What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
108 Comments
- ChronicColonic, on 11/10/2009, -19/+355Dugg for 'inadvertently' putting nutsack in the title.
- LordSkywalker, on 11/11/2009, -2/+151Too bad the real message gets lost in nutsack jokes. This is a serious matter. Anyone not compliant with the global War on Drugs is systematically silenced, and the same is true with Nutt. He was medically and scientifically correct in stating that alcohol is physiopsychologically more harmful and detrimental than cannabis or extacy.
- throneofdreams, on 11/11/2009, -1/+110I think scientists, not politicians, should make decisions regarding science. It's kinda their thing.
- ghengiskhan1, on 11/11/2009, -20/+123Dugg for David Nutt Sacking
- frousfroud, on 11/11/2009, -3/+97Good on them. Science > Politics
- doctechnical, on 11/11/2009, -1/+88The War on Drugs (even internationally) does not need or want truth.
- llamarama7, on 11/10/2009, -14/+100Best use of British slang in a Digg headline, ever.
- nigelsan, on 11/11/2009, -0/+81FTA:
"He added: 'There is a duty I think to accept that politicians make the final decision.'"
wow.
far be it from science to prove any political agenda wrong. - captininsanity, on 11/11/2009, -0/+56I don't even know why they ask the opinions of scientists. They seem to do whatever is the opposite. Not only do they not listen, but they get offended when you tell people Reefer Madness wasn't a true story.
Oh no tobacco is extremely unhealthy and addictive, protect the industry because it is important to the economy. What? Weed isn't very unhealthy at all? We need to ban it right away.
/Nixon (one of the most corrupt presidents ever) - KyotoWolf, on 11/11/2009, -9/+55After 4 digg stories of the same Nutt sacking comment jokes it's getting old.
- heavydigga, on 11/11/2009, -1/+38The joke is a by-product of this news article, but it is a serious issue when professional scientific opinions are disregarded by the government because they do not fit their agenda.
- spworm, on 11/11/2009, -8/+42Nutt sack affair leads drug doctors to withdraw prematurely.
- diggersrtards, on 11/11/2009, -4/+36...or was it advertently?
- lurcherman, on 11/11/2009, -0/+32Alan Johnson is, like most successful politicians, essentially a bigot. If the facts suit his policy then all well and good. On the other hand no science (or scientists) that contradict that policy will be tolerated.
Don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is made up. - inactive, on 11/11/2009, -10/+41Only the Brits would have a headline like that!
- andyp7, on 11/11/2009, -2/+30Shame about the title, I was hoping for some intelligent discussion...
I admire the 3 who quit, why David Nutt was sacked is beyond me. The fact that cannabis is considered a class B drug is ridiculous, not to mention the War on Drugs is BS, when will they learn that making harsher penalties and laws won't stop people taking drugs, and abusing the hard drugs.
The main reason people turn to the hard drugs such as heroin is because of problems that exist in their lives, and problems that communities and our society has as a whole. If all the money wasted on this "War" was funneled into improving deprived communities I'm sure it would have a much better effect.
Louis Theroux did an excellent documentary on Meth in Fresno California: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8190120.stm He highlighted very well the underlying reasons for the Meth "epidemic". - yocouchdigga, on 11/11/2009, -12/+39You boot enough Nutts and someone's bound to bust.
- o76923, on 11/11/2009, -0/+26So why do politicians hire scientists if you're not going to listen to them and then fire them when they complain about you not listening to them?
- catalysis, on 11/11/2009, -1/+25Welcome to last week.
- novenator, on 11/11/2009, -13/+34I can't get enough of this Nutt sacking story
- Cantholditdown, on 11/11/2009, -3/+24I can't stop laughing at the Nut Sack jokes, but seriously this guy really is a hero!!
There are only a few US officials or even just police officers that have been willing to call ***** on the prohibition of marijuana. The contradiction between alcohol and MJ policy especially with how much violent crime alcohol causes is just absolutely mind numbingly ignorant. Nutt, if you ever come to San Diego I will take you to any restaurant of your liking!!! - kemp34, on 11/11/2009, -0/+19How the hell does someone see this as a "duty"?
- hesaguy, on 11/11/2009, -0/+18"There is a duty I think to accept that politicians make the final decision."
And it is our duty to accept that politicians are fools... - nepidae, on 11/11/2009, -0/+15So they can say that they have scientists on the staff.
- andyp7, on 11/11/2009, -0/+15No, he was FOR bringing it to a lower class. He stated that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.
- tflowholdings, on 11/11/2009, -0/+13Ooh ok, thanks! I agree with Prof. Nutt
- Testies, on 11/11/2009, -10/+23Sack deez nutts.
- gordonj, on 11/11/2009, -0/+12The idiots in power will never bend to the truth if it contradicts their own personal opinion or what they believe public opinion to be. Rather than trying to minimise the damage which has been cause by the war on drugs, they will continue to allow it to occur rather than admit that they may have been wrong about it to begin with. You'll notice that the home secretary offered no evidence for his viewpoint that alcohol and tobacco are less dangerous than illegal drugs like ecstasy and cannabis. That's because he hasn't got any, and yet is willing to get rid of the very people he put in place to study such relationships because he doesn't agree with them, or because they don't agree with government policy. Once again this shows how retarded politicians can be...and yet we still let them ru(i)n things!
- MonoDede, on 11/11/2009, -0/+10What a clown.
- tflowholdings, on 11/12/2009, -0/+8My mother passed away from cancer when she was 34. If these politicians had any idea the terrible amount of pain cancer victims go through, I think they'd change their mind a little about marijuana policy. No, my mom didn't smoke weed, but if it would have helped her get through the pain a little easier then I'm all for it. When a loved one in a family goes through lots of pain, it causes the entire family emotional pain.
- nyxerebos, on 11/11/2009, -1/+9what?
- gordonj, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6"But did Nutt offer evidence that Ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco the way he claimed?"
Yes, that was his job. I suggest you read more about the report they released that caused this debacle.
As far as your LSD vs tobacco comment, I think you're wrong. LSD doesn't kill people from its toxicity and deaths of people while taking it are extremely rare, while tobacco regularly does (and not just the people smoking, but those around them). LSD may effect mental health more than tobacco, but that makes no difference if you're dead. There is a large stigma in society regarding hallucinogens, but this is not due to rational scientific study, just scare tactics and a fear of the unknown. - BossKey, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6The Nutt responsible for sacking the writer for this headline, has been sacked.
- steviesteveo, on 11/11/2009, -2/+7It's just pronounced Nutt as in "nut"
- Diggnabbit, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5Hence the quotation marks.
- bitbytebit, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5safer as in health. And no one EVER advocates driving while doing drugs. so stop it
- magily11, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5What does this have to do with anything?
- xixphz, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6The sackers who have sacked the Nutt responsible for sacking the writer for this headline, have been sacked.
- Mizery, on 11/12/2009, -2/+7Wow, finally a comment actually pertaining to the story. ***** Youtube kids giggling at "nutt sack". How about we focus on the ***** that occurred when science and facts got overridden by someone's feelings.
- mrswirl, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4"She turned me into a newt!"
"A newt?"
"I got better." - DirtyVicar, on 11/11/2009, -8/+12They need to get on the ball about this hairy situation hanging over them.
- CrunchyDeluxe, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4resulting in a mess that may take some time to clean up.
- hammer310, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4Think of if this guy was an NFL quarterback. We'd get to hear it every week!
- BlacklabelSAR, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4Am I in the movie Idiocracy right now?
- joshmoney, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5You obviously missed all the tea-bagging coverage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7oRTZNM6YM#t=27s
/not promoting this guys stuff but it's a good compilation - gordonj, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4"Obviously no one advocates driving while doing drugs. However, it's going to happen more and more frequently if using that drug is legal."
As you have pointed out already, some drugs are ok to drive while under the influence (e.g. tobacco). While this is likely not the case for most drugs, relevant studies should be made before it is just assumed that driving under the influence of all drugs is equivalent to driving under the influence of alcohol, which is known to be harmful. If for example drugs that were illegal were made legal, then driving under the influence of those drugs should be illegal if they are shown to be dangerous while driving.
"For LSD, once you are under the effects of a psychoactive drug, who knows what you will do?"
The same thing can be said about the use of alcohol, but it's legal and nobody is calling for its prohibition.
"there probably haven't been many studies about hallucinogens"
actually, there are plenty out there if you're willing to look.
"But that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous"
You're right, but that's not the point, and nobody is arguing that they are totally safe. The point is their legal status is not based on evidence or studies, but on public/political opinion. They are often likely safer than legal drugs, and it is the relative danger that is the point here. Many illegal drugs have been shown in studies to be safer than legal counterparts. What is their legal status based upon then? Certainly not logic.
"I doubt that there are any studies proving they are safe either."
Perhaps not safe, but perhaps safer than legal alternatives. Have you bothered to look?
"So for now, I'll keep my stigma."
Please educate yourself whether you change your opinion or not. It's not difficult. - mkatzmd, on 11/12/2009, -2/+5This will never stop being funny.
- clouds31, on 11/11/2009, -2/+5Ya gotta love that nutsacking.
- JRW5061, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3besides the two times that it was used last week?
- Krinkov, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3Untill next week when he gets caught with an ounce of weed and it will say "David Nutt Busted."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is