Drug Advisor tells the truth, gets fucking fired

If you’ve never seen the documentary, “Is Alcohol worse than ecstasy?”, I urge you to see it. It’ll make the sacking of Professor David Nutt, the UK’s chief drug adviser all the more relevant. You see, Professor Nutt had the “audacity” to claim ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.

For real scientists, this revelation is nothing new. The drug policy of most countries aren’t based on real scientific information, but are rather dictated by fear of something people rarely understand. No one feels that alcohol is a drug, despite the fact an estimated 76 million people suffer from alcohol dependence, and over 1.8 million people die every year from consuming it. You don’t even want to fucking know how many people die prematurely from smoking cigarettes. It’s depressing.

In protest of Prof. Nutt getting canned, a bunch of other scientists have also quit their government jobs. As is typical in this kind of situation, the one responsible is trying very hard to justify his actions:

Mr Johnson insisted that he was right to force Professor Nutt to stand down months after he took over as council chairman. “You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against government decisions,” he said.

The fear of illicit drugs is a potent tool of control in our modern society. How else can you explain the fact that we prosecute our own citizens for doing nothing more than putting a foreign substance into their OWN FUCKING BODIES. And don’t try to give me this “we need to protect people from themselves” bullshit that people love to toss around. You don’t protect anybody by throwing individuals with drug problems into the same institutions where you keep murderers and thieves.

It’s almost comically easy to scare the shit out of the public when it comes to mysterious and exotic substances, and when people are scared, they get stupid and desperate enough to allow unjust and inhumane laws to exists under the guise of “protecting their children” or something equally obnoxious. Meanwhile, the two deadliest drugs on the planet are heavily taxed by governments. I’m actually in favor of this all around. Why do we think it’s weird to legislate a drug? How many of you people are reading this very article with a damn beer in your hand? What hell did you think that shit was? Candy???

**NOTE** I think we should call “alcohol poisoning” what it really is: a fucking drug overdose.

(Props to Tom for the find)

Comments (8)

  • avatar

    CybrgnX

    Being a genuine asshole, I always call alcohol and cigarettes DRUGS and the users drug addicts needing their fix. If you look at the actual USER statistics one will find that marijuana VERY much safer then alcohol.
    I never saw the attraction of cigarettes and always thought they should legalize my favorite drug (speed), but no luck so far.
    And in line with this article its amazing how much stuff is legal because it became common years ago and would not be legal under our present laws.
    But the LAW crooks are making too much money off the WAR on DRUGs so the truth will be suppressed which wont be hard as the largest voting block at the moral bullies and cowards and do want to know the truth so nothing will be fixed.

  • avatar

    Jim

    “””How many of you people are reading this very article with a damn beer in your hand?”””

    Hahaha, that’s me! But i’m also coming off a weekend in which i took 2 ecstasy pills, a bunch of hash cookies and a joint (not all at once!).

    At the very least, ecstasy should be rescheduled for the purpose of couples counselling and treatment for anxiety over personal issues.

  • avatar

    Cintoast

    While the drug issue is important, this whole incident affects any scientist, as it’s emphasising how governments all over the world ignore advisory panels of experts and just do what they want to do, or what suits their personal beliefs. And this is in a country that’s generally viewed as reasonably forward and scientific, it’s difficult to imagine what it would be like in some other parts of the world.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    Some drugs should remain illegal. Some.

  • avatar

    Craig

    Which ones? Who makes the decision and on what merits?

  • avatar

    Razzle

    Good question, I’m not sure, perhaps the ones that require very little of, to completely lose your mind and become a danger to others.

    Who makes the decision? The public through elections. I’m just talking about what “should be”

  • avatar

    Hardy

    it’s nice to be the famous genuine asshole!

  • avatar

    Zombie Jesus

    I would agree with Prof. Nutt’s statement, so long as he meant regulated manufactured LSD and ecstasy. Of course, that doesn’t exist since it’s illegal. I would ask anyone who has used a “street drug” if they asked the purity before they ingested it. Believe me when I say that a pill of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (E) is not pure and that if it was, it would kill you. Cocaine is cut with icing sugar. Pure cocaine will kill you. When drugs are illegal and therefore forced into the underground market, I highly doubt that the average guy running a meth lab in his basement has refined and perfected the process, nor is he probably using the best equipment. That is the danger of them. Hell, moonshine was extremely dangerous back in prohibition. Some people would brew their own alcohol and it would turn about 80%; bear in mind that Vodka and spirits are 40-50% and beer is 3-5%. Take the street out of the drugs and you may just find that they are less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

    Like most drugs, there is a positive effect. Of course, there are also positive effects from cigarettes, such as weight loss and relaxation. And likewise with most drugs, those positive effects are usually superficial; smoking puts incredible strain on the heart and nervous system and the weight loss is usually merely diuretic.

    There are a number of problems with alcohol, as with most other drugs: they all have negative effects on the body. The negative effects vary, of course. But alcohol is just as much a poison as it is a drug. It doesn’t take a genius to remove the prefix and suffix from inTOXICation. The toxicity is evident mostly in the metabolite acetaldehyde, which is the leading cause of cirrhosis of the liver, alcoholism, and even some fucking strands of cancer.

    Whatever you think the average person knows about biochemical interactions, it’s usually less than that. I had the H1N1 virus. It was pretty bad for a couple of days, then it cleared faster than when I have influenza. I’m scared to shit of all the people that die from influenza every year, as apposed to the 700 WORLDWIDE that died from SARS.

    There are some cases that drugs need controlling. Heroin seems an appropriate example. The reason is that it is so chemically addictive that not only will people need a fix, it easily escalates to the point where they will kill for it. You want your own personal hitman? Create a heroin addict and hold the fix ransom. That is how heroin kills, not just in overdose.

    As a sidenote: up here on the sunny beaches of Canada, we most often send drug users to rehabilitation clinics where they can use clean needles and the like, then start lowering the dosages, then start to cycle off. They also receive counselling. Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking is one of Canada’s more serious offences and that is because you are no longer only affecting yourself, and those people are the ones that we imprison.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top