Sacked – for telling the truth about drugs
Government fires top adviser for challenging its hardline policy on cannabis and ecstasy
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The Government's drugs tsar was forced to resign last night for stating his view that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol.
The Home Secretary Alan Johnson asked Professor David Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), saying he had "lost confidence" in his ability to give impartial advice.
But last night Professor Nutt, who is head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, retaliated, accusing the Government of "misleading" the pubic in its messages about drugs and of "Luddite" tendencies.
He was backed by other senior scientists and politicians.
Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said: "The Government cannot expect the experts who serve on its independent committees not to voice their concern if the advice they give is rejected even before it is published. "I worry that the dismissal of Professor Nutt will discourage academic and clinical experts from offering their knowledge and time to help the Government in the future."
Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, where Professor Nutt made his comments, said: "I'm dismayed that the Home Secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that, when it comes to the Home Office's relationship with the research community, honest researchers should be seen but not heard." He added it was "a bad day for science and for the cause of evidence-informed policy making".
Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year, was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year. He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using" the drug.
Most drugs experts believe his analysis is right. But ministers did not want to hear the truth or at least to be reminded of it repeatedly. The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us. The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed scientific appraisal.
"Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite attitude of governments towards science."
He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that parents should be more worried about alcohol.
"The greatest concern to parents should be that their children do not get completely off their heads with alcohol because it can kill them ... and it leads them to do things which are very dangerous, such as to kill themselves or others in cars, get into fights, get raped, and engage in other activities which they regret subsequently. My view is that, if you want to reduce the harm to society from drugs, alcohol is the drug to target at present."
In a recent broadside, Professor Nutt accused Jacqui Smith, who oversaw the reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B, of "distorting and devaluing" scientific research. He said her decision to reclassify cannabis as a "precautionary step" sent mixed messages and undermined public faith in government science.
"I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm. We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."
The Home Office said Mr Johnson had written to Professor Nutt expressing "surprise and disappointment" over his remarks. Mr Johnson said in the letter that Professor Nutt had gone beyond providing evidence to "lobbying" for changes to policy. He said: "As Home Secretary it is for me to make decisions, having received advice from the [Council] ... It is important that the Government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them ... I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities."
The shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "This was an inevitable decision after his latest ill-judged contribution to the debate, but it is a sign of lack of focus at the Home Office that it didn't act sooner, given that he has done this before."
But Phil Willis, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said: "I am writing immediately to the Home Secretary to ask for clarification as to why Sir David Nutt has been relieved of duties as chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs at a time when independent scientific advice to Government is essential. It is disturbing if an independent scientist should be removed for reporting sound scientific advice."
Claudia Rubin from Release – a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law – said the expert should not have been penalised. "It's a real shame and a real indictment of the Government's refusal to take any proper advice on this subject," she said.
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
Unfortunately true science has been ignored for years as zealots and nannies with their vested interests have taken over the western world.
I don't know how many years it will take to defeat them, but they are causing a lot of harm.
True science with concrete evidence is the proof that policies should be made on. Politicians should pass laws of sense and not laws that line their wallets
I work with people who have severe and enduring mental illnesses i.e. psychoses, mood didsorders, and whilst speed, pot, acid and E's may not damage liver or kidneys in the same way or to the degree that drink does, there are MANY examples of peoples' lives being ruined as a result of getting high. The impact on individuals and their families of those drugs which are currently 'illegal' goes beyond the ostensibly physical, into the realms of social, emotional, psychological and 'spiritual' areas of being.
It is complex, of course, but the clever clogs Prof who wanted his sound-bite to resonate, has achieved his wish; but he is off message and the Boss is entitled to sanction him much as any other employee may be; if he is so clever, then he should be clarifying things so that not one falsely reassured teenager is affected by a drug-induced psychosis tonight which may affect him and his family for the rest of their lives; whilst accepting that hundreds of peers may be able to carry on week after week, tripping away to their hearts content, as they are not affected in the same way.
It is indeed a complex thing.
Whilst this squabbling goes on thousands of victims of drug addiction continue to suffer though lack of assertive policy.
Drugs are dangerous, no they are'nt, yes they are, no they are'nt. yes they are, no they are'nt, yes they are, no they are'nt., yes they are, no they are'nt.....
Someone out there needs to get a grip of the situation.
2 wrongs make a right ?
Justification for a quick fix ?
Dope dealer "sure I can get you something a little stronger, cost you a ton a day and you'll have to do a few muggings or sell your body to keep it up, but I don't care"
Delusions of the addicted ?
Sadly many people will applaud Nutt's sacking; some of these have understandable reasons for not wanting to see various drugs either decriminalised or destigmatized, but they are missing the point. This is one example of a much larger problem. Expert advisers on various aspects of policy (not only medical but education etc) are totally ignored, and publicly humiliated or sacked if they have the nerve to complain about this. It seems they are only appointed so that the Government can maintain some pretence that they are prepared to listen to anyone else once their minds are made up.
I do believe we get the politicians we deserve. If we are prepared to trust this Government, while showing contempt for the people who actually know what they're talking about, then we only have ourselves to blame for the consequences. What consequences, you may say; surely this only affects drug users? Maybe so, but how about when the Government decides it can ignore the experts on hospitals? And on schools? Or, oh I don't know, how about on regulation of the banks?
Or are these legal substances harmless and therefore the Home Sec feels their contibution to the balance of payments is perfectly fine?
New Labour knows what's right and stopped listening to the facts a long time ago - Goodbye Gordon - see you again in No 10 in 2024 or thereabouts.
in terms of the number of lives ruined i disgaree completely.
dying from horse riding is an accident. the rest of those involve din horseriding do so happily and legally. dying from drugs is a conscious decision knowing the risks.
I agree
I work with people who have severe and enduring mental illnesses i.e. psychoses, mood didsorders, and whilst speed, pot, acid and E's may not damage liver or kidneys in the same way or to the degree that drink does, there are MANY examples of peoples' lives being ruined as a result of getting high. The impact on individuals and their families of those drugs which are currently 'illegal' goes beyond the ostensibly physical, into the realms of social, emotional, psychological and 'spiritual' areas of being.
It is complex, of course, but the clever clogs Prof who wanted his sound-bite to resonate, has achieved his wish; but he is off message and the Boss is entitled to sanction him much as any other employee may be; if he is so clever, then he should be clarifying things so that not one falsely reassured teenager is affected by a drug-induced psychosis tonight which may affect him and his family for the rest of their lives; whilst accepting that hundreds of peers may be able to carry on week after week, tripping away to their hearts content, as they are not affected in the same way.
It is indeed a complex thing.
We live in a democracy so if you don't like what the two main parties are doing, please, next time there is an election, don't vote for either of them. Vote for some other party instead.
Personally, I will be voting Lib Dems from now on.
That is a public admission of a failing in Alan Johnson's ability to accept impartial advice and has nothing to do with Professor Nutt, who is so clearly able to provide it.
Alan Johnson is the man who should resign as he is so obviously unfit for objective purpose ....... although clearly enough ideal for Labour's well known weakness, which likes to invent and distort the facts to fit around subjective policies.
A refusal to resign by Professor Nutt is what is needed to bloody the nose of the cowardly schoolyard, methinks, and start to restore a semblance of order and sanity to the administration of governance.
I imagine that the whole of Academe would be behind such a move, rather than allowing themselves to be dictated to by a failing/failed regime of professional bench sitters/fence sitters into all manner of dubious self-serving practices at the Public Expense.
Exactly what I was thinking
How can a professional politician accuse a scientist who gives advice based on solid scientific evidence of giving 'impartial advice,' whilst they themselves follow a completely impartial course of action?!
what's really wrong is that our troops are being killed off daily in afghanistan and the cowardly taliban who are planting the devices that maim and kill are being funded by heroin users who are blissfully unaware of the harm they cause , and the goverment are knowingly using our tax payers money to fund all these benefit junkies so are killing their own troops with our hard earned money .
now thats what i call a drug problem and total disgrace .
its about time these issues were tackled.
and our jails are full of heroin and we are paying for it .
and they want to demonise cannabis users . now thats what i call double standards .
Please don't include deaths from people that took Ecstacy mixed with other stuff by dealers. That would just be proving the point that the fact it's illegal, meant they took stuff that actually WASN'T Ecstacy.
I then look forward to seeing the percentage of Cannabis users that die from taking it.
If there is a 'new E' out that it more dangerous, then that means the super strength E is dangerous - it doesn't make normal Ecstacy anymore dangerous. Alcohol will hardly do anything at 0.5%. If one drinks 90% alcohol, they'll probably die. Every drug can and does have different strengths of potency.
A type of Ecstacy that is stronger than all other Ecstacy, and even types of cannabis that are stronger than 'normal' cannabis, are irrelevant to the debate. Well...there's one relevance - and that's that BECAUSE of their illegal status, people have to buy whatever is available from the dealer - and not from a shop which would state the exact strength and content of the drugs, if they were legal - in the same ways as alcohol.
*shakes head in disbelief at human stupidity*
They're egotistical, venal and well, not to insult whores, but whores.
We are no longer able to change the system through voting and demonstrations are always ruined by agent provocateurs looking to beat, arrest and stifle dissent at the behest of their masters.
If there was ever a time for a general strike it is now. Not just in the UK, but the whole western world must stand together against the small group that have stolen not only power, but life itself. The firing of Professor David Nutt is no different than the Papal Inquisition that Galileo faced. Our rulers represent those who pay them, always have always will. We need to return to Greek democracy wherein all citizens threw their hat in a ring and a blind man selected the governement. We couldn't do any worse could we?
I really like it when you compare Nutt with Galileo. Could be that if we really try the tide will be turn, somehow? We should at least keep writing; moreover to Daily Mail and likes... much more is needed there than here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s
The Government has been ignoring Professor Nutt and it's other scientists for many years now to they point where I wonder why they have them at all - just for show perhaps? I feel sorry for him as his position must have been incredibly frustrating, being asked for advice and giving it only to have it rejected because it is not politically or electorally palatable. What puzzles me though is why they have chosen now as the moment to fire him as his message is not exactly a new one. If they were hoping to silence or get rid of him they may well find that such a public firing has the opposite effect. Ah well, let the spotlight shine on...
A government appointed independent science advisor gets the sack for being independent and advising. Should we assume that it is this kind of government threat that is held over the global warming science advisor when he advises a tax to combat climate change. What about Liam Donaldson? Will he loose his paid post as Chief Medical Officer if his advise on the threat of swine flu does not fit the party line? Was the independent weapons advisor Dr. Kelly towing the party line. Is state murder the result of genuine independent advice? Prof. Nutt should watch his back.
It must be obvious by now to most people our governments are no longer in control. The banksters are in control. We have been sold. Any activity that does not contribute to the debtor nation economy we have become must be stamped out. Prof. Nutt missed a drug completely, the worst drug of all, consumerism. A drug so powerful whole populations enslave themselves with debt. But you will never hear a minister mention it. The blood suckers would never allow that and besides it has served its purpose and done its job well. We are at a new stage, marketed as globalism. Our numbers are becoming a bit superfluous, a bit of a nuisance, their consultants advise a cull. Perhaps a war on those they do not control or a manufactured flu pandemic or a dodgy vacine or both or all three would do the trick. You just can't trust the psychopaths.
I wonder how much police time (and money) is spent every week dealing with drunken and disorderly behaviour when it could be spent on other matters. I wonder how much of the NHS money goes towards lung cancer and respiratory disorders inflamed by smoking (passive or direct). I wonder how many patients a year have to have treatment for liver sclerosis. I wonder how many people would actually be in work if their alcoholism hadn't destroyed their lives and the lives of their families. Maybe the statement is profound because he is highlighting that Britain is allowing these peoblems to manifest already and that the government have their priorities wrong, maybe because of the amount of tax alchohol and cigarettes puts back into the economy.
Either way, I'm, disappointed that the goverment won't ''eat humble pie' on this and do something to educate our society with honesty we need rather than attempting to cover up important truths that could put alot of things into perspective for the future of our country.
as they did with Dr David Kelly
Politicians are different to us, they only need to think about a little pot, before they start acting a little bizarrely and saying stupid things.
It's our fault, of course....we vote for them