Academics attack Professor Nutt over 'incorrect statements' on drugs
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Some of Britain's leading drug experts yesterday launched an attack on Professor David Nutt, who was sacked as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) after he argued that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than cannabis.
Professor Andy Parrott, the country's foremost authority on ecstasy, accused him of making "misleading and factually incorrect" comments. He said: "Professor Nutt has stated that ecstasy/MDMA is 'less pleasurable' than cocaine or nicotine, and hence less damaging. This is nonsense." He said such mistakes are "very worrying" and "may help to explain his recent dismissal", he added.
And Professor Robin Murray, a cannabis expert at the Institute of Psychiatry, added to his previous criticism of Professor Nutt when he said the ACMD hadn't "covered itself with glory in its understanding of cannabis" and has "always been several years behind the evidence". "It isn't an exclusively expert scientific body... and has been badly led by a few individuals," he said.
Professor Nutt's dismissal for criticising government drugs policy created ministerial divisions, with Lord Drayson, the science minister, criticising his boss Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, for not consulting those responsible for science policy within his department. Two ACMD members resigned in protest.
Speaking to The Independent on Sunday yesterday, Professor Nutt rejected the criticisms. "The ACMD has done extraordinarily thorough research," he said. "We don't have positions other than evidence-based positions... it would be completely inappropriate to have anyone on there that had a position. That would be incompatible with an objective assessment of the issue."
The furore is set to continue this week with the Commons science and technology committee demanding that Mr Johnson, Professor John Beddington, the Government's chief scientific adviser, and Professor Nutt provide written evidence for its investigation into the sacking. And on Tuesday Mr Johnson is to hold crisis talks with ACMD members over its future.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
The entirely sensible arguments of an authoritative body ought not to be ignored, and isolated "experts" do not refute well founded science. The fact that they are scientists does not stop them from having their individual moral creeds, and professional jealousies. And we know that not all scientific study leads to clear cut results, but Nutt's results are well founded. If the minister, Alan Johnson, wants to base his policy on some moral value, Christian or otherwise, or on popular appeal because an election is looming, then he should say so, and let the public know what is behind policy. It is certainly not science and reason.
Unfortunately, I also suffer from Bipolar I, and the meds I take do not go well with cannabis, so I am resigned to pain killers when in pain. talk of bad luck.
That being said, cannabis use in the management of pain and some medical condition such as MS / Autism should be explored and encouraged...
First of, it's out of context. Nutt often says cannabis can be harmful.
Secondly, the "most probable adverse effects" are already recognised by Nutt or can be easily avoided.
Notice the absence of mental health disorders, amotivational syndrome or other mental health problems for average, adult users? The "most probable adverse effects" listed by Parrot are minor compared to most drugs and can be dealt with easily.
The health problems mentioned can be resolved by not smoking it but ingesting it with food or using a vaporiser. Driving under the influence of cannabis is just the same as drink-driving and Nutt recognises this already. The effect on adolescents is again similar to alcohol and Nutt recommends that they abstain from cannabis until their brains mature in their 20s. And most cases of rehab for cannabis dependence is involuntary usually involving an intervention from the courts, family or school or involves poly-drug use. Cannabis has an extremely low dependancy rate considering the massive amount of users.
This is just one example of how these so called "experts" oppose any research that doesn't fit their anti-drug position. Their arguments are weak and come nowhere near the depth and honesty of Professor Nutt and his team.
He's only trying to get into the home secretary's good books, there are vaccant posts now...
The press is guilty of making Nutt a scapegoat too, if Parrot wasnt attacking Nutt then they'd only print the bit about him saying Extacy is more pleasurable than the drug advisory panel claims, and will make it look like parrott is advertising or advocating use of the drug.
The other guy is a psychiatrist, its a fact that high strength indica (skunk) cannabis (not sativa afaik but i could be wrong) can induce psychosis in susceptible indeviduals , but it would have happened to those individuals without the cannabis eventually anyway, the cannabis only speeds up onset. The psychiatrists see a one sided picture, they see a lot of people who have what they believe to be cannabis-induced psychosis, and also people who already have problems but self-medictate with cannabis, and they come to factually incorrect conclusions based on misleading evidence.
Looking at the general population there is no rise in psychosis, but there is a rise in cannabis use amount the patients the psychiatrists see.
One last thing. Nutt, Parrott, what is it with drug experts unfortunate names? Did it have an influence on their chosen career?
When will they get their act together, sometime in the next decade or maybe never ?
End Prohibition.
Remember drug dealers dont ask for I.D. End prohibition, and we will then make it harder for our children to get access to drugs.
Prohibition has had decades to get this right and despite billions spent on this each, lives ruined with dirty drugs and wasted in prison, drugs are still available.
End prohibition - its time.
Shame on you Independent for giving voice to this desperate government PR bollox
This seems to be a change of tune: until now, the government claimed that Professor Nutt had been banished for uttering his scientific views in public. Now we are led to believe that the Home Secretary, clever and qualified as he is, had assessed himself the scientific merits of Professor Nutt's research, found it to be worthless and therefore dismissed the expert's advice. Or, maybe, out of his pocket money and unknown to us, he paid better scientific council which provided him with a different view. You bet!
However, the fact that Professor Andy Parrott does not limit himself to taking a different scientific view, but also seems to approve of Professor Nutt's dismissal makes us suspect, with all due respect of course, that Dr Parrott may not be unbiased, that, as someone else suggested, he may have an axe to grind, or, maybe, he trusts and admires our Home Secretary too much.
Whatever the case, the most important thing for the public is that scientific advice must remain independent of political influence and that there is no ban on the publication of scientific opinions and the sharing of knowledge, even when these may embarrass the government.
Just as beauty is in the beholder, so is pleasure, am I to presume that the Professors are speaking from personal experience?
Picking on "Pepe Le Pew" Poor old skunks they get such a bad rap:
There are two types of pot, Sativas (Columbia,Mexico,Jamaica) and Indicas (Afgan, African) Skunk is a Hybrid (75%Sativa,25%Indica) Skunk is the seed of choice for most indoor growers as it has a high yield and fast grow time, but greed is a huge motivator to the unscrupulous people that produce it, it is very common to use GM seed stock for a speedier growth and higher yields, boosting the THC levels greatly, however there are over a hundred cannabiods in pot, that are not increased resulting in paranoid pot. Add to this that most growers are in it for the money not medical reasons and the result is substandard pot, the cure is to dust it with Ketamine!!!
Relative pleasure can, of course, be measured: just have to ask those who have used all those three types of drugs (i.e. ecstasy, cocaine and nicotine).
i have a Romeo Y Julietta and a pure nicotine patch, The cigar is far more pleasurable than the patch.
Only Chemists have access to ecstasy or cocaine in its pure form (street cocaine is on average 30% coke and 70% unknown chemicals), so to "ask someone who has taken all three" would be stupid.
The very act of prohibiting cannabis has caused the strongest (so called 'skunk'), varieties to be the favourites for drug-runners and terrorists. If that skunk is such a dangerous substance, that leaves the government open to law-suits from damaged individuals, since without that legislative inducement, the whole range of varieties and forms and weaker strengths of cannabis would otherwise had been available to them. We live in a litigious age now, compared to 1971!
That said, the greater travesty is that of the poorer cousin, Hemp, which has suffered an effective ban, despite it having no psychoactive ingredients to speak of, and despite it having been a staple crop with us for thousands of years. This is a clear example of paranoid and psychotic behaviour from the government, to outlaw a plant (yes a plant!) that could become the climate changing saviour of the planet for it's massive potential in so many regards.
However, as we now know, the scope for fraud and corruption, both during and after their careers is monoplised by government agents, rather than scientists.
History clearly shows that the motivations for prohibiting cannabis, whilst blatantly promoting alcohol and tobacco, lay firmly with crime, corruption and vested interests, with the politicians at the hub of it - and that is even to this day!
Big oil, the pharmaceuticals, distilleries, and even the arms dealers that supply drug-hoodlums and terrorists, all in a fake 'war' against cannabis, aka hemp, the plant that could eat into the profits of all of them - including the actual terrorists themselves!. Sounds like it is right up the street of big money, corruption and politics to me!
I am not in the least interested in the fragile ego of the odd scientist or two. What matters is protecting society from damage by strong drugs (and skunk is a strong drug) and by binge drinking.
As some people can patently not be relied upon to partake of these drugs without a huge negative impact on society, then measure need to be taken to act on these negative effects.
With binge drinking that means we need to lock up and punish the loutish violent and abusive drunks, and if that means building more prisons so be it. We need to bring back the deterrents to bad behaviour in society, if its not already too late to stop the rot. We dont need to put the price up for law abiding consumerswho have the odd glass of wine. Close the shops that sell to underage youths, restrict licenses in town centres, restrict licensing hours again where bars persists in serving drunks.
Just because binge drinking is a huge problem, possibly worse numerically than the issues from cannabis, does not mean cannabis should be downgraded. The scientific evidence for the mental health consequences for users who take the strong cannabis around these days that has worse negative effects and reduced beneficial effects due to the changing balance of constituents in the more recent cultivars has clearly demonstrated that tougher action is needed against cannabis too.
No deaths from excessive pot smoking.
Quite a Few from too much water.
As for "the strong cannabis around these days that has worse negative effects and reduced beneficial effects due to the changing balance of constituents in the more recent cultivars" I submit, respectfully, that you don't know what you're talking about. The reference to "these days" is a regurgitation of Murray's accusation that the ACMD is "several years behind the evidence," as if only he were privy to recent information and Prof. Nutt, the ACMD, and the rest of us were laboring in benighted ignorance. As far as "worse negative effects" goes, it may amaze you to learn that many people do not consider the effects of cannabis negative in the first place, unfortunately for government policy and its shills. In fact, medicinal horticulturists have developed many cannabis strains that are targeted at alleviating a variety of ailments, and are constantly striving to refine their products. And it is working, evidenced by the multitudes the world over who obtain relief by using cannabis. It is no use to wave your hand in an attempt to invalidate their very real experience; it reminds me of Grouch Marx who said "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
I find it intellectually dishonest and somewhat infantile to criticize Prof. Nutt and the ACMD for their cannabis stance by claiming "okay, you think you are experts, but we are even more expert than you and we have access to 'more recent' information that you don't know about." Well then, bring it on! Bring on your "new" evidence and let us examine it in the open. Don't keep this recondite knowledge pressed to your chest, in precious secret, but expose it to the light of day and let it be evaluated by independent experts who have no ideological ax to grind. Prof. Nutt seems well suited for this task, unlike Murray, Parrott, and the other government hirelings and shills who make up its claque.
I feel very sad the the Independant, who I used to trust before the great Cannabis U-turn, gives page space to these cretins.
O.K. Suppose I accept that all currently illegal drugs are equally as, no, let's say even more harmful than alcohol or tobacco - will you face the fact the prohibition of these drugs simply does not work? I am an addiction counsellor of twenty five years experience, and I feel that if prohibition worked, and actually reduced the harms caused by illegal drugs, booth to the user and wider society I would be all for it.
Believe me, 99% of the 'substance abuse' community is behind Professor Nutt - Parrott and Murray are widely considered to be nothing better than mouth pieces for NuLabour.
The more dangerous a drug is, the greater the harm caused by maintaining prohibition of it. It is unpalatable and even counterintuitive, but that is the truth.
There is a big difference between science and gossip.
As a scientist, and a pragmatist, I realise there is a lot more to successful government policy than the views of one scientist, or of a committee of scientists.
Irrespective of the individual effects of these drugs on more responsible members of society, government policy requires a wider perspective, beyond the remit of Professor Nutt
"Academics attack Professor Nutt over 'incorrect statements' on drugs"
This is only two guys,the headlines a little misleading to say the least.
I would like to know who paid for this article?
Alcohol is man-made, and is the urine of microbes - after they have been starved of oxygen. Alcohol is toxic.
Cannabis is a 4,000 year-old medicinal herb. Cannabis heals - when used with the requisite caution that can be prvided once we stop being paranoid about even talking about sensible cannabis use.
I call for an immediate amnesty for cannabis users, while this legal fiasco is sorted out. Alternatively, make alcohol and tobacco Class A, and watch the nation riot!
It seems somewhat hypocritical take this position against Prof Nutt, when quite frankly the health related harms identified as resulting from both alcohol and tobacco have been identified as significant; this is supported by public health policy, health promotion campaigns and research;this is not considered significant enough to determine legislation relating to these substances.
As I understood it, Prof Nutt was not saying cannabis and MDMA were harmless, more that alcohol and tobacco are identified as causing significant health related harm and they are legal, and as such it is somewhat illogical to classify drugs by the perceived harm, particularly when two of the substances associated with high rates of morbidity do not even feature. Is there any arguement to be had about that?