My Fury Over the Sacking of Dr Hans Raabe – by David Raynes
Background to this item
Dr Hans Raabe was yesterday sacked from his new position on the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs – before even starting the role. This has triggered a wave of outrage from drug prevention activists.
As soon as Dr Raabe was appointed to the ACMD on January 10th, he came under attack for holding supposedly extremist views on drugs, homosexuality and religion. He advised Ministers recently that “Marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking.”
Raabe’s views are indeed very different to that of his predecessor David Nutt, who was consequently sacked for his controversial claim that cannabis is a less harmful drug than alcohol or nicotine.
The Home Office states Dr Raabe’s dismissal is due to his failure to disclose being co-author of a paper entitled ‘‘Gay Marriage’ and Homosexuality: Some Medical Comments’. The study suggests links between homosexuality and paedophilia. It is a condition on being appointed to the ACMD that members first disclose any information that might cause embarrassment to the Home Office, but Dr Raabe, a Christian GP, claims he has been victimised for his traditional religious beliefs.
David Raynes from The National Drug Prevention Alliance contacted Know Drugs regarding Dr Raabe’s controversial dismissal with the following statement:
Since Doctor Raabe was appointed there has been a steady smearing of him by drug legalisation/liberalising agitators.
Started by BBC Reporter Mark Easton on his BBC blog it was enthusiastically carried on by Dr Evan Harris, (an ex LibDem MP who lost his seat at the last election), by Transform the legalisation lobby group*, by Eric Carlin, (one time member of the ACMD who resigned after Professor Nutt was sacked), and by several others.
The most vicious was by Evan Harris, he is no doubt in touch with LibDem members of the coalition government, so there may be a party political agenda at play here. The LibDems have been consistently flaky on drug policy and have pandered to the pot-head vote. Evan Harris was a strident defender of Professor Nutt and has argued for liberalisation on Cannabis. He was critical of Alan Johnson, the Labour minister who sacked Nutt.
Raabe has traditional Christian views. He was particularly concerned about the rising damage in our society from Cannabis, but then most General Practitioners probably are.
For years the ACMD has been controlled by liberalising/legalising influences, Nutt being the most extreme example, but there have been many others. UK drug policy has suffered as a result. The ACMD has played a substantial part in making the UK the sick-man of Europe. The last government got to understand that and confronted it.
The current government and drugs Minister James Brokenshire, have given in to the tiny but baying mob. Brokenshire has been manipulated by dark forces within the Home Office and the UK drug liberalising/legalising fraternity. The witch-hunt has burned its witch.
More information about the NDPA can be found at
&
the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy
http://www.itfsdp.org/members.php
* Transform describe themselves as a Drug Policy Foundation who’s vision is a world in which the War on Drugs is over and affective and humane systems of drug regulation have been established.
Dr Raabe is an extremist bigot and there’s no way he should be on the ACMD.
And David Raynes is less than truthful in describing Dr Raabe as holding “traditional Christian views.”
Why on earth are you promoting this viewpoint?
Also, it’s a bit rich that Mr Raynes, who favours the inhumane and morally bankrupt policy of arresting and prosecuting people simply for private use of certain chemicals in order to enjoy an altered state of consciousness should be complaining about witch hunts. Pots/kettles, Mr Raynes? I’m reminded of Octavio Paz’s comment in the context of the USA’s persecution of LSD users:
“What authorities are displaying is ideological zeal. They are punishing a heresy, not a crime.”
I sense a real sense of empathy coming from David Raynes here, not only does he share the same zeal for demonising some forms of drug user as the sacked doctor does, he doubtless also gets some considerable flak himself from persons who use some drugs, persons who already feel persecuted by the government, police and courts. Of course it’s seen as nasty to add the vitriolic fervour of these prohibitionist zealots, their contributions feel every bit as oppressive as homophobia and racism must do to those discriminated against groups.
I am going to stick to principles before personalities here, but why must he goad people who want to fight for their freedom as “agitators” and by talking about “the pot-head vote”, as if people are defined by nothing more than the use of cannabis? This reveals his prejudice; even Raabe wouldn’t talk about his concern that homosexuality should be discussed as legitimate in schools by characterising the decision as pandering to the “faggot vote”, or any other offensive characterisation of persons. No, I won’t have it, it’s not good enough to demonise people in this way – in fact if he has genuine concerns about drug misusers, he might more properly presume to refer to those persons as victims of the failure of policy.
David Raynes must expect flak against Raabe and his ilk. I sense his upset, and the anger directed towards him and Raabe has polarised his contribution. This piece suffers from so much speculation, meaningless hyperbole and conspiracy like thinking as to be unworthy of this blog. This was Evan Harris’s point; that his contribution should be excluded not because any censorial concern over it’s offensiveness and backwardness, but because of weak content.
Being on the ACMD does not mean that your views are accepted; it’s a broad church (pardon the pun). What the ACMD must be is independent of government, and I do not agree with the appointments being made by the government and terminated by the government. The sacking of Raabe in that sense is just as bad as the sacking of Nutt (that doubtless Raynes approved of). Say no to political interference and yes to scientific rigour, equality and fairness. I think Raabe-types should be on the ACMD as well as some progressive thinkers. Rayne’s characterisation of a body under siege from “legalisers” is laughable. Not a single drug has been de-classified or a single user given any more rights with the historic exception of the now reversed re-classification of cannabis from B-C-B. Even though the govt has flexibility under the law to allow peaceful drug users and groups who get enormous benefits from cannabis use to be able to operate quietly and free from arrest, the ACMD has not even proposed a single liberalising regulatory instrument as they are in effect obliged to do in law. If you look at the ACMD’s mandate it doesn’t even mention prohibition as a possibility, no, they have been completely tied up through errors of law and pressure from government to maintain an unworkable and unreasonable policy that denies all peaceful use of drugs, but ignores the vast majority of drug misuse in the country proven to be caused by alcohol and tobacco. Strangely Raynes doesn’t petition for the users of these dangerous drugs to be brought under control, even though the harms allegedly caused by cannabis are a tiny tiny fraction of that (and probably caused by the product being sold in the criminal market anyway.
Why David feels he can represent the views of GP’s is silly as well, that is why the ACMD must have proper scientists to give proper scrutinised data as opposed to this wooly hearsay and insinuation about political bias and dark forces. The NHS is burdened by the strains caused by tobacco (20% of UK death caused by tobacco), alcohol misuse and prescription drug misuse far far more than the fashionable cause of hot-footing it to the GP to avoid recognising one’s own poor parenting, wider social breakdown and the awkwardness of youth finding an escape on “skunk” cannabis. The expression about the UK being the sick man of Europe has nothing to do with cannabis at all, it’s the whole socio-economic and cultural crisis we face that he chooses to fetishise as caused by the misuse of a magical herb that can transform lives.
More information: http://www.drugequality.org
God help us another lunatic, my community is overrun with drugs because of losers like this and their drug free approach to life. They do not realise the harms they cause communities in upholding the lies that drugs are bad and should not be controlled by government.
Still he draws a good wage while condoning criminal control of people and their lives. So why should he really care?
My brother is one of the few people I know that is now drug free after a lifetime of heroin addiction haven’t seen him since his cremation though.
I wholeheartedly endorse everything that Darryl has said above.
Dr Raabe is quite evidently a bigot, a homophobe,a rabid anti-cannabis campaigner and peculiarly ill-informed about the medicnal benefits of cannabis for one who is supposed to be a practising doctor.
If people like him or the quack therapist, Sarah Graham are appointed to the ACMD, why should it not also include a representative from the Legalise Cannabis Alliance?
David Raynes’ abusive attitude to this who opposed Dr Raabe’s appointment is quite disgraceful. If the boot was on the other foot, no doubt he would be ascribing such behaviour to drug use. It is just unacceptable to use that sort of pejorative language in civilised debate. And to call Professor Nutt extreme….!!!! Absurd.
I think nothing condemns Mr Raynes and his attitude more effectively than his own words. The only “dark forces” in UK drug policy are the prohibitionists who follow a path that is fundamentally immoral.
Mr Raynes, thank God, prehistoric and ignorant attitudes like yours are gradually being overcome. In particular, more and more people are beginning to recognise the great benefits that cannabis offers our society. The propaganda and misinformation put out by the Home Office and people like you is finally being exposed for what it is.
Mr Raynes, your time is past. Please just go gracefully.
Just yesterday Theresa May confirmed to the ACMD that:
“It is important that I re-iterate here, the commitment we have made in the 2010 Drug Strategy to an evidence-based approach to policy making.”
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/hs-acmd-priorities-2011-2012
The Scientific evidence in favour of legalizing Cannabis, for at least medicinal use, is overwhelming.
Government choose to cherry pick, like the reports from recent days that Cannabis is more likely to kick of Schizophrenia earlier in people predisposed to it.
If you take the time to read GW Pharmaceuticals site, you’ll see they’re now trialling Cannabis, notably the compound Cannabidiol (CBD), for its ANTI-PSYCHOTIC properties.
Check this very interesting insight into GW Pharma.
At 4:20
Dr Robson: ‘We’re fascinated by this stuff [CBD], which has tremendous potential as an anti-inflammatory, but also rather surprisingly as an anti-psychotic’
Reporter: ‘So hold on, you’re telling me that CBD could be a treatment for PSYCHOSIS?’
Dr Robson: ‘Yes, isn’t that ironic? With all the sort of erm, tremendous publicity around the link with Cannabis smoking and the potential of increasing the risk of psychosis, here we have a component of the plant which itself is ANTI-PSYCHOTIC’.
Watch Dr Robson’s smile, it speaks VOLUMES about Governments propaganda!
But maybe if Dr Robson gave some thought to the people who genuinely use Cannabis to ease their ailments, or just improve the quality of their life, but have been criminalized & punished for doing so, he wouldn’t smile.
We don’t need moral crusaders / religious zealots making drugs policy, let the EVIDENCE speak for itself.
Tom
Oops, the video link didn’t make it? MODERATOR, pleaseadd to the article thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l55mt0kJ9iY
How utterly ridiculous to suggest James Brokenshire is being manipulated by the UK drug liberalising/legalising fraternity.
These idiots have lost the argument, yet they still have a stranglehold over government policy. If only the coalition could be manipulated by the UK drug liberalising/legalising fraternity, unfortunately they have the ear of these dinosaurs who are so out of touch they cannot see why such a revolting nasty bigots like Dr Raabe should not be on the ACMD.
The removal of Dr Raabe from his post is indeed a glimmer of sense on Drug policy that has been woefully lacking by succesive Governemnts. Dr Raabe failed to see the link between Catholic Priests and Paedophlia but said his views are held by most of the major religions which really should put most right thinking people off religion.
As for Prof Nutts “controversial” view that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco this is only controversial to the Hop heads in our society who do not even admit that alcohol is a drug which seems to apply to the many Hop heads in Government who are intensely lobbied by the drinks industry. Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco it is scientificaly self evident.I’m not one of those who says that Cannabis is harmless it certainly like all things that we do in life has risks but compared to other things that we may do in life such as the adult use of tobacco or alcohol the risks to health is far less.
In essence what we really have in this debate that the smokescreen of dangers to health trys to mask is a moral judgement made by Governments and mainly religious spokespeople that drugs that have been made illegal are somehow immoral while the currently legal drugs are somehow exempt form this moral censorship. This really is untenable in a free society.
David Raynes wrote
“Since Doctor Raabe was appointed there has been a steady smearing of him by drug legalisation/liberalising agitators”.
So people who oppose the insanity of prohibition, who want to see drugs properly controlled and regulated, are now “drug legalisation/liberalising agitators”?
This sort of writing shows the mindset of people like David Raynes and it’s hardly an objective view, but it is typical of the prohibition lobby.
As regards Hans Raabe, he should never have been appointed in the first place. Drugs policy should be developed on the basis of evidence of what works, not the beliefs of a faith based belief.
An interesting set of comments. The’outrage’ claimed by David Raynes seems most notable by its absence. David Rayne’s comments are not helpful or constructive, being mainly accusation and labelling – not a considered contribution to any debate about social policy or drugs. The revocation of Dr Raabe’s ACMD membership is due to his lack of scientific approach to the issues he was proposing to give advice on, not his religious views. And where does the claim that he represents ‘traditional’ christian views come from? Christians have a range of views and opinions, not a homogenous and conformist set, and Raabe represents a set of views and opinions which are not shared by all christians; and which are to be found amongst others who are not christians. Stop crying ‘wolf’ David Raynes. Thanks to Darryl for a set of thoughtful comments which loook at all sides of the issue. And has John Ellis never heard of alcohol and its harms? A little more perspective and knowledge, please, and a little less hysterical generalisation.
Having read some of Rabbe’s vitriol and been staggered by the complete absence of scientific rigor in his bigoted opinionated drivel I can only conclude that Raynes must be a complete pillock.
Dr Hans Raabe is clearly ignorant about drugs, and a homophobe as well. Removing his invitation to join the ACMD is not enough – he should be struck off the medical register.
It appears that one of the surest ways to get attacked is to comment on the gay community and / or on the usage of cannabis.
As a Christian, I find that these two unnatural activities are condemned, not just by Raabe and Raynes, but by most of the members of my local congregation.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of drugs is over populated by vested interest members of the psychiatric, pharmaceutical and neurological fraternity – so-called scientists.
But because drug usage impinges so heavily on the lives of the vast number of none users, it is more than obvious that there should be ACMD members whose interest is the guarding of integrity, morality and the laws of the land.
Kenneth Eckersley
I think the smears that David Raynes casts towards those who don’t agree with his fundamentalist view of the world would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that he and his accolytes first captured the heady heights of the Conservatives when they were in Opposition and are now doing serious damage to drug policy post-election.
And this is the same David Raynes who was castigated by a judge who threw out a very serious drug smuggling case that Raynes was a senior Investigating Officer for. In 1999 Judge Foley said the operation revealed “a catalogue of flawed proceedings, illegality and
incompetence at a number of levels”.
In a damning ruling the judge added: “This case has revealed a culture and climate of carelessness, recklessness and disregard for the rules, procedures and convention of Maltese law, British law and international law.”
Would you seriously base your drug policy, let alone buy a used car on the likes of the smears and utterances of this ‘has-been’?
Sue
It’s quite absurd to characterise this issue as an attack on Christianity, and whatever branch Kenneth is coming from, I cannot accept that his view reflects the teachings of Christ at all. They do mirror those of LR Hubbard who sought to impose a drug free society, and his efforts are now conducted through the front organisation of “Narconon”. Their approach is bizarre, the drug free society approves of drinking and LRH thought smoking protected the individual from cancer. Whilst critics of the organisation can be targetted under their “fair game” policy, there is nothing fair about the dogma and their demonisation of choice. I respect their rights to voice their opinions, but do insist that I have the right to point out the true hypocrisy and unpleasantness behind their belief system.
Kenneth’s view that “commenting” on cannabis users or gay people (translate to effectively inciting hatred and seeking to deny their right to exist) will result in an firm response (I assume he means verbal attack, as I am not aware of cannabis users, even gay ones going out on a Friday night hunting down failed customs officers / scientologists), is hardly surprising for the reasons I set out in my earlier post. Frankly it is a good thing that we have the freedom of expression to fight back against people who would oppress others.
What he means by guarding morality is basically imposing a very narrow way of being over the breadth of human civilisation, in the same manner as the worst forms of religious fundamentalism, appropriating religion, supplanting it with some megalomaniac’s “truth” and using it as part of a crusade to eliminate difference.
Perhaps the most ill informed part of this posting is that somehow this attacking of others is akin to community policing, enforcing the law. It is NOT drug usage per se that badly affects none drug users (and there cannot be many none drug users in the land if we include all drugs), it is only drug misusers that cause problems. Even this fact is mainly BECAUSE OF prohibition; yet those people are actually a very small percentage of all controlled drug users (although it is higher with alcohol and tobacco users than many controlled drugs users). Let me say that current drug policy in no way reflects the laws of the land. The law was drafted to be subject to a continual administrative duty to control the misuse of all harmful drugs, however the powers afforded to government have been entirely misused. People drug dealing in, and misusing alcohol and tobacco have been ignored by the administrators, this because of an error of law that led them to believe that these were “legal drugs”. Then they decided to ignore the legislative imperative of controlling drug MISuse that caused social problems, to instead attack ALL the users of some drugs irrespective of the fact that they were not in any way associated with any of the mischief that the law was aimed at ameliorating.
@Kenneth Eckersley
There is nothing more immoral or damaging to the integrity of the nation than prohibition.
It is nothing less than the unjustified oppression of a section of society. It is as pernicious and evil as racism, sexism, homophobia or any other form of prejudice. It says that, irrespective of facts, evidence, science or justice, just because we disagree with you, we will make your activity illegal. We will criminalise you, imprison you, ruin your career, endanger your family, smear you with unjustified innuendo and suspicion. We will cause you far more harm than the activity you choose ever will.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/the-politics-of-cannabis/
So tell me Kenneth what type of Christian old testiment or new testiment?
Some realy horable information for you
its called the tree of life. which you obviously havn’t got a clue over or its role throught the bible.
Part one old testiment God forbids its use and kicks Adam and eve out of eden, then passes this knowlage to mosses in the form of the holy oil which the temples then prohibit public use of. the messiah kings were bathed in oils made from it in order to gain the wisdom of god.
then we come to Jesus and the breaking of old traditions the move away from judayisum. Jesus who is also known as the healer takes the holy oil aka oil of kings , oil of sadness, oil of sickness and begins to distribute it to the people breaking the last traditions of the jewish temples. he even sends out his disiples with pouches of preperations to heal the sick. we then come to the last book of the bible were the tree of life is no longer prohibited by god or man. its called the healing of nations.
You are made from the same chemicals that are in cannabis its probably one of the most symbiotic group of chemicals that are in existance truely a work of god.
Wow. What a proof of my earlier observation that It appears that one of the surest ways to get attacked is to comment on the gay community and / or on the usage of cannabis.
The “attacks” you are receiving are in fact defences to your vile ideology and comments. I note you do not counter-respond in any substantive way.
MrExckersly, it was you who launched an aggressive and disrespectful attack. You can dish it out it seems but can’t take it.
Kenneth As a Christian, I find that these two unnatural activities are condemned, not just by Raabe and Rains, but by most of the members of my local congregation.
As a Christian myself i find your congregations views very unchristian and if anything are heavely derived from judaism.
hmmm see what i mean uneducated.
Still haven’t answer the question.
the acacia tree was first thought to be the tree of life but upon further study its found to have only 1 healing ingredient that has effect on the healing process, were as cannabis or Kaneh Bosm as its called in Christian scripts contains over 60 that are symbiotic with the human body.
The reason for this is the human Endocannabinoid system network.
acacia contains 1 active ingredient epoxy acid which as i said before has very little in the way of healing qualities and does little if nothing to bolster and fortify the human endocannabinoid system network to you your immune system.
the first man moses to be given the right to use this supplement and heal all was moses who died clear of eye and lifeforce undepleted at the age of 124…….
Ever considered that indoctrination of a single book is the problem here. that this indoctrination has been twisted to suit purpose of the agenda.
if cannabis and cannabinoids are unnatural why do our bodies use it from conception to death?
iAsa Christian, I find that these two unnatural activities are condemned, not just by Raabe and Rains, but by most of the members of my local congregation.
I presume your understanding of christianity takes into account the time that Christ lived in and the access to healing plants.. or did Jesus run around healing everyone that was sick. if so he would have been a very busy man. All that im talking about is out there if you choose to read original christian scripture.
I really would like to discuss this with you
@ Kenneth Eckersley – don’t you think it’s fair to be criticised for claiming being gay or consuming a plant is “unnatural”? It’s one thing to dislike an activity, but quite another to attempt to justify your dislike in such a bigoted way.
Why bigoted?
You stated as a fact something that isn’t a fact but is no more than an ill-informed opinion. To not realise the difference between the two is the hallmark of a bigot. Such an attitude is usually regarded as unacceptable and rightly so.
People who support drug prohibition are usually of that mindset, they believe in the rightness of their belief despite all the evidence to the contrary and they don’t care who they hurt in pursuing their agenda. There is nothing “moral” in that position.
Whilst I dont think its useful to rise to David’s rather ill tempered conspiritorial diatribe I do need to point out regarding David’s comment that this was a ‘smear’:
“Started by BBC Reporter Mark Easton on his BBC blog it was enthusiastically carried on by Dr Evan Harris, (an ex LibDem MP who lost his seat at the last election), by Transform the legalisation lobby group*, by Eric Carlin, (one time member of the ACMD who resigned after Professor Nutt was sacked), and by several others.”
lets be clear – Easton reported on a breaking story about the ACMD, which is demonstrably both of great public interest, and a subject he has covered in detail over a number of years. Given previous high profile controversies, the new ACMD appointments were always going to come under scrutiny. Given Raabe’s views on a range of subjects it is not in any way suprising or sinister that he was the focus of this attention.
Evan Harris also has a long running interest in the ACMD from his time on the Sci Tech select committee when they investigated it – producing a very critical report as it happens. He has followed the story closely ever since, and is also an outspoken advocate of science in public policy – on areas that include drugs, but also alternative medicine, and more besides. So again, hardly suprising that he was critical of Raabes’ appointment given some of his unusual positions on a range of issues.
Neithers’ contributions could be in any way seen as ‘smears’ – go and read them if you are in any doubt.
Eric Carlin, a former member of the ACMD who resigned (specifically after the ACMD mephedrone report issue, some weeks after the initial wave of Nutt resignations), naturally has an interst too. He wrote a post on his personal blog expressing his concern about Raabes’ views on homosexuals. He wasnt alone – there were a number of gay community related blogs and news outlets that expressed similar views. There were also a number of science community blogs that expressed concern about what was happening to the ACMD (just as they did with th recent proposed change in its constitution in the policeing bill – harris also wrote about this – I think he was wrong actually but thats another story)
Also to note that there is a link between Raabe’s views on drugs and homosexuals – both indirect in terms of his approach to evidence, and the obvious direct social policy cross over (Raabe himself makes links between gay lifestyles and drug use).
Im a Transform staff member but posted under my own name in comments on one of Evans Harris’s two Guardian blogs…but only to specifically respond to some of the mirepresentations that Raynes had himself made in an earlier comment under the name of ‘Pheon’ (see here http://bit.ly/hcC1We – my response is below). So we can hardly be accused of leading the (non-existant) charge. Part of that comment from Raynes was an entirely baseless accusation that Easton was lying about the threatened resignation. That seems much more like a (baseless) smear to me – especially as I knew for a fact that the threatened resignation was a reality.
I also posted on Eric’s blog – if you read my post, saying that Raabe’s faith and illconsidered views on drugs weren’t really the issue – even if they made him -IMHO – a weak/unlikely candidate for the council. I disagreed with Evan Harris on the issue of publications/expertise. I did however feel that Raabe’s views on homosexuality were offensive, wrong and unacceptabe. In my view his unacceptability has nothing to do with his faith per se – but his faith doesn’t excuse his unacceptable views either.
Post the sacking I have subsequently posted briefly – and not directly about Raable – on two related Telegraph blogs under the Transform banner (using our twitter login).
And now this one. Neither I nor Transform have been involved in campaigning against or smearing anyone. That said we have every right to engage in public debate just as Raabe, Raynes and others have – and do.
In terms of the ACMD Transform have made a number of written submissions (see our submission to Ormand inquiry on our home page for example), and written a number of blogs and briefings – some critical some supportive of the ACMD dependding on what they were up to.
I gave very critical written and oral evidence to the Sci Tech committee inquiry – much of which was included in the report and some of which has subsequently been acted on. I have also written and published various papers critiquing the work of the ACMD and David Nutt; In various journals and public debating forums – quite as it should be. I have another critiquing Nutt’s latest lancet paper coming out shortly in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe Raynes thinks thats a smear too?
I think its interesting to contrast Raynes reaction to this story (about someone he largely agrees with on drugs) to his reaction to last person kicked off the council for having views the Government didnt like – albeit rather different views to Raabes.
For what its worth – I dont buy the line the Home Office is putting out about non-disclosure. I’d clocked Raabes views within a couple minutes on google a few years back when I debated him on the BMJ rapid response pages (he was wrong then too). The Home Office either knew about his views or were hopelessly remiss.
I think it was probably internal pressure from the council that forced their hand. They had to weigh up the political consequences of sacking raabe against dealing with more resignations.
I think this is a mess entirely of the Home Offices own making, and was once again all about politics. Just like it was with Nutt, and for that matter drug policy more generally.
Danny Kushlick, of the Transform Drugs Policy Foundation, said “That a
religious ideologue has been appointed to the ACMD is disturbing. I
don’t understand how the Government can square this with a desire to
have a scientific, evidence-based view of drugs policy.”
*********************************************************
Danny & Steve I do not think it very edifying to be quite so vitriolic publicly
to someone you cannot really know who cannot defend themselves. It is
cheap comment.
There are more than 30 people on the ACMD, to suggest that one cannot be
a Christian with core Christian beliefs is rather silly. Just like
suggesting a homosexual should not be on there or a Moslem. The ACMD
needs the most broad set of views to represent the whole of society and
scientific & sociological opinion.
Would Easton have made his remarks if Raabe were a Moslem? I doubt it.
Did Easton even have a source on the ACMD or did he make that up? Who
knows?
This sort of thing drags Transform down into the gutter.
I obviously know HC, he is very genuine chap, sincere in everything he
does. I do not share all his views and I am not a Christian but I would
not call anyone who has a religion and holds to the general beliefs of
that religion, an idealogue, nor would I ever suggest that having a
religion excluded someone from volunteering for a public role.
HC was there to replace Gerrada, for his experience of drug problems as
they present to GPs. He has had a long interest in the subject and his
views are actually-on cannabis-much the same as hers. It is quite
difficult nowadays to find GPs /not/ concerned about cannabis.
I have direct evidence that Raabe’s sacking was provoked from within the ACMD itself. I can’t say what it is because it’s in private correspondence but those who know me will trust my word.
Brokenshire’s unbroken record of voting against gay rights also sheds some light on this subject.
Can I just say what a relief to search out someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know methods to deliver a difficulty to gentle and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant consider youre no more well-liked since you positively have the gift.
I’m concerned about the ties David Raynes and the NDPA has with Scientology. It could be argued that the NDPA and Narconon are Scientology front-groups. They have a murky agenda in my opinion. Narconons methods are dubious, and not scientifically proven. Although they don’t promote the fact, their methods are based on the rambling pseudo science of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. Google their Niacin overdose/sauna methods for full disclosure. NPDA are never far behind with a recommendation for them. Also worrying is the implications of their views not only on illegal drugs but their outright war on Psychiatrists and psychiatric drugs, many of which help people greatly. Of course NPDA, David Rayne and Narconon would no doubt deny these accusations, but a little amount of research can uncover the financial and doctrinal links between these bodies and Scientology. Please beware!
NDPA really dont have anything to do with scientology as far as i know, beyond a rather ill judged association with one of their (now seemingly defunct) anti-drug groups. Raynes certainly isnt a scientologist.