My favourite is always Professor David Nutt, fired from his position advising the Home Office for saying ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis...

EDIT: David Nutt on how ecstasy isn't as dangerous as "Equasy"

http://www.encod.org/info/EQUASY-A-HARMFUL-ADDICTION.html

Nah. David Nutt is criminally dishonest. I've read his book (Drugs Without the Hot Air) and it is a straight up propaganda. The guy cherry picks a lot of his evidence and it is a chapter after chapter of half truths and lies by omission.

Of the top of my head I can recall Nutt's chapter about LSD, where he claims that the LSD is very safe and even mentions Kary Mullis (a guy who invented the polymerase chain reaction and got a Nobel prize for it). Nutt builds up hype around Mullis (and to be fair, Mullis' academic accomplishments are impressive) and conveniently cites Mullis saying that he took a lot of LSD and that LSD was more important than the coursework and that he couldn't have invented PCR without LSD. What Nutt conveniently leaves out is that Kary Mullis is batshit fucking insane. Mullis denies existence of AIDS, denies climate change, believes in astrology, left science couple of times to operate a bakery and write books, talks about meeting and talking to a glowing green raccoon (yes, seriously). So... maybe... just maybe... LSD has something to do with that? Wouldn't it be at least a little bit dishonest to leave that other (weird) part of Mullis' personality?

edit: removed a paragraph with my thoughts about friends who do psychedelics.

Can you post some sources on why the person you mentioned is "posting straight up propaganda" because if it were not safe then why would the FDA clear the a study on lsd? >https://www.cbsnews.com/news/psychedelic-therapy-tried-by-pa...

That was in Feb.2017

I think his idea for 'hangover free alcohol' is pretty interesting as well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...

Interesting. Wonder why he predicts it so far out....not until 2050.

Not clear if that's because of cost, regulations, or something else.

Well, MDMA did in fact start as a therapeutic drug. It's roots are not a street / designer drug.

And while most of that research is now banned, Dr Robin Carhart-Harris (who studied under David Nutt) is one of the few researchers still allowed to experiment with psychedelics.

I'd highly recommend reading / watching some of his work.

I guess so. But it does seem that once or twice a year I see something about bringing MDMA back as a psycho therapy.

I've certainly met plenty of people who could benefit ;)

It definitely seems to be an uphill battle for those working on it. I guess as more research is conducted and evidence gathered, that leads to more acceptance and slowly the tide turns.

Here's a couple of Dr Carhart-Harris clips. The first is at the Secret Garden Party (UK festival) and the second is a debate with a psychology lecturer (which is much more philosophical).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ifWcdEpCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0XYmcpQFjY

Proof if it were needed, that the Home Office is off its Nutt.

I appreciated the humour, even if nobody else did :-)

Well, the impact is greater because the availability is much wider. Social acceptance can make most any evil the norn. Just look at obesity/diabetes. Now there's a killer no one REALLY wants to talk about.

People talk about obesity all the time. The problem is nobody knows what to do about it.

It's VERY clear what to do about. Change our diets and change our lifestyle. The problem is, "America you're fat" is as politically toxic as "Let's raise taxes." Add in Big Food and Big Pharma profits and we have most people believing we don't know what to do about.

We have the knowledge. What we lack is the will (and the leadership).

None of that is true except the fat part. Do you really think people don't know when they're fat. Do you think they don't realize other people are fat? And leadership to do what?

Eat less and be more active.

Spectacularly unhelpful as a policy prescription. People know what they need to do to lose weight. They just don't do it.

Yes and no.

I think what's missing is the general awareness about the connection between excess weight and other ills: diabetes, cancer, etc., etc.

Most people believe extra weight is natural, (socially) acceptable, and just a basic modern inconvenience. It's just not wise for established leaders to say "stop drinking soda or die young."

Not to get off topic but look at Obama and healthcare. He could have tied personal health to civic duty. Instead he let the healthcare system take the blame. "You're unhealthy and you're hurting all of us" just isn't a great campaign slogan.

>I think what's missing is the general awareness about the connection between excess weight and other ills: diabetes, cancer, etc., etc.

Really? I don't know anybody who doesn't realize that connection. It's hard to imagine you wouldn't if you had a television or an internet connection.

You need to get out more ;)

I was just at the local supermarket last night and nearly every cart seemed to have soda in it. And I'm not talking about fit ppl the cart.

Maybe they know? And they're just in denial? Perhaps. The ends is the same...given the choice ppl will blame anything but themselves.

Of course they know. It's not a question of knowledge.

The problem is evolution designed us to eat more than we need so we don't starve in lean times - for all of human history up to, what, 150 year ago or so the biggest threat to your life was starvation. Of course if you have the willpower you can avoid eating too much. But most people don't.

And I guess "Don't Do Drugs" will fix the opioid problem flat out?

I suspect the answer will turn out to be the same for food and alcohol: have periodic breaks from both to allow the body to recover. In the case of food this is now called intermittent fasting but it applies to both. In particular to allow the immune system, which captures many incipient cancer growths, to reset. One of the reasons that smoking is so harmful I think is that people do it continuously whereas most drinkers don't drink every day.

Gut bacteria is a big unknown at this point. That's likely the hope to save us from ourselves.

I think we know what to do but nobody has the courage to do something.

So much of it relates to consumption, and no one makes money from people eating less. People however make money from pushing gym memberships or active wear or supplements.

Everywhere from restaurants to supermarkets to chocolate bar companies to fast food all make more money if you eat more. There's no incentive to advertise eating less.

You don't see restaurants advertising smaller or even reasonable portions - it's always giant burgers or steaks or monstrous pizzas. In fact, it's a regular critique of fancy restaurants that they have tiny, considered portions. So, people instead eat until they're well-beyond sated. Day after day.

Oh? What should we do?

Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?

> (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food).

Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.

I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.

> I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads.

That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.)

Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.

Legally it's possible. The only thing that's missing is courage.

Also stop normalising excessive portion sizes.

There's no evidence any of this actually works, and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.

Corn is being subsidized right now. This means that the government is dictating already what to eat. At a minimum get rid of subsidies.

> There's no evidence any of this actually works,

There's plenty of evidence that taxing a product reduces demand for that product

> and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.

That's true, but it just underscores the ancestor comment: Social acceptance can make most any evil the norm. People accept that the government should regulate what we drink and smoke, but not what we eat - this is partly due to cultural acceptance of obesity

People accept that the government should regulate what other people drink and smoke. The smoking prohibitions didn't come into effect until the number of smokers was small enough they couldn't stop them, and alcohol prohibition was always the cause of teetotalers and ex-alcoholics.

Yes. But as things are going it's going to be a long time before over weight ppl are the minority. It's also not politically correct to talk about such things.

Thanks Oprah.

Agreed. We've normalized the abnormal. Furthermore, it's not PC to mention, even in passing, that someone is hurting themselves, and in a social sense others as well.

Long to short...we want healthcare as a right, but zero responsibility related to that right (i.e., personal health). This isn't working out well.

Perhaps. But the irony of this statement is the gov's food pyramid is a direct contributor to the current obesity epidemic. It's too heavy on carbs, and too light on fats.

That's true.

Eat less.

calories in vs. calories out in around 99% of cases.

This is talking about the personal danger, not the total societal impact.

Dramatically increasing your risk for heart disease and other health complications is certainly a 'personal danger', but it's too taboo because no one wants to be labeled as someone who "makes fun of obese people".