UK: PROF NUTT CALLS FOR ROYAL COMMISSION TO EXPLORE CANNABIS

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Cheers for that IG, interesting stuff.

I simply meant, a bunch of stoners sitting around saying ' I dont know anyone who's gone mad smoking weed ' isnt good enough for legalisation. The studies showing no link between cannabis and mental illness's should be pushed into the public eye, either that or leave the legalisation push alone until we have people like in the states who are serious about it and manage to get such info out there.

Agreed re the anecdotal evidence. However, the anectdotal evidence is usually the other way around. That is, it is of the form "...I knew a guy who's cousin's sister knew a girl who's uncle went mad and he smoked cannabis, so cannabis made him mad."

Good point, however that side has the backing of public opinion but more importantly political opinion. This is an issue because the standards of evidence are different on each side, that is that we must prove with a flawless study the harm associated with cannabis is miminal, however they must simply find one story to justify their point of view, unfair i know. So imo, fighting fire with fire will not work, we should rise above it and continue present studies which prove our point of view, if it is indeed right.

[Ingwey Gooblebogger]

Cheers for that IG, interesting stuff.

You're welcome. Thanks for your reply.

One thing that always bothers me is that, in the US, it was the media (chiefly the Hearst empire) that really got public opinion against ganja, back in the 1930's and 1940's.

Sadly, it appears that this same type of "Reefer Madness" garbage is being propagated by the UK media.

I do not have a high (pardon the pun) opinion of the media, in general, and, in particular, when it comes to science or analytical thinking. I find that most journalists do NOT have any training in even the most basic of the sciences (nor are they even remotley curious about the world around them), so when they report on it they usually get it wrong.

Once, a few years ago, one of my colleagues give a demonstration of what we did, to her neice's kindergarten class. (I think it was one of those "what does a scientist do" presentations). A week later our boss asked her if she could give this demo to some reporters. I then quipped "She already dumbed it down for 5 year olds, I don't think we can dumb it down anymore." )

Given that sories like "Killer Bees with Aids" or "Pitbulls on Crack" or "Deadly Superskunk causes Madness" sell fishwrap, then it is no surprise that the media churns out that type of propaganda. It sells papers.

My view is that govenrment policy should be made on sound evidence and not merely on titilation nor on predjudice. That is why the mess with Nutt is so appalling. Gordon Brown, that stupid saggy-face cunt, makes policy based on his narrow minded views. (As would Cameron if he got the chance.)

I would think that after nearly 80 years of trying to find significant health dangers from cannabis use, that, if there were such dangers, we would have found some by now. In 1979 I remember reading an articles about how this "new high-potency grass" had real dangers and the police were sounding the alarm.....Sound familiar?

Oh well, la plus ca la change, la plus c'est le meme chose