Two more scientists quit as drugs row grows
Lord Winston accuses Home Secretary of knee-jerk reaction over sacking
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
PA
Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked Professor Nutt after he criticised government policy on drugs
enlarge
The Government's hard-line stance on illegal drugs appeared to be unravelling yesterday as two more scientists on its advisory council quit in protest at the sacking of their chairman, Professor David Nutt.
Dr Les King resigned from the 21-member Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, saying Home Secretary Alan Johnson had denied Professor Nutt's right to "freedom of expression".
He was followed by Marion Walker, the council representative from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. There were predictions last night that more departures would follow.
Professor Nutt was forced to resign on Friday after he had repeatedly criticised the Government for ignoring scientific evidence on drugs presented by the council which he chaired. Over the weekend, he predicted there would be further resignations and said most members were "extremely angry" over what had happened. He added that the position of scientists on the council was "untenable".
The row was sparked by Professor Nutt's comments that ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. He also criticised the decision to upgrade cannabis to class B. He has returned several times to these themes in public statements, to the increasing irritation of ministers.
Dr King, former head of the Home Office's Drugs Intelligence Unit, said: "Professor Nutt may be an adviser but he's still got the right to say what he likes. That was being denied."
The Government had the right to reject the council's advice but its attitude towards the council had changed "very recently". The council was being forced to operate to a "pre-defined political agenda", he said.
"It's being asked to rubber stamp a pre-determined position. If sufficient members do resign, the committee will no longer be able to operate."
Lord Winston, the Labour peer and broadcaster and renowned former fertility specialist, said yesterday he was "very surprised and disappointed" at Mr Johnson's decision to sack Professsor Nutt. He accused the Government of a "knee-jerk" reaction and warned it would be ignored if it gave advice to the public that did not take account of scientists' opinions.
Defending his decision to sack Professor Nutt, Mr Johnson said he had "crossed a line" from providing advice to political lobbying. "You can do one or the other. You can't do both," he said.
Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government's Chief Medical Officer, appeared to lend support to Mr Johnson's view when he told BBC TV's Andrew Marr show that Professor Nutt's situation had been "very controversial".
"These things are best sorted out behind the scenes so that the Government and their advisers can go to the public with a united front," he said.
Another member of the advisory council told The Independent: "It is tempting to make a rushed decision or a hasty public statement. But it is best in these situations to step back and take a breather."
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
"These things are best sorted out behind the scenes so that the Government and their advisers can go to the public with a united front," he said.
The JFK 'shooting', video method... or the 'look! these are Aliens' method.... ha ha ha erm...
;').
In this individual situation by sacking the Professor,Johnson has overreacted in an attempt to be seen to be in charge, a classic error. Subsequently, when using a familiar New Labour tactic of discrediting a critic to deflect attention away from his own failure,Johnson let slip that political dogma and not scientific evidence is behind the government's stance on the subject of drugs.
This has the feeling of a relatively minor spat blowing up into a full scale row dealing another blow to an already beleaguered government reminiscent of John Major's in its
death throes.
Get a Stalinist postie with a chip on his shoulder about people from Universities. Make sure he's got no qualifications whatsoever for being Home Secretary.
Make him Home Secretary. Allow him to rule on the law of the land from the basis of his own (extensive) personal bigotries and idiotic whims. Call this "the law".
The only difference is that Nutt hasn't yet been murdered the way they got David Kelly - but it's still on the cards, of course.
There is only one way to tackle the drugs problem and that’s to legalize it. Then you would have a situation where people would know what they were buying, could be offered help to get off and crime and prostitution would be dramatically reduced and organized crime would be hit hard. BUT we can’t have that can we?
Only this time the scientists have decided that they don't want to change the truth; all that shows us is that a scientist is far too honest to be a politician!
"Now, these idiots think this letter is going to 22 Willow Road? But I am Alan Johnson, and I know best! I'll deliver it to 17 Avondown Terrace instead. Now this parcel marked "fragile" - it won't go through the letterbox, but if I smash it up hard, it'll fit, eh? People just need to understand that I know better than they do, that's all. Next, this one's for 220 Blackstock Way... right down the far end! I can't be blowed to walk all the way down there... I'll just throw it away as usual..."
So now they are looking for scapegoats to deflect public anger at wasted time and wasted public money and dear old AJ has duly provided one.
Let's hope it is at the expense of his Labour leadership ambitions - we need a credible alternative to the Tories - not some ignorant, incompetent bully boy like AJ.
The answer of course is simple - MONEY!! The govt make a fortune out of revenue from tobacco and alchohol.
Bruce Anderson;,the government spent billions to treat drug abusers,just look and see how much efforts lost by treating them....!
anyone with ethics manners will not allow his children to be involved with this!
SOME like B.Anderson supports drud abusers...!
why did not Bruce support David Kelly when he criticized war and the "45 minute" story,? David Kelly was as same as David Nut, both of them were scientists.
Do we need this B.Anderson?
see the victims of these drugs imagine your son is one of them?
some time drugs effects are worse then death...!
many of them and their families are wishing that they die!!!!
We need to separate fact from fiction. Professor Nutt and his team address scientific fact.
Alan Johnson made a compete fool of himself on TV allowing emotion and none rational reason was clearly display to all, when he tried to defend his not defendable reason for sacking Professor Nutt. It displayed that Alan Johnson is totally unfit for office. A Minister needs to be in control not out of control. Alan we always took freedom of speech to be a corner stone of our democracy until New Labour came along.
Our only saviour can be that the Libs Dem can gain those lost New Labour voters. And the fact the Lib Dems, like Charles Clarke recopgnise Alan Johnson’s clear lack of professionalism and bias judgement is worthy of note.
Allan was trying to support New Labour spin and fiction for political reasons only. They are afraid of change and why they will not call an election.
There is no doubt that USA Californian drug culture involving the use of cannabis in the 1960’s caused people to question society and the justification for the Vietnamese war and oppression of the minorities and black people. Rather than fighting and signing drunken football songs. This is what New Labour is afraid off. That people see the hypercritical nature of politics. But the expense scandal has already exposed politicians. There is nothing left to defend or worthy of defence.
Like prohibition in the 1930’s in the US, all New Labour have done is given a breeding ground for youth gang culture whom make an illegal living from supply. To me it appears that. It is not exactly that anyone taking cannabis is doing any harm to anyone other than the self. It does not exactly appear to cause people to fight like whiskey does. Alcohol is illegal for minors. I agree that cannabis should be the same, illegal for minors. But for the adult they should have freedom of choice. Like the adult has freedom of choice to buy whiskey.
The Dutch and the Swiss have had liberal laws for many years, with coffee shops and the like and it appears that their societies are far more orderly than the UK society.
Drink a bottle of whiskey and you are unlikely to survive? Yet I do not see any recorded deaths caused by cannabis? There will be exceptions since somebody somewhere is allergic to something. I like peanuts but they are fatal to others. Yet we do not ban peanuts? We seem to have many alcoholic and addicted tobacco smokers yet these drugs are readily available?
It is all a question of what rights do we give to individuals. Do we ban rock climbing since people fall and kill themselves. Do we ban football since people get injured? It is merely a question of what rights the state has to interfere with the personal choice of the adult?
Sacking the drug advisor Professor Nutt and forcing others to resign because they are denied by New Labour freedom of speech is total madness.
What happens if some new chemical drug comes along? Or someone discovers some new genetically modified plant that is a potent addictive. We have no experts to give advice?
Society is simply blighted by New Labour desire to control and after seeing the way New Labour controlled the economy, expenses, the banks and widened the gap between the rich and poor. There is not very much that incompetent New Labour are capable of controlling. Except their refusal to call an election so that we can have a democratically elected PM. Rather than the none elected PM imposed upon us
Really we need PR like the Lib Dems propose. This one party system is just a breeding ground for political dictatorships like New Labour. The expenses scandal clearly showed that politicians can never be trusted.
What happened to them??
that is double standard !!!
you as usual thinking the people have got short memory.....!
Now a scientist comes out to say the government is condoning two dangerous drugs while banning two or three other less dangerous narcotics reveals the government is less concerned with people's general health and more concerned with tax revenue