Health & Families

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Sacked – for telling the truth about drugs

Government fires top adviser for challenging its hardline policy on cannabis and ecstasy

By Jeremy Laurance, Health editor

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Politics obscures truth
[info]helend498 wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 12:35 am (UTC)
I can't see anything new here.
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
Re: Politics obscures truth
[info]jimliverpool wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 07:57 am (UTC)

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.
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]rwthplb - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]jimliverpool - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]rwthplb - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]freedon4sale - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 06:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]rwthplb - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]woden1809 - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]pechocho - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]jimliverpool - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]freedon4sale - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Tabacco and Alcohol Are Safe Because of Taxation - [info]mike4626 - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:54 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Politics obscures truth - [info]proximaking - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 10:48 am (UTC) Expand
Sacked
[info]rosemary3 wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 12:43 am (UTC)
A scientist sacked by the government for stating his researched-based opinion is a travesty. I can only assume the protection for alcohol and tobacco must come down to money and the influence of these industries.
Squabbling
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
Those who think it is cool to use drugs for 'harmless recreational use' are are supporting the underworld of crime. Esoteric debates on the harm or non harm of particular drugs is not the point.

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.

Re: Squabbling - [info]woden1809 - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Squabbling - [info]felipe_segundo - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Squabbling - [info]edmund03 - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 11:51 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Squabbling - [info]markstanding - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 02:18 pm (UTC) Expand
Anaesthetised society - [info]humble_sparrow - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 03:53 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Squabbling - [info]vmf916 - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 11:16 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]iainkent wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:10 am (UTC)
Outrageous! But hardly surprising from an authoritarian Government which has consistently ignored the ACMD and which only seems prepared to listen to independent, evidence-backed advice when it happens to agree with its own preconceptions. The extent to which this Government stifles any kind of debate about the drugs problem is genuinely shocking.
Drug Lords lapping up all this indecision
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC)
Look at Columbia, look at Afghanistan embroiled in wars funded by the drug's trade ?

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 ?
Re: Drug Lords lapping up all this indecision - [info]sergio_montes - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 12:01 am (UTC) Expand
Ulterior Motives
[info]king_farian wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:24 am (UTC)
For a government that would tax a stone on the amount of blood it produced, if it could, 'They' must having something very big to fear from 'Weed', etc etc..... GHB ( Date Rape drug) & Ketamine ( Halluconogic horse tranquiliser ) are Class C drugs, therefore safer to use than Skunk ! OK !!! So too clarify... Don't want the tax from Weed, Do want you to be drunk, $**T faced, non responsive....... Mmmmmmm !!!???!!??
[info]arthurpound wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:42 am (UTC)
Glad to see the Shadow Home Secretary wading in as well, to remind us that things will be no different under the next (inevitable) Tory Government. How telling that he found the Professor's comments "ill-judged" - stating the truth is a sign of poor judgement according to both Parties.

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?
[info]cm999 wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
Here here. I think you are spot on. Its a real shame that honest professional advice is just ignored and will be by the Tories too. What on earth is it about our politicians that they think they know best about everything and more than experts in their field they appoint!!!!
(no subject) - [info]freedon4sale - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 06:08 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]freedon4sale - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 09:37 am (UTC) Expand
amusing spelling mistake
[info]britzrules wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:43 am (UTC)
a somewhat unfortunate spelling mistake in the third paragraph of this article...
Re: amusing spelling mistake
[info]slaveweknow wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 10:05 pm (UTC)
is this what concern you?LOL
Sacked – for telling the truth
[info]palestinian_ian wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:52 am (UTC)
A bit of a different scenario to refusing to tell the public the advice given by advisers over the legality of the war in Iraq. At that time we were told that advisers must feel free to give advice. But then again, he's lucky he hasn'tt suffered the fate of David Kelly, the other government adviser who disagreed with the Labour Government's views. The next election is the chance for the public to sack people like Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Jacqui Smith
Re: Sacked – for telling the truth
[info]sameth99200 wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:19 pm (UTC)
And replace them with more of the same. A general election wont solve any of this business. If anything, the Tory's are saying he should have been sacked sooner.
telling the truth about drugs
[info]victhebrit wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 02:10 am (UTC)
Does this mean that alcohol and tobacco will soon become a class C drug?

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.
[info]kentepoz wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 02:18 am (UTC)
Uncomfortably reminiscent of Bush-ian machinations this trumping of science by conservative political opinion. But, science will always be used as long as it maintains a solidarity with prevailing political values.
drugs are dangerous, not just death numbers
[info]redcliffe62 wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 02:28 am (UTC)
i terms of the number of deaths that may be correct.
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.
Re: drugs are dangerous, not just death numbers
[info]jimliverpool wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 07:58 am (UTC)
(EDIT - Soory for typos in previous; here is the correct version ... )

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.
Re: drugs are dangerous, not just death numbers - [info]tibleydoc - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:30 am (UTC) Expand
Re: drugs are dangerous, not just death numbers - [info]felipe_segundo - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: drugs are dangerous, not just death numbers - [info]stikinsekt - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 02:13 pm (UTC) Expand
This is the only thing we can do:
[info]yumyum121 wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:00 am (UTC)
Labour and Conservative seem to think that sacking professor Nutt was O.K.

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.
Blinkered, short sighted, empty headed, wastes of space
[info]amanfrommars wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:16 am (UTC)
"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. "

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.
Re: Blinkered, short sighted, empty headed, wastes of space
[info]ddraig_ddu wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:53 pm (UTC)

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?!
Drug laws are discriminatory
[info]sergio_montes wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:21 am (UTC)
The Government goes on to state that it "acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs" but that "a classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning (ranging from caffeine to alcohol and tobacco). Legal substances are therefore regulated through other means". This is the most damning piece of evidence to date that the Government is knowingly administering drug laws in order to appease the majority whose drugs of preference are currently socially accepted, at the expense of minorities whose drugs of preference are no more harmful than those preferred by the majority. This unequal treatment is deliberately enforced in order to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon the Government if larger numbers were affected by these laws. This is a clear case of majoritarian scapegoating, resulting in extreme discrimination towards specific minorities who find themselves subject to draconian criminal sanctions for peaceful behaviour which is in essence no different from that of the majority who enjoy the consumption of alcohol and tobacco.
immoral goverment
[info]kizere wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:23 am (UTC)
never mind the gange ...
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 .
Re: immoral goverment
[info]sergio_montes wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:36 am (UTC)
and of course it wouldn't happen if heroin were not illegal. If it were legal wouldn't be in the hands of criminals and terrorists as the taliban. Is just horrible to think that our government, with its stupid laws, is funding the very same murderers that are killing our troops. The words that express what I feel would be censored.
Re: immoral goverment - [info]freedon4sale - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 06:53 pm (UTC) Expand
E for Evil
[info]delzorroz wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:34 am (UTC)
ECSTACY is a killer drug that is responsible for the deaths of scores of young people every year, and has rightly been vilified by politicians and media alike for some time now. But now we are to learn there is a new kind of 'E' on the market - a terrifying new 'thrill' that some experts calculate to be as much as three times more dangerous than ecstacy. Unlike some drugs which are more prevalant among less privileged socioeconomic groups, research suggests that this new form of 'E' has found favour with the higher echelons of society, and is practically endemic among some upper class and non-urban populations. We've seen horrifying reports of children as young as five becoming utterly hooked on this deadly habit, their young minds tragically warped, giddily intoxicated and continually thinking ahead to their next fix. Sickeningly, it appears that these vulnerable youngsters' destructive appetites are often being funded by their own parents, many of who are long-term addicts themselves. One can only thank Professor Nutt and his team for their vital work in bringing the dangers of this new 'E', or to give it it's scientific name, 'equestrianism', to our collective attention. And one can only urge that Alan Johnson and his team make banning this evil new form of recreation a priority of the utmost urgency.
Re: E for Evil
[info]markstanding wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:48 pm (UTC)
Scores of people each year? What is the percentage of Ecstacy users that die compared to the percentage of Alcohol users that die?

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*
Re: E for Evil - [info]hackmuth - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: E for Evil - [info]enemaitch - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 06:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: E for Evil - [info]freedon4sale - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 07:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Government Falsehood - [info]esotericeric - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Government Falsehood
[info]frebastulous wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:55 am (UTC)
I hope all members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will resign in solidarity with its chairman who has been fired because the ACMD's very thoroughly researched, objective, scientific report contradicted the lies on which the government's drug policy is founded.
another reason
[info]thomasth wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:58 am (UTC)
another reason not to vote Labour: their reactions are closer to National Socialist than anything remotely progressive - they make the Tories, who are ultra rightwing nowadays, on the whole, look like the party of progress.
Re: another reason
[info]richard_hode wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:19 am (UTC)
Yes, the similarity to the National Socialists struck me too, with its Goebbels-like denial of reality and arrogance that public opinion will swallow the lies.
Professor David Nutt
[info]meggafish wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:01 am (UTC)
As I approach 60 years of age, and I have not led a sheltered life, I have concluded that at least 80% of the pols I have met are out and out idiots. They start making tea and work their way up, always with their eye on "the prize."
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?
Re: Professor David Nutt
[info]sergio_montes wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:27 am (UTC)
Yes! If only... in the meanwhile I going to write my MP and carry on writing to newspapers and debating in different forums... at least something! It's getting too much really, far too much...

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.
Re: Professor David Nutt - [info]gregory_sallust - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Professor David Nutt - [info]moffycardiff - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:11 pm (UTC) Expand
Good for him!
[info]richard_hode wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:11 am (UTC)
Good for Professor Nutt, an honest scientist. Too bad the government doesn't want honesty but lies, lies, and more lies until we gag. Such are the reality-deniers in the government who need lies to keep their drug war alive. Truth has fallen victim to their machinations.
An old message...
[info]lima_charlie wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:32 am (UTC)
...but one it seems the Government is still unwilling to hear. Something about his advice to the Government sounded familiar and I remember a front page years back from the Independent (or possibly Guardian, I forget) where drugs, both legal and illegal, were ranked according to the harm they caused. A quick bit of googling turned up these two articles from August 2006 which relate to research carried out by, amongst others... Prof. Nutt

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-classes-have-little-link-to-the-dangers-410087.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drugs-the-real-deal-410086.html

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...
Is there a pattern?
[info]ismellwinter wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:34 am (UTC)

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.
If alchol and smoking is more dangerous shouldn't we listen and do something about it?
[info]siancrawley wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:54 am (UTC)
If alcohol and tobaccol is more dangerous than cannabis, surely the goverment should take that statistic seriously and do something to mend the embarrassing state Britain gets itself into with drinking and smoking problems.
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.
At least they didn't murder him
[info]reinertorheit wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 05:27 am (UTC)

as they did with Dr David Kelly
Re: At least they didn't murder him
[info]old_mathers wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC)
Was thinking he had a lucky escape myself, but I won't be surprised if he's found with a needle in his arm dead from an overdose, just to proove him wrong.
Right to be sacked
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 05:41 am (UTC)
The trouble with academics is that they study things in the laboratory or under controlled conditions and fail to see the unpredictable human element ie most are socially naiive. All brain altering substances can be harmful and control human behaviour in unpredictable ways - one ecstacy pill is far more harmful to that person and others when driving a car than one normal glass of wine. Go over the limit with the wine and you end up in jail. The public are not stupid and recognise the difference. Smoking cannibis rots the brain - unfortunately a rotten brain is not illegal as the Drugs zsar has found out to his cost.
Re: Right to be sacked
[info]dylanatstrumble wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:15 am (UTC)
You would have probably said the same thing about Darwin, arguing that you the Church knew best!
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]felipe_segundo - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sjkillman - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 11:24 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]richard_hode - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sjkillman - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]iaintom - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 01:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sjkillman - Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 03:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sergio_montes - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 12:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sjkillman - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 03:22 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sergio_montes - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 03:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sjkillman - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 11:32 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sergio_montes - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 12:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Right to be sacked - [info]sjkillman - Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 03:53 pm (UTC) Expand
politicians and drugs
[info]dylanatstrumble wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 07:25 am (UTC)
Most people who smoke pot will agree that after smoking, we can say some pretty daft things and behave a bit odd.

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
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>


Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date