Government Sacks Chief Drugs Advisor. .

aye

Before we all run away with this Nutt jobs scientific research has anyone got a link to his published work so I can read it?

Not his full published work, but the chart in this link shows his classification system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs

Note the date - July 2006. So this is certainly not the first time he has come out and said this kind of thing. It just got more publicity this time, which has made the government think they have to act.

That is because the Guardians millons of (un)loyal following the Guardianista don't buy it that is obvious by the circulation figures of course they read a link you posted online once a debate is kicking off & they think that gives them a right to class themselves as regular Guardian readers.

For us folk who still like to read print the Guardian is just fucking shambolic all them parts, shit sports writers bar maybe Mike Selvey on cricket, the employed that unfunny bloke with big hair tight jeans to write the in the sports section FFS!!!! & the £1 damage make it is big NO for a commuter. It is a shame the Mirror Group are skint as they could do with having a paper in its stable to rival The Times i.e a paper for the champagne socialists/council kid done well.

The Mail is not as bad overall as people make out, of course its get some things massively wrong such as employing Jan Moir, letting Piers Morgan write in the sports secton of the MOS(He is the reason I dont buy it on a Sunday). I notice non of the anti-BNP stuff it writes ever makes the home place of Guardianista the Internet. The sports writers & columnists on most sports are the best in there chosen sport. The financial section is sweet. The personal finance section on a Wed is brilliant.

The Indi the last time I read it was full of columnists (who I am guessing are the shit of writers as why else would the be there) & very little news.

Try this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/02/drugs-policy-professor-david-nutt

That is his chart of rating stuff it tells me little. I would like to know quantities of all things in the ranking system. Does his research into cannabis take into account that most people take it with tobacco. Does he realise that most afterparties have been killed by people smoking joints rather than having a benny & hedges.

The people to benefit most I guess would be pharmaceutical companies an industry much richer & poweful than the booze companies. Read a left wingers view Mark Thomas on these cunts http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/M/mark_thomas/2/1.html

Really do WE need this guy telling us what most of us know off countless weekends? After all he is only doing this for his matesfizer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Asahi, Organon, Cypress, Lilly, Janssen, Lundbeck, Wyeth. He has speaking honoraria (in addition to above) with Reckitt-Benkiser and Cephalon. Grants or clinical trial payments from MSD, GSK, Novartis, Servier, Janssen, Yamanouchi, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Wyeth, Organon.

He has shares in GSK (ex-Wellcome).

http://seroxatsecrets.wordpress.com...tients-says-latest-study-prof-nutt-disagrees/

The good Dr becomes a millionaire, the above compaines become even richer & the new taxed pill costs more than early 1990's prices.

i realise you are just trying to get a rise out of people / drum up an argumentitive thread, so i will just give you a short answer

dont know about the printed version but sport in the guardian online is 75% very good

sorry spence but the mail is every bit as bad as people make out - the above mail article for example is such bad journalism, none of which would be noticed by any of its readers

additionally every time i have picked up the mail, i have noticed how poor its sport section is

sport in the independent is poor

Oh your online reader. So you didnt have the big dilema I had tonight "What to do with G2?" do I stuff it down the side of a seat or bin it. Fucking hell last season us going down must have been even tougher on you as you were reading Louise Taylors take on things on regular basis.

As for the above Mail article I know who Amanda Platell is so I skip her. Didnt even read you link once I saw it was her that wrote it.

Here you go Vin read about Nutt in The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/mar/17/mentalhealth.politics

My mum gets the Daily Mail and I usually have a look at it when Im round. That Patell woman is just bitchy and rude for the sake of it

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term="Nutt DJ"[Author]&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract

Which link do you think is best for telling me quantities involved in forming his ranking system?

I think you tend find it OTHERS who usually pigeon hole the readers of certain papers that do not suit them. Me, I class myself as newsPAPER reader I cover such a broad spectrum during a week.

She is poor. As are one or two others.

But thats why i said 75% are very good. Not 100%.

Interesting, but i dont think he is suggesting legislation and i dont think be believes it will ever hapen it his lifetime. He is simply saying that the government's policy is flawed and classification should be based on harm, not a premeditated view of politicians who i would assume know the facts deep down but know its not a votewinner because to the majority of the population,
booze and fags = fine and dandy
pills and weed = for horrible low lifes

where do 'the majority' get these opinions though? from the tabloids mostly. The Indy ran a long campaign to legalise weed but was forced to backtrack when the 20 times stronger skunk story came out. This has been disproved by Ben Golding in the Guardian Bad Science column but never reported anywhere else so if you ask the average joe in the street he'll say skunk causes psychosis and should be banned.
And ever since Leah Betts everyone 'knows' that even 1 ecstasy pill can kill you.
And the politicians live in the world where that is 'true'

so when someone comes along who says that is not so - even if he's the biggest expert on the planet - he has to be discredited or the whole house of cards collapses.