No you won't get that
Cue the drug warriors in 5..4..3..2..
>>>claiming ecstasy, LSD and cannabis are less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol.
I don’t know about lsd and ecstasy but I’ve at least never heard of anybody smashing a bong on the bar and with the sharp edges carving up the face of the toker on the next stool.
Cigarettes seem a false comparison though. If you had equal daily consumption of marijuana as you do cigarettes I’d expect similar lung problems, not to mention a diabetes epidemic from the Oreo stampede.
Did they adjust for the number of people using them? If half the British population has a drink or twelve after work, but only 2% smoke pot and 0.0001% take LSD, I would expect the "total danger" from alcohol to be worse.
“Professor David Nutt...”
I stopped reading after this.
HE’S A NUTT!
I’ll do a shot glass of scotch if he does a shot glass of LSD.
Why do I get the feeling that this guy’s list is going to place cannabis somewhere between Celestial Seasoning’s Morning Thunder and Maxwell House Instant?
The war against against non-addictive drugs is an “emperor has no clothes” scenario threatening the increasing power of government around the world. The emperor would rather live a lie than admit wrong.
The world would be a truly better place if more people could safely escape their self-centered realities for even a minute to experience life from a completely different outside perspective.
I guess it all depends on how you define danger, what kind of danger, what kind of harm, who gets harmed, and how much of the drug it takes to do the harm that we are talking about.
My preferred option. Anybody can do whatever drug they like, but if you hurt someone else, you go to jail based on what the sentence would be if you did it deliberately. Also, no government sponsored help, or rehab programs for the addicted.
He must know.