what nutt really said...allegedly

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
   " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
from ever using" the drug...

    The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."

    "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
scientific appraisal.

    "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
attitude of governments towards science."

    He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
parents should be more worried about alcohol."


regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> what nutt really said...allegedly
> 
> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
> from ever using" the drug...
> 
>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
> 
>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
> scientific appraisal.
> 
>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
> attitude of governments towards science."
> 
>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
> parents should be more worried about alcohol."

Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:41:37 +0000, Maria 
wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> what nutt really said...allegedly
>> 
>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
>> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
>> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
>> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
>> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
>> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
>> from ever using" the drug...
>> 
>>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
>> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
>> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
>> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
>> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
>> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
>> 
>>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
>> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
>> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
>> scientific appraisal.
>> 
>>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
>> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
>> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
>> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
>> attitude of governments towards science."
>> 
>>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
>> parents should be more worried about alcohol."
>
>Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.

evidence?

be aware that my first objectives are to stop 'new' labour lying...
   and stop them trying to suppress free speech....
i want to increase rationality in society...

as long as people are hysterical no sense or progress can be
   achieved...

btw there's a delirious go at nutt in the mail by melonyhead....

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:41:37 +0000, Maria 
> wrote:
> 
>> abelard wrote:
>>> what nutt really said...allegedly
>>>
>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>>>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
>>> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
>>> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
>>> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
>>> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
>>> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
>>> from ever using" the drug...
>>>
>>>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
>>> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
>>> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
>>> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
>>> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
>>> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
>>>
>>>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
>>> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
>>> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
>>> scientific appraisal.
>>>
>>>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
>>> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
>>> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
>>> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
>>> attitude of governments towards science."
>>>
>>>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
>>> parents should be more worried about alcohol."
>> Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.
> 
> evidence?

Comments on QT (I think - I wasn't completely paying attention because 
they talk a lot of rubbish and I am playing nursey), and not directly 
related but this on GBL

http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/10/Party_drug_should_be_Class_B.aspx


> 
> be aware that my first objectives are to stop 'new' labour lying...
>    and stop them trying to suppress free speech....
> i want to increase rationality in society...
> 
> as long as people are hysterical no sense or progress can be
>    achieved...
> 
> btw there's a delirious go at nutt in the mail by melonyhead....

I can't agree with her a lot of the time, but sometimes I can - even a 
stopped clock is correct twice a day! But I believe she is probably 
wrong on this issue (probably because I haven't read it - still trying 
to nurse successive (swine?) flu victims.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:55:01 +0000, Maria 
wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:41:37 +0000, Maria 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> what nutt really said...allegedly
>>>>
>>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>>>>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
>>>> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
>>>> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
>>>> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
>>>> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
>>>> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
>>>> from ever using" the drug...
>>>>
>>>>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
>>>> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
>>>> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
>>>> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
>>>> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
>>>> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
>>>>
>>>>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
>>>> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
>>>> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
>>>> scientific appraisal.
>>>>
>>>>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
>>>> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
>>>> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
>>>> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
>>>> attitude of governments towards science."
>>>>
>>>>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
>>>> parents should be more worried about alcohol."
>>> Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.
>> 
>> evidence?
>
>Comments on QT (I think - I wasn't completely paying attention because 
>they talk a lot of rubbish and I am playing nursey), and not directly 
>related but this on GBL
>
>http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/10/Party_drug_should_be_Class_B.aspx

that can easily be read as cannabis is over graded....

>> be aware that my first objectives are to stop 'new' labour lying...
>>    and stop them trying to suppress free speech....
>> i want to increase rationality in society...
>> 
>> as long as people are hysterical no sense or progress can be
>>    achieved...
>> 
>> btw there's a delirious go at nutt in the mail by melonyhead....
>
>I can't agree with her a lot of the time, but sometimes I can - even a 
>stopped clock is correct twice a day! But I believe she is probably 
>wrong on this issue (probably because I haven't read it - still trying 
>to nurse successive (swine?) flu victims.

you're a good/noble lass!

she's throwing sand....very likely in a state of mental chaos

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:41:37 +0000, Maria 
> wrote:
> 
>> abelard wrote:
>>> what nutt really said...allegedly
>>>
>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>>>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
>>> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
>>> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
>>> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
>>> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
>>> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
>>> from ever using" the drug...
>>>
>>>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
>>> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
>>> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
>>> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
>>> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
>>> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
>>>
>>>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
>>> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
>>> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
>>> scientific appraisal.
>>>
>>>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
>>> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
>>> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
>>> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
>>> attitude of governments towards science."
>>>
>>>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
>>> parents should be more worried about alcohol."
>> Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.
> 
> evidence?

From:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jVavnvBeZR4TGoUgsiFU4ZFxokYA

   ``Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said Mr Johnson's decision on 
Friday was "the right one". Mr Grayling said independent advice was 
important. "But those who take on formal roles, with government, have to 
be extremely cautious about the things they say. Prof Nutt's comments 
earlier this year comparing the risks of ecstasy with horse riding were, 
I thought, particularly ill-judged."''

James

-- 
James Hammerton,
http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:05:05 +0000, James Hammerton
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:41:37 +0000, Maria 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> what nutt really said...allegedly
>>>>
>>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>>>>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
>>>> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
>>>> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
>>>> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
>>>> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
>>>> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
>>>> from ever using" the drug...
>>>>
>>>>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
>>>> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
>>>> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
>>>> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
>>>> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
>>>> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
>>>>
>>>>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
>>>> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
>>>> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
>>>> scientific appraisal.
>>>>
>>>>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
>>>> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
>>>> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
>>>> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
>>>> attitude of governments towards science."
>>>>
>>>>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
>>>> parents should be more worried about alcohol."
>>> Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.
>> 
>> evidence?
>
>From:
>
>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jVavnvBeZR4TGoUgsiFU4ZFxokYA
>
>   ``Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said Mr Johnson's decision on 
>Friday was "the right one". Mr Grayling said independent advice was 
>important. "But those who take on formal roles, with government, have to 
>be extremely cautious about the things they say. Prof Nutt's comments 
>earlier this year comparing the risks of ecstasy with horse riding were, 
>I thought, particularly ill-judged."''

looks a foolish comment to me
see this fred:-

The lesson of Galileo should teach politicians that sacking scientists
won’t make the earth flat." guido

as for the comment on horse riding...that's just the drollery of
    science speak...but you must know that!

regards


-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:05:05 +0000, James Hammerton
>  wrote:
> 
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:41:37 +0000, Maria 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> what nutt really said...allegedly
>>>>>
>>>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>>>>>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
>>>>> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
>>>>> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year,
>>>>> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
>>>>> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to
>>>>> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
>>>>> from ever using" the drug...
>>>>>
>>>>>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
>>>>> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
>>>>> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
>>>>> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy
>>>>> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
>>>>> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
>>>>>
>>>>>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
>>>>> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
>>>>> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
>>>>> scientific appraisal.
>>>>>
>>>>>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
>>>>> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
>>>>> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I
>>>>> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
>>>>> attitude of governments towards science."
>>>>>
>>>>>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that
>>>>> parents should be more worried about alcohol."
>>>> Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.
>>> evidence?
>> From:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jVavnvBeZR4TGoUgsiFU4ZFxokYA
>>
>>   ``Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said Mr Johnson's decision on 
>> Friday was "the right one". Mr Grayling said independent advice was 
>> important. "But those who take on formal roles, with government, have to 
>> be extremely cautious about the things they say. Prof Nutt's comments 
>> earlier this year comparing the risks of ecstasy with horse riding were, 
>> I thought, particularly ill-judged."''
> 
> looks a foolish comment to me
> see this fred:-
> 
> The lesson of Galileo should teach politicians that sacking scientists
> won’t make the earth flat." guido
> 
> as for the comment on horse riding...that's just the drollery of
>     science speak...but you must know that!

Whose drollery? Grayling's or Nutt's?

James

-- 
James Hammerton,
http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/

www.superaffiliate7.com

Log on to Find out how you can make money by clicking my Web Site.
You will find  good Affiiliates  for  health products, such as EDTA-Oral 
Chelation,
Apricot kernels for cancer treament, Other affiliates are for Computers,
household products, Satellite TV (You may watch International Channel on 
your Computer),
Download Commmercial Movies, Email, Free Horoscope.




"James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
news:7lecaqF38v1b8U1@mid.individual.net...
> abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:05:05 +0000, James Hammerton
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:41:37 +0000, Maria 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>> what nutt really said...allegedly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/prohibition-in-britain.html
>>>>>>    " Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with
>>>>>> his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary
>>>>>> Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a 
>>>>>> year,
>>>>>> was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year.
>>>>>> He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25
>>>>>> from ever using" the drug...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a
>>>>>> recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial"
>>>>>> separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last
>>>>>> night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is 
>>>>>> policy
>>>>>> should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes
>>>>>> in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     "The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we
>>>>>> published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like
>>>>>> cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed
>>>>>> scientific appraisal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     "Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about
>>>>>> cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead
>>>>>> the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. 
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite
>>>>>> attitude of governments towards science."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> parents should be more worried about alcohol."
>>>>> Problem - Tories seem to be in complete agreement with Labour's view.
>>>> evidence?
>>> From:
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jVavnvBeZR4TGoUgsiFU4ZFxokYA
>>>
>>>   ``Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said Mr Johnson's decision on 
>>> Friday was "the right one". Mr Grayling said independent advice was 
>>> important. "But those who take on formal roles, with government, have to 
>>> be extremely cautious about the things they say. Prof Nutt's comments 
>>> earlier this year comparing the risks of ecstasy with horse riding were, 
>>> I thought, particularly ill-judged."''
>>
>> looks a foolish comment to me
>> see this fred:-
>>
>> The lesson of Galileo should teach politicians that sacking scientists
>> won’t make the earth flat." guido
>>
>> as for the comment on horse riding...that's just the drollery of
>>     science speak...but you must know that!
>
> Whose drollery? Grayling's or Nutt's?
>
> James
>
> -- 
> James Hammerton,
> http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
> http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/