NP Rank:
LSD and cannabis should not be brought into the alcohol debate
MANCHESTER—International drug education provider the Foundation for a Drug-Free World has hit out at Government drug adviser Professor David Nutt, after his report published today claimed drugs including cannabis, ecstasy and LSD are less harmful than alcohol.
Professor Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which advises the Government on drug policy, published his views in a briefing paper for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London. A number of drug charities and even the Home Office have expressed discontent with Prof. Nutt’s assertions.
A representative from the Foundation for a Drug-Free World’s Northern England branch explained their grievance:
“Alcohol is most definitely a drug, and it does serious harm, in particular the long term effects of alcoholism, both physically and socially. But illegal drugs like LSD and cannabis should never be brought into the debate.”
The Foundation’s publication ‘The Truth About Marijuana’ has a section entitled ‘Alcohol vs. Marijuana,’ where they say this:
“Alcohol consists of one substance only: ethanol. Marijuana contains more than 400 known chemicals, including the same cancer-causing substances found in tobacco smoke.
“…There is no intention here to minimize the dangers of alcohol abuse, which can be equally harmful. Users, however, need to be aware that the chemicals in marijuana, some of them cancer-causing, remain in the body long after the drug is taken.”
On the other hand, the group agrees with Prof. Nutt’s statement that using scare tactics to prevent people from abusing drugs is destined for failure, instead favouring a no-holds-barred education programme that presents the facts about major illicit or abused substances. The Foundation recently published a video documentary using real stories of former drug users to illustrate the effects drugs can have on the lives of those who abuse them.
The Foundation for a Drug-Free World makes their education package available free-of-charge to teachers and other educators, thanks to funding from the Church of Scientology. For more details visit www.drugfreeworld.org.
Recommendations (4)
-
jazzyzazzy
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom -
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 09:59 on October 29th, 2009
ppphtt. want to fry your brain, use acid. want to cook your memory, use marijuana. want to toast your liver, keep on drinkin'.
at 10:22 on October 29th, 2009
Thanks for this post, I am still trying to understand what makes a hallucinogenic legal or illegal, I think the definition is if it can be pattened and have controlled manufacturing it can be legal. Would a drug free world still include prescriptions? And is the real problem individuals that cannot control or moderate their intake thus in need of therapy in that aspect..
at 14:43 on October 29th, 2009
Know what ! Everyone of us has a little bit of poison,wither it be chocolate a spliff a beer whatever each to their own.Mine is cream cakes.I eat them in moderation tho so dont get fat.
at 14:37 on November 3rd, 2009
Cigarettes are a drug and a killer, so Mr Sam Butler why is it many of your cult members of Scientology, and your Executive Director Mr Antony Brinkman and 2nd in command Mrs Tracy Fish smoke.
Your comment The Foundation for a Drug-Free World makes their education package available free-of-charge to teachers and other educators, thanks to funding from the Church of Scientology.
This again proves Scientology does not work, and as your aware the late Mr P. Springthorpe was a great funder of the poison weed.
Practice what you preach.
I know you will delete this open comment, as the truth hurts.
at 11:01 on November 4th, 2009
That didn't really make much sense, Tony. I don't smoke, but the primary dangers of tobacco come from the fact you're burning something in your mouth, not the drug itself. That's not to say tobacco itself is totally safe, but I don't see what right you have to be so bothered that I have friends who smoke, when I could equally target you for the same thing. Talking me down for what someone else is doing is not only pointless, it's stupid.
How does the fact that a church sponsors an anti-drug education programme prove that its principles are unworkable? It doesn't. Bringing a deceased man into the discussion is worthless and in bad taste, a sign perhaps of the overall tone of your communication.
I don't preach, and if you cared what I practiced, you wouldn't waste your spare time trying to attack my religion.