nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

British drug scientist sacked in government row.

wudangclan

A british government drug adviser ,David Nutt,was sacked today for stating during the week that he believed cannabis and ecstasy to be less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
He says he is being sacked because he chose to relate what he believes to be the scientific truth, for recommending these substances be reclassified and for refusing to underpin the governments moral line as regards the use of these substances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6087824/Chief-drugs-adviser-sacked-by-Home-Secretary.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

walshb

My name is URL wrote: »

Just saw this on the BBC news, disgraceful that he was sacked

He's a professional in his field and has the public's best interests at heart, and he can be humiliated and overruled like that by the people responsible for enforcing stuff to protect the public

The same thing goes on here, the magic mushroom ban was just a moral scramble to gain political support, not protect people

How is it disgraceful?

The guy is being appointed by the government and he is then going against
their policies and views. Hey, he may well be right, but he cannot be on both sides of the fence here. He has to show some loyalty and if he wants to speak his mind and the "truth," and go against his employers, then he should have quit and then made his remarks.

blubloblu

walshb wrote: »

How is it disgraceful?

The guy is being appointed by the government and he is then going against
their policies and views. Hey, he may well be right, but he cannot be on both sides of the fence here. He has to show some loyalty and if he wants to speak his mind and the "truth," and go against his employers, then he should have quit and then made his remarks.

What's the point of his job then? Just be a sycophant that ignores any research? The policies should be based on the facts, not the other way around.

My name is URL

walshb wrote: »

How is it disgraceful?

The guy is being appointed by the government and he is then going against
their policies and views. Hey, he may well be right, but he cannot be on both sides of the fence here. He has to show some loyalty and if he wants to speak his mind and the "truth," and go against his employers, then he should have quit and then made his remarks.

His employer is not the government, he's an independently appointed professional and is expected to give his professional opinion, whether it's agreeable to the government or not.

Cop on ffs.. would you rather be fed shit just to keep other people happy?

walshb

Did the goverment appoint him? Isn't he the governments top dog o this issue? Lok, maybe he is right, but that doesn't mean he can simply go against the agenda and policy of the govt and expect to keep his job.

BTW, the last time I checked, alcohol was legal.

I would much rather take my chances with three or four pints as opposed to three or four E tabs....

It's apples and oranges he is trying to compare.

builttospill

walshb wrote: »

Did the goverment appoint him? Isn't he the governments top dog o this issue? Lok, maybe he is right, but that doesn't mean he can simply go against the agenda and policy of the govt and expect to keep his job.

BTW, the last time I checked, alcohol was legal.

I would much rather take my chances with three or four pints as opposed to three or four E tabs....

It's apples and oranges he is trying to compare.

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. Worst post I've read in a long while. The mind just boggles at people's lack of understanding on certain issues but yet they still feel the need to say their bit.

Nobody is comparing 3 or 4 pints to 3 or 4 pills, only you are. Please read over the previous posts. The majority of our generation in this country go out and drink themselves into a stupor every weekend. This would be more damaging than taking a pill. This has been proven by scientists. We aren't talking about casual drinkers because most people of our generation abuse alcohol in this country.

I'm getting depressed now having to constantly state the obvious.

walshb

builttospill wrote: »

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. Worst post I've read in a long while. The mind just boggles at people's lack of understanding on certain issues but yet they still feel the need to say their bit.

Nobody is comparing 3 or 4 pints to 3 or 4 pills, only you are. Please read over the previous posts. The majority of our generation in this country go out and drink themselves into a stupor every weekend. This would be more damaging than taking a pill. This has been proven by scientists. We aren't talking about casual drinkers because most people of our generation abuse alcohol in this country.

I'm getting depressed now having to constantly state the obvious.

Hence why I said apples and oranges; a little comprehension is needed on your part.

Anyway, the guy cocked up and deserved to go. He undermined the agenda and policies of the govt. He went against them. That's okay if he isn't attached to them, but he is, and to be so blatant in his disagreement means he was screwed.

I don't see what the fuss is about. WTF did he expect?

builttospill

walshb wrote: »

Hence why I said apples and oranges; a little comprehension is needed on your part.

Anyway, the guy cocked up and deserved to go. He undermined the agenda and policies of the govt. He went against them. That's okay if he isn't attached to them, but he is, and to be so blatant in his disagreement means he was screwed.

I don't see what the fuss is about. WTF did he expect?

Seriously my head hurts at this stage. I'm going to lie down. Read over my previous posts in relation to the comparisons between alcohol and ecstasy if you're looking for comprehension. Sift through Professor Nutt and other scientists findings. I'm sure there will be an abundance of information online.

As for Professor Nutt-he was asked by the government for his advice. He gave them facts. They didn't like it cos it didn't suit their agenda and he was sacked. Other posters have stated this more eloquently than me already. As I said read through the previous posts.

I think I may need 3 or 4 pills after this ordeal...

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

How is it disgraceful?

The guy is being appointed by the government and he is then going against
their policies and views. Hey, he may well be right, but he cannot be on both sides of the fence here.

He's nowhere near the "fence". He talks from scientific findings, hence 'science advisor'. The fact that the people he's dealing with are more interested in swing voters in the "home counties" over there than truth is a reflection on both them and society.

waitinforatrain

walshb wrote: »

Hence why I said apples and oranges; a little comprehension is needed on your part.

Anyway, the guy cocked up and deserved to go. He undermined the agenda and policies of the govt. He went against them. That's okay if he isn't attached to them, but he is, and to be so blatant in his disagreement means he was screwed.

I don't see what the fuss is about. WTF did he expect?

You're missing quite a few facts here. The advisory council on the misuse of drugs is an independent advisory board which was established to conduct scientific research on drugs and to provide recommendations on the harm caused by different drugs, so that public policy can be decided..

Underneath it all, Alan Johnson's problems are with the council's findings, not their scientific validity. The scientific evidence contradicts the law, and therefore the evidence has to go.

"It is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an advisor you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them. I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as Chair of the ACMD."

So the people of UK are not capable of seperating public policy from the advice of the council? This is the same country whose Prime Minister said on national TV that cannabis is 'lethal'. The "Reefer madness" thing is 50 years old now, but the campaign of ignorance and lies by the government still hasn't stopped.

Wertz

walshb wrote: »

How is it disgraceful?

The guy is being appointed by the government and he is then going against
their policies and views. Hey, he may well be right, but he cannot be on both sides of the fence here. He has to show some loyalty and if he wants to speak his mind and the "truth," and go against his employers, then he should have quit and then made his remarks.

Whether the man is appointed directly by the government or by some body tasked with advising them on policies regarding medical or other scientific matters is neither here nor there...in either case why would his job be to conform with their agenda...it's their agenda, not his; his job is to look at facts and figures relating to the matter in hand solely from the scientific standpoint, make his reports and recommendations and have that input shape or change the outcoming policy(s).

Of course it is fully within the remit of government to only partly take the advice on board or not act on it at all (incidentally this is the first time that recommendations have failed to be acted upon)...they after all are in charge of things, albeit temporarily...but as I said above what is the point with tasking doctors and scientists with making actual studies and reports, paying people to basically waste their time on research in an effort to form a more coherent policy that then gets whitewashed over in favour of misformed knowledge and moralistic politics, merely to continue with preconceived notions of what makes good policy on the matter.

If this guy had come out back in 2005 and said that the effects of cannabis were probably worse than had first been feared when previous laws were under review, do you think the government of the time wouldn't have acted on it?

Your argument is that the man spoke out of turn and failed to be diplomatic or proper in airing his views on the matter, but you forget that it's not his job to be diplomatic, it's his job to advise...when he then has that advice and that of his colleagues ignored, he understandably makes his thoughts heard on it...in this case to an academic conference. Just because his (informed) views on the drugs issue don't sit well with those in power he's then accused or "undermining government policy".
Of course Nutt made his position a bit untenable...but then he's probably of the opinion that his advice being ignored in the first place, made his position somewhat meaningless anyway.

waitinforatrain

Pains me to say this as someone who is pro-legalisation, but there were legitimate reasons:

In fairness, he did overstep his bounds as a government advisor.

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

How is it disgraceful?

The guy is being appointed by the government and he is then going against
their policies and views. Hey, he may well be right, but he cannot be on both sides of the fence here. He has to show some loyalty and if he wants to speak his mind and the "truth," and go against his employers, then he should have quit and then made his remarks.

Are you for ****ing real? Party line before scientific research?

Wertz

If he didn't instigate debate then who would? How can any politician stick their head above the parapet and say maybe we need to look at certain issues surrounding drug classification; it simply doesn't happen, because it's akin to political suicide.
Without input from the scientists who actually have the skills to either prove or disprove associated health and mental issues regarding drugs, the status quo remains, because you can be damn sure no amount of pro-legalisation civilians are going to influence policy.
If his views on horseriding were so objectionable then the time to "loose confidence" in him was 8 months back, not leave him in his position with veiled threats to play nice or else. if anything they undermined his position long before he apparently tried to undermine their policies...

Pygmalion

Dudess wrote: »

Are you for ****ing real? Party line before scientific research?

Facts have no place in politics, since when has the truth or the sensible option helped anyone get votes?

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

Are you for ****ing real? Party line before scientific research?

So, his word now is gospel and that is it?

He went about this completely wrong and showed a lack of
cohesion and focus and direction. Nobody is saying
he has to simply be a sheep and do exactly what he is told, but
the guy IMO screwed up here

I never said the guy got it wrong. The issue is how he went about it.
His comments and the way he publicised them was not good and he had
to go.

And I'll ask again. How can anyone really compare the two scenarios.

Drink in moderation IMO should be safer that bloody E in moderation.

We cannot compare getting sh!t faced on gargle to taking 1 or 2 E
tablets.

Dudess

He should have employed doublethink - got ya.

He did some research, he made a statement based on his findings, but he shouldn't have because it flies in the face of what the establishment (I'm particularly amazed considering who's in power too, even if it is New Labour) would like people to hear?

Mother of Christ...

Herbal Deity

walshb wrote: »

Did the goverment appoint him? Isn't he the governments top dog o this issue? Lok, maybe he is right, but that doesn't mean he can simply go against the agenda and policy of the govt and expect to keep his job..

So you're saying his job was to produce biased reports which supported the position of the government? That's not science, that's propaganda.

Herbal Deity

walshb wrote: »

And I'll ask again. How can anyone really compare the two scenarios.

Drink in moderation IMO should be safer that bloody E in moderation.

We cannot compare getting sh!t faced on gargle to taking 1 or 2 E
tablets.

Why not?

wudangclan

walshb wrote: »

So, his word now is gospel and that is it?

He went about this completely wrong and showed a lack of
cohesion and focus and direction. Nobody is saying
he has to simply be a sheep and do exactly what he is told, but
the guy IMO screwed up here

I never said the guy got it wrong. The issue is how he went about it.
His comments and the way he publicised them was not good and he had
to go.

"the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Pygmalion

walshb wrote: »

Drink in moderation IMO should be safer that bloody E in moderation.

Perhaps you should present the findings of YOUR research to us.

We cannot compare getting sh!t faced on gargle to taking 1 or 2 E
tablets.

Can we not?
When people go out for a night out they will drink quite a lot of alcohol, that's how much it takes to get the desired effect.
When people go out for a night they generally won't go swallow more than 1 or 2 ecstasy because they generally only need that much to get the desired effect.

waitinforatrain

walshb wrote: »

So, his word now is gospel and that is it?

He went about this completely wrong and showed a lack of
cohesion and focus and direction. Nobody is saying
he has to simply be a sheep and do exactly what he is told, but
the guy IMO screwed up here

I never said the guy got it wrong. The issue is how he went about it.
His comments and the way he publicised them was not good and he had
to go.

And I'll ask again. How can anyone really compare the two scenarios.

Drink in moderation IMO should be safer that bloody E in moderation.

We cannot compare getting sh!t faced on gargle to taking 1 or 2 E
tablets.

His comments about ecstacy were after the council's research of over 4000 papers (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/david-nutt-drugs-adviser-sacked ).

E in moderation is once a month maximum really.

The harm caused can certainly be compared, at least from a social harm perspective. Subjective effects are a lot more relative, as they require the researcher to define "normal", "healthy" mental states.

I get the sense that you're defending alcohol. If this is so, I suggest you take a look around you. Homelessness, suicide, road deaths, domestic violence, assault, rape, all of these social problems have been exacerbated by alcohol.

Let's get something straight here. Drugs are not made illegal based on the harm caused, but based on their effects on the economic/industrial system. It is no coincidence that the three legal drugs are tobacco (stress reduction), caffeine (increased productivity) and alcohol (blowing off steam at the weekend from a monotonous job). Any drug which does not aid this (awful) system comes to be seen as degenerate/anti-government etc.

This sounds a bit far-fetched, but let it sink in for a while. I don't claim that this is some outlandish co-ordinated conspiracy, but an 'unconscious conspiracy' or sorts, a side effect of a government that puts economic prosperity as its no. 1 goal.

Probably swaying a bit OT here :pac:

http://deoxy.org/t_weeke1.htm

the bolt

dlofnep wrote: »

Have these said scientists ever take ecstasy? Have they ever seen their friends go off the track because of habitual use of them?

The liver can break down 1 or 2 pints of alcohol. The impact of 1 or 2 E's every week will destroy you over a long period of time.

is this fact or urban myth

Bottle_of_Smoke

waitinforatrain wrote: »

His comments about ecstacy were after the council's research of over 4000 papers (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/david-nutt-drugs-adviser-sacked ).

E in moderation is once a month maximum really.

The harm caused can certainly be compared, at least from a social harm perspective. Subjective effects are a lot more relative, as they require the researcher to define "normal", "healthy" mental states.

I get the sense that you're defending alcohol. If this is so, I suggest you take a look around you. Homelessness, suicide, road deaths, domestic violence, assault, rape, all of these social problems have been exacerbated by alcohol.

Let's get something straight here. Drugs are not made illegal based on the harm caused, but based on their effects on the economic/industrial system. It is no coincidence that the three legal drugs are tobacco (stress reduction), caffeine (increased productivity) and alcohol (blowing off steam at the weekend from a monotonous job). Any drug which does not aid this (awful) system comes to be seen as degenerate/anti-government etc.

This sounds a bit far-fetched, but let it sink in for a while. I don't claim that this is some outlandish co-ordinated conspiracy, but an 'unconscious conspiracy' or sorts, a side effect of a government that puts economic prosperity as its no. 1 goal.

Probably swaying a bit OT here :pac:

http://deoxy.org/t_weeke1.htm

Agree with a lot of that. Would also add that E is such a high class drug because its in chemical form(tablet) rather than a plant. Some unexplained deaths - people drinking too much water and people with heart conditions reacting badly. This makes great tabloid news and mass hysteria

I actually wouldn't mind if they left E as a class A and made scarier rankings for powder cocaine, then higher again for heroin and crack. I just think it sends out the wrong message that a relatively safe drug is in the same category as the aforementioned highly addictive drugs

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

He should have employed doublethink - got ya.

He did some research, he made a statement based on his findings, but he shouldn't have because it flies in the face of what the establishment (I'm particularly amazed considering who's in power too, even if it is New Labour) would like people to hear?

Mother of Christ...

The U.K goverment do not want E and Canabis legal and I would agree and many agree and here's this twat basically coming out and saying that they should be legal. Hey, he didn't exactly say this, but it's what he meant. And, had he simply been completely independent, that's fair enough, but if he was sacked by the govt, then it's obvious that they had a big say in his contract. So, he wasn't simply some scientist giving his view

He cannot have it both ways. The policy is firm, they do not want these drugs legalised. He comes out and contradicts them and criticises them and expects to keep his ****ing job?:rolleyes: The issue is not about who is right or wrong, it's about a lack of focus
and direction and agreement on a serious issue. He is going against serious drug policy, and he is damaging
the govt policy, hence, he gets sacked.

If any govt are pushing an agenda, policy or law, and one of their own is openly twarting this and
going against it, wat the feck can he expect?

Bottle_of_Smoke

walshb wrote: »

The U.K goverment do not want E and Canabis legal and I would agree and many agree and here's this twat basically coming out and saying that they should be legal. Hey, he didn't exactly say this, but it's what he meant. And, had he simply been completely independent, that's fair enough, but if he was sacked by the govt, then it's obvious that they had a big say in his contract. So, he wasn't simply some scientist giving his view

He cannot have it both ways. The policy is firm, they do not want these drugs legalised. He comes out and contradicts them and criticises them and expects to keep his ****ing job?:rolleyes:

Erm, think about what you're suggesting here.

Scientists should lie to the public to keep government rules in place?

Wertz

walshb wrote: »

The U.K goverment do not want E and Canabis legal and I would agree and many agree and here's this twat basically coming out and saying that they should be legal. Hey, he didn't exactly say this, but it's waht he meant. And, had he simply been completely independent. that's fair enough, but if he was sacked by the govt, then it's obvious that they had a big say in his contract.

He cannot have it both ways The policy is firm, they do not want these drugs legalised. e comes out and contradicts them and criticises them and expects to keep his ****ing job?:rolleyes:

But he's not arguing for legalisation or even for decriminalisation....both he and his council have recommended re-classification of both substances because they feel, after looking at the evidence, that the laws and punishments Vs their effects, toxicity levels and social impact do not warrant their inclusion alongside the more dangerous drugs.
Advice which on both occasions now has been ignored. In the face of the advice being flatly ignored (a precedent since Brown entered office) the man feels that his position is somewhat meaningless if he and the council are to go unheeded on the matter, and makes his findings known to colleagues and eventually (through media interest) to the general public.
Don't the general public have a right to know that the advice of scientists beign tasked with looking out for the welfare of the populace is being neglected because the unqualified who manage to get elected think that's how it should be?

Pat Sheen

walshb wrote: »

The U.K goverment do not want E and Canabis legal and I would agree and many agree and here's this twat basically coming out and saying that they should be legal. Hey, he didn't exactly say this, but it's what he meant. And, had he simply been completely independent, that's fair enough, but if he was sacked by the govt, then it's obvious that they had a big say in his contract. So, he wasn't simply some scientist giving his view

He cannot have it both ways. The policy is firm, they do not want these drugs legalised. He comes out and contradicts them and criticises them and expects to keep his ****ing job?:rolleyes:

If any govt are pushing an agenda, policy or law, and one of their own is openly twarting this and
going against it, wat the feck can he expect?

He never said he wants drugs legalised. He said alcohol and tobacco are doing more harm than most illegal drugs. He said cannabis should not be reclassified to class B and he said horse riding is statistically more dangerous than taking MDMA. And btw his colleague and fellow scientist Dr Les King has just resigned from the ACMD in protest.

walshb

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Erm, think about what you're suggesting here.

Scientists should lie to the public to keep government rules in place?

No, but surely the guy had to expect some reaction when he is so openly critical and against the wishes of the govt. Look, a hell of a lot of folks do not want E and Canabis legal, the govt are kepping it illegal, and he is twarting this.

Like I said, mayve he is right, but it's not gospel what he has said.
He is a govt appointed official. The first time in the 38 year history that
the chairman has been sacked from this board.

These are serious drugs we are talking about. Now, alcohol is legal, that
is reality and the E is not. The govt want to keep it like this, and he is scuppering their plans to do it. If he wasn't a govt official or linked to them, I wouldn't have an issue at all. I said this. But, he had to expect this. He went so openly against their policy. That cannot be tolerated by a govt, and this nothing new. I don't see why folks are enraged

walshb

Pat Sheen wrote: »

He never said he wants drugs legalised. He said alcohol and tobacco are doing more harm than most illegal drugs. He said cannabis should not be reclassified to class B and he said horse riding is statistically more dangerous than taking MDMA. And btw his colleague and fellow scientist Dr Les King has just resigned from the ACMD in protest.

Pat, I know what he said. He did not specifically say that he wants them legailised, but it was damn well interpreted and implied. C'mon, this is blatantly obvious. This cannot be tolerated by a govt who are AGAINST the legalisation of these drugs.

I am sick of saying that if he truly was independent and not at al linked to the govt, then this is fair enough

Pat Sheen

walshb wrote: »

Pat, I know what he said. He did not specifically say that he wants them legailised, but it was damn well interpreted and implied. C'mon, this is blatantly obvious. This cannot be tolerated by a govt who are AGAINST the legalisation of these drugs.

I am sick of saying that if he truly was independent and not at al linked to the govt, then this is fair enough

No you're jumping the gun here. It could be argued he was in fact suggesting that alcohol and tobacco be controlled under the same act that currently controls illegal drugs. I already explained this in a post further up.