David Nutt

Thanks for your support. Presume you mean UK? Lib Dems and Greens are only parties that have taken any interest in addressing drug harms. Julian Huppert has done everything possible to stop the pointless khat ban going thru. The debate is worth watching http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=15241

Biggest obstacle to reform - prejudice, ignorance and irrational fear fuelled by parts of media.

Have to head off - I've found this very enjoyable. It's encouraging that there are people out there that understand the issues and are engaging in the debate. I may pop back some time if you'll have me.

We very much need your support to carry on our work so please donate http://www.drugscience.org.uk/donate/donate/

Thanks all, D

Thanks for your kind comments. I wholeheartedly agree about PTSD, and the tragic events in Fort Hood hint at more selfish reasons to treat PTSD effectively, though of course when people with PTSD kill, the victim is almost always themselves. (I don't want to give the idea that we should fear traumatised people). There is no question that psychedelics can sometimes change people, or rather allow for them to undergo change, usually in ways they perceive as beneficial, this has been established in research;- the Johns Hopkins psilocybin work has shown this, http://jop.sagepub.com/content/25/11/1453.short. LSD studies have shown that it can allow people to make the radical change of escaping alcoholism. It is important to understand that psychedelics do not change people in the way that stimulants change blood-pressure; the person's intentions, setting etc have an effect. e.g. in the Johns Hopkins study, the change in personality was not determined by the dose, but by whether they had a profound mystical experience. Maybe I will drop by /r/Drugs!

Almost all of my drug use is caffeine and alcohol! I've also been administered a broad range of psychoactive drugs in the context of medical research. Today's news about Nigella (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/03/nigella-lawson-stopped-boarding-flight-us-cocaine-confession) is a reminder that there are real policy-related harms to taking drugs when they are illegal, and to admitting to it! I only use drugs in jurisdictions where it is allowed, and am flying out to Denver soon! haha.

Here's a David Cameron you may not recognise. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-contender-calls-for-more-liberal-drug-laws-6143525.html

We all often wonder this! I think it is difficult to generalise. But many politicians have changed their position dramatically when they gain and lose office, suggesting they are to some degree denying what they really believe. Cameron used to have a very rational view when he was a backbencher on the Home Affairs Committee. Public opinion is shifting, so it is gradually becoming more damaging for politicians to pursue policies clearly in contravention of the facts, and less risky to do what makes sense. For example, the next generation of voters are less likely to support the criminalisation of cannabis users. Thanks for the support!

Our approach is just to keep banging on about the evidence. The more people counter misinformation thru comments on article etc, the better

Thanks for the offer, will depend on my diary. Best to speak to my team

These are difficult symptoms to treat, with no established therapies. I agree it would be worth pursuing more research in this field with drugs such as MDMA, but this is very difficult to do whilst they are illegal. I'm glad that you are having success with MDMA, but would caution others that in general self-medication comes with significant risks.

I'm hopeful that UK will adopt a more rational drug policy with focus on in not too distant future. Harm reduction is not best served through free market availability - Uruguay may be a better model.