David Nutt: alcohol consumption would fall 25% if cannabis cafes were allowed

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Guardian

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 June 2012 13.46 BST

With reader comments

Former chairman of drugs advisory committee tells MPs Dutch-style 'coffee shops' would make people drink less

A former government adviser on drugs has told MPs that alcohol consumption would fall by as much as 25% if Dutch-style cannabis "coffee shops" were introduced in Britain.

Prof David Nutt also told the Commons home affairs committee that he stood by his claim that horse-riding was more dangerous than taking ecstasy, despite the fact that the comparison triggered his sacking as chairman of the advisory committee on the misuse of drugs (ACMD).

Nutt told MPs the cost of policing cannabis use was only £500m a year, mainly for issuing possession warning notices, compared with the £6bn a year bill for policing the use of alcohol, including dealing with people who were drunk and disorderly.
Nutt said the decision by the home secretary to classify magic mushrooms as a class A drug alongside heroin and crack cocaine was "the final nail in the rationality of the 1971 Drugs Act".

More...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/david-nutt-alcohol-cannabis-cafes

Update: I've found the video on the UK Parliament site
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10982
 
Last edited:
Of course. This is why big alcohol lobbies against legalization in the United States.

There was also a study showing instances of drunk driving decline in states with medical marijuana programs.
 
I love this guy, but he will just be ignored. Science and facts will not transcend politicos.
 
Regulation of drugs, if done properly, would save our economy.

At the same time it would be like the second coming, we would nail that fucker to the cross all over again! I think if all drugs became controlled like alcohol or cigarettes that we would have a HUGE surge in people using. Stigmas would be broken to a certain extent, safety from adulterants and marketing would get this stuff into the hands of a lot more people. Yes, it would have to be heavily regulated to the point where you have to show ID and sign to buy a gram of cocaine, but, it would still end up in the hands of these people's children or people who would resell on the black market JUST like cigarettes and alcohol still are today.
The main goal of legalization of any or all of the illegal drugs is to get the stuff out of the hands of our children, organized crime and to keep people safe from prosecution. I don't think that legalization/regulation would keep it out of the hands of kids, in fact I believe it would result in large scale drug addiction in places where drugs are normally not a huge problem. I do believe something needs to be done. Let the chips fall where they may, but, I think things would be bad for at least a few years if drugs were regulated. I then believe the law would be quickly re-reformed.... I know, definitely NOT the right attitude, right? :/
When it comes to organized crime... I am infinitely more afraid of my government (real gangsters) than I am street gangsters. William Burroughs thought that opiates were the ultimate form of control. I can't disagree, I think if we were all able to buy recreationally dosed heroin from our government that they would have the power to do whatever they want with the addicted populace. It sounds crazy, and it is, but, I know that a lot of junkies will do most anything to get a fix and that can certainly be manipulated.

On the note of alcohol consumption being reduced if pot cafes were aloud. I think there certainly would be a reduction. I don't think that heavy drinking and cannabis use go together well at all and I know a lot of people who would agree. A 25% reduction would be cool, but who knows if that would actually be accurate.
 
I had a chance to see the video yesterday.

One of the guys from the ACMD who was interviewed after David Nutt had left was talking about banning legal highs based on the effect they have rather than their chemical composition i.e. what receptors it binds to.

I hope that never flies because a law like that would probably have all kinds of unintended consequences on medical development etc and would effectively kill any legal highs market. Any new legal high would have to have a completely different effect on the brain than anything that came before it.
 
Top