Labour's new drugs tsar scoffed at fears of skunk danger just two

[hobbez]

The Government’s new chief drugs adviser has claimed that potent forms of cannabis known as ‘skunk’ are no more dangerous than the traditional variety.

 

Professor Les Iversen, who was appointed last week, wrote that there was no evidence teenagers were in more danger from smoking cannabis now than in the Sixties.

 

His comments, which appear to contradict Government thinking, were published less than two years ago in a book on the drug.

 

In 2008, the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, citing the new ‘skunk’ forms.

 

She said at the time: ‘This powerful form of cannabis is an illegal and harmful drug. There is a compelling case for us to act now, rather than risk the future health of young people.’

 

Yet in the second edition of The Science Of Marijuana published the same year, Prof Iversen played down the fears.

 

He wrote: ‘The more extravagant claims about super-potent cannabis suggesting that recreational users today are exposed to a wholly different drug from the one their parents may have consumed 20 to 30 years ago are not supported by the evidence.’

 

Skunk has been linked to a string of vicious killings. Father-of-three Garry Newlove was murdered by three teenagers high on skunk and beer in Warrington, Cheshire.

 

And Terry Wilson was stabbed to death in his sleep in Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, by his son Daniel, 28, during a skunk-induced delusion.

 

Prof Iversen’s views will concern Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who fired his new adviser’s predecessor for a controversially liberal stance on cannabis.

 

Professor David Nutt, the first chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to be fired in its 38-year history, was sacked after he wrote a paper for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College, London.

'Cannabis can cause anxiety, agitation and anger among politicians. The consequences include over-reaction with respect to legislation and politics'

 

Professor Les Iversen in the second edition of The Science Of Marijuana published in 2008

 

In it he accused Ms Smith of ‘distorting and devaluing’ scientific research, and said that smoking cannabis created a ‘relatively small risk’ of psychotic illness.

 

Prof Iversen, who lives with his wife Susan in a £1million home in Little Milton, Oxfordshire, refused to comment on his book last night. But he played down any potential conflicts with the Home Secretary.

 

He said: ‘Cannabis is harmful and poses a real threat to the health of those who use it. The ACMD are still concerned about the widespread use of cannabis among young people and the increasing use of strains with a high concentration of THC [skunk].

 

‘We are keeping the current evidence concerning the harms of cannabis under review.’

The Science Of Marijuana by Professor Les Iversen

 

In his book, Professor Iversen plays down fears of new forms of 'skunk'

 

But Tory MP Ann Widdecombe said: ‘We need to know very firmly what his views are and why he has seemingly changed them so radically in less than two years. And if there is any doubt about what his views are, then his position must also be in doubt.’

 

Controversy over Prof Iversen’s appointment is likely to be inflamed by other comments he has made in print.

 

In The Science Of Marijuana, he appeared to mock the ‘over-reaction’ of politicians to cannabis, writing: ‘Cannabis can cause anxiety, agitation and anger among politicians. The consequences of this cannabis-induced psychological distress syndrome include over-reaction with respect to legislation and politics and a lack of distinction between use and misuse of cannabis.’

 

And he likened the etiquette of a group smoking marijuana to the passing of the port at an Oxbridge college dinner.

 

Comments in another book, Speed, Ecstasy, Ritalin: The Science Of Amphetamines, will also raise concerns that Prof Iversen’s position on Ecstasy is not significantly different from his predecessor’s.

 

Prof Nutt was heavily criticised when he claimed that Ecstasy was ‘no more dangerous than riding a horse’, and added that cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.

 

In his book, Prof Iversen suggested Ecstasy may have medicinal value. He wrote: ‘Given the way in which Ecstasy has been demonised on both sides of the Atlantic, it will take a considerable effort to rehabilitate it as a safe and effective medicine, although it does seem to have genuine potential for therapeutic benefits.’

 

But last night he said: ‘I fully support the report that we [ACMD] produced in February 2009 which stated that use of Ecstasy is undoubtedly harmful.’

 

I love how the bolded this bit on the page

 

'Cannabis can cause anxiety, agitation and anger among politicians. The consequences include over-reaction with respect to legislation and politics'

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-years-ago.html

 

And rather than posting a new topic, the previous Drug Tsar David Nutt is starting his own 'rebel scientific group' to show the real dangers of drugs like cannabis etc.

 

story here - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2...15875-21971521/

[Crunchy]

they appointed him as drug czar knowing full well his background and all... what are they trying to pull?

i hope theyre not going on some simple minded angle like "He used to think cannabis was bad but now he doesnt so his views are legitimate, DDUUUUURRRRRR >.<"

 

its obvious the bloke is compromising his personal views and dignity to hold the position, though given that hes already releasing statements helping debunk the myths about cannabis i think he will help work toward our cause more than against it. Hopefully Prof. David Nutt can make it back on to the Drug Council sometime soon, though i doubt he'll regain his previous title.

 

Peace,

Crunchy.

[hobbez]

Crunchy

 

I don't think David Nutt has any plans to work for the UK scientific panel on drugs 'ever' again, I don't blame him either.

 

He is starting his own scientific panel along with the 5 other scientists that quit as a result of him getting the chop for stating that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.

 

All I can say is email David and show your support

 

Even when he was bombarded with emails from all over the globe he still found time to say thanks, it's the overwhelming support he got even after being sacked that lead him to start his own scientific panel on illegal drugs (he even stated this in a tv interview). He has received funding from some banker or something for 3 years.

 

Go Nutt !