Latest:

22:42 Factory awaits news on electric car
22:12 Cameron in pledge to black voters
21:42 Keatley kicks Connacht to win
21:42 Stormont leaders meet Obama
21:02 Sian Williams 'would appear nude'
20:42 Johnson: Wilkinson has future
20:42 Brown must prove fitness - Robinson
20:12 Robert Pattinson launches new movie

Drugs chief: Alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis

Thursday, 29 October 2009

An estimated one in 25 adults of working age has used cannabis

enlarge

Bookmark & Share

What are these?

The British Government's chief drug adviser has sparked controversy by claiming ecstasy, LSD and cannabis are less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol.

Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, attacked the decision to make cannabis a class B drug.

He accused former home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of "distorting and devaluing" scientific research.

Prof Nutt said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness. And he claimed advocates of moving ecstasy into class B from class A had "won the intellectual argument".

All drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be ranked by a "harm" index, he said, with alcohol coming fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone.

Tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.

Prof Nutt said: "No one is suggesting that drugs are not harmful. The critical question is one of scale and degree. We need a full and open discussion of the evidence and a mature debate about what the drug laws are for - and whether they are doing their job."

In a lecture and briefing paper for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London, Prof Nutt attacked what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs.

He also repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Prof Nutt's views are his own and do not reflect the views of Government. The Government is clear - we are determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a whole.

Comments

First |
Previous
1
2
3
4
Next
| Last

73 Comments

just legalize it, it can be a recreational drug.

who here hates the government ?

i they wont legalize weed because they wont make any money out of weed.

Posted by Mc Azzy | 11.02.10, 12:40 GMT

If the government pays people to find out about these things then why do they get angry when the people who discover these findings present them in a reasonable and scientific form? Advisors are paid by the givernment to advise the government so why does the government reject the advice of people who are paid to advise them and who know more about this topic than the government does?

They should legalize and regulate cannabis, LSD and Ecstacy in the same way that they regulate tobacco and alcohol.

Posted by James | 16.12.09, 09:41 GMT

the goverment show listen to the scientists that what they pay them for there corrupt.

Posted by stephen | 07.12.09, 10:07 GMT

this is like the dark ages when people were burnt for saying WE were not the center of the universe. Its an outrage that we have to live by coads that are distorted by the government to stop a new prohibition, it’s not fair and it’s not safe to have so many people dependant and addicted to the drugs alcohol and nicotine when safer less harmful drugs could be developed and regulated to become safer. It’s an outrage and unfair on people who choose a healthier life style by taking alternative illegal drugs. if we are not able to accsept the words of the sighted the blind shall lead the blind.

Posted by Rhys Davies | 20.11.09, 16:58 GMT

Free the weed

Posted by Me | 16.11.09, 13:29 GMT

if i smoke cannabis i wanna stay in so you not think its better than drink because drink make you go mad

Posted by stephen | 12.11.09, 14:56 GMT

Yeah but bear in mind how many MPs have owed their position and personal wealth to being involved in, or married into, or working for the extensive businesses in the alcohol industry...including the retailing giants...and indeed, the sale of tobacco and arms and military hardware seems popular among our elected representatives. Not sure I would accept a lecture from any of them on this issue....nor do I think them appropriate or trustworthy judges on the issue of any drug!

Posted by Malachy Mulligan | 05.11.09, 17:44 GMT

I have smoked cannabis, mixed with tobacco, almost daily for about 15 years. No too excess - I kind of see my evening joint a lot of people see their couple of glasses of wine. I honestly think if I drank every day I would develop a problem. I stopped smoking tobacco 3 weeks ago and have been using a vaporiser, thereby further reducing the amount of carcinogens etc I ingest. I know that alcohol and tobacco are much, much more harmful than cannabis, never mind the potential for chemical dependency. The reclassifying of cannabis was just a waste of time and money.

Posted by Terence Henry Carey | 02.11.09, 16:39 GMT

many of the problems related to Ecstacy come from the fact that the contents are unchecked. people who have taken them know the difference between good and bad ones. As the 'ingredients' are largely synthetic, they could be controlled and made into a commercially available product.

But, as Howard marks syas 'the government would rather that my child die than get high'. Controlling them commercially would take alot of money out of the hands of criminal elements too.

Posted by Patrick D | 02.11.09, 08:40 GMT

Yes, if someone has a history of mental illness, it’s not that smart to experiment with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain. But it isn’t smart for such people to take any drugs — or too much alcohol — for that matter. Apart from that there isn't really a problem with it. Certainly safer than alcohol as Nutt says. If pubs served weed rather than beer, crime rates would plummet. Society would also benefit from money raised from taxing it and removing it from hands of criminal gangs and scumbags. Lets have a referendum on it.

Posted by Freeit | 02.11.09, 07:17 GMT

Its all about moderation, of course everyone is going to know someone who smoked too much weed, drank too much booze or did too much acid. Too much of anything is damaging. So many people here are trying to use anecdotal evidence to prove a point, but no matter how experienced you think you are in life, all of your stories and perceptions can not create hard evidence. It is about time governments and people started looking at/discovering the facts surrounding these substances to formulate their own opinion separate from any preconceived notions that are dictated by old propaganda or illegality of these substances. I do agree with most of the pro-weed posts here, pothead cause far less disturbance in society than drunks, but that doesn't mean their lives aren't effected by weed. Everyone is different, I used to smoke a lot of dope, it almost destroyed my life... However, that doesn't mean that other people can't live a normal, high life.

Posted by Jon Doh! | 31.10.09, 19:51 GMT

Long live Professor Nutt!! Finally someone in power stands up for the sensible unheard truth.

Posted by Laurie Gerhardt | 31.10.09, 13:01 GMT

I think more people need to stand up and say this. Seriously, there are two psychiatric conditions caused solely by chronic alcohol abuse (Wernicke's and Korsakoff's) as well as liver problems, increasing the risk for getting pretty much every medical condition you can think of and a huge risk of accidental death

If you feel that your health would be served better by taking something with a more favourable risk profile e.g. Cannabis or even E you are told by the government and often society at large that you are morally reprehensable for putting your health at risk in such an irresponsible way. The hypocrisy is ridiculous!

So well done Prof Nutt, I hope the government learns to listen to its own advisors

Posted by Big D | 31.10.09, 11:29 GMT

Cannabis is far less harm to a human and society than alcohol,look at all the crime,sex,and underage sex,teen pregnancy in the uk????
Let me ask you this? How many arrests are made on a fri and sat night because of alcohol? voilent drunks!!! To help line the higher pockets!!!!
The goverment hardly even supported the situation of contaminated weed!!!If it was heroin they do??? Whats right is wrong,wrong is right!

Posted by felony | 31.10.09, 09:17 GMT

i do agree with most of this guy's views...though i wouldn't recommend riding a horse while on ecstacy. LSD certainly isn't for everyone either. i know a few people that took acid one too many times and never came back. i myself and about one bad trip away from the mental hospital. rave on dr. nutt!!

Posted by kelly | 31.10.09, 05:48 GMT

That is ONLY a secret to Conservative's..

Posted by Zach | 31.10.09, 03:34 GMT

If ecstasy LSD and cannabis had lobbyists or large corporate interests I'm sure that Mr. Nutt would still have a job! Sad state of affairs when the truth gets you fired!

Posted by Nope | 31.10.09, 02:50 GMT

i completely agree. so many ppl are naive and stubborn when it comes to drugs. just because you have a doctorate degree doesnt mean youre exempt from pushing your own personal views on drugs and in my experience its some of the more highly educated people who have the most skewed views on drugs.

Posted by uhhhhhhhh | 31.10.09, 00:39 GMT

Good man Professor Nutt, he lost his job over this. Shows how much he believed in what he did. One day our government will see sense and legalise (and regulate) all drugs. It is the only way to maintain control!

Posted by Gareth | 30.10.09, 21:11 GMT