Ironically, I’ve never tried any of the ‘legal highs’ because I thought if they’re legal they can’t be much cop.

Maybe now that mephedrone’s been banned I’ll give it a go.

It’s almost as if “New” Labour are deliberately trying to look illiberal: not content with the war on terror as an excuse to infringe our liberties, they pick a fight with independent scientific advisors.

Eric Carlin’s resignation would have been better coming with the others who resigned when Nutt was fired. I never trusted Blair and his spin obsessed band of crypto-Thatcherites, but looking back to 1997 I never expected them to turn out to have “something of the night” about them.

The sooner we get shot of them the better!

Galen @ 2: yep, I have to confess, as a Labour party member, that this kind of routine illiberalism is one reason why many people will not be voting Labour at the next election.

There is a lot of liberalism on these issues – well, some – in the wider party, but it is barely audible most of the time. Those who are committed to civil liberties within Labour need to think afresh about how we pressure for our ideas within the party. The first step is a realistic appreciation of just how truly bad the Labour record is.

Stuart @3

I don’t envy you frankly, though I wish you every success. When I think back to 1997 and the strains of “Things Can Only Get Better” I can only hold my head in my hands, and wonder how it all went so Pete Tong. The unembarassed use of the very term “New” Labour always made me naseous.

I’m one of those who never vote Labour again… I just hope they haven’t doomed us to a decade of Cameron. With luck, enough disillusioned folk will vote tactically to ensure that neither Brown or Blair have a working majority.

Alan Johnson: friend of criminals, enemy of science.

(@shatterface: yep, i always felt that way too. Plus there was never any trouble getting the real stuff, because it’s bloody everywhere. Criminalisation reduces supply my arse. People were routinely selling drugs at my school, for crying out loud).

The sooner we get shot of them the better!

I don’t disagree that New Labour is very illiberal in many areas. But I think the problem is more the influence and strength of the conservative press on the issue, than their own views on the issue.

To be honest I don’t fancy the electoral prospects much of any minister who legalises this stuff because the Daily Mail crowd would hold him responsible for any drug-related death forever on.

Road traffic kills about 3000 people every year in Britain – see Table 10.11 in this official source:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2009edition/sectionteninternat1849.pdf

For reasons I have difficulty comprehending, road traffic hasn’t been banned. Surely this is an oversight.

As for those who succumb to mephedrone, I propose we honour them all with posthumous Darwin Awards:

Note: The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of
the human genome by honoring those who
accidentally remove themselves from it…
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/

@6 Sunny

I see your point, and don’t disagree with the gist of it. I’m not saying legalisation is the answer.. it’s a whole new debate.

My main issue however is still the illiberality of the whole “New” Labour project, the repeated and egregious attacks on liberty, of which this is only the latest example in a long and shameful list.

Is the Daily Mail calling for alcoholic drinks to be banned? If not, why not?

“The number of alcohol-related deaths in the United Kingdom has consistently increased since the early 1990s, rising from the lowest figure of 4,023 (6.7 per 100,000) in 1992 to the highest of 9,031 (13.6 per 100,000) in 2008.”
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1091

“Is the Daily Mail calling for alcoholic drinks to be banned? If not, why not?”

I do wonder sometimes if we should stop using this. *We* think it’s a killer logic point, but there are almost certainly people in the world who would favour, if not a ban, a few “restrictions”. In fact, police can already confiscate alcohol off people in designated zones. The “wrong sort of drinkers” already have restrictions on them.

‘People were routinely selling drugs at my school, for crying out loud’

Well, yes – teachers are shockingly underpaid.

Alix is right: drawing parallels between drugs and alcohol will result in anti-alcohol laws, not a liberal drug policy.

The government is obssessed with ‘sin’.

In fact, what they’d need is a few studies showing that alcohol-related deaths are highest in certain social groups, and these social groups will be associated with particular sorts of drinking, and they’ll probably invent little labels like “street drinkers” and “old men’s boozer drinkers”, with appropriate demographics and economic profiles attached, and you’re away. You can legislate against alcohol in the context of those particular behaviours in order to “save” these people who, well, are too low down the disadvantage scale to know better, poor things. We’re already on this road – a lot of the anti-amoking argument was and is explicitly framed in these terms.

Deaths attributable to alcohol have more than doubled since 1992 and currently run at three times the numbers killed in road traffic accidents. Both dwarf the numbers killed by foolish young people who risk methedone in search of a brief recreational high.

A worrying twist to all this is the following news from January:

“One of the country’s most commonly prescribed anti-obesity drugs has been banned across Europe after it was blamed for increasing patients’ chances of suffering a heart attack or a stroke.

“The European Medicines Agency (EMA) ordered doctors across the continent to stop prescribing sibutramine and told pharmacists not to dispense the drug, which is marketed in the UK as Reductil.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/22/reductil-banned-in-europe

In other words, pan-European intervention was necessary to prevent physicians from prescribing a restricted drug which enhanced the chances of their patients suffering a heart attack or stroke.

It’s difficult to believe that drug control authorities in Britain and the medics really know what they are doing.

You should check out the strange effects drugs have on spiders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc&feature=youtube_gdata

As I’ve been saying on Twitter today – if pro-legislation campaigners are serious than they need to figure out how to move public opinion quite strongly in their direction.

Right now its about 50-50, and even then it looks like public attitudes harden against drugs as soon as policy is loosened.
http://bit.ly/91RBUU

So while I agree that drugs policy needs some clear political leadership – until public opinion moves decisively towards liberalisation I don’t see that happening. The political cost could be too high.

Those in favour of liberalisation tend not to be as vociferous as the antis. For one thing there’s a social stigma attached to it which can even effect your career – even if you don’t use drugs yourself. For another thing we really aren’t well organised.

Is it not strange how this drug has been classed the same as marijuana? They know close to nothing about it, which could mean either it’s very harmful, or not very harmful. Consequences of marijuana are minimal, and very well-known. Isn’t this seriously flawed logic?

Also, the alcohol argument is not a good argument in favour of drugs, but it helps to point out the hypocrisy of the government and highlight the fact that drugs such as marijuana are less harmful.

I also wonder when the UK will introduce medical marijuana.. It’s really quite backwards. California is so close to completely legalizing it right now.

Marijuana and skunk need to be differentiated when the possible harm they can cause is being considered. Because cannabidiol has been bred out of skunk it can cause more serious long-term effects, especially on mental health.

Of course, the point made by Nutt and many others is that we should consider the risk from drugs (or anything else) in the context of risks we consider acceptable. How much more dangerous is taking ecstasy to driving down the M1?

Given that the supply of illegal drugs seems so robust I wonder how much the market is worth and where the money goes?

Um, cannabidiol is in regular marijuana. It has nothing to do with skunk. This whole thing about “skunk” being harmful, harder weed is bollocks. It’s just stronger stuff, eg., more THC. The link between cannabidiol and schizophrenia? It is said to treat it –

“Recent studies have shown cannabidiol to be as effective as atypical antipsychotics in treating schizophrenia.”

Er, that’s my point. Skunk lacks cannabidiol as well as being stronger in THC. Cannabidiol inhibits some of the negative effects of THC, so skunk can have more serious negative effects.