but the last thing the government wants is accurate information

i dislike monolithic statements about individual, collective humans. the government is not a boogeymen, it is people made up of private, individualistic impulses, desires and wants.

I wonder how much time you devote to the antics of the government here in England?

fair enough, though, i thought comments were allowed soley on the basis of the blog itself....[?]

Comments are allowed on any basis. Here in England professional politicians have hi-jacked the traditional parties. Their approach to politics has nothing to do with principles and convictions, still less to do with accurate information as a basis for the efficient administration of the state. Their sole concern is with their careers, thus they say whatever they consider to be in their immediate interests, even if they said the opposite only the day before. This is how the governement in England is being run. I have written a number of posts on this issue previously.

it's the same in the states with there rarest of exception and the exceptions rarely last.

The government may not be the boogee but, I'm laying odds he's in there somewhere when he's not out terrorizing small children. He may even be working part time for the U.N..

I hate to admit it in such a good debate but I agree whole heartedly about governments fudging the stats and if you find the numbers on stuff once in a while and crunch them yourself you find some pretty gross errors. Now it's rarely the whole of the government acting in unison unless it's a fascist regime, but I can cite several instances in the US where data was ignored for a more politically palatable although less reasonable stat. Please, (I'm begging be satisfied with the one or research more yourself). Richard Feynman was the lead Physicist for yield extrapolation from test data to the projections for TNT equivalences regarding the Bombs over Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Oppenheimer was the lead physicist and the presidential advisor when it became time for Truman to decide on their use. Feynman estimated within 2% of actual yield but, Oppenheimer had wanted to bomb Berlin, by many accounts, and reported an estimate that was 10% of the actual yield to encourage the use in Europe.

Ok here's one more every year the varied political parties of all the political nations manipulate budgetary data to support their campaign's assertions concerning the incumbent & proposals for their agendas. To verify this just pull up the debate transcripts of any election and find the numbers then pull up the official accounting report, scratch you head, laugh & lock you door.

Prof. Nutt (wow what a name I bet he got beaten often as a child)is a fine example of professional ethics in action I too wish he were one of legions. The reality is that horse back riding is just statistically more hazardous & that's due to analysis the other's being illegal the hazards involved are harder to isolate and X is rarely done without meth or heroin maybe ketamine(I guess it depends on the scene)all of which are much more hazardous, You could ride for a life time and never suffer an injury and while smoking pot is without a doubt polluting your lungs there are many other ways to imbibe with 0 negative health consequences but, since all of the risk in horse back riding is based on accidental injury we must consider the risks of getting shot while in the "wrong" neighborhood, contracting diseases from associating with "unsavory" people, and the health risks associated with incarceration if caught. What I find is the vast majority of risk is just because it's illegal and that leads me to the conclusion that making drugs illegal doesn't contribute to the public welfare or safety but actually places the public at increased risk. If you can find a tab of X & smoke a spliff and relax good on ya but, in the states it's usually got the "kicker" mixed in; so I'm not down with X but, I'd be happy as hell to hit a legal spliff or scarf some "special" brownies with a tall glass of ice cold bhang lassi.

Legalities are subjective and vulnerable to manipulation. The real issue is that Prof. Nutt was not in line with the corporate agenda.

You are absolutely right. That is why he is my hero.

That still doesn't change the fact that every toke pollutes the lungs and that X is just about useless alone, according to any of it's users, and the common 'kickers' of choice are some of the most damaging drugs on the market. As long as their use is illegal the statistics must reflect to peripheral hazards as the only hazards of horseback riding are peripheral accidents there being no hazard at all in posting crouching or sitting in a saddle unless one slips, falls or racks themselves up by sitting on their "package". AND even eating and drinking THC rich preparations poses choking, drowning and even fire/explosion risks no matter how small.

When one seeks to compile statistics I suggest they review the S.T.A.R. technique of Kenneth Stringer as anything less than comprehensive aggregate review is riddled with flaws when comparing non-homogenous quantities, activities, or intrinsic values. See I even almost forgot the effects of exertion on certain people as a possible hazard in horseback riding but that brings in the health effects of a paranoid panic attack some experience with THC and the risk of dehydration associated with X.

Flat statistics just aren't very robust when scrutinized. If these drugs become legal that obviously changes the various risks just like protective equipment modifies the risks of riding some children ride wearing a collar so they don't end up like 'Superman,' Although the data may morph the need for all data remains an imperative for accuracy.

I don't know how I could have praised Nutt's integrity more highly although I suspect his statistical technique I don't know how accurate his model could be with the illegal aspect makes all data from that survey suspect. As I said before it illustrates that the fact that given drugs are illegal makes them more dangerous, brings increased hazards to non users by creating a fringe community prone to violence and therefore doesn't serve the public interest.

Well, munkeyman obviously the government are employing the wrong people. It is clear you know far more than the country's best scientists in this area. Obviously, the government should be employing you.

Perhaps, but the government's have made use of incomplete statistics to cajole people to come along without a fight for centuries. Why abandon such a useful too for the sake of honesty. And Japan's Minister of finance relies on the STAR technique, it's required reading for most statisticians and economists and has been translated into several languages. I don't claim to be a statistician capable of correctly interpreting the data but, I've been fortunate enough to talk with the author of the STAR method at length over holiday dinners and found my limited understanding of invaluable use in budgeting my kitchen with a more complete understanding of not only food but labor and overhead costs along with the circumstantial impact of environment including weather, season, & events corollated with historical data with the appropriate notes concerning all of the above tell me almost how many steaks to cut what soup to make and how many lobster tails to pull from the freezer, how many stations to man, and even how many napkins I can expect to replace. With more detailed info I can even tell you when a particular waitress is likely to break a glass.

I never said I could do better, I can just see the glaring flaw that allowed the officials to attack his statistics so easily, I can see when my car breaks down but. I can't fix it, even though I'm quite capable of fixing my push mower.

You must have magical powers as well; how else would you know what his evidence base was for the advice his committe offered to the government?

If you had read carefully I claim the the illegal nature of half the study is guaranteed to render bad data, I never said he didn't do the best that anyone could. I merely pointed out that the technique was seriously flawed by the circumstance.

and it's amazing the things you can find at http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/ if you're willing to root around a bit.

do us all a favour and get a job!

Gosh, you are so polite.

Did you know that horse riding can contribute to deflowering virgins, damn those horses

I can happily admit to knowing nothing on either subject, thank you.

so can X & thats the purpose of the side saddle to prevent the rupture of the hymen.

Also a perusal of the article he submitted shows he thinks the hazards are equitable not that horse back riding is more dangerous than Canabis, Estacy or LSD, and his advice was that canabis should be a class 'C' drug, still illegal. He used a Swiftian comparison to illustrate the risk taking nature of people especially young men and supposed that canabis being a class 'B' drug added to it's appeal and didn't serve the public interest as such, which was my point in both of my original comments. He went on to note that alcohol & tobacco should be atleast as strictly controlled if not be made even more illegal using the risk chart.

If you can't see the flaws in data collection regarding illegal activities you are just not trying. Whereas all risks of horseback riding are readily visible and openly discussed by any; to wit in the UK 10 deaths & 100 traffic accidents annually are related to horseback riding. Club drug deaths from esctasy cocktails were more than 40 in the UK in 2008. It's amazing what you find when you look around abit.