypocrites, liars, cheats, two-tongued, duplicitous, paranoid, control freaking, interfering, manipulative, fearty, cowardly, bullying, patronising, pontificating weirdo’s go.

    Yeah – I kno! – I’ll be there waiting for the bastard!


    • 311
      Harrow Man says:

      Me too says Little Davy Cameroon. I can do bad and good. My main political accessory is my bicycle.Without it I would be a rich Tit.My godfather worked for the queen so I avoided being sent down from Eton for smoking that smelly thing.Get off this drug subject or some troll will start digging up stuff about me and Georgie,


  9. 12
    Cato Street Conspirator says:

    Completely right Guido. What’s interesting is that Nutt has played a political blinder, working with the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (which published his speech) to smoke (sic) Johnson and the government out. Well done all round.


  10. 13
    Slim Jim says:

    Absolutely spot on Guido! It’s high time the politicians got off their high (sic) horses and tackled the problem intelligently. Prohibition doesn’t work in my opinion, and I believe that decriminalising, or if you prefer, licensing, specific drugs would be the pragmatic way forward. Every time I hear twats like Smith, Johnson, Brown et al spouting off about cannabis, I think the same arguments apply to alcohol. Alcohol is socially acceptable, and cannabis/marijuana is increasingly so. It’s also a potentially good revenue source for the treasury…


    • 27
      Hub says:

      Who would of thought the current Labour government would ignore independent hard scientific facts in favour of personal ungrounded prejudice. Anyone would think they are a bunch of idiot bullies with nothing to offer than pig headedness and an innate desire to bully and control others to compensate for their own emotional ‘issues’

      Dear god, it’s like a bad dream at times.


      • 46
        Grammar School Pedant says:

        “Who would have…”


        • 102
          Ed Bollocks' special Advisor, pocketing alorra lorra muney says:

          No – sorry – it’s ‘of’

          As in “I mus ‘of’ fergotun it”

          I hope that’s clear now


          • The HeadMaster says:

            Grammar School Pendant and Ed Bollocks – both of you see me after school – you are very wearysome and deserve a kicking, sorry detention.


      • 260
        Hub says:

        Forgive me, I am actually regional and possibly damaged beyond repair by the evils of skunk smoke after a bus journey to work some years ago, featuring a bus loads of kids and some potent smelling smoking materials.

        Little c**nts wouldn’t even give me a proper drag. Where is the social justice in that! 10 years of Labour and we can’t even blag a free smoke!


      • 312
        Nas says:

        Yes your spelling reminds me of 11Wayne on a wet afternoon.


    • 45
      JMT says:

      It will only be a revenue source if it is taxed. What will the tax level be? It will be taxed at the same rate as everything else in this country – extortionately?

      We have cigarette, drink and fuel smuggling. Drug smuggling will not disappear. Where you have smuggling, you have organised crime. No-one reports anyone for selling cheap fags, drink or fuel – no-one will report illegal selling of cheaper dope.

      Prohibition failed in the US because a drink was socially acceptable to the vast majority. It did not stop crime, it just legitimised their past earnings and the same hoods moved into other lucrative areas.

      Drug taking is not, and very unlikely ever to be, as socially acceptable as taking a drink.


      • 291
        WobblyJim says:

        A proper solution is to simply de-criminalise the entire thing.

        Offer cannabis for taxed purchase if the gubmint needs an earner, but make sure that SUPPLY is covered in new legislation as well.

        Tax levels need to ensure that it is no longer a viable option for criminals to be bothered about. It is the high levels of tax on booze and ciggys that make smuggling attractive to some.

        The polititians (sic) need to get real and realise that it is THIR OWN ACTIONS in over-taxing the consumer and criminalising a natural herb that actually creates criminality among otherwise law-abiding people.

        If booze and ciggys were as cheap as they are elsewhere in Europe, nobody would be bothered to smuggle. – Lower crime rate would result.

        Imported weed is not a problem, most of the best weed available today is imported.

        A new law needs to ensure that people can grow their own if that is their preference or buy from an outlet such as Holland & Barrett or even Tesco.

        Farmers could grow it by the acre, cannabis ruderalis can be grown for HEWMP products, as it has been for centuries, Cannabis Sativa & Indica should be grown for human consumption.

        Everywhere you look, when your mind is open, reveals massive benefits to everyone except the criminals…

        The political classes need to wake up and smell the ganjah.


        • 356
          Anonymous says:

          “most of the best weed available today is imported.”

          Sorry, but I beg to differ – go back 15 years or more and you’d be right. These days, most of the best is grown here using powerful lights and hydroponics setups. The days of needing to have a country with the right climate to grow decent weed have long gone.


    • 354
      Anonymous says:

      Find me a police officer who says he or she would rather deal with a gang of drunk youths over a gang of stoned ones, and I’ll show you a liar.


  11. 14
    Anonymous says:

    What is the point of having experts look into things when you have already made up your mind on the issue beforehand? Same thing happened with that education report that they dismissed a couple of weeks ago.


    • 48
      backwoodsman says:

      Presumably some focus group reported that the public were concerned about drug use, hence the decision to reclasify, ” Vote labour, were tough on drugs” & the search to find a talking head to justify their policy.
      Unfortunately their talking heads are raving lefties and another nulab policy goes tits up !!


    • 141
      WobblyJim says:

      Having a team of tame experts on hand is the way that Labour Liars do business.
      Haven’t you noticed that they all blame the experts or the junior staff when they get caught out in their lies ?
      In this instance the experts are certainly not tame, much to the annoyance of wankers like Johnson , Brown and Smith.
      Cannabis is harmless, the experts have said so in a very scientific way.
      So the laws need to be changed to actually do what it is supposed to do – PROTECT THE PUBLIC, in this case from being criminalised for doing something which is proven to be HARMLESS.


    • 142
      Mervyn 'burn the cash' King says:

      Steady on – I am an expert – honest, guvnor!!


    • 216
      Erich Honecker says:

      It’s called ‘window dressing’.

      Hang em high.


  12. 15
  13. 16
    Sceptical Joe says:

    Where are drug addicts going to get the money to pay for legalised drugs.


    • 49
      Cato Street Conspirator says:

      By selling them to one another – that’s how the City works: taking in one another’s dirty washing.


    • 113
      sinosimon says:

      the point is in a legalised market prices drop……so at the very least the addicts will trash less homes/hit less little old ladies over the head/ break into fewer cars to obtain the required funds for their habit. Police resources are freed up due to reductions in crime, courts operate with fewer needless drug crime related cases, prisons have fewer inmates. Put simply, you transfer some of the criminal justice costs to the health service, so that those addicted to Class A are prescription served, ignore the lower class drugs entirely, and change the tariffs so that anyone found handling the now unecessary illegal drugs is incarcerated for life.

      Now i’m not saying i agree with all of the above, but it is an argument to be made…..

      and it must be obvious that the last four decades of prohibition, which has only served to enrich some truly evil people, and led to an explosion of personal and property crime has only shown us that what we do now is NOT the answer.


      • 171
        Head says:

        yeah man, you can see it now – Boots 2 for the price of one, Buy 3 get one free, yeah man bring it on I say


    • 259
      SNAF2 says:

      Frequent users or even addicts can hold down jobs if they are not being forced to rob and steal to get their next fix. Do you really know nothing about the long-established use of opiates by medical professionals? Very popular in the 19th century, before criminalisation.


    • 299
      WobblyJim says:

      you haven’t thought this through have you ?

      cannabis does not cause addiction.
      cannabis users are not drug addicts.
      legal cannabis means that people can grow their own in the back garden
      legalisation and home growing will slash the prices to that of other garden produce
      scrumping someone’s weed patch will be a lot easier than robbing people to pay for whatever your chosen intoxicant.

      In those enlighted places that have allowed people to grow their own, it is not uncommon for crops to be poached by thieves.


  14. 17
    Tiger W says:


    Whose criminalized GOLF ?

    Nobody’s told me !!


  15. 23
    Anonymous says:

    To get a sensible policy of drugs you first have to get the religious nutcases out of positions of power like Blair and now Brown. Not sure about Dave but I would guess he’s more laid back and only attends church to keep up appearances.


  16. 24
    McGroom says:

    Legalise all drugs, tax them, get rid of criminal gangs. Providing prescription drugs to hopeless addcits and assist them to quit has got to be cheaper than fighting drug related crime.

    Companies have policies on emplyees working while drunk, the same would apply to those that are stoned.

    Get bold and liberal to help out the addicts, boost tax revenues and help the crime fugures.


  17. 28
    Johnny says says:

    Although the Government is wrong on its approach to drugs, Johnson has a point in that it is for our elected representatives to decide such things not the scientists.

    Problem is the influx of technocrats is a con. The Government draft in experts of their choosing to give a veneer of consensus about Government choices. Clearly it doesn’t always work but for the vast bulk of the time the technocrats are being exploited to insulate the politicians from their decisions – ie they can claim they were simply following the best advice taxpayers could buy (international banking regulations), leaving aside that such appointments are prone to confirmation bias and political groupthink when you pick experts who will say what you wanted to hear or who already have the ear of other Governments.(Such as the climate scaremongers and ‘security’ experts from the Police who have vested interests in maintaining their profile.)

    Politicians should make much more of these decisions, with a bit of advice of course but, the current conventions are more designed to absolve politicians of responsibility by shovelling our authority into the hands of unelected experts. We need politicians to exercise their judgement on issues more often beyond just picking some (usually) yes men so we have more to judge them on at election time. I suspect they don’t because their judgement would quickly be seen to be appalling.


    • 116
      Moley says:

      Openly rejecting a scientist’s advice for specified political reasons is fair enough, but sacking a scientist for not fudging the evidence to suit political convenience is quite another.

      Labour are now out to destroy the impartiality and objectivity of scientists, presumably to enable them to continue with the climate con trick.

      We look in vain for a change of course from the Conservatives.


      • 166
        Johnny says says:

        If Nutt wants to campaign for a particular stance on drugs, should he remain a part of a Government advisory body? Alan Johnson thinks he should not. I hope this consistency is applied across the board.

        In the arena of climate change experts with the biggest mouth tend to speak a message that brings with it authoritarian tax measures. A number of them are also keen to get in the news with their views. Either what Nutt did is not acceptable so it is not acceptable for other experts, or what some other experts do is acceptable so Nutt shouldn’t have been sacked.

        The key issue is whether anyone will bother to point this out to the likes of Alan Johnson who clearly want rid of experts who advocate a message that doesn’t accord with the Government but are quite happy for say Nicholas Stern to agitate in the media.


  18. 29
    oldrightie says:

    schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population) as it increases in Parliament.


  19. 30
    JT says:

    may I suggest you read Melanie Phillips article on Professor Nut,she puts it into perspective,and I am afraid you are wrong


    • 51
      Anonymous says:

      Right, because she’s a fucking expert yeah? Anyone can pluck out a few opinions and ‘supporting evidence’. Doesn’t make it right though.


    • 56
      Guido Fawkes says:

      Melanie believes in sky fairies. Not sure about her scientific method.


      • 109
        A Sky Fairie, replying, says:


        Wot you talkin’ abart?!

        We come out when orl tha bunnies do!



      • 139
        Jesus weeps for you says:

        Melanie is a regular on BBC 4s Moral Maze. They only put sensible clever people on that, who know about these things and what’s for the best.

        Don’t think they’ll be putting you on it for example…


        • 176
          anon-E-mous says:

          it s good to know that you so easily put your trust in others to make your decisions for you


          • barefootcontessa says:

            Melanie Phillips is an annoying opinionated tick. She has an axe to grind, I’ll leave you to decide what that might be! Her contribution to radio 4’s The Moral Maze is so predictable it’s downright boooooring. I wouldn’t take anything she ever says seriously, it’s all chippy hot air.


          • Imperator says:

            Anyway, would you rather be stoned or be melanie phillips.

            She looks like someone left a corspe in the ground for several months and then sun-dried it, then reanimated it so that the only thing that came out of it’s horrible gob was an endless reel of out-of-date, boring, hyperbole about issues she’s never had any personal contact with…


          • Mel's personal hair gel donator (for public cash!!) says:

            How else can she get any attention!!


        • 220
          Finder's Keepers says:

          Didn’t someone lose a. . . lose a . . . a . . . lose . . a . . a

          MORAL COMPASS?

          There I’ve said it.

          Might he find it in the Moral maze?


  20. 31
    chronic says:

    Its a good job climate change scientists have not crossed the line into political campaigning.


    • 40
      Anonymous says:

      Work on the basis that everything dubya/Rumsfeld/Bliar etc said was bollocks and you can’t go far wrong.


    • 185
      alistewart says:

      That’s what it’s all about. A warning shot across the bows of any one working for Gov’t and not supporting the party line. This, particularly the case for thousands of researchers and scientists funded to emphasise the AGW nonsense. The establishment are terrified that the truth will escape.

      Why? Because at Copenhagen they will have, incredibly, managed to trick the World population into another forfeit. Let’s face it- they have run out of things to tax. Every penny we earn, spend or save is taxed. Every transaction is recorded and taxed. Every activity, from intercontinental travel to turning on the water tap is taxed. Nothing left except, and I’m at a loss to imagine how they did not think of it before, the very air that we breath.

      “What’s that you say? An oxygen tax? No, we’ll never get away with it, the population would never stand it! Oh a carbon dioxide tax, that’s absolutely brilliant, yes, oxygen good, carbon dioxide bad, brilliant!

      “Better make sure they never find out it’s the best scam we ever came up with. Yes I agree, we ensure the scientific evidence is unassailable, make sure the egg-heads come up with right data, and you better make sure that they know what they will get if it’s wrong. No more grants, no more all expenses paid trips to the Arctic, the equator, no more lithe bespectacled research assistants, no more gravy train!

      “We have the force at the moment, just a few more days and the dough will be rolling in, I mean, we’ll have saved the World so better not de-stabilise that precarious band-wagon. But handy to send a signal to them. I know, get over to Imperial and sack that toker idiot who wants to legalise pot. I think they’ll all see where their bread is buttered.

      “Christ, next thing they’ll be selling it in Tesco. Standard rate VAT though. Now there’s a thought…..”


      • 279
        Mr Ned says:

        it would be ridiculous to suggest that we would tax what we breathe in, so they tax what we breathe out instead, it’s all part of our carbon footprint you know.


        • 304
          WobblyJim says:

          I’m certain that government (sic) has paid to research a way of fitting every person, at birth with an air-meter that can measure and tax every breath that is taken throughout a person’s life.


  21. 33
    Check 'em on Wiki says:

    I thought Johnson sounded more than a bit of a pratt, did not know much about him, so had a read, Jesus, this government really is full of know nothing, ex trade union marxist hoons, given positions far, far in excess of their capabilities.

    There must be a hell of a lot of people who do not know this.


    • 86
      Porky Pies MP says:

      He’s an ex postman so in a better life he would be on strike now. I wonder how many letters Postman Prat managed to lose when he kept falling off the edge of his flat earth.


      • 309
        WobblyJim says:

        The unions have demanded and got their people into government as the price to support labour.
        Otherwise unemployable fuckwits like Johnson, Harpic, Prescott etc etc are only in position as payment to various unions.

        Very few have aquired any type of skillset that could be used outside of politics – they truly are a useless shower of shite.


    • 90
      Susie says:

      And all the power and cash goes to their heads… they’re literally high on power.

      Compounded by the fact neither they, nor anyone in their family or background have had any before so they’ve never observed someone exercising it competently or how much to take — all they know is they like it a lot, so they want more and more and to hell with the consequences for those around them. Bad decisions are made under the influence, but hey — it’s been a great trip.

      Power junkies the lot of them. The mother of all come downs will start in May.


      • 158
        Reg511 says:

        following your analogy, how soon before flashbacks begin?


      • 192
        barefootcontessa says:

        That’s very true. Trouble is, although they have been used to being in higher positions, and richer from the start, the next lot will behave in exactly the same way, get high on power. There should be a 4/5 year time limit given to all ministers.


        • 315
          Susie says:

          At least some of the next lot have been educated at a school which understands and teaches the responsibilities which go with with power — noblesse oblige — for the past 400 years… Eton — it’s what we do.


          • Sloane R. says:

            Sick Bag Please.


          • Susie says:

            So how do you explain the fact that the minute your ex-commie/Russian mafia friends become oligarchs, their kids are put down for Eton?

            There are so many there at the moment that Russian is almost the second language at the school.


    • 177
      anon-E-mous says:

      alan johnson is a first class prat in a second class government


    • 280
      Mr Ned says:

      “There must be a hell of a lot of people who do not know this.”

      Yeah, about 27% of those intending to vote, according to opinion polls.


  22. 34
    Anonymous says:

    Just tax cannabis like beer & fags and the silly fuckers would make a fortune. Im sure Mandelson would like a suppository version


  23. 35
    Jill says:

    Hoobloodyray for you Guido.

    I spent the best part of fifteen years enjoying drugs (mostly ecstasy and LSD) at weekends. I held down a middle management job, never took a single day off sick due to weekend consumption, ran a mortgage, got married, did charity work and was generally a model member of society. I hate alcohol – you lot can do it if you want to, but I get happy after one drink, cross after two, sick after three and pass out after four. It’s no fun at all for me.

    Absolutely the ONLY reason I stopped doing drugs was because I had children – clearly you can’t do it while you’re pregnant, but afterwards you can’t risk the criminality. It’s ludicrous, unfair on the millions of sensible users, and does absolutely nothing to curb the dodgy side of it all.

    Legalise the lot and tax it to the hilt, so users can pay the same socialised insurance policy on potential harm that drinkers and smokers do.


    • 303
      Imperator says:


      Don’t TAX it….

      Just IGNORE IT

      Pretend it doesn’t exist, go about your mundane middle-class lifestyles, discuss mortgages, pension schemes, talk about local sustainable sources of especially-fucking-good cheese, talk about the lack of good local schools or how awful the working classes are these days.



    • 348
      Jon Forest says:

      Come on, if you didn’t need a bit of time off after a weekend of ecstasy, you obviously didn’t take enough.


      • 360
        Anonymous says:

        Or maybe you’re just not as professional as the rest of us Jon – getting in a mess at the weekend is NEVER a suitable excuse for taking time off work unless you’re a pathetic loser who has no business partying in the first place.


    • 351
      Thats News says:

      Parenting whilst stoned? Not a good idea.

      A friend of mine accidentally ate a quarter ounce of cannabis resin that had failed to mix into a hash cake she baked. First time it had happened.

      She was so badly out of her head with acute paranoia for three days that her husband thought he’d have to have her committed.

      She gave up cannabis and went from being very pro to very anti.

      I think her main problem was that her 10-year-old son had seen the whole episode, which, she told me, shamed her very deeply.


      • 408
        Imperator says:

        Your friend suffers from acute stupidity.

        Quarter of an ounce, that’s about the size of a 50P piece but around 1cm high.


  24. 36
    J P Donleavy ........... says:

    I read over the weekend (interweb newspaper) that the average fine for possession is some £38 – down from £180 in 1997. All fines except ecstasy down since 1997 – what’s going on? This ‘price drop’ comes from the government – not just the judges! What’s this 5 years prison crap?

    Parking Fine £60 !!


    • 52
      Samuel T Coleridge says:

      Hi J P
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure-dome decree :
      Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
      Through caverns measureless to man
      Down to a sunless sea.
      So twice five miles of fertile ground
      With walls and towers were girdled round :
      And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
      Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree ;
      And here were forests ancient as the hills,
      Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.
      What do you think so far?


      • 72
        William Wordsworth says:

        When are you going to finish it Sam?


        • 81
          Samuel T Coleridge says:

          5am – methinks


          • bandersnatch says:

            There’s bloke from Porlock coming round knocking on doors, if you stop work on it to deal with him, I doubt you’ll be able to finish it… Pity…


          • Samuel says:

            just had a spot of the hard stuff – how’s this – coming on eh?

            But oh ! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
            Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover !
            A savage place ! as holy and enchanted
            As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted
            By woman wailing for her demon-lover !
            And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
            As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
            A mighty fountain momently was forced :
            Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
            Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
            Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher’s flail :
            And ‘mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
            It flung up momently the sacred river.
            Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
            Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
            Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
            And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean :
            And ‘mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
            Ancestral voices prophesying war !


          • Samuel says:

            The shadow of the dome of pleasure
            Floated midway on the waves ;
            Where was heard the mingled measure
            From the fountain and the caves.
            It was a miracle of rare device,
            A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice !
            A damsel with a dulcimer
            In a vision once I saw:
            It was an Abyssinian maid,
            And on her dulcimer she played,
            Singing of Mount Abora.
            Could I revive within me
            Her symphony and song,
            To such a deep delight ‘twould win me,
            That with music loud and long,
            I would build that dome in air,
            That sunny dome ! those caves of ice !
            And all who heard should see them there,
            And all should cry, Beware ! Beware !
            His flashing eyes, his floating hair !
            Weave a circle round him thrice,
            And close your eyes with holy dread,
            For he on honey-dew hath fed,
            And drunk the milk of Paradise.

            WOW – hoped you liked the ending !!

            That opium’s bloody good

            Off to Lynton now – see y’all – wweeeeeeeeaaahhhhhh!


          • William Wordsworth says:

            Leave my sister in law alone you drug addled, howling monster!


      • 179
        RareJunk says:

        It’s Rush dood.

        I see Labours busy filling out the postal votes ahead of the Bi Election in Glasgow. Where I hear, Labour are not averse to getting the local smack dealers onside.


    • 60
      Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker says:

      riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs


    • 62
      e e cummings (mr) says:

      my father moved through dooms of love
      through sames of am through haves of give,
      singing each morning out of each night
      my father moved through depths of height

      this motionless forgetful where
      turned at his glance to shining here;
      that if(so timid air is firm)
      under his eyes would stir and squirm

      newly as from unburied which
      floats the first who,his april touch
      drove sleeping selves to swarm their fates
      woke dreamers to their ghostly roots


    • 70
      Red says:

      Hickory dickory dock
      The mouse ran up the clock
      The clock struck one
      The mouse ran down
      Hickory dickory dock


    • 75
      Bob 'n' Jerry says:

      In the attics of my life, full of cloudy dreams unreal.
      Full of tastes no tongue can know, and lights no eyes can see.
      When there was no ear to hear, you sang to me.

      I have spent my life seeking all that’s still unsung.
      Bent my ear to hear the tune, and closed my eyes to see.
      When there was no strings to play, you played to me.

      In the book of love’s own dream, where all the print is blood.
      Where all the pages are my days, and all the lights grow old.
      When I had no wings to fly, you flew to me, you flew to me.

      In the secret space of dreams, where I dreaming lay amazed.
      When the secrets all are told, and the petals all unfold.
      When there was no dream of mine, you dreamed of me.


      • 89
        Ozzy says:

        When I first met you, you didn’t realize
        I can’t forget you or your surprise
        You introduced me to my mind
        And left me wanting, you and your kind

        My life was empty, forever on a down
        Until you took me, showed me around
        My life is free now, my life is clear
        I love you sweet leaf, though you can’t hear

        Straight people don’t know, what you’re about
        They put you down and shut you out
        You gave to me a new belief
        And soon the world will love you sweet leaf


      • 110
        Ogden Nash says:

        The ostrich roams the great Sahara.
        Its mouth is wide, its neck is narra.
        It has such long and lofty legs,
        I’m glad it sits to lay its eggs.


      • 144
        Right Bastard says:

        Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard
        To get her poor doggy a bone.
        But when she bent over, Rover took over
        And gave her a bone of her own.


    • 287
      for candles says:

      well it reflects the social harm caused. irresponsible parking can cause fatalities. Unlike dope


  25. 37
    Doc Trough says:

    Apologies if anyone has posted this previously:


  26. 38
    mc says:

    3 points Guido.

    1) Were you playing Golf while munching away or just loitering? and does mushroom abuse count towards your handicap?.

    2) When you buy drugs, by and large, you contribute to organised crime. There are not many small-timers knocking this stuff up in their bedrooms. This is recycled into other activities which are less than appealing (prostitution/ people trafficking and worse).

    If you buy Coke/Heroin this situation is exacerbated. (Think of those nice chaps in FARC or the Taleban). If I buy booz/ciggies the worst I do is make the brewers, govt, etc richer. If I buy drugs I enrich crimbo’s/totalitarian islamists/marxist terrorists.

    3) I’m sure this arguement doesnt appeal to the coke sniffers at the BBC who probably boycott Israeli Olives (and Saffer apples in the past) while at the same to contributing to arms budgets of South American terrorists and murderers.


    • 66
      Anonymous says:

      ref your
      2) When you buy drugs, by and large, you contribute to organised crime.

      As evidenced by cases such as Conway, Smith and McNulty, when we pay taxes we contribute to organised crime.


    • 140
      Dan The Fox says:

      By buying booze and ciggies you are contributing to industries which knowingly kill tens of thousands of people every year through addiction and actively recruit the youngest members of the population they can legally get away with. Big Alcohol and Big Tobacco are not nice people, and you are effectively contributing to their war funds. Think about that the next time you sip on a half.

      Whereas… home-grown marijuana and the wild mushroom picking, despite their nonsensical illegality, are entirely moral pursuits, the fruits of which may be enjoyed with a clear conscience and a grounded appreciation for the gifts that nature provides. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.


    • 146
      Al Capone says:

      That’s why you legalise it. Then you don’t have these problems.

      Prohibition in the US caused so much crime that they had to ban it.


    • 156

      1. You play crazy golf after munching mushrooms.
      2. So decriminalise it.
      3. See above.


    • 288
      Mr Ned says:

      Buying heroin contributes to the Taleban??? Are you serious mc?

      You do know that the Taliban almost eradicated the opium poppy from Afghanistan by the Summer of 2001, and that since the USA invaded and took over that the opium crop has seen record production, almost year on year? The industrial scale production of opium and heroin is sky rocketing and the road routes to market are protected by the NATO troops. Coincidence? NOT A CHANCE.

      Our troops are being sacrificed to defend a corrupt, drug dealing, pro-rape dictatorship.

      I do agree with the general thrust of your comment, but the Taliban bit is bollocks.


      • 332
        Susie says:

        The Taliban are right back into the business now though… where do you think they’re getting their money from? It’s not just from Bin Laden’s bank account.

        They are handling all the moving the raw opium west to the refineries which is why they want us out of Helmand as we’d cut the supply routes.


      • 335
        Inspector Cyril Blake says:

        Appreciate what you’re trying to say, and it’s certainly ntrue that the Taleban did pretty much stop opium poppy growing, but they also restarted it, more than once, and didn’t exactly rush to stop it in the first place. They only stopped it when it suited them ,and when they thought they could use it for leverage with the West and Pakistan, and with Iran, because Iran has a growing heroin addiction problem that they naturally keep rather quiet about, but it comes over the border from Afghanistan by the truckload.


      • 341
        Jon Forest says:

        Whatever the Taliban was or was not doing about drugs pre-invasion, they have certainly embraced drug trafficking since.


        • 414
          Inspector Cyril Blake says:

          They certainly have. Partly for financial reasons as it makes them a pot of cash, and also because it contributes to destabilising neighbouring countries. But you can’t take it in isolation, it’s part of a network of criminal activity that’s been going on in Afghanistan since the the time of the Soviet occupation. The warlords did much the same and still do, for money and influence, and the Taleban followed their example. The Pakistani ISI and military funded and supported the Taleban, in order to gain control over the country for “strategic depth” against India, but got the opposite, the Talebanisation of much of northern Pakistan, and there’s more than a whiff of suspicion that the ISI were and still are hand in glove with the so-called “transport” mafia who smuggle illicit goods including heroin from Afghanistan to the rest of the Central Asian region. It’s not too big a jump to say that the ISI made the Taleban what they were during the 90s partly in order to gain control over this lucrative criminal trade for themselves, it being easier to deal with one faction controlling most of the country then several controlling different bits of it.

          I highly recommend Ahmed Raschid’s excellent book “Taleban – the Story of the Afghan Warlords” as an analysis of the connections between the Taleban, Pakistani military intelligence, organised crime, and the drug trade.

          Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that it’s just the Taleban at it; all the current Afghan warlords are at it, some of whom are ostensibly part of the government or allied to it, some are aligned with the Taleban against the coalition forces, some sit on the fence to see who’ll win out. But they’re all to a greater or lesser extent involved in the opium trade in some form or other, even if it’s just taking tolls from drug convoys crossing their territories. And being proper Afghans, they’ll take payment from the West to stop doing this, and carrying on doing it anyway, just as they’ve always done (the Soviets tried the same policy, and so did we back during the days of the Raj, you can bribe an Afghan and he’ll happily take your money, but you can’t even trust him to stay bribed!)


    • 362
      Anonymous says:

      Ahh, the bog standard organised crime argument. What part of this is your tiny little brain having problems with? If it were all legalised, it would no longer be run by organised criminals, it would be run by licensed companies who would make sure it didn’t come with all the crap that organised criminals mix into it.

      Are we getting through to you at all?


  27. 39
    spike says:

    My partner works in a London A&E Dept and has told me for ages that alcohol abuse has been a major concern and since 24 hour licensing laws were introduced its putting trusts under financial pressure and staff in physical danger.There appears to be more security staff on duty than at a club.


  28. 47

    Aren’t we in danger of confusing two different points here?

    On one hand, there’s a specific point about whether drug use should be prohibited by law. I don’t think it should. This isn’t to say that I think it’s harmless – a point that goes for booze as well as weed or smack or whatever – but rather, that individuals should be allowed to make their own choices and indeed mistakes, in this as in so many other areas of life.

    But on the other hand, there’s a general point about the role that scientists should play in determining policy. And that, clearly, should be limited. Of course scientific evidence is one of the considerations that should come into play when policy is being decided – by elected politicians – but it isn’t the only consideration.

    Please remember that this whole dispute blew up, not because the scientists in question were saying that cannabis is harmless, but because they were saying that alcohol and tobacco were even worse. So what’s the answer – legalise cannabis, or ban the whole lot? Should we give government ever-increasing control over our lives, just because ‘science’ insists we need this to increase organ donations, or decrease global warming, or whatever the whim of the day might be?

    Sorry to spoil a good party-political bit of Alan Johnson-bashing, but in this case he’s got a point. The scientists in this story are, more than anything else, failed lobbyists, throwing their toys out of the pram because their own advice was taken less seriously than the advice of other interests groups. Well, that’s how politics works. Better luck next time – but while you’re at it, keep your hands off our individual freedom, whatever the ‘scientific evidence’.


    • 97
      Porky Pies MP says:

      Failed lobbyists????????????? Absolute bollocks! They were asked to research the drug issue and when, after much research, they voiced their findings, Postman Prat got in a huff because he didn’t like the truth – which were the FACTS. Of course, him being such a thicko and a member of the Flat Earth Society thought that when they stated the FACTS they were talking about the FAX!


      • 265

        The government asks for, and receives, lots of advice. Some of that advice will, inevitably, conflict. The health of individual users is one issue involved in drug legalisation / decriminalisation, but by no means the only one. The drug advisers in question were grumpy when their advice wasn’t translated instantly into policy. Too bad.

        Anyway, you seem to be missing the main point: if the advisers’ ‘facts’ had led them to believe that cannabis use, like alcohol and tobacco use, is potentially harmful for some users, and hence that ALL these things should somehow be banned, would you be saying that the goverment were all members of the Flat Earth Society for resisting turning this ‘fact’ into legislation?


        • 273
          tat says:

          you are lobbying on behalf of heroin and cocaine dealers you cretin.


        • 282
          Dan The Fox says:

          Ban everything? Well at least that would be consistent. Nobody, especially the youth, are going to listen a government whose arguments are inconsistent.


    • 262
      I'll have some of that says:

      Quite. The Prof’s lost the plot. The postie’s shit scared of the Mail, stoners are a waste of space, and Global warming’s going to drown my puppy (with the carbon footprint of a Toyota something or over). Now if the pols wd just tell Stern et al to stick their models where the sun don’t shine, if the “experts” would kindly just shut the fuck up, maybe the rest of us could actually start getting on with our lives.

      Don’t forget there is no statistical or other backing for the alcohol units bollocks – the “experts” just thought they’d better come up with a number….


  29. 50

    […] Guido Fawkes Blog leave a comment « Your Bright Baby Blues […]


  30. 53
    Cherokee Depression Announcer says:


  31. 54
    johnny come lately says:

    Well written Guido. But you will never get a responsible adult debate with these people in power. Their idea of a debate is “This is what we believe in”. Discuss!

    I come from a very simple point of view. Prohibition has never worked. Prohibition creates a market filled by criminals. It also makes criminals out of innocent people.

    Drugs should be licensed. The ‘hard’ drugs should be available on prescription and the ‘soft’ drugs at licensed drug ‘cafes’ or whatever you wish to name them.

    The immediate effect would be a de-criminalising of these drugs. There would be no need to indulge in criminal behaviour and =therefore= crime would fall very significantly.

    The government would benefit from the taxation on these now legal drugs.

    Of course the argument put by otheres is to de-criminalise drugs would mean more people would experiment with them! On what they base their evidence I know not. But is is nonsensical.

    Time for change. But we cannot expect Cameron to do anything so dramatic. The heir to Blair is an empty vessel.


    • 133
      Susie says:

      Indeed. My father says that in his day (1940s) drug use in Thailand was almost unknown (opium grows there) apart from the elderly who used it for pain relief, there were no nice clean hospital beds out in the jungle villages. Heroin and opium had readily been available to the Thais for millenia but hardly any drug abuse.

      Criminalizing drugs compounded with young people’s natural desire to rebel and create their own culture separate from the previous generation’s plays right into criminal drug dealers hands. Take away the illicit glamour and you take away most of the reasons young people are drawn to them.


    • 169
      Columbian Cartel says:

      And who do you suggest your government buy these prescription drugs from sir!

      As we iz ze only wons what has drugs in those kinda quantities init!


      • 324
        WobblyJim says:

        most plants that produce usable medicines can be grown in europe, so if they are de-criminalised then pharmaceutical companies can purchase the raw material for processing into medicines from someone other than Afghani war lords or Columbian drug-lords.

        The actual deal in Afghanistan is that poppy farming is allowed to stimulate local economies, reward compliant war-lords as a bribe to not attack the new oil pipelines being laid across their country. A type of self-funding protection racket.
        Even so, the poppies can be purchased by Pharmaceutical companies for genuine medicines if the politics were to change.

        It could have significant positive effects on agriculture in Europe.
        Hemp farming alone would really boost the economies of any country that allows it’s production.

        Poppies can be used for making various opiates that are used every day in every hospital in the world. Cocaine does have legal uses and cannabis has countless applications in health and medicine.
        Ecstasy has been shown to benefit those who have issues with certain muscle control afflictions.

        Even if there is no medicinal use, what exactly is wrong with an adult human taking an intoxicating substance purely for pleasure ?
        This is especially true where someone who is suffering the hell of cancer and it’s “cures” like chemo or radio therapies need something to help then get through the effects of these.

        Banning a substance because it gives pleasure is so victorian that it almost defies belief.
        That just about sums up labour – stuck on victoriana.


        • 339
          Susie says:

          The Victorians didn’t ban it though! Don’t blame them,

          Queen Vic herself used tincture of cannabis and nearly everyone had a bottle of Laudanum (tincture of opium) around the house for pain relief or just for the high.


          • Inspector Cyril Blake says:

            that’s a true observation. Those who have the Holmes stories will recall that Doyle depicted Sherlock Holmes as regularly taking cocaine and his behaviour was accurately depicted through the musings of Watson, who was supposed to be an M.D after all. It’s described as odd and not altogether socially acceptable, but Holmes does it to get his results. It could be bought over the counter in any pharmacy along with a wide range of other now-illegal drugs – and you could get poisons too, although you’d have to sign a register.

            Now imagine if a modern fictional detective was depicted as being a cocaine addict; it would not be seen as a virtue or advantage, would it? We’d have long reams of the description of his life problems and rehab experience! (onoers I think I just gave the BBC a plot for a new series!)


  32. 55
    DisgustedOfMitcham2 says:

    Alan Johnson has behaved disgracefully here. What he doesn’t like is that, thanks to Prof Nutt’s honesty in speaking out, the government got caught ignoring scientific advice.

    Well, the government have every right to ignore the scientific advice if they want to. But if they do, is it really so much to ask that they explain why they chose to ignore the advice? For example, they could say “Yes, we know cannabis isn’t dangerous, but we were more worried about how the headlines in the Daily Mail would look”, or whatever the real reason was (my guess is something pretty close to that). That’s all part of democratic accountability: they can make whatever decisions they like, but in return they have to justify them to the electorate, who can then decide whether they want to vote for them again.

    What is really not appropriate is that they just throw their toys out of the pram and try to blame Prof Nutt for having the temerity to speak out based on what the scientific evidence shows.


    • 67
      South of the M4 says:

      Absolutely correct. The subject matter in this story for me is secondary. The primary is that this governments attitude to democracy and free-speech has been in the spotlight.


      • 118
        Pro Bo says:

        I agree

        Let’s all hear what the scientists say – then we can all judge !!

        The scientist / politician interface should be strictly defined

        I’ve attended meetings where both act as a duo and it’s difficult to tell which is which!

        I’ve even seen situations where the scientist is instructed to come up with specific results and told by a politician that this result / recommendation will not be acceptable!

        And this NuLiebor has been bloody useless / unprofessional managing its scientists – we now have many many NuLiebor ‘scientists’ in place which the Tories will need to kick out!


        • 223
          DelBoy says:

          That is two recent occasions when advice has been ignored (and the experts rubbished).
          Ed Balls and now Duncan.
          Do the NooLabs think they know better, or might it just be political manouvreing (never their stong point)


  33. 57
    Doc_Hollerday says:

    Nuts out
    Nutt in


  34. 59
    Anon says:

    I don’t agree with you on much (and no I don’t vote Labour…), but on this you are absolutley spot on.

    The whole fiasco of drugs policy is indeed driven by what editorial a given Home Secretary is likely to get in the Daily Mail or the Sun, or (if they count as ‘editorials) the News of the World when they decided to set policy. Politicians, if they are to last any length of time, know that preaching pure dogma that passes for the law of the land is a just a waste of time. It gets you nowhere. You end up spending billions on enforcing legislation that unenforceable and has little long effect on the phenonemon you are seeking to eradicate. And not spending enough on what is. The figures don’t lie. The media in this case do. We know and other countries know that public policy in this area doesn’t work.

    So please, politicians of all parties. Listen to scientists. Listen to the crimoniglists. Listen to the Chief Constables. And stop making decesions purely on the basis of wanting a good write up from papers that normally slate everything you do.


  35. 63
    Anonymous says:

    Greg Hands and Ed Balls could head up a cross-party committee on Nutt Sacking.


  36. 65

    No, no no…as someone once said.

    Guido, I realise that you have your libertarian roots in M25 raving (as does your contemporary Captain Gatso funnily enough) but you’ve got this wrong.

    This is my logic..

    “Prof David Knutt’s sacking by the Home Secretary should come as no surprise. Indeed, it should be welcomed.

    His claim ‘that smoking cannabis created only a “relatively small risk” of psychotic illness and it was actually less harmful than nicotine or alcohol’ is profoundly unscientific.

    Last time I looked, Canabis was not on the periodic table. it is not a fixed element.

    Consumers of commercially available tobbaco and alcohol know what they are consuming and in what strength.

    Canabis and Ecstacy, however, are supplied on the black market. Consumers have no certainty about the strength of canabis or the composition of an Ecstacy tablet.

    For those clear reasons, Prof Nutt’s advice cannot be described as ‘scientific’.”

    Libertarianism should not let the weak and vulnerable hang. Nice, well-educated people from happy families might well be able to use drugs ‘recreationally’ at weekends and be back at their city desk on a Mionday morning.

    But we should never suggest this stuff is less risky than the drugs already on the market, because the weak and sickly will use them as props, not as a way of relaxing from a hard day in markets.

    16 years as motoring hack means I know when and how to drive very quickly, and I’ll be doing in a brand new car. But the speed limit is set at 70 because there are a lot of tired and distracted people out their in old Mondeos.

    You can do without mashing yourself up? Great. But not everybody can so, like your raves, keep it to yourself.




    • 183
      WobblyJim says:

      “Canabis and Ecstacy, however, are supplied on the black market. Consumers have no certainty about the strength of canabis or the composition of an Ecstacy tablet. ”

      The bars of soap that are sold as “cannabis resin” are indeed an unknown quantity and consistency. They are manufactured and sold by organised criminals.
      Nobody but the producers know exactly what is it these things.
      This alone supports the rationale for legalisation.

      Dried cannabis flowers (weed/skunk etc) are much easier to assess. This is the cannabis that is sought out by those of us who use cannabis for medical and recreational purposes.

      Better still, If cannabis users were allowed to grow their own then they could determine exactly the outcome that they desired.

      It’s a cousin of the HOP plant and it’s as easy to grow as tomatoes are.
      The cannabis female flower is then simply dried and eaten or smoked.

      A 100% natural herb that has zero harmful effects on mammals.


    • 219
      Erich Honecker says:

      What makes you think you have the moral right to decide that other’s choices about their own lives and health are wrong and therefore must be reversed by force? What makes you so special? It’s none of your damn business and you know it. This country is FUBAR thanks to this nanny state bullshit.


      • 314
        Imperator says:

        Another post by someone who has no “personal knowledge” about the subject that he/she is discussing.

        Canabis and Ecstacy, however, are supplied on the black market. Consumers have no certainty about the strength of canabis or the composition of an Ecstacy tablet.

        :: Bullshit – you know absolutely nothing about cannabis production/consumption, people (like myself) know exactly how strong a given strain will be generally by smell, but also because we may have a regular source (black market dealer to an idiot like you) who knows the grower. Most people don’t buy it in a shady alleyway. Apart from anything else compare it to alcohol, you know roughly how strong spirits are compared to beer, you also know what quantities of each you have to drink to reach a given level of intoxication, the same goes for ANY intoxicant, drugs, coffee, tea.

        Libertarianism should not let the weak and vulnerable hang. Nice, well-educated people from happy families might well be able to use drugs ‘recreationally’ at weekends and be back at their city desk on a Mionday morning. You can do without mashing yourself up? Great. But not everybody can so, like your raves, keep it to yourself.

        :: This is why we need less elderly, out of touch people in politics, they are 40+ years behind the reality of the situation “like your raves”, there’s a linkage between raves and cannabis? You suggest that only middle-class people can handle the mind-warping effects of cannabis? Based on what evidence, do you KNOW anyone who’s used it, have you tried it? Do you speak based on any form of available first hand experience or are you, as I suspect, another boil in the bag middle england asshole pundit whose views come straight from alarmist sources, complete with irrelevant linkages to other “scary” buzzwords like “raves”.

        It’s this daily-mail middle-england, out-of-touch, scaremongering asshole-pundit viewpoint that I find so utterly exhausting, I can only look forward to the point that thanks to the passage of time there will less of you around to make your bigoted and ignorant assessments of situations that have no effect on you or anyone you know.


        • 370
          Susie says:

          Here’s a helpful guide for cannabis from strongest to weakest:

          1) Nepalese gold seal
          2) Paki black/Afghani black/temple balls
          3) Red Leb
          4) A slightly different high, but any grass plants grown under extremely hot sunny conditions is stronger than those without those conditions.

          Another clue is generally how much it costs per ounce.


          • Lord Carrington's binoculars says:


            When you are buy drugs off the corner of the street?

            Nope, legalisation, commercial production and the attentions of the Food Standards Agency is the only way cannabis could be allowed.

            Somehow, I think you revolutionaries would then suddenly find all so much less alluring….


          • Imperator says:

            Urgh, i just wish people who haven’t any real knowledge would shut up about it.

            People who enjoy the subtleties and differences between strains just wish people would stop making it in to an issue. It has nothing to do (with the exception of adolescants) with being illegal, it’s just something that much like alcohol has a place in many people’s lives.



        • 421
          Jon Forest says:

          Yes and only pedophiles should be listened to when discussing the age of consent.
          Sorry, I probably agree with you on the potential advantages of legalisation but your argument that only druggies are allowed to have an opinion on drug use is addled – have you been at the wacky baccy again?


    • 373
      Anonymous says:

      “16 years as motoring hack means I know when and how to drive very quickly, and I’ll be doing in a brand new car.”

      So because you write about cars that automatically makes you a skilled driver does it? What a load of complete bollocks, just like your drug arguments.

      Those who can do, those who can’t teach, those who are completely hopeless at it become critics.


      • 381
        tompetty says:

        what does that make you then?


        • 403
          Lord Carrington's binoculars says:

          Why are the proponents of drug taking so damn angry and insistent?

          We laugh at you and your petty little bedsit revolution.

          Make you feel all edgy and out there does it?

          Fuckwits. You get on with it, and stop trying to force the rest of the country to give you a round of applause.

          This is worse than a fucking gay pride march.


      • 433
        Lord Carrington's binoculars says:

        ‘So because you write about cars that automatically makes you a skilled driver does it?’


        But driving every car under the sun on roads all over the planet makes me, for good or ill, an expert. And experts should know their own limits….unlike you stoners.


  37. 68
  38. 74
    Anonymous says:

    How much Bill Hicks have you been listening to/watching Guido?


  39. 77
    gone fuckin mental says:

    I like that nutt bloke , nutt for pm


  40. 79
    Fanny says:

    People who smoke skunk a lot can fire a smelly liquid out of their arse (have you notice how you never see anyone standing behind Jackie Smith — It makes you wonder).

    Also, contrary to expert advice, common sense and an affront to God, Gordon Bum-Loon has decided to have Sats test papers inserted in condoms and shoved up pregnant women’s arses. He says, “There will be no excuses for under-performance. As soon as foetuses get the trilobite stage, I want them matriculating. Progress relies on the need to retain clear accountability through testing.”


  41. 84
    Excaliber says:

    The reason the government does not want people to smoke pot is simple. If you smoke pot you soon realize that the government is a load of KA KA and whether you respond to this revelation with hysterical laughter or renewed “awareness” you will never think the same again as you will have passed through the doors of perception and politicians have thus lost the hypnotic hold on you. A lot of us have been stoned from time to time. A lot of us moved on. That the government will nail you for toking some Acupulco Gold or Michuacan but let you kill yourself on coke or E mixed with Ajax. ( Cheech and Chong en passim) shows exactly where it is coming from.

    at least drugs never affected BOJO

    Tory MP Boris Johnson has admitted to smoking cannabis and snorting cocaine, but few of his Oxfordshire colleagues shared his candour when approached last night.

    The Henley MP tore up Tory leader David Cameron’s carefully crafted rulebook on dealing with youthful narcotics indiscretions as he told how he tried the class A drug but said it had no effect on him, and that he had often smoked cannabis.

    Witney MP Mr Cameron and Andrew Smith, Oxford East Labour MP, both refused to follow Mr Johnson’s lead last night


  42. 87
    Exiled in Wales says:

    Good essay Guido – you nailed it.


  43. 88
    jgm2 says:

    This is completely par for the course from this government.

    The entire justification for their disasterous economic policy is predicated on stuffing the ‘independent’ BoE with such pliant economics as David Blanchflower for whom any interest rate is too high and appointed treasury placemen and completely ignoring years of warnings from the IMF.

    Then they bleat on about how ‘nobody saw it coming’. What? Apart from the IMF’s economists? And Jeff Randall? And anybody with an IQ bigger than a fish?


  44. 91
    WobblyJim says:

    Alan Johnson appears to be saying that when the government wants to lie to the public by fabricating facts and ignoring reality, nobody should be allowed to point out their deceptions.

    He is nothing but another member of Labour’s CRONYOCRACY, a nobody who is given a position of wealth and opulence that he can keep as long as he does what he is told by our glorious unelected Bleeder.
    Labour have shown the public on so many occasions to be ONLY interested in preserving their own privileges and their own comforts, they must

    For more than 12 years now, Labour have constantly ignored sound advice and reality and made up whatever lies they feel are needed to pass very bad laws. This is their normal way of doing business.

    Just about EVERY descison made by them during their 12 years of sodt fascism has turned out to be very badly wrong for almost every member of the public.

    Their position on cannabis is based on bigotry and predjudice alone, nothing else.

    There is a massive body of actual hands-on experience regarding cannabis use, available to anyone who will listen, it’s called the public. The public know that cannabis is harmless.
    There will always be a small number of people for whom certain substances are harmful – nobody sees a need to ban peanuts, even though more people are affected by a peanut allergy than have EVER been harmed by cannabis in it’s thousands year history.

    It is a fact that the most damaging aspect of cannabis is it’s legal status, it will NOT cause harm.

    Hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding people in the UK alone have had harm caused to them by the Police and Government policies regarding weed.

    Millions of pounds of UK taxpayer cash is spent on a utterly failed war on drugs.
    Millions of pounds of weed smoker’s cash is given to so-called drug dealers every week.

    If the Labour control freaks want to properly address this issue, they should create a framework around cannabis that is similar to that around alcohol.

    They should then make cannabis available through licensed outlets, perhaps pharmacies, for those that wish to purchase or allow weed dilletantes to grow their own.

    They should start by making cannabis totally legal for medicinal use. Last week, Obama announced that he has instructed the USA DEA (Drugs Enforcement Agency) to stop arresting people who comply with STATE medical cannabis laws, this is a massive shift away from the normal policy of Federal law trumping state law in this regard.

    If I want to grow a couple of plants that are cousins of the HOP and I want to smoke or eat it, where exactly is the victim here ? There is no victim therefore how can I be committing a crime ? WTF does it have to do with a bunch of bigoted overpaid control freaks how I choose to spend my time ?

    Cannabis has thousands of years of history in every culture across the planet – and it is ALL POSITIVE.

    Sales of cannabis WILL GENERATE GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUE, instead of creating an endless hemorrhage of cash to fund a bogus war on drugs.

    Divert the earnings of organised crime away from the criminals and into the UK Treasury – it is really as simple as that. Legally available cannabis will deprive organised crime of a very large part of their income and generate cash for the Treasury, at very little cost. It will also remove the need for cannabis users to seek out “drug dealers” to buy their pleasures.

    It is a well known fact that when cannabis is in short supply, the dealers will try to maintain their profits by selling people anything else that they have instead of weed, This leads directly to their customers being offered and trying out their other products which are much more harmful. Legalise weed and remove this causal link.

    This is a win-win-win proposition,
    The public will win by the removal of the risk of criminal sanctions against them.
    The Government will win by the increase in tax revenues going into the treasury.
    The public will win by not having to pay more and more tax revenue into a bogus war on drugs
    The public will win by not having to pay 30 grand a year for feeding every person in prison for using cannabis.
    Organised crime will LOSE the millions of pounds in sales of a harmless herb.

    Their constant nannying of grown ups is sickening. They DO NOT know better than 60-odd million of the UK population with regard to anything at all, they have simply built a bogus paradigm based on deception and bigotry that requires millions of pounds each year to maintain.


    • 119
      chronic says:

      Your common sense approach is at odds with government policy, only a postman who failed to gain a single O level has the moral authority to proscribe how to win the war on drugs.


    • 235
      Slim Jim says:

      Well said, Wobbly. You have put it more eloquently than I did in post #13. However, although I like your description of the ruling junta as a Cronyocracy, I prefer the term ‘Huntocracy’.


      • 330
        WobblyJim says:

        whatever we call them, they do not deserve to be called Politicians or Representatives or Public Servants, they are NONE of these things.

        There is no fairness with Labour
        There is no honesty with Labour
        There is no liberty with Labour
        There are no adults in the UK according to Labour
        Labour and their cronies only know what is best for Labour

        These fuckwits ALL need to be investigated and properly punished for destroying the lives and wealth on an ENTIRE NATION for nothing more than their own comfort and privilege


  45. 93

    I’m not so sure that the putative link between smoking weed and the development of some cases of schizophrenia has been disproved. Rather that it hasn’t been proven – and no mechanism has been established.

    However, on the scale of harm done I’m quite prepared to believe that booze and fags are far more damaging. I don’t know anyone who has been sent schizo by puff – I do know alcoholics who started as social drinkers.

    But this isn’t the issue. The facts on the ground really aren’t the issue – however significant they might seem. What matters is if a scientist – whether employed by the state or not – can speak freely on issues within his area of expertise, and can illustrate his points with reasonable enough real-world comparisons. They should be able to, absolutely. It’s an affront to democracy and science to think otherwise.

    But at the same time, the govt should be free to pick and choose advisors to suit its purposes – that’s fine. But if they’re forced to pick non-entities, unpublished placemen, then we can draw our own inferences – the media should too.

    BTW, I was up at a stone circle this halloween. Fly agaric was in evidence. I did not inhale.

    It’s literally insane to make a fungi growing at the side of a path a class A drug. The Peak Districk National Park must be prosecuted for posession…


  46. 95
    Mother Brown says:

    I live in the East End and I can say that nasty people also do drugs.

    I don’t think some of the old girls who’ve been mugged or had their houses turned over by arseholes looking to finance their next fix would agree that grass should be decriminalised.


    • 107
      Porky Pies MP says:

      If it were decriminalised they would be able to obtain it without mugging or burglary! Grass a relatively mild drug and much safer than alcohol – the cause of more violence and deaths than all the other drugs put together. Leave the police to concentrate on the real bad stuff like heroin etc.


    • 115
      hysterical postie says:

      i would doubt that cannabis is the cause…………

      crack cocaine? heroin?


      • 152
        Thats News says:

        An elderly lady had her house robbed by a neighbour who wanted money to buy some cannabis.

        His justification when he was arrested: “But its not like I do heroin!” Idiot.


        • 196
          WobblyJim says:

          step outside the box just for a moment and peer around it.

          If cannabis was legal, the said bloke would be out “scrumping” somebodys weed patch to get his cannabis, not having to find large amounts of cash to pay the criminal classes for overpriced crap.

          I doubt very much if your anecdote is actually real. The type of person who will thieve and rob will do it for all of their needs not uniquely for their drugs bill.


          • Thats News says:

            WobblyJim, she was my neighbour. However, WJ, I have doubts as to the reality of your existance.


          • Thats News says:

            She was my neighbour, WJ. Which is how I know about the case.

            I have some doubts about your existance, however.


          • Anonymous says:


            You have of course completely ignored the fact that the kind of scum who rob other people’s houses now use the drug excuse as a means of reducing their sentence.

            I don’t doubt that your neighbour was robbed, but whether or not the robber actually did it to get drugs is another matter entirely. The moment a piece of pondlife claims they’re addicted to drugs whilst standing in the dock, the magistrate or judge is legally obliged to give them an easier ride than if they had said they’d robbed the house because they wanted to do something else with the proceeds of said robbery.

            There are, as has already been pointed out ad infinitem, millions of recreational drug users hold down responsible jobs and lives and would be horrified at the thought of mugging or robbing someone in order to buy drugs, or for any other reason.

            It’s not about the drugs, it’s about a section of the people who use them, and these kind of scum always think it’s okay to steal from others rather than take responsibility for their own lives. They will mug, burgle, rape and murder regardless of what drugs they take. They do it because they are scum, not because of their pharmaceutical intake.


  47. 96
    A product of a modern education system says:

    ignorance is strength

    Johnson is a very dangerous man and May 16th 2010 is still a long way away!


    • 121
      jgm2 says:

      Still, The Daily Mail approves which will probably translate into another round of rumours that Alan Johnson would have broader electoral appeal than the Maximum Imbecile.

      The only flaw in that argument is that I crimped one off this morning that has broader electoral appeal than the Maximum Imbecile.

      Labour MPs? I shit ‘em.


  48. 98
    SpiralTrance says:

    The swine flu vaccine poses more health risks than cannabis/lsd/mdma and i’m not kidding. Is Gordon and Johnson going to ban that or did the pharmaceutical companies promise you a cushy consultancy job when you get kicked out next year?

    Another point to raise is that the reason schizophrenia starts to manifest itself in the teens and early 20s, the same age most people start smoking cannabis. The link between the two is still very cirumstantial.

    I will say though I no longer smoke weed as it does get me paranoid now. A line of coke though is another matter ;)


    • 135
      SpiralTrance says:

      Something that should be pointed out is that the reason schizophrenia and cannabis can percieved as being related is because schizophrenia starts to manifest itself in the teens and early 20s, the same age most people start smoking cannabis. The link between the two is still very cirumstantial.


    • 150
      Sir William Waad says:

      I suppose if you are developing schizophrenia, you will be anxious and unhappy and therefore more likely to turn to cannabis for comfort. Correlation is not causation (nor does a negative correlation prove lack of causation).


      • 197
        WobblyJim says:

        Because of the legal status of cannabis, most regular users will always have a quantity available for their daily use.

        Getting hold of it and keeping it available is guaranteed to induce varying levels of anxiety, worry and sometime temporary paranoia – especially if a policeman knocks on your door while you are enjoying a private toke.

        Remove the illegality and watch the drug-crime rates and anxiety levels plummet to insignificance.


  49. 100
    Sid in Scotland says:

    If only Prof Nutt had read the small print in his contract:
    you can only say or do what we the “party” tell you to do , you will not have any personal thoughts without them being passed by the great one or whoever happens to be the home secretary on that day!
    failure to conform will result in instant dismissal unless of course you have any outstanding expenses claims!



  50. 101
    Cross Party Tokers says:

    I first starting using “expenses” shortly after entering parliament. I quickly became hooked on the immediate rush that a monthly fix of redacted claim forms gave me,as the money flushed through my bank account. I moved on to heavier stuff. This was employing family members on over inflated salaries which increased the flow of cash straight to the sweet spot that only readies can hit. Eventually i was forced to prostitute myself to rich quangos in order to keep my ever growing habit of accumulating wealth sated. Flipping properties gave a short euphoric cash injection and selling second homes for big profits was a major high,but i need the regular fix that only a parliamentry pension can provide in order to stop me nicking your plasma when i retire from the westminster den of addicts.


  51. 103
    oliver reed says:

    what a government of talents we have… a history scholar that knows nothing about history,a commie with a maserati and a £20,000 watch………and a postie……

    how can we expect a grown up discussion?
    Brown lies every time he opens his mouth!

    just what are they so afraid of re drugs?
    there are a tiny amount of deaths each year……..
    more people die from playing cricket or rugby than taking ecstasy……
    with millions of E’s being taken EACH week the deaths are statistically minute.

    if you are aged 18 then why cant an adult take any substance?
    why should some chippy twat like johnson decide?

    i just read a comment in the mail…….hilarious……..

    ecstasy makes people violent.marijuana makes people violent………
    er WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    EVERY time there is a fight in my local pubs it is caused by drinking alcohol!!!

    rather oddly the government and lords and large corporations make lots of money from it?

    follow the money!


  52. 104
    Blair Witch Project says:

    Totally support your argument but it falls down when you discover that most of the repellant gits at the BBC are coke heads at the aptly named White City.

    I loathe the BBC Left Wing Liberation Front and this is one case where being out and about seriously affects your judgement.


    • 334
      WobblyJim says:

      perhaps the employees of the BBC who are indulging in coke (as rumored) think that the law doesn’t apply to them either ?
      You can see it – Cokehead pretend BBC journalists around a table conjuring up scary anti-drug bullshite to please their Labour masters.


  53. 111
    The Church of Scientology says:

    Using bogus science to advance your make-belief agenda?

    Who do these socialists think they are?


    • 338
      WobblyJim says:

      “Using bogus science to advance your make-belief agenda?”

      Actually that is a pretty typical Scientology syllogism isn’t it ?

      Nutt’s science is not bogus, unlike the pretend science of thetians and scientology generally.

      Labour were expecting bogus science to support their bogus agenda, they got truth instead and put simply, Labour do not know how to deal with truth, they operate on very different principles – always.


  54. 114
    Lizzie says:

    People are human, and they will do most things, including drugs, right down the centuries people have used drugs in one form or other. Even legal medication is dangerous, it depends how people use the stuff. Addiction to anything can make your life a misery, but because we are human we do these things to excess sometimes, drink, smoke, sex, computers, sport, driving fast cars, etc, etc, but I don’t think there is a utopia out there where everything is perfect. There’s only so much that can be done, people will do what they want, you can’t control everything, and that is where this Labour government have gone wrong, they are complete control freaks.


  55. 120
    Doctor John says:

    Why be so quick to prsume it is a “medical” problem rather than a “legal” problem. As a libertarian I think you should be free to do whatever you want, but don’t come crying to me when it goes horribly wrong. Why should the taxpayer pay for treatment? Drug addiction is NOT a disease, it is a choice. You choose to do it. As I have said, I would legalise it all, but please don’t use that cretinous argument of “we can’t win the war on drugs [therefore don’t fight it]”. I doubt you’ll win the war on paedophilia, but that isn’t an argument for making it legal.


    • 278
      Sicka Z Aparrot says:

      An analogy too far, DJ. Criminalising drugs creates narco-economies and crime on a huge scale; criminalising paedophiles produces relatively little collateral damage. At the end of the day it’s a game of two halves, innit.


    • 337
      Nick says:

      There is a difference between paedophilia and cannabis use – the former abuses minors whereas the latter is a victimless crime.


  56. 122
    SpiralTrance says:

    Maybe this is the reason they don’t Acid legalised, it could potentialy open peoples minds and all politians know once the peoples minds have been opened it’s very difficult to close them again. And they’ll no longer be able to trick the naive to go out and die in Afghanistan fighting wars the politicians haven’t got the balls to do themselves.


    • 134
      jgm2 says:

      The one thing that should convince most folk not to join the British Army would be a brief trip to the First World War war graves in Belgium.

      Once you see the sheer scale of mass slaughter condoned by a government with a PM elected to represent … East Fife then most folk would conclude that the last people to be trusting with their safety would be their own government. No wonder Blair’s kids have Irish passports.


      • 245
        Anonymous says:

        Sounds like a requirement for all potential MP’s, and those charged with the task of deciding on waging war. Bliar! Where are you.


  57. 123
    Lola says:

    I am coming increasingly to believe that I must be the only baby boomer who has genuinely never used recreational drugs. Excepting alcohol of course. And for reasons of my own this is how it will remain. Legalising all drugs used for recreational purposes does not mean approval of their use. It would, though, cut the feet from under the premium prices charged by current suppliers as compensation for risk. Clearly very addictive drugs, heroin for example, that do destroy lives need careful handling if legalised but making it available would cut crime. Approved supply coupled with counselling may just have a positive effect that no past or current policy has ever been able to achieve. It might also wean the Afghan farmers off drugs as a cash crop and cut the revenues to terrorism in general.


    • 145
      barefootcontessa says:

      I’ve never taken drugs, never smoked, and hardly ever drink alcohol. Life is too much fun to even think about it! Am I ill?


    • 188
      JMT says:

      I fail to see how legalising drugs cuts crime. All it does is legitimise dealers’ earnings and occupations. Users are still punters to be ruthlessly exploited.

      It will not put prices down, it will put them up. Every organised gang throughout the world will head here to get a nice clean, legal, available product to smuggle into their respective countries.

      If some scrote has to rob/murder/steal or pimp his sister because he has no money for a fix, he will still need to rob/murder/steal or pimp his sister to get money for his next fix – no matter how legal his chemicals are.

      FFS – look at how any addict (alcho, gambling, shopping, etc) fund their lifestyles and what happens to them.


      • 313
        for candles says:

        heroin and crack users get addicted and do the crime. Millions of your fellow citizens take cannabis and ecstasy on a regular basis and are not addicted and do not rob and steal.
        Why this constant banging on about addicts?


  58. 124
    John Adlington says:

    Scientists have no compunction in mixing politics with science. They have no problem with adding “…and its relationship to climate change” to the title of their grant application to get their hands on more cash. So I have no sympathy for the bastards. Science is as sullied as politics.


    • 147
      Sir William Waad says:

      Yes, a lot of scientists have been bought and sold. Meteorology and epidemiology are two areas where they’ve found that scaremongering pays big. All the more reason to support Professor Nutt who still values scientific truthfulness over a comfortable establishment position.


      • 327
        Anonymous says:

        What truth? Just because he has scientific data, it does not mean a thing. This is not science, this is a society.

        Some of us like to drive at speed. But the government set a 70mph limit. Other countries don’t.
        Some of us like driving over moorlands in 4×4 but laws limit us. Not so in other countries.
        Some like walking over mountains. But we are limited to certain footpaths. Other countries have free access to ALL mountains.
        Some like guns. Other countries allow them.
        Some people like flying low in high powered sports planes. Not here.
        Some like building bombs and making big bangs. Absolutely encouraged elsewhere.
        Some like illegal sexual practices that are legal in other countries.
        Some like launching high power rockets but can not. Perfectly legal clubs abroad.
        Some even like hunting vermin but do not do it here.
        etc, etc.

        Just think of all those things that are only possible under special license.

        All societies have limits. All limits are stupid to some, and sensible to others.

        The key is; can a society cope without the limit.

        In a society there will ALWAYS be criminal dealers and there will ALWAYS be criminal doers. Their criminal actions are determined by the level of illegality set by the society. They will not disappear if their trade dries up. But at what point can a society continue to function if the vast majority of the population is being tormented by the few. I do not want to share a road with anyone that has an altered sense of reality. It is extremely difficult to test for altered reality except for simple alcohol consumption.

        So in the end it is down to the voters. Should the majority suffer because a minority want a freedom that is denied to them.

        So ask yourself why is the change happening before an election?

        Simple because the population sees with their own eyes the outcome of drug use. The families see the waste.

        It is the population that votes. Noticed any opposition promises?

        Look at the industries/sectors with high usage: Banking, Politics, Entertainment, Media. The central causes of our society ills.

        I rest my case.


        • 380
          Anonymous says:

          Yet another moronic DM reader who whilst they try to put their point accross eloquently, they are talking complete bollocks.

          How do the majority suffer if drugs were legalised? Aren’t the victims of crime already suffering.

          Just like a politician, you like speaking a lot but say nothing of any actual value.


        • 383
          Anonymous says:

          “I do not want to share a road with anyone that has an altered sense of reality.”

          Sounds to me like you don’t want to share anything with anyone even vaguely different from you – Herr Hitler would have loved you.

          More pathetic scaremongering. Clearly driving under the influence of anything legal or illegal is wrong. Legalising drugs will not increase the number of people who do this.


  59. 125
    Anonymous says:

    Any substance can be harmful, especially if taken in excessive quantities, booze, food, tobacco, even water and oxygen if used in excessive amounts, so things act as triggers for alergic reactions so obviously if reactions occur do not use that particular substance, know your limits and do not go over the limit for the individual concerned everyone is different and react differently to different things.


  60. 127
    Long John Silver says:

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . me hearties!!

    Did I tell’ee ’bout the time when I only had weed ter smoke and Gorgon fer company?

    Them toimes waz ‘ard I tell ‘ee


    • 353
      Unidexterous Dutchie Boy says:

      How did you roll yer spliffs with a hook on one arm, LJ? Did Captain Flint do all the work, or perhaps you got others in the Admiral Benbow to help out?

      Tell me, did Gorgon also wear an eye patch in them thar ‘ard but heady days?


  61. 129
    Anonymous says:

    Folks – yo all missing de point….

    NuLabour lowered cannabis – to gain hip young voters….

    And GB disagreed and on taking over changed this policy – but has no good reason to… his “Cannabis” is lethal – shows that facts are not relevant.

    GB now dithering on drugs policy, etc etc etc etc

    is there nothing he can get right ?

    PS: if we support guido are we guy fockers?


    • 340
      WobblyJim says:

      A typical “bait and switch” maneuver, promise the voters what they want to hear and then when your lies get you elected you pull the real agenda out of the bag.


  62. 130
    A Silent Emission of Bowel Gas says:

    What the fuck business is it of the government what I, as an almost sane adult, cram, slide, inject or swallow into my body if it harms no one else?

    Give me the information and leave me to get on with it.


  63. 132
    Gorgon Moron, the Swedish Chef of Politics, again pontificating to the Prez. of Arf-gorn-init-Stan? says:

    Herrdee-gerrdee herrdee-gerrdee Herrdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee

    . . . Must not bring friends and cronies into government . . . .

    Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee Herdee-gerdee herdee-gerdee

    – – – – – B A N G ! – – – –


  64. 136
    Senor Frizby says:

    Skunk does mess with your head. But it’s great fun.


  65. 137
    barefootcontessa says:

    When is David Cameron going to put his head above the parapet and come out against Alan Johnston and his sacking of Prof. Nutt?!


  66. 138

    Dammit Guido, why does your modding script keep picking up my posts? Hurrumph.

    Into the general “drugs are great” mood, I’d chuck something. I don’t do anything stronger than Johnny Walker Black label these days, but I used to. Loads.

    I found coke made me a twat, but at the time I didn’t mind being a twat.

    Weed just turned me into a wastrel. Life is easy and slow and why bother working ro doing much apart froma rsing around?

    However, it was the “harmless” LSD that had most impact. I loved it. Acid was *my drug*. First trip was one of the most significant things I have ever done. I am glad I did that, proud I did that, ti was necessary that I did that. BUT….

    The few thousand trips I did *after* that, looking for the same insights, the same excitement, the same entertainment, just fucked me up. Intellectually, I knocked myself down from genuis level to something more in keeping with you plebs. The kind of maths I tackled before – eg tensor calculus – is way beyond me now. I burned out half my memory. I have very little memory of my childhood, and I’m convinced this is a direct result of the (literally) thousands of dots and blotters I necked. Perhaps not directly. Perhaps the week long sleepless binges did the damage, perhaps the associated pollutants in the mix. But something did it.

    I would say, and this is a rule of thumb I have drawn from life, as much as drugs, is there is always a price to be paid. You get nothing for nothing.

    I dont’ think there is such a thing as a harmless drug. You will always pay a price.

    It may be a tiny price, it may be a price you’re happy to pay, but it is there. Don’t overlook it. Don’t kid yourselves. And remember what you do today, will still be with you twenty and thirty years on.


    • 153
      SpiralTrance says:

      I did loads of acid from 91-94 when the rave scene was ni full swing. Yes there is a price to pay for it. I was still at school when I started taking and academicaly succesful. After my first trip school and education went out the window.

      Like you say everything comes at a price, but there are insites I gained on LSD about the nature of reality and why we are here they will *NEVER* ever teach you in a classroom.

      So although in my final year at school I went from being one of the best in my class to leaving school without a single GCSE if I was honest I have to say I don’t regret it. Like you my memory is a but burned out and intellectualy i’m not as sharp as I would have been had I never taken, however my conscious is much more open and a veil was lifted from my reality that most people don’t even know is there unless they’ve also seen the other side.


      • 160
        SpiralTrance says:

        You can see how much it effected me with all ^^^ the typos I make in my posts LOL


      • 389
        Anonymous says:

        “I did loads of acid from 91-94″

        Never too old.


        • 404
          SpiralTrance says:

          True but there isn’t that much acid around nowdays. I still have the odd one occasionaly but it’s no where near as good as the Strawberry Fields or Bart Simpsons that were going round in 91-92. Bart Simpsones (the dutch ones not the uk gypo ones) were fucking cosmic. I remember many people cutting them into quaters they were that strong.

          Acid kind of comes and goes in waves. First there was the 60s then that died out. 25 years later the Acid House parties of 88 kicked off and LSD was back with a vengence. I was only 11 back then so I missed the beginning. I caught the wave 91 when I was 14 and looked a bit older and could goto Raves. By late 93/94 acid supplies were drying up and Es had become alot cheaper though the quality had also gone down to.

          Now i’m 33 and don’t really take drugs much apart from alcohol, tobacco and occasionaly sniff some coke. It makes me laugh all these people talking about cannabis reclassification and whether it’s good or bad. They missing the point totaly. Cocaine (powder form) is as common and accepted as alcohol in many city bars up and down the country.

          And the real drug problem the politicians cleverly duck by having ‘debates’ on canabis reclassification is the massive increase in crack and heroin use over the past 15 years.


      • 425
        Jon Forest says:

        Lift the veil for us great one. Share your insights from the other side SpiralTrance and open our consciousnesses too…
        Err… I think you are talking about a chemical-induced reaction in your brain which you found pleasurable. That’s great but please spare us the “veil lifting” shite because we know, and you probably know, that no veils actually were lifted were they? What exactly are you more open too? What insights on life did you really gain (as opposed to ones you temporarily thought you had gained before coming round and realising it was just a trip).
        We do, however, believe you when you assure us that you are not as sharp as you once were.


    • 161

      ha, mispelling genius – class!


    • 212
      backwoodsman says:

      interesting insight. For about twelve years I worked with a guy , who initially was very sharp and very talented in diverse ways. He did a lot of weed and, laterly, a lot of other stuff too. I had the odd toot, but mostly stuck to alcohol.
      By the end of the period, he could no longer handle a fairly stressy job and talking to him was like a slow motion version of the guy I had known.
      But, hey, mandy says we are all extreme right wingers, so what do we know !


      • 236

        talking to him was like a slow motion version of the guy I had known.,

        Yeah, and I can see that in *myself*. My curse is that I was super-bright – I was, not am, so I don’t have to prove that to any dissenters (ha!) – and there are very specific areas I used to do work in, like the aforementioned calculus, that I simply cannot now. I can grasp the rules, mechanisms, processes etc – I can still figure out pretty much anything from anything – but what I can’t do is hold the whole spinning unfolding gem in my mind, as I used to. There is a definite deterioration my my abstract intellectual abilities.

        On the other hand, and I credit LSD with this a little too, my intuition is far superior. I guess, a lot, and I guess right, almost always. My sixth sense on the roads is sometimes astounding. Is it a fair swap? Kinda. But I am a little ashamed at wiping so much of those childhood years. It feels a little like taping over your kids’ first nativity play with a porn movie.


        • 357
          Jon Forest says:

          My mates, ex DJ mong heads, set up a business a few years ago.
          They billed for work done at the end of the week and the figures for one month read something like like £1,200, £2,000, 1,700, £92, £1,500…
          Guess which was the week they decided to “smoke” at work.


    • 281
      tat says:

      frank: you don’t need to take cocaine to make a twat of yourself.
      you manage it perfectly well when you are sober.
      Christ you must have been an utter utter c’unt when you took it.


    • 426
      Jon Forest says:

      Cheer up Frank, I don’t even know what tensor calculus is and nowadays struggle with long division. So you don’t need to drop acid to be crap at maths!


  67. 143
    Putin says:


    Be a little careful over this. I am no fan of the government but studies have shown:

    Regular users are more likely to be involved in car accidents (but you have a drink or two and drive and that’s legal)

    Adolescents who use cannabis daily are five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life. (is McDoom an example?)

    People who have a family background of mental illness – and so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway – are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well.

    So it’s not harmless but neither are beer or fags. This dumb approach to drugs which excludes beer and fags from the equation is the real problem. Getting so pissed that all motor function ceases is encouraged by 24 hr licencing laws and fags are available at most shops but places to smoke them have been reduced – consistent policy…..not. Your health does not matter provided you pay the tax on the drug.

    Why should the same not apply to all drugs. Fuck knows we need the money and its happening anyway.


    • 168

      Five times a day is very heavy use at the extreme end.


    • 193
      Sir William Waad says:

      Sorry to repeat myself, but it is quite possible that people turn to cannabis because they have a mental problem. I understand that the proven health risks are lung cancer (if you smoke cannabis), lowered fertility in men and a slight tendency towards obesity.


    • 231
      DisgustedOfMitcham2 says:

      I don’t think Prof Nutt ever said cannabis was perfectly safe. All he said was that it was less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, which I think is a pretty robust position.

      BTW, there is some reasonably good evidence that cannabis increases the risk of developing schizophrenia. It’s certainly not conclusive, but there’s definitely a prima facie case.


  68. 149
    It's all Balls says:

    Instead of wasting time on recreational drug research our scientific community would be better employed studying the unique physiology of our politicians.

    How come they manage to stand and walk etc when they have no backbone?

    Surely that’s a much more interesting case study?


  69. 155
    WobblyJim says:

    The government (sic) was trying to do another version of “dodgy dossiers” to support their deceit. They were hoping to get tame experts to produce a report that they could wave around “proving” that their lies were in fact the truth.

    Basic karma says that in the end, the TRUTH always wins, problem for Labour is that they operate on Herman Goering’s principles.

    Hopefully a few of these fascists will enjoy the same fate as Herr Goering did.
    (even though he bottled it and chewed on the glass capsule rather than be hung.)


  70. 163
    HDB111 says:

    The issue that this little storm leaves out in the cold is the overall usage of drugs, if we wish to be a society free of dependent drugs then all must go, including alcohol and prescription drugs, otherwise we need to find a way to allow usage but control the quantity that people can obtain.

    If we look at alcohol we know that this will not work as we cannot control that in any way.

    Problem is, as an ex-user I know the good old grass did not do me good in the long run.


  71. 170
    Cato says:

    This Johnson is typical of the lying hypocritical shit who have wormed their way into power in this country.

    Just a few weeks ago this liar was telling us that he couldn’t go against the legal advice over that autistic extradition bloke, McKinnon, saying “What do I know, I’m just a politician”.

    Now he knows everything.

    Of course the lying hypocrite has now said he’ll look at the McKinnon case again, for political advantage of course.

    It’s clear these clowns don’t even know what’s in their own political interests, so how can they know what’s in the country’s interest?

    We’re being continually and progressuvely destroyed by these useless imbeciles, and there’s no evidence the Tories are the answer either.


  72. 172
    Dave says:

    Dave’s not here!


  73. 173
    Anonymous says:

    Robin Murray, of the Maudsley Institute, in his 29th October Guardian piece [ ] writes the following:

    “The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), on which Professor David Nutt sits, has an unfortunate history in relation to cannabis. In 2002, it boobed by advising David Blunkett, then home secretary, that there were no serious mental health consequences of cannabis use; the council had done a sloppy job of reviewing the evidence. Since that time, they have been trying to regain credibility, and now accept that heavy use of cannabis is a risk factor for psychotic illnesses including schizophrenia. However, Professor Nutt’s comments demonstrate how difficult it has been for some members of the committee to accept their error……

    Professor Nutt contrasts a 2.6 fold increase in risk of psychosis carried by using cannabis with a twentyfold increase in risk of lung cancer if one smokes cigarettes. Unfortunately, he is not comparing like with like. The twentyfold increased risk is not carried by just being a cigarette smoker but rather by being a long-term heavy smoker. For cannabis, the risk of psychosis goes up to about six times if one is a long-term heavy cannabis smoker.”


    • 211
      Colonel Nut says:

      Couldn’t it be that people predisposed toward psychosis are more likely to become cannabis users?


      • 350
        Anonymous says:

        That amounts to blaming the victims so that the majority who remain sane can salve their conscience. Have you thought how callous this is?


        • 390
          Anonymous says:

          Have you thought how callous it is to criminalise the majority because of the weakness of the minority?


  74. 180
    Taxfodder says:

    Same old Labour same old MP’s

    Some things are more equal than things especially if it suits.

    We made a silly understandable mistake….your mistakes however are premeditated and deliberate.

    We are right…… the population of the UK is entirely wrong….

    Our Soldiers don’t need helicopters…..RIP


  75. 182
    Sir William Waad says:

    Because we should have a Monster Molecule of the Month to make war on, with compulsory hate sessions. This month, tetrahydrocannabinol, next month carbon dioxide (again), then 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and perhaps sodium chloride in February?

    My point being……hey, look at the sunlight shining through the leaves blowing off that tree……


  76. 186
    Anonymous says:

    How many people have died of smoking cannabis in thier own homes (I’ll agree to the idea of not drivng and smoking) compared with sufferers of peanut allergies?


  77. 195
    Anticrustes says:

    One adviser resigned and several more considering their position.
    How many are there, and are they funded by the taxpayer?


  78. 198
    Raving Loon says:

    Drugs are illegal because corporations can’t patent naturally growing plants and governments derive no revenue from drugs. Governments and their paymasters don’t permit economic agorism and never will.


  79. 206
    Roger Dodger says:

    I am a regular drug user and there is nothing wrong with my mental faculties.

    I am a regular drug user and there is nothing wrong with my mental faculties.


    • 307
      Roger the Dodger's mate says:

      I too am a regular user and there is nothing wrong with my mental faculties either.
      I too am a regular user and there is nothing wrong with my mental faculties either.


  80. 207
    Erich Honecker says:

    Superb comment Guido. The mail is blunderbussing ‘reefer madness’ articles which are being met, rather surprisingly, with much opposition in the comments.


  81. 208
    barefootcontessa says:

    Mohammed Kharsi is going to be made President! Now the ‘fun’ starts.


  82. 209
    Diversity says:

    Paul Dacre lives” in an alternative drug free reality”? I could have sworn that he is usually on a near overdose of lysergic acid.


  83. 217
    PDC says:

    This has been grinding my gears since Jaqui Spliff appeared on question time last week.

    Unsurprisingly the discussion turned to expenses in which she said that she followed the advice of those experts advising her, when milking the system for every penny the thieving bastards could get from it.

    But of course… when it came to this, she was doing the duty of a minister which is to make decisions no matter what formal advice she receives… cos she knows best.

    I wish she’d make her mind up! Either she follows expert advice or ignores it blatantly!

    Oh HOW SILLY of me! – The advice given by these experts doesn’t result in her pockets being lined so she of course is free to do whatever the chuff she likes…


  84. 224
    Indigo says:

    Guido’s quote from Nutt’s lecture, schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population) … research consistently and clearly showed that psychosis and schizophrenia are still on the decline…. no upswing in schizophrenia.

    Sorry, but I think this is far too simplistic and unscientific. Professor Nutt is ignoring facts inconvenient to his theory. Someone who presented with certain symptoms 40 years ago and was diagnosed as having schizophrenia would, today and with the same set of symptoms, probably be given a different diagnosis such as bipolar disorder, major depression, personality disorders, temporal lobe epilepsy, coeliac disease abnormality. Look at this list of symptoms of schizophrenia – and recognise some of them in your friends who are not schizophrenics.

    That’s what is different, Professor Nutt: “schizophrenia” is no longer used as an all-encompassing diagnosis of a wide range of symptoms; it is not that there is less schizophrenia about. The incidence is about 1 per cent of the population, anyway.


  85. 229
    barefootcontessa says:

    Latest News……..Newlabour have started BURNING BOOKS!!! Report at once to Alan Johnson Home Secretary, or Jack the Straw Minister of JUSTICE if you are illegally in possession of………..BOOKS!


  86. 240
    Trev says:

    Drug taking may be acceptable if you are a pig shit thick blogger. One with an axe to grind.

    I do not trust ‘scientists’ with the global warming scam. Why should I trust them over cannabis? You Guido are no different from the govt. You just follow the advice that suits your prejudice.

    If I get a speeding ticket when I am 21 – does that mean I should condone speeding when I am 50?

    The hysteria and self satisfied certanty of Prof Nutt and his fellow travellers does not convince me any more than Manns hockey stick does.

    I think you have smoked a little too much of the hard stuff Mr Fawkes. You and your friends can keep smoking it and sniffing it. Count me out.


    • 255
      Cobblers says:

      No one is advocating making it compulsory.

      Why do we allow ourselves to be governed by those who can’t even think straight when they’re sober?


    • 264
      SpiralTrance says:

      The Scientists propagating the myth that global warming is man-made all keep there jobs and get lots of government funding. The ones that dare to question the state sponsered version of global warming get fired and are often metaphprocaly burned at a stake.

      Similar situation with Professor Nutt. If he had sang from the same hymn sheet as the government he’d still be in a job, but he decided to tell the truth instead he got fired.

      The difference between this debate and the global warming debate is 90% of the population already know prohibition of drugs does more damage than good. They’ve yet to click on that global warming (and cooling) happens because of a huge ball of fire approximately a million time the size of earth in the ceneter of our solar system called the Sun.


    • 285
      tat says:

      trev, you must be a smack dealing trying to defend his business, right?
      if not you are just a mug who is defending a smack dealer’s business for him.
      the next time someone dies of a heroin overdose because they were unable to tell the strength of the heroin because it is illegal then that person’s death will be on your head trev.
      you are lobbying on behalf of heroin and crack cocaine a cocaine dealers, c’unts like you are keeping scum dealers in business.
      you are the smack dealers friend and lobbyist trev. you are scum.


    • 391
      Anonymous says:

      I see Trev has to start his argument by abusing someone who disagrees with him – always a great way of putting a valid point across. I take it you get the irony of calling other people “pig shit thick” Trev?

      No one’s asking you to take anything – get back to your Daily Mail, you’ll feel far safer there, or is it The Sun?


  87. 241
    Cobblers says:

    Aw shit.

    Looks like Dave has come out in support of Postman Prat’s position.

    Nothing’s gonna change. It can only get worse and worse.

    The laugh of course is that YouGov pols indicate that the public would be happy with major liberalisation in the drug laws, but what the politicians are afraid of is the propaganda twisting that their enemies in media might make of it.

    We’re destroying our society by accepting governance of this nature. Rather than sensible policy we get policy dictated by fear of what the most ignorant will think.

    It’s grim stuff.


    • 343
      DelBoy says:

      Well he would wouldn’t he?
      He reckons he’s a shoe in for next PM and to criticise another minister for not following advice would be used against him.


  88. 244
    Odds Bodkins says:

    I tried dope a few times in my youth, I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. I remember the horrible acrid taste, my sore throat and on one or two occasions it made me throw up like nobodies business. I don’t see the enjoyment, then or now. In contrast with getting slowly but surely hammered while playing skittles with mates, plus cigarettes, plenty of laughing and joking thrown in… it doesn’t get any better.


    • 252
      Cobblers says:

      It’s like religion. Do whatever you like.

      The problem is in enforcing your likes or dislikes onto everyone else.

      Drugs prohibition is a far greater cancer in society than letting the occasional idiot harm their health.


  89. 246
    Desperate Dan says:

    I’m not sure about that Nutt. It wouldn’t be too difficult to find another scientist to contradict him and come up with new “facts” that disprove the Prof.
    And anyway he says tobacco is more dangerous than cannabis. Doesn’t the fool know that to roll a good joint you need to combine the two. And what form did his research take? If it involved sitting around smoking dope it looks as though his research has given him a nasty temper and a belief that all MPs should do as he tells them.


    • 249
      Cobblers says:

      “Doesn’t the fool know that to roll a good joint you need to combine the two”.

      You don’t.

      So you’re the fool then.


      • 270
        Desperate Dan says:

        I presume I’m talking about resin and you’re talking about grass. – and please don’t start telling me about hookahs, hash cakes.


  90. 247
    Odds Bodkins says:

    “Professor” Nutt. Never a more apt name lol!


  91. 258

    Loathe as I usually am to approvingly quote a Guardian columnist, Ben Goldacre is one of the few worthy of such an honour. Heexposes the cannabis has got worse myth quite nicely here [].


  92. 261
    DisgustedOfMitcham2 says:

    Slightly O/T, but has anyone else found that they are no longer able to post anything on Toenails’ blog (or indeed on any of the other BBC blogs)? I just see a message now saying “You are currently signed in but have not yet completed the registration process. Click here to complete your registration.”

    Clicking where indicated does precisely nothing.

    Is it just me or is there a more widespread fault?


  93. 263
    DelBoy says:

    MP’s warned to avoid hasty blogs



  94. 267
    Lizzie says:

    Gee wiz this row is escalating into the chamber at the House of Commons. All this fuss about what the Prof said or shouldn’t have said. Only one quote comes to mind at this time.
    ” You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.”- Woody Allen.


  95. 276
    We,the people... says:

    The parallels are astonishing;

    1979 and the winter of discontent

    2009 and the winter of discontent;

    Striking postmen

    Soon to strike airplane crews

    Striking dustbin men (facing 20% pay cuts as determined by Comrade Harperson’s “equality” rules – rubbish piling up in the streets.

    Volunteers being sacked for telling the truth (Nutt receives no money for his services).

    Students unable to start their courses as the funding has not appeared.

    Corrupt politicians allowed to keep the spoils of their fraud while the public are screwed in to the ground with laws,regulations,statutes,bills,legislation,restrictions that don’t allow them to simply drive their kids to a sports match with their friends.

    And all the while Comrade Brown continues his masterplan to ruin England – unelected,unwanted,hated,despised he continues his reign of terror.


  96. 289
    T .England says:

    I am sick to death of certain so called experts talking about skunk weed like they know all about it when obviously they don’t!
    This morning there was a so called expert on the radio talking about the strength of skunk weed & she said that the average strength of skunk was 14% THC, what! Doesn’t sound like an expert to me!
    The HIGHEST skunk THC is around 14% the average is more like 6/7% & can go as low as 3% THC but she didn’t mention that because it obviously doesn’t suit her agenda!

    One way to look at it is that, if you was an alcohol drinker but all you could lay your hands on was special brew, even knowing it could send you mad if you drunk too much, they’d still drink it right?
    That’s simmilar to weed, if you only smoke the strongest skunk because that’s all you can get hold of then, like drinking special brew, harm can happen.

    Some of those experts just love showing themselves to be nothing of the kind!


    • 394
      Anonymous says:

      So presumably the idea of just putting slightly less in the spliff if it’s really strong stuff is just something that happens to other people in your world then?


      • 412
        T .England says:

        Different weeds have different affects, just like alcohol, from a mild euphoric buzz to a heavy trippy buzz & many other feelings in-between, putting less in will only slow how you get to the desired affect but the end result will be the same.
        So, if the weed only gives a mild euphoric buzz, because that’s how it’s grown/made, no matter how much you smoke, the affect is the same & if you smoke too much of it you’d just feel sleepy but feel euphoric as well, the same with the heavy trippy one, smoke too much & you’d end up sleepy but with that heavy trippy affect which is just too much for some people & is probably the one that sends those inclined to do so over the edge.

        I take it you don’t smoke!
        Weed can give the affect you desire with just one joint, you can’t get that with drink, & unlike drink you only need to smoke more to keep up the same feeling you got from the first joint, unlike alcohol where the more you drink the more different affects take place.

        Thanks for putting your point because it shows how some people have no idea how cannabis works.


  97. 296

    If elected I would legalise sex with animals and occasional use of reefers for party members.

    Mark Oaten would be put in charge of the Ministry for Fun.

    Good times would be had by all.

    But you go ahead and vote Tory.

    You spastics. Vote for Me. Nick Clegg. 2010. Change.


  98. 306

    I hope that that nice Mr Brown will keep taking the pills.


  99. 322
    Sir William Waad says:

    I see Postman Prat has thrown his toys out of the pram and is going to review the indepedent panel, with a view to replacing it with something more complaisant and more expensive.


    • 326
      Colonel Nut says:

      Isn’t that typical lowlife self protective spite to be expected from a politician.An African American term for a penis is a Johnson.Seems apt.He has an ignorant arrogant twang in his voice that’s reminiscent of Max Clifford Clark.”..controwls..etc”


  100. 333
    Colonel Nut says:

    In the Commons debate both the Johnson and Grayling justified the sacking of Nutt on the grounds of his comparison of the relative dangers of ecstasy and horseriding.They both seem too thick to understand what Nutt was getting at through his expertise in comparative risks.Is there more intelligence in the B.N.P.?


    • 431
      Not So Special K says:

      IIRC, ‘considered risktaking’ was the phrase used in the original publication. Jacqui Smith then mis-presented this to the HoC as saying the ACMD report had declared ecstacy to be safer than horseriding and demanded an apology from Prof Nutt, I think for perceived insesitivities towards families who have suffered.

      Can see why the ACMD’s gander is up on this one.


  101. 336
    FlipC says:

    Though this may seem obvious does anyone think we’d be hearing about scientists staying out of politics if Prof. Nutt had been endorsing the government’s drug policy; or do we agree that Party Central Office would have shoved him in front of as many members of the press as possible and got him a spot on both the GMTV and This Morning sofa?


  102. 342
    corky says:

    Must drop a line to that Professor Nutt,he went and missed out the most dangerous drug.
    Its called the Nuliebour Party.
    The effects are:-
    1)Does harm to the individual,job losses a prime example but many many others.
    2)Causes dependency,eg:benefits culture.
    3)Damages families,communities and culture,examples are pc claptrap,social engineering,flooding the country with migrants,services at breaking point,economy in shit order,too many others to mention.

    Why the hell 25% of the electorate still want to vote for this dangerous drug called Nuliebour is beyond my ken.


    • 436
      WobblyJim says:

      The 25% is the maximum pre-stuffed ballot boxes that they can store ready for election use.
      A few actual people vote for them, mostly Labour Party members, some union members and a whole lot of “stuck on stupid” people mostly living in establishments with strict visiting terms.


  103. 347
    Jon Forest says:

    It’s been a long time since I had too much personal experience with drugs but, for what it’s worth, I think the prof’s comparison of taking ecstasy with horse riding was entirely appropriate, whatever the tosspot home sec and Jacqui Smith (on QT) have to say.
    Taking ecstasy and riding horses both give a large amount of largely harmless pleasure to many people – but, in return, they have to embrace some risk.
    The risks from ecstasy appear to be relatively small when sensibly used. whatever the unfortunate parents of the small number of victims have to say.
    I guess the real difference is the parents of the injured/killed horse riders knew about/approved of the pastime before the accident; whereas the parents of ecstasy “victims” didn’t.


    • 369
      Trev says:

      Climb on a horse and you can see how far it is to fall. Take it at the gallop and launch yourself over a fence is another different type of thing.

      Either way you get on a horse and envisage some measure of control – you can stop the horse and get off.

      Taking a drug which is going to piss about with your metabolism to some undefined effect is a different thing.

      There is no ‘comparison’ between the two. And only a thick blinkered self important opinionated scientist would try to make one.

      I despise the scientists who prostitute themselves over global warming and likewise those trying to turn us into a bunch of gagga druggies.

      And all you coke heads who jack yourselves off on this blog by bellowing out of your arses can just lump it.


      • 385
        SpiralTrance says:

        you had your swine vaccine yet trev? or ever taken prescription medication? do you really believe they are as safe as the government and greedy masters in the big pharmaceutical companies tell you?


      • 416
        Jon Forest says:

        Trev, I am more knowledgeable on horse riding than ecstasy taking but, while I have read about some possible long-term effects on the brain from ecstasy and I am aware that there is certainly a “low” after use, the side-effects seem in the vast majority of cases to be small.
        Any potential harm has to be set against the pleasure given to tens of thousands of people who take this drug every weekend. It is not associated with violence, unlike alcohol (my choice of drug) – in fact, quite the opposite. I believe it is associated with quite a healthy activity – dancing.
        Now to horseriding – and I am speaking as the husband of a horse dealer. It injures hundreds if not thousands of people every year and kills not a few. Though I accept that some activities are more dangerous than others, the risks are not quantifiable or forseeable as you suggest.
        I happen to think that the risks are worth taking because they are outweighed by the advantages but “control” of a horse is largely illusory, especially if you don’t know the horse. While some are much more likely to misbehave than others and while some riders are better able to cope than others, any horse can bolt, buck, leap or rear over backwards with the right provocation.
        With four kids, I can attest from personal experience that horse riding is probably even more expensive than drug taking.
        So just why are the “evil pushers” of horse riding allowed to target young children, especially girls, to lure them into this dangerous activity?


  104. 349
    Pete Wass says:

    There are two seperate issues here. The first is the legal position regarding drugs, and on this I suspect that I am a lot closer to Guido than to Jackboots or Johnson. The position regarding Prof Nutt is a seperate one however. Politicians have legitimately to consider more factors than just the scientific advisor’s opinion of relative harm, and the decision having been made, there is no way that an advisor who publically attacks government policy can continue to work for the government.

    Jackboots may well have made a wrong decision, but Johnson was quite correct in sacking the Nutt.


    • 366
      tat says:

      how many lives has johnson saved by sacking this guy?
      fuck all pete.
      johnson didn’t like being made to look like a c’unt.
      the irony is that he made an even bigger c’unt of himself by sacking the guy.
      new labour are prohibitionists. they are yesterday’s men and that is a good thing pete.
      as long as we have prohibition people will die from drug use but if the drugs were legalised and regulated then they would not have died from overdoses or the ingestion of unregulated poisons.
      johnson is no better than a murderer really.
      and you are defending him.
      you fucking c’unt. is a heroin dealer paying you to lobby on their behalf to protect their business?
      fuck off pete wass you arsehole.


      • 386
        barefootcontessa says:

        He lost his rag tat. He couldn’t take the disagreement, he thinks he’s high and mighty now he’s H Sec., so he just got rid of the Prof.. He’ll live to regret his inability to hold his temper. He’s an idiot, not just because he couldn’t hold his temper, but because he doesn’t realise how much he DOESN’T know.


  105. 364
    Odds Bodkins says:

    You can’t have scientists stepping into the political arena.


    • 368
      tat says:

      people are dying because drugs have no controls and yet here you are posting garbage like that.
      you have the death of drug addicts on your hands bodkins. you are guilty.
      you condone the uncontrolled distribution of unregulated drugs cut with poisons that are killing our young people.
      you are the heroin dealers friend and lobbyist. shame on you.
      you fucking c’unt.


      • 374
        Colonel Nut says:

        The central problem is the piss poor dishonest self serving politicians whose attitudes to and legislation on drugs is done with an eye to populism and votes rather than honestly addressing the problems as highlighted by the scientists.People affected by drugs are a minority of the electorate and as such dispensible to the politicians.


      • 437
        Odds Bodkins says:

        A response from top boy of all people. Dear and much honoured Sir, I am truly, sincerely flattered. At least I seem to get up a higher class of nose these days… and I’m not talking about the white stuff…

        The vast majority of drug overdose cases involve the use of more than one drug. The single most common cause of those said to have died of “heroin overdose” is a bad interaction of heroin with some depressant–especially alcohol or barbiturates.

        An average of 2.7 drugs occur in fatal overdose cases. In these cases, no single drug is usually present at a lethal dose. Rather it is the synergistic effects of the drugs that is lethal.

        Other heroin deaths are due to viral or bacterial infections carried by the needle. These infections include endocarditis, an inflammation of the heart valves, tetanus, which kills few people aside from addicts nowadays, and viral hepatitis.

        I don’t have anybodys death on my hands. Druggies die because of the shit they ingest and the lifestyles they lead.

        So fuck you.

        Happy Halloween!


        • 461
          tat says:

          you are a prohibitionist. people like you created criminals like al capone.
          you are the unwitting mouthpiece of the mafia and other criminal organisations.
          and you are too dim to realise it.
          you dunce.
          go fuck yourself.


          • Odds Bodkins says:

            “people like you created criminals like al capone” What, software engineers?

            Prohibitionist? Quite the opposite actually. If fuckwits like you wanna turn their brains to mush, let them do their drugs, I say. You cannot expect the likes of me to be responsible for the likes of druggies like you. You got to someday grow up, take responsibility for your own actions and wipe your own arse.


          • thick as thieves says:

            you will not make such false accusations against top boy unchallenged.
            thick as thieves is a hero and heroes do not take drugs.
            I will collect a pound of flesh from you as settlement.
            you are on the list.


  106. 371
    Desperate Dan says:

    Comparing ecstacy to horseriding doesn’t seem very scientific. How does taking ecstacy compare with wrestling with sharks, paragliding, potholing, running across the M1 and Christmas shopping.


    • 388
      barefootcontessa says:

      He was simply telling it as it is. More people die each year from horse riding accidents than do from taking ecstasy. I think you’ll find there are not many deaths from the ‘sports/pastimes you mention, certainly not more than die from horse riding. But then, I’m not a scientist like Prof. Nutt.


      • 394
        Desperate Dan says:

        Well If it was just a case of finding out how many die of this that or the other they should have engaged a statistician not a pharmacologist.


  107. 372
    Druidologist says:

    “used by druids in the only indigenous religious ceremonies we have because they are found naturally all over these isles.”

    …erm, would that be the historical Roman era druids, who enjoyed, oak, misteltoe and human sacrifice but not, as far as we know, mushroom tea ? The C19th “Druids” and the guys who turn up to the Eisteddfod dressed in sheets who don’t look the type either ? Or the sad ragtag of crusty “pagans” who make a nuisance of themselves at Stonehenge at the solstice and who are not exactly posterboys for the benefits of recreational drugtaking ?

    In the words of Spinal Tap, “no one knows who they were and what they were doing” so using Druids and their imagined native religion as a rallying cry for a psychedelic pot-and-shroom Jerusalem is just silly.



  108. 375
    Ruth Kelly's plaything says:

    This is a sticky one for the libertarian (eg me).

    On the one hand, complete decriminalisation of all drugs would break up the gangs and give the gummint something else to tax, relieving the pressure elsewhere; on the other hand, there is just too much anecdotal evidence around to stop one from dismissing the existence of a link between the weed and mental illness.

    Two family members, both highly intelligent young men who, in their teens, displayed enormous potential, are now thirty-something wrecks. One is able to work, when he gets round to it, though not for long; the other has episodes of paranoid schizophrenia. In an earlier age he would have been incarcerated permanently.

    The common factor is cannabis.

    The anguish brought on the individuals, their parents and siblings is immense and demands the utmost caution in concluding that cannabis played no part. It is impossible for us to join Prof Nutt in seeing cannabis as harmless.

    Too many families have similar tales to tell.

    As Lord Winstanley said on this topic yesterday. science is not a matter of certainty but of probability. Reports of Prof Nutt’s conclusions (which the professor is not responsible for) have him expressing certainty.

    For my money, no level of probability, no statistical confidence-level, is adequate to deal with tragedies like those in my family.


  109. 377
    Cedric says:

    My cannabis using brother was sectioned in 1992 after stubbing cigarettes out on his face. He believed that voices in his head were telling him to do so. The doctor at the mental hospital told us this was schizophrenia, and was almost certainly caused by smoking cannabis. To him this link was as uncontroversial as saying smoking tobacco (or cannabis) causes lung cancer. We have no family history of schizophrenia.

    Accept it: cannabis causes mental illness and cancer. There are plenty of examples of the latter: Bob Marley, Linda MacCartney and George Harrison were all big time cannabis users who died young from cancer.

    Professor Nutt is well named. He is no different from doctors who used to deny that smoking tobacco caused cancer.

    Finally, the only contemporary references to the Druids, in Julius Caesar and Tacitus, make no reference to them using “magic” mushrooms. Where do you get this story from?


    • 384
      Desperate Dan says:

      I believe bacon, ham and barbequed meat are not to be recommended for people who are genetically prone to developing bowel cancer. Luckily no-one has thought of making them illegal for the rest of us.


      • 393
        Durotriges says:

        Don’t worry, they will!


        • 398
          Cedric says:

          Desperate Dan must have damaged his reading abilities with too many cow pies. This drug wrecked my brother’s mental health – and my family has no history of schizophremia.

          Cannabis causes cancer in a high percentage of users, just like tobacco. It also causes mental illness, unlike tobacco. At least one person a week is murdered by a mentally ill person, very many of whom are cannabis users. Face up to it, cannabis kills – and not just the fools who use it.


          • Reading The Daily Mail caused my cousin to eat his legs. Ban it! says:

            “This drug wrecked my brother’s mental health – and my family has no history of schizophremia.”

            And Alkyhol doesn’t do the same ? Try again

            “Cannabis causes cancer in a high percentage of users, just like tobacco.”

            Then is should be classified in the same category

            “It also causes mental illness, unlike tobacco.”

            So does Alkyhol, keep trying

            “At least one person a week is murdered by a mentally ill person, very many of whom are cannabis users.”

            And the percentage who use Alkyhol ?
            Or for that matter eat crisps ?
            Cause and effect require hard science not apocrypha

            “Face up to it, cannabis kills – and not just the fools who use it.”

            Stats please ? Or do you think a Daily Mail style apocryphal rant places you in a better position than scientists who spend their lives looking into the effects of all drugs harm, health effects and the actual risks associated with each, Professor ?

            Pretty obvious who the fool is with that kind of baseless hysteria.

            Would you like the Death figures for tobacco and Alkyhol to compare with your mere assertions ?

            Let the scientists handle the science and let the twats who agree with Postman Johnson and cun’ts like Dacre make fools of themselves with their ignorant hysteria.


    • 396
      Desperate Dan says:

      And as for peanuts. They can kill you as soon as look at you.


      • 399
        Cedric says:

        I never heard of anyone stubbing out cigarettes on their face after eating peanuts or ham. Why not face up to it – cannabis sends people mad, causes cancer and will kill very many of those who use it. Plenty of people denied that smoking tobacco caused cancer and heart disease, and many of them later found out the hard way that it does.


        • 409
          Reading The Daily Mail caused my cousin to eat his legs. Ban it! says:

          Reading the Daily Mail sends people mad too

          Alkyholism has a correlation with mental illness so they should self-evidently be in the same classification.


        • 445
          Erich Honecker says:

          Who held him down and made him smoke?

          No one.

          People die mountaineering, skiing, motorracing. You want to ban those personal choices?

          I guess you do.


          • Cedric says:

            My brother believed the rubbish a lot of people on this page say – that cannabis is harmless. It most certainly is not. Comparing the risks of physical sports to ingesting a mind bending poison is pathetic. Cannabis causes severe mental illness, which puts the patients, their families and the general public at great risk. Every year people are attacked and murdered by mentally ill people whose illness is due to smoking cannabis.

            The fact that, for historical reasons, Britain has two legal but regulated poisons in alcohol and tobacco is no reason to add a third.


          • Erich Honecker says:

            Physical sports? Nice trivialisation, good debating tactic that. A good friend of mine died on the mountain, so you’re not the only one. But do I want to start locking up mountaineers, ranting about the evils of climbing, the broken limbs, the bereaved? No. Get it straight – the only ones to blame for our personal choices are ourselves. It might make you feel better to blame someone, but it is no one else’s fault, and to start using your anger and grief to criminalise and control others is wrong.


          • Reading The Daily Mail caused my cousin to eat his own legs. Ban it! says:

            My cousin believed the rubbish a lot of people on this page say – that reading The Daily Mail is harmless. It most certainly is not. Comparing the risks of physical sports to ingesting a mind bending poison like the Daily Mail is pathetic. The Daily Mail causes severe mental illness, which puts the patients, their families and the general public at great risk. Every year people are attacked and murdered by mentally ill people whose illness is due to reading The Daily Mail.

            The fact that, for historical reasons, Britain has two legal but regulated poisons in The Sun and The Express is no reason to add a third.

            **Or you could substitute the Daily Mail for tobacco or Alkyhol and pretend some vague tosh about “history” is a substitute for rigorous science and medical evidence.


    • 400
      22THC says:

      Sorry to hear about your brother, but why should his tragedy affect my lifestyle choices?


    • 402
      24% THC says:

      Sorry to hear about your brother, but why should his tragedy affect my lifestyle choices?


      • 410
        Jon Forest says:

        THC, I expect cannabis doesn’t have any harmful effects on you. On the other hand, I expect Cedric’s brother thought that too, including after he was sectioned.
        I actually think legalisation or something close to it might well be worth a try on the basis that what we are doing now isn’t working (and because my leanings are always towards personal choice).
        However, there is at least a chance that it would make things far worse so we would have to be prepared to reverse the change if necessary (which would not be easy).
        There are a lot of pot brains on here assuring us that all the cannabis they smoked has never done them any harm. How do we know? How do you know mong heads? Most of you probably can’t remember what you were doing yesterday. If you can, you didn’t take enough drugs did you?
        I have got lots of friends who take cannabis regularly. Very few of them are better people for it and their “symptoms” range from just not really going anywhere in life to mildish paranoia – actually not that mild by the standards of people who don’t use.
        None of them would say that their cannabis taking was a problem.


        • 413
          Reading The Daily Mail caused my cousin to eat his legs. Ban it! says:

          Risk. Harm definition and effects on what % backed up by hard science.
          That I’ll listen too.

          I don’t think cannabiss is totally harmless but it’s bloody obvious it’s not even close to being in the same league as alkyhol and tobacco for deaths, harm and societal effects.

          The Police know this, the NHS know this, the Scientists know this and a huge chunk of the public know it too.

          The hystericals and Red Tops don’t.


          • Moley says:

            The tentacles of Big Tobacco and Big D-rink reach into every Government in the world.

            A mixture of lobbying, corruption and huge incomes for government through taxation will ensure that the scientists are kept in line.

            Follow the money.


          • Jon Forest says:

            Absolutely agree on the need for hard science as otherwise we are all trying to decide on the basis of our own small experiences and prejudices.
            However, I’m not sure how a definitive study could be organised or how we could test the extreme positions of stricter punishments against legalisation.
            Are we going to be left with the status quo in the absence of such a study?
            I take it you are for legalisation (as I would like to be). But surely the science should come before the change, rather than the change be used as a grand and potentially very harmful experiment.
            As for cannabis not being in the same league as alcohol and ciggies for harm, you could argue that that is only because the law is restricting its use and distribution.
            If all the drinkers and smokers out there took up pot instead, would its superiority still be bloody obvious? I doubt it.


          • Reading The Daily Mail caused my cousin to eat his legs. Ban it! says:

            There is no definitive study nor will there ever be.

            There is the steady accumulation of data from professionals from many studies and a deeper knowledge of all the chemical and biological processes and the resultant levels of harm for each drug and substance.

            That’s how it works and if the professionals are ignored merely to keep posturing politicians from ignoring the wrath of the Red Tops then the Science is pointless and mde worthless by this.

            Which is why the resignations might not be over and Postman Johnson may still end up eating some humble pie for his luddite notions.

            The Status quo has been tried for decades.
            It simply hasn’t worked.

            If you want to actually tackle the problem instead of posturing about it then harm reduction is the beginning middle and end.
            Any twatty politician can rant about evil drugs and cutting the heads off of those who use them while boozing himself senseless away from the cameras.
            We should leave such theatrics for the toddlers and red tops where they belong.

            I’m for some legalisation led by science and not hysteria

            The other logical option is to bring Alkyhol and tobacco into the same illegal harm categories lest the hypocrisy that everyone knows about drown any serious programme of harm reduction with it’s sheer ridiculousness.

            But I doubt there will be any appetite for a new prohivbition of the “nice” drugs like Alkyhol and tobacco so the course is clear.

            Cannabis isn’t in the same league as the Big two trendy drugs because of pharmacological processes and carcinogenic effects. It’s hard medical science not an abstract argument about whether illegality makes something more popular or not.

            Besides any policy beased on sending “messages” is simply ridiculous.
            Facts come before messages and slogans. They always will.

            Why should drinkers or smokers take up pot ? There are clearly some who do already. Any increase, if there is one, caused by legalisation would be offset by increased harm reduction that moving the trade from gansters to a purer untainted controlled source while using the taxes the accrue to put tackling any abuse problems with hugely more effectiveness than it is now.

            If you think we have a drugs problem then you’d best admit we have an even more massive Alkyhol problem.

            Sooner or later both will be tackled with science and medicine being the driving force not posturing politicians and the blunt ineffective instrument of legal sanction and jailing people.


          • Anonymous says:

            Alcohol and tobacco certainly cause serious harm, both to users and others, but so does cannabis. From my personal experience, I have known tobacco smokers and drinkers damage their health, but nothing like the effect cannabis had on my brother. The resigned way the doctor at the mental hospital stated that his schizophrenia was almost certainly caused by cannabis suggests he had seen many other cases.

            Please accept that my views are based on personal experience and not brainwashing by the press. Cannabis wrecks lives, and even if, for historical reasons, we have two legal, regulated poisons in Britain, that is no reason to add another.


          • Erich Honecker says:

            You miss the point spectacularly. Informed choice. Informed. Like any dangerous but pleasurable activity. Consensual sex. Skydiving. Scubadiving. Potsmoking. Driving your car.

            It is none of your business what choices other people make, bottom line.


          • Reading The Daily Mail caused my cousin to eat his legs. Ban it! says:

            And that choice is informed by…

            The Red Tops or Science ?

            Easy one that.


          • Erich Honecker says:

            Entirely agree.


  110. 382
    Anonymous says:

    It is the uncertainty in taking a drug like ecstacy that poses the biggest danger. Its true that hundreds of thousands take it without any harm but some dont, so why is that ???


  111. 392
  112. 397
    Annonymong says:

    Having seen Proff. Nutt’s list of dangerous drugs, I have decided to change my habits. From now on, I will avoid the more dangerous drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and, cannabis, and will instead take up less dangerous pastimes – anabolic steroids, GHB, and glue sniffing.


  113. 401
    tompetty says:

    and the latest news is – a review of the drugs council – alan johnson, the prick, is letting ‘em all know who’s boss


  114. 407
    Gooey Blob says:

    Looking at the bigger picture, this is desperately bad news for Labour. Alan Johnson’s hopes of leading the Labour Party after the next election have been well and truly scuppered by this. He hasn’t come out of this affair looking very good at all, and lost his rag with Bolton. Not potential Prime Minister material.

    First Miliband messed up, now Johnson. Straw, Mandelson or Harman would be electoral suicide. There just isn’t an obvious candidate now.

    All very depressing.


  115. 420
    Unsworth says:

    “Nice people do drugs.”

    You bet, baby!

    What do ‘not nice’ people do?


  116. 429
    boggartblog says:

    Whilst I agree entirely with Prof Nutt’s p.o.v. he broke the cardinal rule of business and public sector consultancy. Don’t make the guy who signs off your invoice look a knob.

    Having shot myself in the foot in that way on occasion myself (honest Guido, I never knew she was the Finance director’s wife) I can sympathose ut only a little. We are all responsible for our own actions.

    Never Mix Science And Politics


  117. 434
    Smiley-In-Your-Stout says:

    Professor Nutt may be right on the science.

    But Johnson is right on the politics.

    We can’t have scientific advisor becoming players in the public arena in contradiction to the wishes of the democratically elected politicians who appointed them in the first place.

    The primary purpose of scientific advisors is to advise minister and to communicate to the public Government policy. It isn’t to set themselves up in public opposition to the Government.

    Otherwise we are introducing the idea that unelected scientists are better placed to make these decisions than elected politicians.


    • 455
      Laim Bentley says:

      “The primary purpose of scientific advisors is to advise minister and to communicate to the public Government policy.”


      The primary purpose of a scientific advisor is to give ministers scientific facts and the latest scientific thinking because ministers have little to no expertise in this area.

      Pimping the latest spin, sorry communicating policy is for spads and MPs not scientists.

      You ask a scientific advisor for advice and he gives you facts you don’t like, tough.
      Science isn’t politically partisan or tailored to friendly headlines or it isn’t science.


  118. 435
    Corky says:

    Postman Pratt.
    What a mind blowing CV:-
    1)Shelf stacker at Tesco.
    3)Shop Steward.
    4)Full time union official.
    Really bin there,dun it,seen it hasn,t he and this pratt writes off a proffessor who tells the truth,but there you go seeing that Liebour wouldnt know the shagging truth if it dropped on them.
    Must admit loved the beetroot colour in the interview,and his mannerisms show the other side of the coin regarding this nice and placid mr postman.


  119. 446
    Moley says:

    Can anybody tell us specifically what Nutt said that might constitute criticism of Government policy?

    This was Postman’s accusation.

    Can this criticism be produced?


    • 466
      Disco Biscuit says:

      The Nutty Professor had the nerve to tell the truth. The truth is not Government policy, and so the postman sacked the professor.


  120. 452
    A Cabinet Minister says:

    Well, I understand that skunk is far stronger than the stuff I used to smoke at university, an that was pretty gnarly. Best keep it out of the hands of the lower orders hey chaps?


  121. 454
    Haile Miller says:

    They should legalise it. There has been a campaign for decriminalisation and legalisation in Britain since the 1960´s. First Sativa and then the Smoky Bears who were influenced by the direct action of the merry pranksters, NORML in the states and the San Francisco based Drug Advice education charity The Do it Now foundation, Release under the auspices of Caroline Coon and Rufas Harris issued its renowned Truckers bible and layed the work for the NCWPA and the repatriation of prisoners from around the world. Out of Release emerged the LCC and the current Cannabis alliance. At the inaugeral meeting of the LCC in Westminster Enoch Powell was occupying the room opposite .
    Still the same old ignorance and racism against the evidence based reality and scientific logic The Earth is flat go tell Galileo.


  122. 460

    Skunk has been around a lot longer than ten years ! My mate used to smoke it back in the late 80’s when he could’nt get his normal blow !


  123. 464
    Anonymous says:

    Very Nick Davies of you Guido!


  124. 465
    Disco Biscuit says:

    I’m afraid that I can’t do any better than quote the following exchange from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged:

    “Questions of truth do not enter into social issues. No principles have ever had any effect on society.”
    “What, then, directs men’s actions?”
    He shrugged. “The expediency of the moment.”


  125. 469
    treetop says:

    One point seemingly forgotten in this debate is how scientists condemned one lady to jail on the strength of scientific evidence about cot death and countless families in Middlesborough were separated from their children for child abuse. All this ‘scientific evidence’ was subsequently found to be wrong. We elect politicians to make judgements, not witchfinder generals who believe themselves to be aloof from doubts.


  126. 475
    Anonymous says:

    Its obvious the Labour gov. is on something probably originating in Afghanistan if one considers how they hide info on immigration.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,646 other followers