Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Alcohol More Dangerous Than Illegal Drugs Like Heroin States Recent UK Study

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

A recent study out of the United kingdom concludes ‘Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin, ecstasy and crack cocaine, according to a new study.’ From limited reports the study rated alcohol the most dangerous substance ‘based on the overall dangers to the individual and society as a whole’.  The study was led by Professor David Nutt, the former government drugs adviser who was sacked for criticising the then Labour government’s decision to upgrade cannabis from class C to class B.

What is evident to BU, the matter of how drugs are classified and managed is based on economic structures embedded  in so-called developed societies. Those who would dare to buck the system will have to negotiate the weight of the establishment.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

105 responses to “Alcohol More Dangerous Than Illegal Drugs Like Heroin States Recent UK Study”

  1. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    I have long advocated the legalization of weed, though not the other so-called “recreational drugs”, which I would oppose. However, as I have said before, governments will turn cart wheels to maintain the legality of tobacco and hard booze, because of the enorous taxes they can levy on hem, but will not legalize something you can grow in your back garden and which they cannot tax. It is as simple as that. The “them and us” situation is thereby revealed – “You can have cancer or liver problems and we don’t care, we can tax you; but you cannot have free recreation and the outlet of a little light horticulture, because we cannot tax you”. The fact that citizens would need only to go to their gardens, instead of a rasta man, to satisfy their needs, does not seem to matter in the slightest.

  2. AL Avatar
    AL

    Not to mention that the pharmecutical companies get to sell their products (drugs) to treat any disease that might arise due to excessive alcohol consumption. And when the side effects from those products (drugs) start to kill you they have another product (drug) for that.

  3. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    AL
    Could you inform us about the drugs that the pharamaceutical industry sells to treat any disease that might arise due to excessive alcohol consumption?

    It is most interesting and noteworthy that the name of this Professor is NUTT, and that his pronouncement that smoking cannabis created only a “relatively small risk” of psychotic illnessis like his name—–nutty! Serious neuroscientists know better and can prove it.

    This article will no doubt create some hype here on BU, but the research proves Nutt to be just that ……….. a NUT!

  4. David Avatar
    David

    To lend balance, the above report is being carried by major global news networks as well as social media. BU has posted the matter given its topical nature to afford all the opportunity to comment.

  5. EyeSpy Avatar
    EyeSpy

    Dr. Elders, a former Surgeon General of USA supports the theory that “we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol.” She also said, they cause much more devastating effects physically.”

    According to Dr. Elders, marijuana is not toxic; it doesn’t cause anyone to die; it is not addictive, never cause anyone to die and it reduces $$ that goes to drug cartel

  6. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Re marijuana is not toxic; it doesn’t cause anyone to die; it is not addictive, never cause anyone to die
    Hilarious!

  7. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    @ amused…

    ‘ The fact that citizens would need only to go to their gardens, instead of a rasta man, to satisfy their needs, does not seem to matter in the slightest..

    Leave the Rastaman alone nuh….we have it hard just growing our locks here in Bim…lol.
    Most of the sellers these days are baldheads tho…believe it!

  8. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    @ David
    David | November 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM | To lend balance, the above report is being carried by major global news networks as well as social media. BU has posted the matter given its topical nature to afford all the opportunity to comment.

    Whereas it may be fact that the report you posted might be carried by Tom Dick and Harry it lacks substance. It does not give any scientific evidence that NUT has proved his case. It only says that the authorities have disagreed with NUT and that others do not like the way he was treated a la shaun Williams.

    Now many of us know that NUT is wrong. I had a class mate who broke down in a surgery clinic in our first clinical year, had to quit medical school and eventually committed suicide in his native Dominica. A young man less than 25! There are many cases that I can cite including a class mate at HC who used the stuff at St Augustine and returned home a complete misfit!
    Now that is balance.
    I believe that ethanol is good for dermatological applications and not for gastric lavage. That is what I teach and practice. I dont smoke either. I understand that folk think that they must do these things, but they are all hazardous in thier various ways. And NUT must know this!

    Let the hype continue as the users of these substances share their views.

    Note also that all pharmaceuticals are potentially poisons. Some have a larger therapeutic index than others. They must not be abused either, but used only when absolutely necessary.

  9. David Avatar
    David

    For those who feel technically minded to review the study it can be viewed at:

    http://www.lancet.com

  10. Zion1971 Avatar
    Zion1971

    Peter Tosh has been telling them a long time. “Legalised it don’t criticised it”. Like everthing else modertion is key. The hypocritical USA has legalised marijuana in 7 states for medicinal purposes.It is a multibillion dollar economy in California-larger than the wine industry.Yet every year when the state department release its narcotics report they demonise the supplier countries but mention little of their own double standard and the fact that they are the largest consumer. Go figure.

  11. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Thruthfully David
    I would not be happy if a student of mine presented such goo below with very little detail. Although this is a summary this would not incite me to go look for this article in Index Medicus. I am sure that Bajans, regardless to thier position or practice on this issue, are better informed.
    This article seems to me to be one of those that these Profs put out to keep thier jobs. No one can say that he is not published.

    Summary
    Background
    Proper assessment of the harms caused by the misuse of drugs can inform policy makers in health, policing, and social care. We aimed to apply multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) modelling to a range of drug harms in the UK.
    Methods
    Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: nine related to the harms that a drug produces in the individual and seven to the harms to others. Drugs were scored out of 100 points, and the criteria were weighted to indicate their relative importance.
    Findings
    MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.
    Interpretation
    These findings lend support to previous work assessing drug harms, and show how the improved scoring and weighting approach of MCDA increases the differentiation between the most and least harmful drugs. However, the findings correlate poorly with present UK drug classification, which is not based simply on considerations of harm.

  12. EyeSpy Avatar
    EyeSpy

    Unfortunately, we cant believe everything we read or hear, whether it is coming from the lips of the professionals. We have to make our own judgment call.

    One medical researcher says one thing, another medical person says the opposite. One scientist says one thing another says something else. All these medical professionals think they are correct in their findings. Who do you believe when they’re all claiming to have the proof.

    In my opinion, be it alcohol, cigarette, legal as well as illegal drugs, etc especially if taken for long periods of time they can all do harm to our bodies. The prescribed drugs either help or cure one thing while they damage something else. I am of the opinion that some of these studies are more about the pharmaceuticals staying afloat than it is about the average person staying healthy.

  13. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @GP: “However, the findings correlate poorly with present UK drug classification, which is not based simply on considerations of harm.

    So, a serious question Dr. GP…

    Which do you trust the most? The policy, or the empirical data?

  14. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Eye Spy
    You correctly opine that ” be it alcohol, cigarette, legal as well as illegal drugs, etc especially if taken for long periods of time they can all do harm to our bodies.”

    Some drugs can cause trouble or death when used the first time or for short periods because of the therapeutic index of the drug. You dont have to agree with me. YOu can look it up.

    Prescribed drugs ALL HAVE SIDE EFFECTS along with thier DESIRED EFFECT AND SO MIGHT help or cure one thing while they damage something else. BUT IN MANY CASES THIS IS DOSE RELATED AND CAN BE REVERSED.

    RE am of the opinion that some of these studies are more about the pharmaceuticals staying afloat than it is about the average person staying healthy.
    LOL DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES NEEDS STUDIES TO STAY AFLOAT?

    Are you aware of the fact that a lot of junk is published [so called peer reviewed, ie you scratch my back and I will scratch yours] so that University personel can keep thier jobs, or so they can include the lists of thier publications on thier resumes for job seeking and promotion purposes- and this whether they are publishing junk or not.

    Here is this NUT saying certain drugs are harmless when the man in the street in Bim knows otherwise.

  15. Duh Avatar
    Duh

    The study does not say that marijuana or any other drug is safe… only that some drugs cause more harm than others.

    And this is all relative harm, not absolute.

  16. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @GP [somewhat incorently wrote]: “DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES NEEDS STUDIES TO STAY AFLOAT?

    My understand is that “drugs” cannot be s9ld to (human) consumers by the pharmaceutical companies until they can be proven (by way of testing in humans) to be safe for humans.

    So, then, I must ask… Why are there so many advertisements on US of A TV channels promoting *so* many drugs which include the verbal warning “may cause anal leakage”, and/or “may cause heart attack”?

  17. Zion1971 Avatar
    Zion1971

    Dr. G.P . Not because the finidng of the study is not to your liking or flavour that means you have to be demonising the messenger because if it was the other way around you wouldnot miss a beat to ‘rallying ‘around it. Who are you to determine that what is publish is rubbished. If that was the case it would have been rejected by the peer review process.Your rancour and dismal of the findings because it does not conforms to your values is sad for a learned person of your status. Please sir leave those kind of outburst to the unlettered.

  18. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Zion1971 | November 1, 2010 at 4:25 PM |

    Sir in your haste to criticize me you display your obvious ignorance.
    The issue here is not whether the findings of the study is to my liking but whether it is accords to the generally accepted view on the issues. You will note that NUT was fired for his moronic mouthings and that his peers criticized not the reason why he was fired but the way he was fired. In other words his peers know that he was being methaneogogic!

    If it was correct or according to the generally accepted view on the issues .[until the new prevailing view can be substantiated by empiric evidence that is reproducible] I would stand with him, and so would many others. This is apparently not the case.

    I dismissed the summary, because I have not seen any serious findings because it does not conforms to known knowledge on the subject.

    Re Who are you to determine that what is publish is rubbished. Easy. I know about the subject. Its how you are able to know that your little child can not spell a big word like “cow” or a little word like “mosquito” Got the idea yet Sir?

    Re . If that was the case it would have been rejected by the peer review process. my experience with that, is that it does not work so well. I have taught along side men that didn’t know their subjects even though they had a PhD and a long list of publications on their cv’s – which were all no doubt peer reviewed. Don’t your peers here on BU think that you are amazingly brilliant?

  19. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Georgie Porgie: “[Zion1971] Sir in your haste to criticize me you display your obvious ignorance.

    Sigh… Mr. Porgie…

    If you were actually a learned man you would never take criticism personally…

    If you were actually a teacher you would never take questions as anything but genuine…

    Hmmmm….

  20. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Chris. As you rightly say, it is policy v. study. And as I said, it is taxation v. safe recreation and horticulture. Maybe if GP had a few tokes, new studies and new ideas and progress and changing consciousness and the ability to look at evidence without extreme prejudice, would not seem so threatening and alien to him. And maybe GP would even get over the childish trick of trying to impugn a serious scientist by pathetic word plays on his name. Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pie, kissed the girls and made them cry. But when the boys came out to play, Georgie Porgy ran away. So, you got to excuse GP – his hallowed beliefs are in danger of being cracked by a NUTT.

  21. EyeSpy Avatar
    EyeSpy

    @ Georgie Porgie | November 1, 2010 at 4:00 PM
    “Some drugs can cause trouble or death when used the first time or for short periods because of the therapeutic index of the drug. You don’t have to agree with me. You can look it up. “

    I’m in no way implying that a a one-time dose cannot cause damage to someone’s health. I am fully aware it depends on the person’s, for the lack of a better word, “makeup.” You maybe given a drug whether legal or illegal that do you no harm; your twin given the same drug and gets an allergic reaction, etc.

    “Prescribed drugs ALL HAVE SIDE EFFECTS along with their DESIRED EFFECT AND SO MIGHT help or cure one thing while they damage something else. BUT IN MANY CASES THIS IS DOSE RELATED AND CAN BE REVERSED.”

    I’ve been in Emergency when patients have been brought in pass out for taking an illegal substance, and they too are given something to reverse the situation – eventually bringing them back to the real world.

    “DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES NEEDS STUDIES TO STAY AFLOAT?”

    To think of it, they don’t when they have the physicians pushing the drugs for them – one hand washes the other. [Get where I’m going?] Nonetheless, I should have said that the pharmaceuticals may be concern that if some of the illegal drugs are legalized, there maybe less of a demand for certain drugs scaling down their profits.

    No disrespect to you GP but I find that you in some instances, and you are not alone, criticizes with a tone of bitterness. People, both professionals and nons have the right to believe what they want until they decide otherwise whether deemed a fact or not, just like you do.

  22. Zion1971 Avatar
    Zion1971

    Dr. GP you claimed that you are an expert on the subject matter but you know what that is a dime a dozen statement. Because I am sure there they are hundreds of other expert out there who will counter your claim. So who is right. Have you ever seen all those expert witnesses in court saying the opposite of each other findings. The truth of the matter is that we have no monopoly on truth. And just like everthing else even the so called scientific method is flawed because for most times it is premise on stochastic variables which is probablistic by nature. The general accepted view in science does not equates to an iron clad proof of truth like a mathematical theorem. Remember for 2000 years mankind was of the general view that we live in a geocentric universe ….. Until copernicus, Kelper and Galleleo destroy that foundation. We know the history of what happen to Galleleo.

  23. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Amused you are just talking nonsense. You are not addressing the substance of the issue either literally or metaphorically. All you are doing is engaging in ad hominems. I dont care if folk smoke weed or cigarettes or drink ethanol. In none of these cases am I benefitted.

    If you have read the article in the Lancet as I have, Prof NUT has not given any OBJECTIVE CLINICAL INFORMATION TO PROVE THAT ETHANOL IS WORSE THAN DRUG A B C . Does it cause more hepatitis? Are the transaminases raised in ethanol users more than other drug users? To what levels? For how long? With what long term effects? At what doses? Is the effect of using the agents dose dependent? Are they reversible?
    What study what?
    That flimsy paper is expected to change policy? As they say I didnt come to town yesterday. Nor did I buy my papers?

    Can you guys discus any of the relevent questions above? Did you see them in the goo that NUT published.

    Re Maybe if GP had a few tokes, new studies and new ideas and progress and changing consciousness and the ability to look at evidence without extreme prejudice, would not seem so threatening and alien to him.

    What exactly are you saying here Sir?

    What new ideas, new studies did this NUT bring forward? Some guys got together for a day and scored what exactly? And how? On the basis of what OBJECTIVE CLINICAL EVIDENCE SEEING THAT THEY WERE COMPARING DRUGS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DANGEROUS TO HUMANS?

    Where is the evidence? Where is the prejuidice? Is not progress made from the KNOWN to THE UNKNOWN?

    A NUT can not crack the hallowed established beliefs unless he brings solid evidence that is REPRODUCIBLE. Or dont you understand that? Hilarious.

  24. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Mr Zion1971 | November 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM
    Re The general accepted view in science does not equates to an iron clad proof of truth like a mathematical theorem

    Brilliant! Now would you like to be given a slight overdose of digoxin! Just a little MORE THAN THE ACCEPTED DOSE SIR? The accepted dose does not equate to an iron clad proof of truth like a mathematical theorem, but try it and let us plant you!

    In fact we know that according to sex, and some other factors that even with the correct dose you might flake out sir. You may now return to your mark,measure your run out properly and look to see where the stumps are. This is fun. LOL

  25. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    EYE SPY

    Re “DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES NEEDS STUDIES TO STAY AFLOAT?”

    To think of it, they don’t when they have the physicians pushing the drugs for them – one hand washes the other. [Get where I’m going?]

    NO I DON’T SIR
    It would be stupid to prescribe drugs that you have not mastered, willy nilly. Sane sober doctors don’t prescribe that way. It does not make sense. There is no evidence that this is done or there would be global evidemics of hepatic disease everywhere THINK OF IT SIR!

    Tell me how doctors push drugs for pharmaceutical companies Explain this to me.

    In Bim drug representatives come around hoping to talk to doctors to introduce their drugs to them. Some reps are seen by some doctors once a year. Some twice yearly. Some not at all. If you are not busy and you like a rep, you listen to them and give them a good grilling as I often did (once asked a white girl the half life of a lozenge) or you talked about life and cricket etc

    In the US, what I have noticed is that the reps drop off some samples with the recceptionist. They dont seem to get to the doctor in the office setting .
    Re Nonetheless, I should have said that the pharmaceuticals may be concern that if some of the illegal drugs are legalized, there maybe less of a demand for certain drugs scaling down their profits.

    Are you saying Sir that if we legalized marijuana or heroin that less digoxin or diabetes medicine or drugs for known or specific diseases would sell. Are you saying that a sane doctor would use something else besides Tegretol for trigeminal neuralgia etc? Why?

    No I don’t answer with a tone of bitterness Sir. Some folk I don’t answer at all! Folk who asked questions in the correct tone get an appropriate answer. Challengers and morons are also answered appropriately too. Because I enjoy mocking the unlearned who PRETEND to know—when it is VERY clear that they know absolutely nothing.

    I am glad that you see that I should have the s Sure you have the right to believe what— especially when I am correct, and KNOW THAT I AM CORRECT.

  26. David Avatar
    David

    Please note one has to register on the Lancet Website to read the full Nutt report.

  27. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    You can tell a lot from a summary or abstract David
    Thats why these must be written

  28. Zion1971 Avatar
    Zion1971

    Dr. G.P. You are missing my general point. You must be aware that some areas of biological sciences are not exact science but are based on probabilities and thus cannot be compare to to proofs in the mathematical world. The whole health insurance industry is based on those probabilties. Example, the general accepted claim that if you smoke you will get cancer is a probabilistic statement and cannot be considerered absolute truth because there are a lot of people who smoke and live a long life without getting cancer. In the mathematical world things donot work like that. If I say the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degree and you then if find 0ne triangle out of a billion observed triangles that donot conform to this theroem then the whole foundation of Euclidean geometry comes tumbling down. Not so with the other sciences.

  29. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Do any of you know of a heroin or crack addict that was able to kick the habit bwithout medical intervention ?

    I have known alcoholics who didn’t drink during Lent and others who went to AA meetings and quit drinking.

  30. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Mr Zion Sir

    Re You must be aware that some areas of biological sciences are not exact science but are based on probabilities and thus cannot be compare to to proofs in the mathematical world.

    But what has that got to do with the issues here with this NUT fellow.

    If we wanted to decide what is most dangerous wont we do certain tests on as larghe a sample of folk as we could? Over a period of time? Double blinded? Probably testing for outcomes like effects on brain function or liver function or kidney function etc ? in the different sexes? races? different populations etc

    We can bring you and your Maths in for staistical analysis- where it is more relevant.

  31. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Hants. And I have known many (meaning MANY) contemporaries who, in their youth (60s) used to smoke weed. And know what? Most of them don’t now and they didn’t need drugs to give it up, or organisations like AA. They just grew out of it. No muss no fuss. Some of them, like me, take an occasional toke. Guess what? No hangovers or liver damage or need for AA or drugs to give up drugs.

    @GP. Man you got to get a life and a bit of understanding. Not sure what your problem is, but there again anyone who kisses girls and makes them cry and then runs away when the cavalry arrives……I believe the word is “bullying”. Sorry to have to tell you this, but I am one of the boys – so start running.

  32. EyeSpy Avatar
    EyeSpy

    Let’s cut to the chase. There is not everything you say whether it’s a pro or con, that other doctors, scientists, researchers would agree with you. And, furthermore for you to say you know “you are correct.” Please don’t fool yourself.

    With due respect, you are more likely than not correct in somethings you put forth but I don’t think everything.

    Please admit that you too are not always correct, even if it is very seldom.

  33. Zion1971 Avatar
    Zion1971

    DR G.P. In resting my case all I will say is that you have prejudiced your case againt Prof Nut and thus remove all doubt of objectivity. Again, If the professor finding had beeen the converse would you have been questioning his methodology? I don’t think so sir.

  34. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Zion you are not listening and thus you are not learning.

    I heard the headline for this nonsence on Fox News tonight. They said that fellas in the UK say that alcohol is worse than the rest of drugs- thats all. No information – no evidence. Am I to take that as the gospel? Is NUT the Lord?

    None of you have discussed the methodology, the results , or nothing about the man’s pronouncement- because it seems you cant. So its all ad hominems at GP.

    If Nut had come and said when folk take x y or z these parameters are affected one can understand. That is the norm.

    If you are my patient and you are a known drinker, I would have to do your liver function tests, or I would not have a prayer in court, I would have to examine your liver. I would want to know how the drug affects your mental status and function.

    How long have you been taking the drug or at what dose levels? etc
    At least you should hope that I was competent to do such. if your friend is using something else we would want to do similar tests for comparison. How can wee compare two drugs with no objective tests Thats all I am saying. All the nonsense you are talking is rubbish and irrelevent.

    Nut has produced no objective evidence and you say that I am not objective?

    The other joker wants to tell me when I know. When I dont know I dont say anything. Prove that I do not know. Go check online and see if my methodology is not sound.

    Hilarious. Non medics will teach me about my profession on BU now, and how things are done. Because I am a Bajan you think I dont know. Hilarious !

  35. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    @Amused,
    I wrote “heroin or crack” as a comparison to alcohol.
    I did not mention weed.

  36. Doc Avatar
    Doc

    Most people switch off their logic when it comes to the contentious social issue of recreational drug use, but I’ll try to summarise some points on the issue.

    – Alcohol is strongly beneficial to the body. It strongly protects us against heart attacks, which are a common killer of modern-day human beings.

    – That benefit can come at a high cost. Alcohol in high doses can damage the brain, heart, liver, and other parts of the body of the person using it, as well as induce violence, increase vulnerability to accidents, decrease sexual ability, and decrease work productivity.

    – Since alcohol is also strongly beneficial at low doses, most of use would be well advised to follow Biblical advice and drink a little alcohol, but to avoid excess and drunkenness. When we do this, we gain great benefit, at little cost.

    – Cocaine is dangerous, but its danger was vastly exaggerated during the racism-fueled crack scare of the Reagan era.

    – Heroin is also dangerous, but it is far less dangerous than most people believe. Most damage currently done by heroin is a result of its prohibited status.

    – Marijuana is worryingly dangerous to approximately 1% of the adult population— those with a predisposition to psychotic illness. It is also dangerous to developing brains and some people with active mental illness. The danger to people outside those groups is slight. Unfortunately, some people don’t know that they had a predisposition until after they’ve suffered marijuana-related adverse reaction. Thankfully, such reactions are essentially never fatal.

    – The claim that marijuana can’t be taxed because it’s easily grown seems odd. Governments don’t seem to have any problems taxing bananas and carrots, and industrial production of fruits and vegetables is not hampered by the fact that we can all grow them in windowsill pots.

    – Prohibition has never worked well as a means of reducing overall personal and social damage due to common drugs of potential abuse.

    – Current drug policies have their historical basis in:
    (a) horrid propaganda scares that have generally been laced with racist scaremongering. Crack cocaine policy in the US was terribly warped by racist fear of black people. Ganja policy was influenced by anti-black as well as anti-black racism. Heroin policy was shaped by anti-Asian racism.
    (b) narrow-minded economic interests, e.g. hemp;
    (c) political grandstanding to seem “tough on crime” and active in the fight against it, whether such activity is helpful or not;
    (d) international lackeyism, where weak countries ape the policies of powerful ones even in opposition to their own understanding or self-interest;
    (e) a near-complete lack of political or social interest in objective evidence.

    – This means that the common (and generally sensible) policy of vigorously supporting the status quo (and attacking those who question it) until satisfactory evidence has been presented to topple it, is highly inappropriate in this case. The status quo with respect to national and international drug policy is evil. It supports racist and classist inequities, where dark-skinned and low-income peoples are inappropriately targeted for brutal enforcement of pointless laws that never served the common good in the first place.

    My personal policy is this: I drink alcohol in paediatric doses, and avoid inebriation due to any substance. I don’t get drunk, I don’t get high, I don’t get stoned.

    My view on public policy is this: I strongly advocate decriminalisation of personal use and small-quantity trafficking of all common drugs of abuse. Those who are familiar with the terminology of this issue will recognise that this doesn’t mean I advocate wholesale legalisation.

    With regard to the prolific GP: I see him asserting that Prof. Nutt was wrong, but the anecdotal recounting of seeming edge cases that GP provides doesn’t actually refute Prof. Nutt in any way that I can see.
    “Eating vegetables is good for you.”
    “Nonsense, sir— you are wrong! My maternal grand-uncle choked fatally on a piece of cucumber!”

    More can be read about Prof. Nutt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Nutt

    In the context of an utter absence of objective data refuting Prof. Nutt, GP’s opportunistic mocking of the man’s name is highly offensive.

    I write as a Caribbean national who, at work and socially, has been closely exposed to the workings of drug rehab and drug enforcement. I have never personally used any illegal recreational drugs, and have no interest in doing so.

  37. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Georgie Porgie | November 1, 2010 at 8:58 PM | “Zion you are not listening and thus you are not learning………..”

    I have come across some pompous horses asses in my life, but man, you are something else. What in hell makes you think that any of us need instruction (and bullying) from you? I will tell you now, no way would you be practicing your profession on me. Your last comment proves that you have not even read the methodology yourself, yet feel qualified to dismiss it. I have to face the fact that, were I your patient, which thank the Lord I am not, I could be suffering from a disease for which a new treatment might be available, but which you would dismiss on the basis of your assinine prejudices.

    @Hants. Apologies. I did a GP and assumed on the basis on insufficient data. I ought to have known better as it was you. Again apologies.

  38. Duh Avatar
    Duh

    Bravo @ Doc for a demonstration of uncommon common sense.

  39. Doc Avatar
    Doc

    Correction:

    “Ganja policy was influenced by anti-black as well as anti-black racism.”

    should be “anti-black as well as anti-*Mexican* racism”.

  40. kiki Avatar
    kiki

    Alcohol is more damaging to society as it is more commonly used than other substances.
    ▢ Penetrate The Works Of Jah ▢ Marijuana World Tour ▢ No More Shall I Roam ▢

  41. David Avatar
    David

    It will all become academic as the leader of the moral free world move forward apace to legalize previously illegal substances in the near future. Barbados will simple fall in line. Time longer than twine.

  42. kiki Avatar
    kiki

    ▢ Penetrate The Works Of Jah ▢ Marijuana World Tour ▢ No More Shall I Roam ▢

  43. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Amused
    You should change your name to HILARITER (Latin laughter) as you are HILARIOUS!

    Re What in hell makes you think that any of us need instruction.CLEARLY YOU DON’T AND YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF RECEIVING INSTRUCTION ON THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED, AS IT IS WAY OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE. Why don’t you sit down and shut up like a nice little boy. Go and let your moma give you some milk sonny.

    You can debate me on this issue clearly, so you resort to your ineffective ad hominems.

    Re I will tell you now, no way would you be practicing your profession on me. OBVIOUSLY NOT! I AM A DOCTOR- NOT A VET.

    Re Your last comment proves that you have not even read the methodology yourself, yet feel qualified to dismiss it. I READ THE LANCET ARTICLE. AND GUESS WHAT I AM INDEED QUALIFIED TO DISMISS IT, IF I CHOOSE. YOU SEE I ACTUALLY UNDERESTAND THE ORGANIC CHEMISTRY AND PHARMACOLOGY INVOLVED AND THE METHODS USED TO COMPARE AND DEVELOP DRUGS.

    Re I have to face the fact that, were I your patient, which thank the Lord I am not, YES THE LORD IS TRULY GOOD. HE HAS ALLOWED ME TO ESCAPE FROM MEETING IDIOTS LIKE YOU in clinical practice

    RE I could be suffering from a disease for which a new treatment might be available, but which you would dismiss on the basis of your assinine prejudices.

    First do you know what prejudice is? I am not pre judging anything here. I commented on an article that David posted on the basis of my knowledge of Basic Medical Sciences- i.e Pathology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology in this case. What are you basing your harangue on? Which of the Basic Medical Sciences? I stated my position, and I have logically defended my position based on the Basic Medical Sciences that I learned and that I teach. What is the basis for your pithy puerile posts? A betzpaenic brain?

    Secondly do you know that smart, sane, sober, serious, students of the profession don’t jump into using “new treatments” just because they are available? Have you heard of Avandia for example? It was around for 10 years before one started to see its attendant problems, and before clamors for its withdrawal started to be heard. David sought to have it discussed on BU. He posted an article. No interest was shown Why? Now some as stupid as you will think they are smart and say you mean you have to wait ten years?

    Smart, sane, sober, serious, students of the profession attend conferences and discuss the merits and demerits of new treatments. They inquire about the mechanism of action, duration and onset of action, effects and side effects, and the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the treatments. Do you know that the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc have been studied.

    Do you know that doctors including those in the UK ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF USING SUCH TO AGREE OR DISAGREE OR DISMISS THE EDICTS OF NUT.

    Now I am sure that you have not learned anything from the above, but I am sure also that those who are listening will learn some principles, whether they agree with me or not.

    Now you and those of you ilk- in your crystal clear ignorance of the topic can engage in your methaneogogic behavior and continue with your ad hominems. HILARIOUS!

  44. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    PARAGRAPH 3 SHOULD READ you cant debate me on this topic

    THE DANGER OF RUSHING INTO NEW TREATMENTS

    Whereas in the development of new drugs there are certain protocols to be followed, it is becoming evident that the numbers used in clinical trials might very well not be enough.

    In the case of Avandia it has apparently taken 10 years for sufficient folk to be exposed to the drug to really get an indication of its real side effect risks.

    There have also been serious allegations about corruption in the FDA.Consequently Drugs made by US companies tend to be more likely to be recalled.

  45. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Doc Sir!
    You are the first to at least try to offer sensible debate on this issue, and I appreciate your attempt.

    Please define “seeming edge?

    Does your close exposed to the workings of drug rehab and drug enforcement bring you into contact with an in depth understanding of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the substances under discussion?

    I cant see why the fact that your relative choked fatally on a piece of cucumber leads to the conclusion that the axiom that ““Eating vegetables is good for you” is nonsense and wrong.

    Do you think that telling me about who the celebrated Prof. NUT is will phase me? I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHO NUT IS……..BUT IN WHAT HE SAID!

    Do you think that it is possible that NUT could have an agenda. Why are not all the neurochemists etc in the UK NOT SOLIDLY BEHIND HIM IN CANTIBUS IN CHORO?

    I do understand your view point as a Social Scientists or Social worker about the historical basis of current drug policies, and your strong views thereon, since you are closely associated with the effects of the political ramifications etc

    I agree with you also that , as it is very apparent that “ people switch off their logic when it comes to the contentious social issue of recreational drug use , however, my interest is on the PHARMACOLOGY, PATHOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY. Can you contribute in this sphere, Sir?

    Re – Alcohol is strongly beneficial to the body. It strongly protects us against heart attacks, which are a common killer of modern-day human beings. THIS IS OFF COURSE NOT TRUE. And is being debated by nutritionists and other Basic Medical Scientists.

    ALCOHOL CAUSES PANCREATITIS AND IS A CAUSE OF ADENOCARCINOMAS OF THE PANCREAS

    It is true though that” Alcohol in high doses can damage the brain, heart, liver, and other parts of the body of the person using it, as well as induce violence, increase vulnerability to accidents, decrease sexual ability, and decrease work productivity.” We have posted here on BU A PPT ON THIS SUBJECT.

    Cocaine and heroin are both dangerous.
    Re Most damage currently done by heroin is a result of its prohibited status.

    This is clearly an oxymoron. Its either dangerous chemically to the body or not.It either affects the brain or liver etc or it does not! Which is it?

    Re Marijuana is worryingly dangerous to approximately 1% of the adult population— those with a predisposition to psychotic illness. It is also dangerous to developing brains and some people with active mental illness. The danger to people outside those groups is slight. Unfortunately, some people don’t know that they had a predisposition until after they’ve suffered marijuana-related adverse reaction.

    The practice of Medicine is that we ought to prevent the possible causes of drugs rather than trying to treat the causes

    Sir it is refreshing to read on BU A POST BY SOMEONE SEEKING TO BRING INFORMATION OF EDUCATIONAL VALUE TO THE FORUM INSTEAD OF THE UNSUBSTANTIATED AD HOMINEMS.

    And I will be calling the man NUT Ok. That’s my style of debate. Plus I love a pun! Its fun!

  46. Anonus Avatar
    Anonus

    GP, tiresome, childish, idle Georgie Porgie complains of ad hominems and then makes the second form joke of laughing at a man’s name…Pity.

  47. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    Wow….some things never change!!

    *SMH*

  48. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Pity that you cant contribute to the SUBSTANCE OF THE DEBATE.

    I didnt hear you when another made the second form joke of laughing at my handle Georgie Porgie. Hilarious!

    Idle LOL Wish I could get you to help me set up a virtual i.e an online Biochemistry lab course, but alas that would require something higher than your obvious betzpaenia.

  49. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    True it is that some things dont change on BU.
    There are some who are well educated, know what they are talking about, and who can boldly defend and articulate what they KNOW well………..and they are others who can only stand on the sidelines and hurl thier poor, pithy, puerile pebbles , thier little attempted barbs and other ad hominems.

    It has always been so. In any group of folk there are the leaders and the leaners, the learned and the unlearned, the hated and the hatefull, the envious and the envied, the briiliant and those who use Brilliantine et cetera. HILARIOUS

  50. Zion1971 Avatar
    Zion1971

    Now I understand why the the medical profession is the most sued. Too many quacks parading their ignoramus by hiding behind the apellation MD .

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading