British drug scientist sacked in government row.

walshb · 01-11-2009 03:48PM

Pat Sheen wrote: »

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.

Hey, that could be argued, but that is clutching. Alcohol and cigs have been legal fo so so long. To me, he was implying subtly that he believes that E and Canabis should be legal. He comes out publicly to claim this, completely contradicting the govt. What did he expect? He had to go. Wheteher he wa right or wrong is irrelevant here. The issue is that he openly went against the govt nd their policy and their views. As a man linked to them, he could not be allowed to do this.

Pat Sheen · 01-11-2009 03:54PM

walshb wrote: »

Hey, that could be argued, but that is clutching. Alcohol and cigs have been legal fo so so long. To me, he was implying subtly that he believes that E and Canabis should be legal. He comes out publicly to claim this, completely contradicting the govt. What did he expect? He had to go. Wheteher he wa right or wrong is irrelevant here. The issue is that he openly went against the govt nd their policy and their views. As a man linked to them, he could not be allowed to do this.

No it isn't clutching, it's a fact. If you are going to jump to your own conclusions, well there's not much point discussing this any further with you. You might want to read this though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336635.stm

waitinforatrain · 01-11-2009 03:55PM

I'm starting to think you're a troll...

reality_check · 01-11-2009 04:01PM

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.

If MDMA is as safe as you say it is, why can't we make that comparison?

I'm disappointed to see him go; he always came across as pragmatic and rational. To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't step down sooner considering the government shunned his recommendations when they didn't suit their tabloid agenda. I agree. It was a slap in the face for the whole scientific community

The "whole scientific community"?

LOL, I think not.

The pro-drugs lobby has delusions of grandeur. Or else, it is projecting its ideology on groups that don't share its views, which would be yet more intellectual dishonesty from them.

apparently science,or at least one scientist,disagrees with you.

Stress on the "one scientist", whose credentials as a "scientist" are in doubt as he seems more of an ideologue than an objective investigator.

The ideological line that Nutt and others follow - drug legalisation as a matter of ideology, downplaying/denying dangers of certain drugs to advance this end - is actually anti-science.

walshb · 01-11-2009 04:02PM

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I'm starting to think you're a troll...

Super retort. Because I think that the guy deserved to be sacked, that makes
me a troll?:rolleyes:

Look, if I can make this as simple as possible.

Lets say I 100 percent agree with his opinion. That still won't see me saying that for how he went about this, openly contradicting and disagreeing and not standing with the govt, he DIDN'T desrerve to go. What did he expect?

This is not a new situation.

BTW, his opinion is not gospel. There are many who would disagree with him.

Now, he is linked to the side (govt) that are anti the legalisation, and he is going against them PUBLICILY? Agian, he had to expect repercussions

Herbal Deity · 01-11-2009 04:10PM

walshb wrote: »

Hey, that could be argued, but that is clutching. Alcohol and cigs have been legal fo so so long. To me, he was implying subtly that he believes that E and Canabis should be legal. He comes out publicly to claim this, completely contradicting the govt. What did he expect? He had to go. Wheteher he wa right or wrong is irrelevant here. The issue is that he openly went against the govt nd their policy and their views. As a man linked to them, he could not be allowed to do this.

Is there really any point in the government having a drugs advisory council in this case? If the government have an agenda and aren't going to change their minds, then why do they need advice?

Wertz · 01-11-2009 04:12PM

Again for the third time, this was NOT about legalisation or de-criminalisation.
It was about about re-classification....do you understand the distinction?

Dudess · 01-11-2009 04:13PM

No, people are suspecting you of being a troll because of the sheer unsupported nonsense you're posting. "It's not gospel" - he's done a heck of a lot of scientific research, what's the point in such a silly statement?

"Maybe he's right but he shouldn't have said it" - only say what the government wants you to say, we discussed that earlier.

"People don't want drugs legalised" - so, best if a government scientist not say anything despite being given the instructions and the funds to do all this research.

Seriously?

reality_check · 01-11-2009 04:15PM

I think one of the most dangerous thing about ecstasy, is that there is a lot of bad ecstasy ie impure MDMA. A lot of it contains fillers and dangerous contaminants such as meth and barbituates by drugdealers who dont care about safety of their end product.

This is a favourite line of the drugs lobby - "impurities", "cut with other chemicals". It's an example of the illogic and intellectual dishonesty that runs right through the pro-drugs discourse.

Impurities and additives may make a tablet more dangerous, but the fact remains that MDMA is a dangerous chemical on its own.

This National Geographic programme describes metamphetamine as "the world's most dangerous drug". There are plenty of scientists that back up this claim as well - but I guess since they're not parroting pro-drug lobby simplisms they're not "real scientists".

The lobby has great disregard for science and scientists when it doesn't produce certain conclusions.

Methamphetamine is a close relative of MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at3Sg6qvgTE

Dudess · 01-11-2009 04:17PM

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.

:rolleyes:

Done here - off to pee against the wind.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 01-11-2009 04:19PM

reality_check wrote: »

If MDMA is as safe as you say it is, why can't we make that comparison?

Because3/4 pills you'd be off your mash. You wouldn't with 3/4 pints. They're different intensities of "highness" 1 pill could have most people as "high" as 6 drinks

The ideological line that Nutt and others follow - drug legalisation as a matter of ideology, downplaying/denying dangers of certain drugs to advance this end - is actually anti-science.

When did he do this? He bases his comments on science.

~Update to thread, one of Nutt's colleagues has resigned in protest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336635.stm

An adviser to the government has resigned in protest at the home secretary's sacking of his chief drugs adviser, Prof David Nutt.
Dr Les King quit the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), saying Home Secretary Alan Johnson had denied Prof Nutt's "freedom of expression".
Prof Nutt was sacked after saying cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine.
He said the drug had been upgraded to Class B against scientific evidence.
The reclassification had been for political reasons and "on the whim of the prime minister", Prof Nutt claimed.
After being sacked via e-mail by Mr Johnson, Prof Nutt predicted there would be resignations from the government advisory body that he headed.
Dr King was appointed on 3 April 2008 and wrote a book on the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2003. He was previously head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service.
'Angry feeling'
There was "very strong feeling" among the council's members over Prof Nutt's sacking, Dr King said.
"I'm not going to say just how many I think might resign but there is an extremely angry feeling among most council members.
"Amongst the scientists, I think a number will resign. It doesn't need the whole council to resign for the thing to stop working."
Prof Nutt has told the BBC that the council's position is "untenable".

.......

Herbal Deity · 01-11-2009 04:19PM

reality_check wrote: »

If MDMA is as safe as you say it is, why can't we make that comparison?

What "moderation" constitutes is different depending on the drug in question.

You could perhaps compare 3/4 pints a week to maybe one E a month. You could perhaps compare binge drinking every weekend to maybe one or two Es every weekend.

Point is that one pill can't be compared to one pint in terms of the extent to which it will effect you, but this doesn't mean that alcohol is safer, just that it's traditionally ingested in multiple low doses rather than one or two medium ones.

walshb · 01-11-2009 04:23PM

Is what he said gospel?

It's an expert opinion. But, don't try to tell me that there aren't experts who
may not agree with him. There are plenty of others that could make a claim that E and Canabis are more harmful and back it up with statistics.

This is the trouble with these sciences. There are differening views.

He has his view, which could be right, but he went about this wholly wrong
He publicly came ou against the govt policy ad in doing so, he had to expect a reaction.

Herbal Deity · 01-11-2009 04:23PM

reality_check wrote: »

Methamphetamine is a close relative of MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine).

Methanol is a close relative of ethanol (i.e. the alcohol we drink)

Methanol has a high toxicity in humans. If ingested, as little as 10 mL can cause permanent blindness by destruction of the optic nerve and 30 mL is potentially fatal,[4] although the usual fatal dose is typically 100–125 mL (4 fl oz). Toxic effects take hours to start and effective antidotes can often prevent permanent damage.[4] Because of its similarities to ethanol (the alcohol in beverages), it is difficult to differentiate between the two (such is the case with denatured alcohol).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

Extremely subtle differences in chemical compounds can make a world of difference to their properties and effects, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

ScumLord · 01-11-2009 04:23PM

I think he's made a personal decision to push this debate out into the public domain. He obviously feels our drugs laws are flawed and has sacrificed his job to highlight that fact. I'm looking forward to see if it has any affect.

walshb · 01-11-2009 04:24PM

Dudess wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Done here - off to pee against the wind.

And me hopes you soak yourself!

Pat Sheen · 01-11-2009 04:30PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

~Update to thread, one of Nutt's colleagues has resigned in protest

That information was posted by me TWICE several posts back. You're obviously arguing your point without even reading the counter-arguments. Its like talking to a child singing at the top of their voice and their fingers in their ears.

dr.bollocko · 01-11-2009 04:31PM

If posters can't leave comments and sniping like has been prevalent thusfar on this thread aside then please don't post at all. That is a final warning btw before action is taken.

Nutt has done nothing but take a classification system to pull a list to try and put an order to which drugs are more harmful. I haven't looked into his research methods so I cannot comment on them but to sack somebody over making a statement rather than rebuking it scientifically is nuts.
When cannabis was re-classified as class B from class C this was going against the prevailing scientific opinion. That has now started this war of words between the ACMD and the British government. Two of his colleagues have since resigned stating that the council itself will not work as a result of Johnsen's actions.
The government appointed this council to advise them on narcotics. When the council said something that the government disagreed with the mouthpiece gets sacked. Once could infer many things from the report but you're attempting to put words in his mouth and that just does not add up.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 01-11-2009 04:33PM

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.

Your opinion doesn't matter, and just because you put IMO in every sentence, doesn't mean it's right either

You are wrong, simple as

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: 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?

You suggest that if someone disagrees with something, they should just keep quiet about it? That people should not have an opinion? :rolleyes:

It's funny to see the amount of, supposedly, intelligent people that believe the tripe that governments spew.

Here's a chart for you.

Soft drugs are legal in some countries and some states, but do you see any problems with it?

Why are you against legalising these softer drugs, but you defend alcohol? :rolleyes:

Wertz · 01-11-2009 04:39PM

reality_check wrote: »

This is a favourite line of the drugs lobby - "impurities", "cut with other chemicals". It's an example of the illogic and intellectual dishonesty that runs right through the pro-drugs discourse.

Impurities and additives may make a tablet more dangerous, but the fact remains that MDMA is a dangerous chemical on its own.

This National Geographic programme describes metamphetamine as "the world's most dangerous drug". There are plenty of scientists that back up this claim as well - but I guess since they're not parroting pro-drug lobby simplisms they're not "real scientists".

The lobby has great disregard for science and scientists when it doesn't produce certain conclusions.

Methamphetamine is a close relative of MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at3Sg6qvgTE

So now you're lumping in crystal meth with ecstasy? lol
You kind of undercut your own arguments there sunshine...related they may well be, but that's where any similarity in effect, toxicity, addiction levels, social factors and the like ends.
Please don't muddy the waters further by referring to crystal meth in a thread about ecstasy where ecstasy is mainly being discussed.

walshb · 01-11-2009 04:42PM

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If posters can't leave comments and sniping like has been prevalent thusfar on this thread aside then please don't post at all. That is a final warning btw before action is taken.

Nutt has done nothing but take a classification system to pull a list to try and put an order to which drugs are more harmful. I haven't looked into his research methods so I cannot comment on them but to sack somebody over making a statement rather than rebuking it scientifically is nuts.
When cannabis was re-classified as class B from class C this was going against the prevailing scientific opinion. That has now started this war of words between the ACMD and the British government. Two of his colleagues have since resigned stating that the council itself will not work as a result of Johnsen's actions.
The government appointed this council to advise them on narcotics. When the council said something that the government disagreed with the mouthpiece gets sacked. Once could infer many things from the report but you're attempting to put words in his mouth and that just does not add up.

My issue is with how folks are outraged with the sacking. The guy went PUBLIC with this. He then had to expect a reaction. This is all I am saying.

Whether his research or opinion is correct is irrelevant. His method of going about this was wrong and he had to face action.

It's akin to a govt like FF pushing Lisbon and pushing Lisbon, and one of their
men is openly criticising them, and disagreeing with them. What the hell does he expect.

As for the science and evidence, this could be discussed for yrs and we still
would not get an EXACT and precise answer. It is one of those gray areas.

He chose to go one way, when his govt who had to be linked, were pushing another way. Conflict of interest and a damaging situation resulted. Hence, he lost the confidence of the govt and then had to be sacked.

And he may not have directly or specifically said that E and Canabis should be legalised, but he
went damn close to saying it. He did imply it.

walshb · 01-11-2009 04:47PM

Florence Late Sun wrote: »

You suggest that if someone disagrees with something, they should just keep quiet about it? That people should not have an opinion? :rolleyes:

:

Eh, where did I say this? I said that he guy had to expect a reaction.
He can say what he damn well likes, but for folks to be outraged that he was then sacked is bewildering.

So, don't put words in my mouth. I simply said tha he went the wrong way about it, as far as trying to keep his job

reality_check · 01-11-2009 04:48PM

Methanol is a close relative of ethanol (i.e. the alcohol we drink)

Extremely subtle differences in chemical compounds can make a world of difference to their properties and effects

I was predicting that response, which is reasonable to an extent.

Nonetheless, methamphetamine and have 3,4-methyenedioxymetamphetamine have pharamacological similarities.

While MDMA is known for its serotonergic effects moreso, it is nonetheless also a releaser of dopamine; which is metamphetamine's main feature.

Both chemicals can be called serotonin-norepinephrine-dopamine releasing agents.

MDMA:

MDMA is classified as a combination serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) and serotonin releasing agent (SRA), though it is typically only referred to as the latter definition essentially includes SRI properties. In addition to its actions on serotonin, MDMA causes the same effects on the norepinephrine transporter (NET) and dopamine transporter (DAT), thus inducing release of norepinephrine and dopamine as well, respectively, and hence, it can also be called a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI) and norepinephrine-dopamine releasing agent (NDRA), or, in full, as a serotonin-norepinephrine-dopamine releasing agent (SNDRA).

Now let's take a look at methamphetamine:

Methamphetamine is a psychostimulant and sympathomimetic drug. Methamphetamine enters the brain and triggers a cascading release of dopamine and norepinephrine. It is highly active in the mesolimbic reward pathways of the brain, inducing intense euphoria, with a high potential for addiction. To a lesser extent, methamphetamine releases serotonin and acts as a dopaminergic and adrenergic reuptake inhibitor with higher concentrations serving as a monoamine oxidase inhibitor.

There is a lot of pharacological similarity here which cannot be denied. The conclusions that the YouTube video above draws in relation to methamphetamine can be applied also, to a significant extent, to MDMA.

The two chemicals are not worlds apart when it comes to effects and mode of operation.

So now you're lumping in crystal meth with ecstasy?

Methamphetamine and MDMA have a lot of pharacological similarities, yes. See above.

Dudess · 01-11-2009 04:50PM

Simpler terms perhaps:

- Given job to do by government
- Does it
- Makes a statement based on the work he did
- Gets sacked because government don't like this

Yeah, I can understand people being outraged...

dr.bollocko · 01-11-2009 04:52PM

Dudess wrote: »

Simpler terms perhaps:

- Given job to do by government
- Does it
- Makes a statement based on the work he did
- Gets sacked because government don't like this

Yeah, I can understand people being outraged...

That's my take on it also. He backed up his statements based on his body of work. He gets sacked with a lame excuse "crossing over into politics." He just published findings. To be sacked over it is a sign of the reactionary nature of a bunch of people more willing to censor than to have a serious discussion on the matter.

walshb · 01-11-2009 04:56PM

Dudess wrote: »

Simpler terms perhaps:

- Given job to do by government
- Does it
- Makes a statement based on the work he did
- Gets sacked because government don't like this

Yeah, I can understand people being outraged...

You obviously do not understand the workings of goverments and publicly going against their views and policies. This is the issue and this is why I am not at all surprised with the sacking. You need to separate this from the right and wrong of the case.

I distinctly did this to simplify. I could agree with Nutt 100 percent, but I'd still have to say to him, "well Nutt, that wasn't really a clever move by going public with this and contradicting the govt who can terminate your employment."

So, maybe Nutt was right, but the way he went about it was only going to lead to what happened, and you can't balme the govt for this. To THEM, he was a liability and a thorn that they didn't need, right or wrong he was

Pat Sheen · 01-11-2009 04:58PM

The ACMD was created from the outset to provide INDEPENDENT advice about drugs from people who are experts in the subject to people who are not. It's written in law and is their legal duty to be independent.

Dudess · 01-11-2009 04:59PM

Then. Why. Did. The. Government. Fund. This. Research?

Wertz · 01-11-2009 04:59PM

It's ironic really that whilst Labour MPs and the cabinet decide to ignore sceintific and social research as regards drug classifications, millions of britons have decided to merely ignore their government and lawmakers on drug laws altogether...

That's my last say on it...if people want to start shoving red herrings like crystal meth into the topic in hand, a drug which has yet to have a noticable impact either here or in the UK (although I have absolutely no doubt that it will, and it'll be disastorous), and one that nobody is suggesting for a minute should be anyhting but class A, then so be it.

I'll leave it with this though because it was a question I asked earlier that went unheeded....if Prof Nutt had come out a few weeks ago and told the government that the findings of his panel were that the classification on cannabis did not go far enough and that perhaps moving it into the class A or a sub-class A, and structuring laws and punishments for users and dealers accordingly should be implemented, does anyone for a second think that parliament wouldn't have been up until 2am rushing through the related measures?

walshb · 01-11-2009 05:00PM

Pat Sheen wrote: »

The ACMD was created from the outset to provide INDEPENDENT advice about drugs from people who are experts in the subject to people who are not. It's written in law and is their legal duty to be independent.

Who legally employs them and who can legally sack them?

If it's the government, then Nutt had it coming. Right or wrong, it was inevitable.

Folks may not agree with this, but it's hardly surprising

British drug scientist sacked in government row.

Comments