Drugs And Low Level Thinking

The government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs appears to have a remit that doesn't actively discourage drug use, but cynically (and not particularly subtely) favours it. The recommendation of this august body is to downgrade ecstasy from being a class A to class B drug.

• "I suspect that they [the government] accepted our evidence but I think that they have made a political decision not to reclassify"

Professor David Nutt (chairman)
 

That statement amounts to monumental arrogance and self-promotion by attempting to justify its own perceived importance as though there is anything of import that they have to say. The assessment is based on the relative dangers of any particular drug. Heroin is more dangerous than ecstasy as it kills more (known deaths). So the conclusion (and message) is that heroin is not safe, but ecstasy is safe. The assessment plays a numbers game involving the number of deaths.

• Most death (or unknown permanent injury) =

seriously dangerous

• Fewer dead (or unknown injury) = safe

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs own figures account for the annual death toll = 622. (Heroin and morphine) 276 (Methadone) 86 (Cocaine) 70 (Amphetamines) 33 (Ecstasy) 14 (Cannabis) 140. This list amounts to hundreds of needless deaths. This does not take into account the number of addicts 'living' the miserable and avoidable existence of the 'undead'. The opportunity to clarify the danger of any drug, the integrity or even the verified identity of which cannot be known (drug dealers are not among the most honourable groups of lethal parasite), has been missed, but supported by an advisory agency. It seems that the fewer the deaths attributable to any particular substance then the safer the drug. It was this same council that recommended that cannabis should remain a class C drug and not be moved to a higher classification. It is highly questionable who this group supports. Certainly not the misguided who 'use' or 'take' drugs. It's dangerous and probably safer indulging in Russian Roulette. The availability of firearms seems almost as widespread as contacting any other type of dealer. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs still advises government.

• Who sponsors these dangerous people?

Government or so it seems 

It makes one wonder if these people have children and if they do whether those children have ever indulged in or are currently still active in drug 'taking' and 'using'. The misery of the user, family and friends is incalculable, though organisations like DrugScope would help to save the user from him/herself. It all appears to be a completely alien concept to the likes of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The question must be asked: is there an implication that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs provides a more balanced and authoritative view than organisations like DrugScope? Drugs are dangerous Out Of Joint - You Have Been Warned The somewhat perverse situation is that government engages this 'Advisory' entity and then (quite rightly) disregards that advice. Such advisers are surely dangerous by virtue of the recommendations promoted, so why is the ACMD still consulted?

Absurdly: Take killer drugs, they aren't really dangerous. They only kill if you don't follow the non-existent government guidelines that would aid and assist in the execution of an illegal activity.
 

Perversity in the extreme. Alcohol is a terrific tax earner for the government even though this drug kills. 'Illegal' drugs do not attract tax (by definition they cannot), but imagine if they did. Enormous income though a government cannot be seen to promote the use of harmful products!!! Tobacco products (and that includes the products like NiQuitin, a potential Hook that perpetuates addiction) or alcohol are very, very large revenue earners. Even though they all kill people. So what? A few deaths. Who cares? Certainly the government appears as though it couldn't really be bothered. The users of those products not sanctioned as legal by government probably didn't contribute much to the coffers, anyway. Alcohol Warning Labels Cynicism Hypocrisy Labels (pinned to any government)