Nutt sacked by Home Secretary

"Nutt sacked!" How you must have laughed as you typed that... What's next, "Ball bagged"?

"Nutt sacked!" How you must have laughed as you typed that... What's next, "Ball bagged"?

@dave -- surely you meant "Balls bagged." To all others -- this is the end of academic freedom and scientific truth as we once knew it in Britain. But then again, I suppose we all knew it was coming.

I expect applicants as Nutt's s successor will be reading up on government policy rather than The Lancet.

New Labour: Tough on Nutt, tough on the causes of Nutt.

But seriously, of course the other members of the ACMD now have a choice to make which will place their personal honour and integrity in sharp relief...

But seriously, of course the other members of the ACMD now have a choice to make which will place their personal honour and integrity in sharp relief...

Bravo, and my highest respect to Mr Johnson. The marihuana generation has grown up, a huge number of them went to the academic professions, very many - to high positions in academia, and, they brought with them... their altered mind. They took a stand: for the illogical, the crooked, the perverted perception of truth. They took a highly emotional stand defending fraud that quashed logic, truth, facts, in society, in academia and in science. They took a stand for the abnormal, irrational and wrong. Without marihuana, it would be impossible to convert so many people into liars, impossible to take away their self-respect and boost their self-esteem. Impossible to convert serious men into Snoopies. They say that they stand for "independent scientific advice". No, they stand for the induced emotional condition that allows nonsense to be taken as new truth. It's truly a "psychotic illness" in almost imperceptible form that, however, inevitably leads to absurdities. The marihuana generation are smart people; they are especially smart when they play naive but astonishingly self-confident Snoopies. I believe they are evil. Narcissism was always considered a deviation, but narcissism with an altered by the drug mind, is an evil. Thank you, Zoe Corbyn, for reporting this. It had to be done before marihuana is officially entered among academic freedoms, of course, after "the debate at this interface". Really, this is a delicate situation. It is wrong to outlaw the drug, but on the other side, before one is given entrance to academia, one must sign a declaration that he never smoked marihuana or used any mind-altering drugs.

@Michael Pyshnov: what are you on?

Michael Pyshnov, the only people known to have used cannabis, because they admit it, are the previous Home Secretaries Jacqui Smith and Charles Clarke. Their is no indication that Professor David J Nutt MRCP MRCPsych FRCPsych FMedSci ever touched the stuff. Your raving reads like you are drunk.

@Pyshnov: I take it you believe that Nutt is a Jewish lesbian and possibly even a "feminist". If so, I strongly suspect you are mistaken. But then again maybe I'm just stoned.

John Watson, you misread my comment. But, it obviously is difficult to speak against so popular addiction as mind altering drugs. As to your remark that I am drunk, I leave it to you to learn the norms of proper debate. You certainly did not advance your point, if there was any in your message.

CHE, this is what I will be doing. For several years, you are trying hard to make a criminal gang that perpetrated a fraud against me, look innocent. You do this by following my comments, even completely unrelated to the fraud, with yours (you come from the CHE - Chronicle of Higher Education), trying to discredit me personally and the documents posted on my web site at http://www.universitytorontofraud.com From now on, the readers will be able to see the story and the documents.

Michael, you appeared to accuse Prof Nutt of claiming that cannabis is safer than alcohol because his mind had been distorted by the use of cannabis. I merely pointed out that it is unknown if Nutt used cannabis, but it is known that at least two previous home secretaries took it, because they admitted to it. If what you say is true, then the decision to reclassify cannabis was taken by someone who has had their mind distorted by the use of cannabis (Jacqui Smith). I know nothing about your other concerns.

This is disgraceful... The Home Office asks for independent advise from an academic and, when that advise is not what they wanted to hear, they sack him. They didn't need an academic adviser, just some pseudo scientific gloss over policies which are not based on science, but on tabloid scare and second rate puritanism.

John Watson, nowhere I "appeared to accuse Prof Nutt of claiming that cannabis is safer than alcohol because his mind had been distorted by the use of cannabis." You misread my comment.

Johnson is a real goon. I think he is going to discover in coming days that he has made a real strategic mistake here. & I would have a spontaneous orgasm if it comes out that he has smoked pot himself. For the moment, though, he deserves unreserved condemnation for his contemptuous attitude towards the government's own scientific advisors.

Marihuana caused incomparably more damage to Britain than Mrss Philby, MacLean & Co. It subverted the people.

Isn't it about time that the government faces up to the fact that alcohol is extremely dangerous and legal, and cannabis is less dangerous and yet illegal? What they should be considering are the overall negative effects of a specific drug on society, and alcohol causes more problems than many of the illegal drugs. This is the message that David Nutt was trying to give and it w was his job as advisor to do so. I for one will not be voting labour - freedom of speech is vital in a democracy.

Michael -- I thought it was "feminists" that subverted the people. *click* -- now I get it! It's because "feminists" are helping everyone get stoned!! Or wait -- is it that "feminists" are helping everyone become Jewish. Now I'm confused again...

Michael, I'm sorry if I mis-read your comment and I apologise and withdraw the comment (if I could). However, re-reading it (with difficulty), I still haven't got a clue what you're on about.

Interesting signal this sends... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6899528.ece Since all UK academics are now unofficial government advisers charged with developing impactful 'public policy', we'd do well to notice what happens when even a highly visible and prestigious scholarly body produces research the Daily Mail doesn't like. It's costing the government plenty of face to show these scientists who's boss, but they're doing it anyway, and very openly. They don't care how bad it looks, and aren't even paying lip-service to 'independence'. What will they do in the shadows, when they do this on centre stage?

Michael Pyshnov has caused incomparably more damage to Britain than Marihuana.

Google "Michael Pyshnov"; either he or a person of the same name has been having all sorts of fun...

Pyshnov, you make the point beautifully. Lots and lots of opinions, both from those who rant, and those who use cannabis. So we have to look at the evidence; and it shows that the stories told to us about cannabis' dangers are - well - rather exaggerated, while, alcohol is actively killing us in droves. 4000 scientific papers, and the evidence is overwhelming.. And most young people - including cabinet ministers' children - know that the law, on this issue, is an ass.

Tim, there is no dispute about what is more dangerous in population, - alcohol of course. However, the effects of drugs, and especially marihuana, are different from those of alcohol, they are not in the same category. Of course, alcohol produces more violent crime. But this is not what I am talking about. I do not make comparison. Please, see that alcohol is not mentioned in the above article either. But I am convinced that someone who says that "smoking cannabis created only a “relatively small risk” of psychotic illness." is simply promoting cannabis. With the advent of this drug the society underwent a change; there appeared a new generation with relaxed attitudes toward dishonesty. This generation values "social justice" (i.e. justice toward some special categories of the population). The concept of social justice has destroyed the main principle of justice - equality of individuals before the Law: some now deserve more and others - less. People are openly treated differently. Society is divided into "groups", the law is applied differently to them. And - lying became a habitual way of this "advocacy". People is obviously deceived, but they do not see it, they are fuming with hatred toward anyone who is trying to take away their claims to special treatment. I believe this is all associated with marihuana that indeed has induced psychotic illness. Marihuana has a property of changing SOCIAL PERCEPTIONS. It created a different, simply - cheating, lying, crooked society. Someone who is permanently drunk looses ability to argue, he cannot subvert society. Marihuana has much milder effect - exactly that - mass psychotic illness ending in the desire for the infinitely deceitful argumentation. The addicts feel elated when they succeed in cheating. This became a sick sport and a sick culture. Marihuana takes away all shame that would normally be associated with lying. (Interestingly, alcohol is a "truth drug".) The addicts are openly lying, they know this, they have worked out "justifications" for doing this, they are lying for "higher goals". I guess you know that marihuana is a tool of the Left in society. I guess you don't know that this will lead to a bitter disappointment: leaders of the Left are using the psychotic crowd, but they never say what their final goal is. It's gonna be anything but democracy.

The present crisis has developed because of the desire of governments to use science as a trump card in debates where the question is not capable of scientific proof. The ultimate question for politicians is not whether A is more harmful than B but whether the law should impose greater sanctions for growing/importing/ dealing/possessing A than B. Rather than face the real question politicians invented a surrogate question of "greater harm" because that would be capable of scientific determination rather than be a matter of opinion and get them off the hook of making a decision. What has happened is that in the face of greater scientific knowledge the new question has ceased to be an accurate surrogate for the real question. The real question includes issues as to whether morality is relevant, what moral position should adopted, whether to dismiss comparisons with other intoxicants which are too socially embedded, level of use, risk of use increasing, harm to third parties, identity of users, ability to detect impaired behaviour, users' funding, the use to which dealers apply funds, the use of police time, the capacities of the criminal justice and health systems, international relations and, in the case of heroin, strategic defence policy. David Nutt's committee simply doesn't get close to dealing with these aspects of the real question. Nutt's response would be that these were not within his committee's remit but they are part of the answer to the real question which is why both Labour and Conservatives are on the same side over this.

And even the relevant scientific questions that could be asked are not asked. Was there a "study" of whether smoking marihuana while being pregnant is producing the multiple forms of attention deficit disorder in children? I think some "studies" were deliberately avoided, some questions were deliberately not asked, although the ADD took epidemic proportions in the same generation. That single mother pushing a stroller with kid, both unsteady and scratching, became a feature in a landscape. May be this was preventable?

ADD maybe. maybe not. why dont you ask what the politicians think about that? they would not know where to begin either. please point us to the studies that were deliberately avoided and questions not asked? actually there was a study done on jamacian mothers and it proved that their smoking cannabis did not affect their childrens development? or is it just that were the rates of ADD are higher in the womens children run under our laws,society and a way of life that screws them up. is it the food? lack of nutrient? poisons in everyday living? lack of attention to their children but attention to our fake tans and brittaney spears? i dont suppose we want to ban chemical use on our food or make laws that lower obesity or diabetes and trans fatty acids and ensure we all get a correct spectrum of minerals etc in our foods.. our health system, and that is what we seem to be worried about would be effectively halved within the year. but you can believe it is all due to cannabis if you like.. one more thing, it was determined that cannabis use presents a relatively small risk for mental illness. can you offer some reasoning why you think this isnt the case? have you looked at the research papers yourself or just decided that those that have done so are for some reason lying about what they see and so are wrong and the politicians actually know differently? the whole reason the ACMD is not happy is because they have actually looked at all this and the government has gone with its pre determined stance. the government was going to reclassify to B. they said so during the election. it gives them votes by the likes of you. then the ACMD did not give support to the governments reasons for doing so. as such the governments initial reasoning was incorrect. we can look at the reactions of the people that think nutt is a joker for claiming pot is the lesser evil than alchohol. it comes as a shock to a lot of people but that is because we have been numbed to the harms of alcohol and cannabis harms are exaggerated. i dont expect the public to react any other way, they have been misled for decades so that certain groups can get big budgets. so no wonder a lot of us think alan johnson was right. theyve used our money to fool us into giving them more and taking it from education etc. i wish you to look at the money numbers and tell me then that the war on cannabis is your money well spent. whatever it is the message sent out should be a factual one. not just that we want to deter. we need to better prioritise the things we wish to deter and that is what nutt wants. its not such a bad thing really. if the message is that we dont want you smoking cannabis because 1 in 5000 might go mad and you might be in the 2 percent that tries heroin then fair enough.. so we are going to give all the 5000 heavy grief if we catch them..just in case they might end up harming themselves first we will harm all of them! oh and by the way, 70 odd years of cannabis prohibition has only shown that all these pot smokers do it despite the laws. thats right, they want to place it in class B when it does nothing but cost money and waste. THERE IS NO PROOF IT WORKS> yes, pot use has gone down in history- when something more harmful is in vogue. no better way than to try squeeze the pot supply if you want a population to try something else. lets face it, many humans like to get out of it. be it tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs.. whatever..and guess what. the pot harms are less than all these. PLEASE check the numbers if your politicians still have you thinking otherwise. i personally believe that all the cannabis tokers should not be punished as if they commited this crime, it is afterall a risk on themselves, we can have laws against stoned driving just like we do drunk and drunk driving is far worse the studies show.. and i also do not think that i should be made to pay for this because there is no proof that criminal sentences of the broad net type actually reduce usage let alone mental health.

http://www.medicalcannabis.com/pregnancy.htm here is something you may like to look at. i do not think cannabis use itself causes development problems, if your an abuser it could be a different story and also you may be likley to abuse more things than cannabis alone. some people should probably not have children. however i do suspect that many people that use cannabis happen to be slack, uneducated etc. you know the classic stoner kid stereotype but these days its all walks of life. succesful people, doctors lawyers, politicians, presidents... and so this would comes out in the way their children turn out. there are also going to be very good caring mothers that use cannabis. no doubt the two types of mothers would make for some difference. for my thinking it has a lot to do with our environment and diet. so why spend our money on punishing everybody?

ADHD is less common than we might think. Let them eat Ritalin! The Vancouver Sun has reported that thousands of Canadian children are being prescribed stimulant drugs for a disorder they do not have. Kids misbehaving at home or in school are increasingly being diagnosed with attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) and given the drug methylphenidate, which includes the brand name Ritalin. Health Canada, which classifies the drug in the same category as cocaine and amphetamines, reports consumption has increased 456% since 1991. When asked for an estimate of how many children are misdiagnosed, Dr Jean-Marie Ruel, special medical adviser with the Bureau of Drug Surveillance for Health Canada, says "There is no way to know." Misdiagnosis of ADHD is so common that American authorities report about half of diagnosed children referred to specialists for a second opinion did not have the disorder. Ritalin's Effects A 1993 study evaluated Ritalin's side effects in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study with 234 children ages 5 to 15 who met the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. Even at relatively low doses (0.3 mg/kg) Ritalin consumers experienced an increase in insomnia, stomach-aches, head-aches and dizziness and a decrease in appetite. Studies indicate Ritalin is a "gateway" drug. 17% to 45% of kids given methylphenidate become alchoholic adults, and 9% to 30% develop "drug abuse" problems. Other studies have found that chronic pre-exposure to methylphenidate, and other stimulants, increases the rate of acquisistion to cocaine self-administration in rats, and that treatment with mythylphenidate in childhood predisposes these same individuals as adults to cocaine's reinforcing effects.

Micheal, you stated this.."smoking cannabis created only a “relatively small risk” of psychotic illness." is simply promoting cannabis. is it really? was the chair trying to promote cannabis or is it that the scientists was trying to provide reason for correct classification because the ACMD did not believe that cannabis should be in class B. i would say that those people that believe it is "simply promoting cannabis" takes this objection because they want it to remain in the wrong classification and they wanted the science to find that cannabis is a much higher risk to physcotic illness. so they take offense to the truth and cry that it is promotion.BTW nutt was not speaking on behalf of the ACMD when he was sacked for "promotiing" he was within the guidleines set down for the AMCD. They want to hear things like cannabis is worse than alcohol and tobbaco. They expect that more people would die from ecstasy than horse falls. they do not want to face facts about comparitive risks and they want to keep looking at the illegal drugs as if the politicians and laws reflect actuall harm and actual risk. the politicians have admitted they do not. that they are brave and tough and strong and are sending a deterrence message. It is no wonder that police spout lies about harms also. why isnt it a health issue? why do police go into schools to educate? the police get more money than the hospitals..putting a pot head in jail leads to something allright. an education in jail school. "And - lying became a habitual way of this "advocacy". OOHHH PLEASE DO ADVISE THE GOVERNEMENT OF THIS QUICKLY. they can use the science to try and prove it. they are running out of untruths themselves. no one has said the science is incorrect. only they do not "agree" with the statements or sentiment. have you read the papers and studies at all? i would like you to think about this. do you recall the early lies about cannabis? inability to conceive? erectile disfunction? lung cancer? oh yes the latest and largest studies say that lung cancer is nowhere near what they first claimed it was. go check taskins study. even he was surprised. NO LINK but possibly a preventative action. isnt reefer madness laughed at for being so full of it? what about anslinger? "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." a moral stance? racist? jazz satanic????? NOW is it any wonder that the majority of people we put in jail for cannabis are not white? and what is really noteworthy is this. Later in his career, Anslinger was scrutinized for insubordination by refusing to desist from an attempt to halt the ABA/AMA Joint Report on narcotic addiction, a publication edited by the sociology Professor Alfred R. Lindesmith of Indiana University. Lindsmith wrote, among other works, Opiate Addiction (1947), The Addict and the Law (1965), and a number of articles condemning the criminalization of addiction. Nearly everything Lindesmith did was critical of the War on Drugs, specifically condemning Anslinger’s role. The AMA/ABA controversy is sometimes credited with ending Anslinger's position of Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. DO YOU SEE A PARRALEL HERE? To top it off, ainslinger detested morphine addiction YET in the end ainslinger had a morphine addiction. for his pain. let us hope that no people that believe in this harsh prohibition ever get a terminal illness like cancer and need chemo and could have otheriwse benefited from cannabis as treatment. yet we are steered by policy towards these deadly substances.. at first i thought you were credible. but now that you claim that "Marihuana takes away all shame that would normally be associated with lying" i see that you are a fool just like ainslinger, just like alan johnson and countless others that have tried to discredit the science that exposes the irrational justification for placing these drugs in these classes. whether they want to send a message or not, until they reveiw all this correctly our laws are unjust, unfair and can only be more harm than good. the police, the media...public belief running against the fact.. oh yes nutts group looked at all the reasons why this is why it is like it is.

oh micheal. i have just read your web page. i do feel sorry for you, and wish i did not write such things to knock you. it is not very compassionate of me..now that i have seen a picture of you i see you as a human being with feelings and everything else. it really is a shame what has happened to you. and i can now understand why you have penned such things above. a disdain for the scientific fraternity perhaps? surely someone with the power and rule will sack someone in the scientific community for overstepping the line and taking on other peoples work and putting out advice on it. surely some scientists have "lapsed". "In the next 22 years I had no job, my family was destroyed by the disastrous circumstances." that really bites hard. no wonder you would be a tad bitter. this is also what happens to people that get caught with drugs. whether they are harming themselves or their lives or not. you are just found guilty despite the circumstances. now if only jaqi smith had of turned herself in to the police soon after she placed cannabis in class B and admitted to possession and use of a class B drug, if she passes that joint on she may have gotten trafficking. then she could have suffered the same fate going by the harsh penalties provided under that classification. do you really want this kind of thing happening to other people? or is it still bravo Alan Johnson?

Ray, you obviously know more about drugs, govt. policy, etc. than I know. And you make a way more connections with politics than I do. I do not disagree with most of what you are saying. Ritalin is an evil; the same University of Toronto cancelled appointment of Dr. Healey (a British scientist) because he testified in court about the dangers of Ritalin, while this university had cozy relations with Ritalin pushers. But, please, understand my points. 1) I believe that Dr. Nutt's "scientific advice" was a political advice in disguise. So, those who condemn the govt. rejection of scientific advice are badly mistaken. 2) Classification of drugs in a linear order according to their danger is stupid and wrong, because the dangers are not in the same category. You cannot put the question like this: Do you prefer more deaths in a bar brawl or more psychotic individuals with the brains "freed" by a drug from the feeling of shame and all other tenets of civilization? 3) I do not propose prohibitions on drugs, guns, games, freedom of speech or wearing hijab. I belive only in severe punishment for criminals, both - in violence and in white-collar crime. That will result in consciously responsible behaviour, not in a society of chained slaves. I do not believe in "prevention of crime" or any similar pretext for totalitarianism. I believe that rise in violence is a direct consequence of stalling the prosecution of white-collar crime and dishonesty in the offices of the establishment. I believe that marihuana and other drugs released the lowest instincts in men and affected women to the point where they simply became habitual, persisting liars.

fair enough micheal. you have explained yourself well and now i see where you are coming from better. i worked with fruit flies in science class myself..i think they had fewer chromosomes that made it easier for us as kids to tie a hair to them and have them as our pets. By the way. i know a kid on ritalin, his father ( not the real father) smoked pot in his early days. but the real father was never at home but at war killing people. the new father likes to test the ritalins to see what they do. the kid is allowed to watch all kinds of horror and adult movies. he went to school with a knife and was pulled short of stabbing another student. i can agree that you are correct that it could be seen as a political advice. especially seeing as the pollies appointed the "Advisory"CMD science to advise on what the political message/schedule should be. in effect the government has given this group political clout by the way it was set it up. rightly so. now if the chair says one thing, AJ goes with another of course alan is going to see it as undermining the government. funny you can undermine a government by telling people at a lecture that alcohol is more dangerous and ecstasy is less. the government may need the undermining if we have tens of thousands dying from tobacco, ten of thousands from alcohol. ten from ectsay and none dying from weed but the weed ones are thinking incorrectly. all are mind altering. one VERY interesting thing micheal is that one of the members on the council had a horse fall during the review on ecstasy.i would say this might be the reason this comparison was drawn originally and subsequently blew up in the press. we dont see it as being so relevant but to the persons in the council at the time it would have seemed ironic that you would go to jail for a comparatively safer pursuit. maybe they joked about it and it made its way to a lecture. im not so sure there is some other reason for the "disguise" of a political message. mind you there are many others in the group that are not scientists, (about 50 percent) and they have not come out complaining about the chairs stance as i assume ( to date )that it must have fit with their findings also. police health professional etc. there was a similar thing in australia where they increased the penalties for cannabis overall because "apparently" the potency had increased and some young adults had drug induced physcosis.. they cited the new zealand study which was not very conclusive nor alarming. the real concern should have been meth abuse that arrived, they spent efforts on the less harmful drug year after year while the powders came in and wrecked havoc.. we have this message out that pot affects the mind and can result in physcosis but still the kids abuse it. i think myself because the kids see the policies as being against them because they seek to hurt them. australias own drug researchers stepped up and said actually that potency had not gone up but for a couple of percent only. certainly not the five times (500%) increase like the government had claimed. the science drug advisor did not know where they got the percentages from as the figures certainly did not come from them. a full 15 years ago i heard some politician on the news claiming potency went up 60 times. surely she was comparing industrial hemp to hash. now they had hash, thai, afghani. they had strong weed back in the day. some people had the potent ones some people did not. these days you want to buy the strong stuff so you dont need to have much. you get busted for weight see. now with all the rubbish about potency, what is stopping someone smoking three joints compared to one drag? 3 bottles of whiskey over a glass? turned out the government did not have access to the potent stuff. they used to lab test the immature leaves, stems, seeds etc as a sample group and now they test the best of the best. but it all passed in parliament. now if you grow pot down there in oz, you go to jail longer than for murder or rape. a court need not even prove that your pot caused someone to go mad. just that you have the substance. that my freind is being insensitive to victims of other people. i cut my finger making dinner i blame myself not the knife. if someone else stabs me..its way different. apparently you can use fertilizers and pesticides on tomatoes or lettuces from the local shop but if you use them to grow pot you are harming people with said chemicals.. you see, they add and add the most ridiculous reasons to keep this stuff criminal. yet another reason for regulation... with one of the votes coming from some ancient church guy that claimed that growing one plant should be seen as trafficking and worthy of 20 years in jail.. yet the bible says that god provided all seeds for man. maybe this was the forbidden fruit. i have seen this over and over again and our efforts would not be effective on what we are trying to achieve if we keep this going this way. i could point you to the ledaine commison, the wooton report and the 2002 canadian senate report. it even stated the same things. cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco AND it should not be prohibited this way. what happened??? with canada the USA made some calls, threatened border issues and it was dropped. it is not as if the USA have lowered pot use. more people there have smoked pot than voted in pot smoking obama. i imagine it would go the same for your country men and harper. did you hear libby davies ask the canadian government for proof that mandatory minimum sentences work? it seemed to her that they failed in the USA so why should canada embrace such a worthless policy.. well she was told the money was there for this.. and that there are a lot of people that would agree with the governments tough on drugs stance. the money was there to build so many more prisons over schools? As for Nixon, he told the panel that where doing a review on cannabis that he wanted them to find some bad stuff on the drug and that if the report did not find enough bad stuff the report would see the light of day over his dead body. So afterall, this has been done again and again and again. your second point. i also agree. you cannot put them in categories when they should not attract penalty to begin with. if someone sets their mind free and goes mad, they are paying. the whole penalty design behind prohibition is flawed to begin with. if we spent the money correctly, aimed at education, abuse and misuse and treating those not wishing to escape jail but those that actually need treatement we would be much better off. for me, this has a lot to do with government claims over pot being continually exaggerated and the policy being incorrect and unjust and the science proving it. As for pot making people tell lies? half of them are possibly liars to begin with and it does alter the thoughts.. i guess they could believ what they thought after they became straight. BUT this is actually one of the reasons why people use it. they enjoy a different reality from the one we face. i am beggining to wonder if those scientists that screwed you over used to chuff on that BC bud during lunch break whilst you worked on their fly experiments for them. its very hard to beat the establishment. well i dont know if its going to please you but i give you credit for your work.

Ray, I know, Gods did not give you paragraphs, but they gave you capital letters. (Take it as a joke.)