Leading article: Unfair dismissal

Saturday, 31 October 2009

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
Print
Email

Professor David Nutt was sacked yesterday as head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, accused Professor Nutt of stepping over the line which separates advice and policymaking in a public lecture this week.

Yet it is worth looking at precisely what Professor Nutt said. The point he made was that the Government's reclassification of cannabis from class C to class B was not justified by research into the danger the drug poses to health. He also called for a more rational official evaluation of the harm inflicted by all narcotic substances. Isn't this the sort of scientifically-based independent thinking Professor Nutt was supposed to produce? Or does this Government only want to hear advice that it is already inclined to follow?

It is hard not to suspect that Professor Nutt's real crime in the eyes of the Government was not his interference in politics but the fact that his words embarrassed ministers.

Comments

( Leave a comment )

Discriminatory drug policies

sergio_montes wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 02:51 am (UTC)

Users of controlled drugs are the unspoken victims of an extreme, yet almost invisible, form of discrimination. The belief that some drugs are "evil" is pervasive, yet strangely absent when it comes to other equally or more harmful drugs approved of by the majority such as the drugs alcohol and tobacco. To put things into perspective, according to the UK National Office of Statistics in 2005, there were 6,627 alcohol-related deaths and 86,500 tobacco-related deaths, compared for example with 58 ecstasy-related deaths and 19 aspirin-related deaths. Yet it is ecstasy and not alcohol or tobacco which is most often referred to as a "killer drug" whilst a person sharing an ecstasy pill with a friend is committing a crime which carries a potential life sentence since this would legally be considered supply of a Class A drug. Although some argue that this disparity in the number of deaths is due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco are more widely used because of their legal status, this is not the case. In a factsheet on drug-related deaths issued in September 1996, the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence (ISDD) compared the annual mortality rates for four different types of drugs, the reported mortality rates (as a percentage of total users for each type of drug) were 1.5% to 3% for opiate users, 0.9% for tobacco users, 0.5% for alcohol users, and 0.0002% for ecstasy users.

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". We believe this to be 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. We believe that 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.

From: http://www.drugequality.org/

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Discriminatory drug policies

expat99 wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:13 pm (UTC)

An excellent comment by Sergio Montes.

Here in Mexico where I live, the government has recently decriminalised personal possession of pretty much all drugs; I could if I desired walk the streets with some MJ, some cocaine, some heroin, ecstasy, even methamphetamine. Perfectly legally.
And you know what? There has been absolutely no change at all. The roof hasn't fallen in. There's been no epidemic of drug use.

In the USA many states have introduced MMJ (medical marijuana) laws that allow people to obtain a doctor's agreement and then legally buy personal supplies for treatment of nausea, pain, etc.
The UK now resembles a "Victorian Control Freak" society in many ways: British drunkenness is on a par with Hogarth's "Gin Lane" while the farcical, brain-dead government locks people up for victimless crimes concerning what they do with their own bodies. Pathetic.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Who Runs the UK

loftwork wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 05:10 am (UTC)

Both Labour and Tory have made it clear that independent scientific advisers are to do what they're told. The whole point of such public appointments is to support political prejudice or, failing that, to maintain a dignified silence. Nutt has, as a rational scientist, refused to allow political prejudice (at the instigation of the tabloid press) to silence the hard evidence. The problem is that ministers tout their scientific consultation groups to buttress the political drivel they often feel compelled to issue. But when the facts do not support political convenience, silence may convey the impression that there is no disagreement. Ministers want it both ways - public support or, failing that, an embargo on the truth. But when failure to challenge nonsense creates human misery and criminalizes thousands of people for doing little more than staying at home and getting the giggles (instead of vomiting in public and fighting outside the neighbourhood pub) then silence is not enough.

If ministers demand slavish obedience, they may request non-disclosure agreements or the Official Secrets Act. But that is not independent advice. Nutt has been sacked, to his credit, Johnson will shortly meet the same fate. He too should consider his position.

The real story here is the Shadow Home Secretary's agreement that Nutt should be fired for excessive candour. Perhaps Tories are bracing themselves to sack any of their own advisers who display a tendancy to tell a truth inconsistent with the tabloid outlook. That would be truly depressing - an alarming early sign of 'more of the same'. One suspects for example that Gen. Dannatt may be for the drop - far too much integrity for politics.

Link | Reply | Thread

Sacked for promoting cannabis, LSD, etc

quietzapple wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 06:07 am (UTC)

Tosh to suggest he was sacked for telling the truth.

He had to walk because his naive or deliberately provocative and misleading statement will have had the effect of leading some more kids into trying illegal and debilitating, potentially dangerous drugs.

Lib Dem support virtually guaranteed for such mal judgement off course . . .

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Sacked for promoting cannabis, LSD, etc

paul999 wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)

Maybe provocative, but exactly which part was misleading? If you want to keep kids away from debilitating and dangerous drugs we should ban Alcohol and Tobacco as recommended by many scientists.

The Lib Dems have my vote if they are going to base their judgements on rational science rather than irrational fear.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

UK Government Is Not Fit To Govern

paulvw wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC)

We already have a foreign minister who doesn't know the capital of one of the BRIC nations, a cabinet packed with and run by unelected aristocrats and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who couldn't do simple maths now we have a Home Secretary who thinks his opinion overides scientific facts. The sooner these clowns are thrown out of office the better. Oh I almost forgot the maniac at the top who thinks he saved the planet.

Link | Reply | Thread

Illiteracy, innumeracy and populism

rwthplb wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)

argely innumerate, scientifically illiterate - Smith and Johnson for one reason or another did not get the education, but rather than using a set of informed advisors (and learning something along the way - do either of them read anything technical or relating to good but 'easy' science (from New Scientist for example) they push on with their 'political instincts'.

I am sure that many people remember Louise Casey (then 'yob czar') - "There is an obsession with evidence-based policy ... If No 10 says bloody 'evidence-based policy' to me once more I'll deck them one and probably get unemployed." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/07/ukcrime.whitehall - but neither she nor government ever understood what evidence might mean. Stupid czar, stupid ministers.

But will an incoming government do any better - probably not.

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Illiteracy, innumeracy and populism

eurobritish wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:15 pm (UTC)

You can bet your sweet life that if that incoming government is conservative, it will be worse than the present bunch of quasi-conservatives we've had since 1997. The number of votes cast as a percentage overall means nothing, due to our very un-democratic voting system we will never have balanced government.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

It's all good

gonzologist wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC)

We will never get politicians who are honest, tell the truth and act in the best interests of the nation as a whole until more people get heartily fed up with the ones we have at the moment. This process is incremental and is moved on a step at a time by fools like Johnson sacking experts for telling inconvenient truths.

Johnson may have won a minor skirmish here but the system that he is part of is one step closer to losing the war against the freedom of the British people which he and his kind are waging.

Link | Reply | Thread

Politicians

stote007 wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 11:06 am (UTC)

Bunch of twats - every last one of them.

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Politicians

eurobritish wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:18 pm (UTC)

Aint that the truth...

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Roll a Phat One!!

zened wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)

Gordon Brown is the one square who is really in need of blowing a big phat dooby!

Chill out Babylon!!

Jah Rastafarai, ever livin' ever lovin' ever free, Jah I.

Link | Reply | Thread

david nutt we are the proof

nsa_jake1972 wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 05:55 pm (UTC)

all smokers that carrie jobs , raise familys, and progess in what they do is the proof; david nutt ;is speaking of and we should all be standing up for what he is saying.but the money that alchol brings in from tax'n is why it is leagal and canniabis is not................ hard to tax mother nature........ if canniabis had commercials like cigarettes and alchol we would be a lot less sick and there would not be drunk crimes like dui,i didn't know because i was drunk,and i did what.? you can sure fill in some of your one storys

Link | Reply | Thread

Professor David Nutt

birch_7 wrote:

Monday, 2 November 2009 at 10:58 am (UTC)

I don't smoke - legal poison or otherwise (I gave up smoking 16yrs ago as I was finding it increasingly difficult to rid myself of chest infections...), and I do not drink more than, say, a glass of vintage cider a month (if that) - yes, I know, I'm boring. But my comment/question is where would we be if this nanny state did a "proper job" and banned the genuine harmful drugs like nicotine and alcohol? instead of sacking people who spoke the truth?

Link | Reply | Thread