Johnson has 'no regrets' over sacked drugs adviser
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Alan Johnson remains unrepentant over the controversial sacking of his chief adviser on drugs and is surprised about the outcry from scientists over the decision.
When he meets the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs tomorrow, the Home Secretary will try to persuade it that it has a vital role to play and appeal to other members not to join the two who have already resigned in protest at the dismissal of its chairman, Professor David Nutt. Mr Johnson accused him of campaigning against the Government's decision to upgrade cannabis to a Class B drug.
Mr Johnson said the scientific community should realise that the sacking was an isolated case about "one chairman of one advisory group". He was surprised that scientists "could take that and correlate it into feeling we have let down the scientific community".
There is tension between the Home Secretary and the Science minister Lord Drayson, who is furious about Professor Nutt's dismissal and has welcomed a draft code proposed by 28 senior scientists saying ministers should be denied the power to sack advisers who publicly disagree with government policy.
Mr Johnson is cautious about rushing into a new agreement because of the row. "I would not want to see any change in the excellent relationship with 70 different committees through which we work with the scientific community driven by the perception we need a complete overhaul because of what happened with one individual on one advisory body," he said.
Mr Johnson added: "I don't regret the decision at all. I believe what we have seen in the debate since the decision is a question mark over whether scientists should be engaged in political decisions.
"If you take decisions on categorisation of drugs, there are social, ethical all kinds of other dimensions to it, as well as the scientific dimension.
"There is a very healthy debate to be had here. If the scientific community believes that what happened to Professor Nutt was in any way indicative of the Government not respecting scientific advice, we will seek to reassure them that is not the case. No government has done more for the scientific community than this Government."
The Home Secretary stressed that ministers had accepted the vast majority of the advisory council's recommendations. "We have the highest respect for it. I respect Professor Nutt and his views. I just felt he could not get to the point where most scientists get to – they put in recommendations, the Government makes decisions and then they move on, not returning to a bone and gnawing away at it. If that happens, the relationship is not going to work. That is why my decision is the right decision."
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
Policy decisions must put on a rational, verifiable basis, otherwise how can we tell that our government ministers do not take decisions for personal or political profit and then claim that there were so many dimensions to each of their decisions that the public would never fully understand them. In this way they can do what they want without anybody being able to ever take them to account.
Tony Blair took us to war on the basis of fabricated evidence and his professed contacts with the transcendental. If scientists don't make common front now and demand some changes, this will happen again.
I can't remember how many Home Secretaries this regime has had, but each one seems to be worst than the last. That's what happens when you start scraping barrels, this fellow is clearly out of his depth, and grossly over-promoted.
It is encouraging to see he will approach the meeting tomorrow with an "open" mind !
I am not a party hack by the way
"I believe what we have seen in the debate since the decision is a question mark over whether scientists should be engaged in political decisions"
He should have therefore told Nutt "whatever your findings, remember this is a political decision"
In other words, fcuk science, this is political.
THEN WHY BOTHER HAVING A FREACK'N SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?
To borrow an Americanism, what an ARSEHOLE.
Re : no regrets : indeed, roll on, do you think Johnson will still be in office by the time of the next GE, or will we have to get rid of him. And even if -when- we do, what's the betting he will end up in the House of Lords, where we cannot get rid of him ?
Perhaps "extrapolate". But sounds like he is trying to use techncial sounding langauge and making a pig's ear of it.
And I thought AJ said Nutt had broken the rules but the ministry has been unable to find the rule. They just make it up as they go along.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1
And this was other commentary on the topic, in the same issue:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2
I grew in a house where the main 'breadwinner' came in drunk and abusive twice a day because he was a drug addict.
No it wasn't cannabis, Mr J, it was ALCOHOL!
Sixty years later the nightmares have not stopped.
As Capt Mainwaring used to say: "You stupid boy!"
Re Mr Joohnson : And Private Fraser might have said you're doomed, DOOMED !!
This from yesterday's The Daily Telegraph for instance -
"And indeed, Prof Nutt's argument for downgrading cannabis has nothing to do with science at all: he simply claims that a higher classification may encourage youngsters to use the drug, because "it has greater cachet". He provides no evidence whatever for this claim.
He does agree, however, that "what we should be doing is to protect [young people] from harm at this stage of their lives". The Government thinks that imposing serious penalties for cannabis use is a reasonable way of achieving that goal. Prof Nutt is entitled to take the contrary view, but he should not claim that it is merely the result of "science": it is about as scientific as advocating that handguns should be as freely available as swimming pools, because every year, fewer children get shot than drown."
"Prof Nutt's own summary of the relevant science is itself far from uncontentious. For instance, he recognises that "cannabis is associated with an increased experience of psychotic disorders", which include schizophrenia, but he then minimises the significance, claiming that "schizophrenia seems to be disappearing, even though cannabis use has increased markedly in the last 30 years". But there is no consensus at all that schizophrenia is disappearing: on the contrary, most psychiatrists and psychologists think the incidence of the illness is increasing, or at least constant."
Nutt was campaigning against Government policy since January and hiding behind a facade of selected parts of ACMD documentation. Failing to get media attention by his 'lecture' to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, he hawked the transcript around journalists. He did not make it clear he was acting in a purely personal capacity, he allowed the impression that he was only a messenger for the ACMD. Back in January he had been advised that he was going beyond his remit of providing scientific evidence, which is only ONE element under consideration by the Government. He deliberately persisted and employed the predictable tabloid mentality to support his case.
Note that he has NOT advocated any change in measures which deal with alcohol or tobacco.
All the Labour Government haters have been fooled; they make out that it's all about Johnson and Brown. It's all about Nutt, really.
He is certainly not supported by this grotesque government. So the state of this country, after more than a decade, is down to Professor Knutt - to give him his well earned title - ,and nothing to do with Brown and Johnson.
I'm a labour hater and I have not been fooled, by the worst regime the UK has ever, ever experienced. Betrayed yes- what happened to the Euro referendum promised in the Labour manifesto, for instance ?- the failed multi -cultural policy, which was nothing more than gerrymandering on a colossal scale. Why have you spent so much time and effort defending this lot ?
Don't run away with the idea that all " Labour haters are Tories, I certainly am not, nor am I a Party Hack. I was briefly a Labour Party member paid up party member , confess, but tore my card up and sent it back, explaining why, when some bright spark intruduced "positive discrimination
I was about to add, littleglimmer,."positive discrimination ", so candidates were to be selected merely by gender, regardless of of qualities, or lack of. This is how this government works, when it works at all. I hasten to add, this was long before Labour managed to con all and sundry into office.
Labour have come up with some creditable actions, but the discreditable ones far out weigh them, as they will discover at the next General Election...
Nice bit of cherry picking. "Prof Nutt's own summary of the relevant science is itself far from uncontentious. For instance, he recognises that "cannabis is associated with an increased experience of psychotic disorders" This is quite correct ,what you don't tell us, is that most of the research relating to Cannabis and schizophrenia suggests, not that cannabis could cause Schizophrenia, but that the Schizophrenia causes the cannabis use; and of that their is a consensus.
All the evidence for this is feely available, and published in scientific peer reviewed journals. of which you no nothing of,unlike proffesor Nutt.
Oh,and as for tabloid mentality,look no further than this labour government, who set their drugs policy by the Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror et al. The tail is wagging the Dog.
I suggest you climb out of Alan Johnstones Bottom,and do some serious research on Cannabis;not parrot what you read in the tabloids or the broad sheets - because most of it is selective and does not stand up to serious scientific scrutiny - or as I lke to call them the new ACMD,almost as egriegous as new Labour.
So my son, who was a cannabis addict for eight years, actually suffered from his mental disorders previous to his drug abuse, but that he managed to disguise it by cunningly behaving as though he was a normal cheerful intelligent, perceptive, quick-witted teenager from a family which has no recorded incidence of any mental illness? And that these mental disorders drove him to eight years of cannabis abuse, and it wasn't the cannabis which made him paranoid, dull-witted, aggressive, thieving, abusive and adopt a nihilistic lifestyle? According to Nutt and his supporters in these columns, he doesn't even count as count as 'harmed'.
Well, thank you for that. And in case you think that I have only one example to base my case on, I have seen at first hand the wrecks made of people by LSD and cannabis (from late 60's to the 90's) - most are still living, so again they don't fit into that cute bar chart of Nutt's. Probably most of them couldn't spell egregious, or know that it is an adjective.
My point about tabloid mentality refers to the quality of comment, not least in these columns.
My point about Labour haters refers to the curious singling out of the current Government under Gordon Brown, whilst ignoring all other Governments and their attitudes to scientific advice on drugs and their rersponses in legislation. It looks as though the Nutt issue for some is merely a cover for foolish political ranting. This current furore is one of Nutt's making; he is having his 15 minutes of fame. Soon it will be something else.
Now we can the axe you have been grinding all this time. I mistook you for a party hack. Sorry
A party hack, eh? I'm coming up in the world!
We are all keen to see both sides, or we all might as well just shut up. I too am sorry with what happened to your son, that's unlucky
I'm not a party hack either ! Forgive me
I suspect that most of your info on cannabis comes from the media, and I would direct you to www.bad science.net,there you should type cannabis into the search engine, you will be able to see all the scientific evidence for yourself if you so wish.
As for new Labour,I have been a Labour voter all my life,but new Labour is Thatcherism with a smiley face,and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the past12 years;not to mention the most aggressive attacks on are liberty's in living memory:I do not want a Tory Government,but Labour have moved so far to the right ,and the Tory's so far to the left,that their is little difference between the two main Party's, and I suspect I won't cast a vote at the next general election.
All I'm interested in is the truth,and that includes drugs, and I hope you start looking for the truth too.
I wish you and your son well,I understand your anger and apologise if I have caused you any upset.
Kindest regards H.
We do disagree about the appropriate way to accommodate cannabis use; I'm always keen to learn more but meanwhile my theoretical knowledge gleaned from reading scientific studies and opinions has been augmented by personal acquaintance with people who use it to varying degrees of intensity and frequency.
It's is amusing to see all this controversy about cannabis vs tobacco, when in my experience most cannabis use is through resin-laced tobacco roll-ups. With a small cardboard tip often, but no filter.
I've spent many years playing in local bands where drug use, particularly cannabis, is common among members and the wider set of hangers-on. I've smoked my share, although not nearly as much as others. Three things were incontrovertible - a) the progressive deterioration of intellectual capacity, conversational ability and alienation from 'normal' society, b) users were not in the least likely to be influenced by health warnings or to be able to research and understand studies of harmful effects, c) cannabis is addictive.
As regards your views on New Labour, I find I am unable to find any disagreement with you at all.
I am shocked that mr Johnson is so ignorant he fails to understand the panel of leading experts in the field considered all evidence including that pertaining to public perception and the media, unlike Mr Johnson however they looked at the facts and responded acordingly.
One might well ask if facts are to be ignored what exactly Mr Johnson and the Government do base their decisions on? I expect it is their own fears and ignorance.