British drug scientist sacked in government row.

opinion guy · 02-11-2009 02:52AM

wow
not going away this story
two other scientific advisors have quit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8336884.stm

slipss · 02-11-2009 07:00AM

reality_check wrote: »

Nutt's statements don't constitute the sum of the scientific data regarding MDMA.

Give it up reality check, you completely lost any credibility as soon as you posted your first post in the thread, it's blatantly obvious you don't know what you're talking about, best to quit before you make yourself look even more ridiculous.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 02-11-2009 07:45AM

walshb wrote: »

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

I asked you two questions, I did not put any words in your mouth. People ask questions in order to find answers to prevent putting "words" in peoples' mouths.

paulbtopchef · 02-11-2009 08:29AM

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.

Your spot on dlofnep, after living in London through my 20's I experienced every drug known to man, when I look back now Im glad it was a phase. It started to mess up my head, I felt paranoid all the time. I moved to Ireland to get away from that life style & its worked a treat, now meeting my wife & starting a family.

Drugs like extacy and lsd are ok when you are in your late teens, early twenties and have no worries, as you get older or if you have worries these drugs will send you over the edge very quickly. There are enough suicides in Ireland already.

You only have to go out on a saturday night into the town centre to see how dangerous alcohol is, yet any teenager can get hold of it and drink themselves into a coma.

Ban everything that is bad for us and eventually we will enjoy life more, and be happy.

ronbyrne2005 · 02-11-2009 08:45AM

I'll be honest here and say that since taking E twice in 1999 i have not been the same. Depression, anxiety that was'nt there or was'nt so severe before.

tallaght01 · 02-11-2009 08:55AM

Every medic knows that if you tell a government what they don't want to hear, then you're gone. Seen it a few times myself.

That's why the top people in most fields are working in busy hospitals, and aren't getting cushy money advising the government.

I've seen it happen to a doc I know, and she's now working in a non medical field. We lost her expertise because the govt (also in the UK at the time) decided she was too critical of their policies, and they didn't want dissenters on board.

I've also heard of medical advisors being brought into a room when there was a change of government and being told "walk away now if you're not going to support this govt publicly".

These people are not medical r scientific advisors in the true sense. They are there to add legitimacy to stupid governmental decisions. That is quite literally function.

FlutterinBantam · 02-11-2009 09:58AM

Nice to know that the Medical Profession has cornered the market in saving the world.

Prof.Badass · 02-11-2009 12:20PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Every medic knows that if you tell a government what they don't want to hear, then you're gone. Seen it a few times myself.

That's why the top people in most fields are working in busy hospitals, and aren't getting cushy money advising the government.

I've seen it happen to a doc I know, and she's now working in a non medical field. We lost her expertise because the govt (also in the UK at the time) decided she was too critical of their policies, and they didn't want dissenters on board.

I've also heard of medical advisors being brought into a room when there was a change of government and being told "walk away now if you're not going to support this govt publicly".

These people are not medical r scientific advisors in the true sense. They are there to add legitimacy to stupid governmental decisions. That is quite literally function.

It's easy to be cynical in this day and age :rolleyes:.

If you look at their original misuse of drugs act you'll see that to prompt the goverment into a radical overhaul of drugs policy based on future evidence is exactly why the acmd was set up.

This mess isn't about cannabis or ecstacy. It's about the fact that current drug laws are based on political pandering and moral busybodying from the 70s rather than on harm reduction and scientific evidence.

opinion guy wrote: »

wow
not going away this story
two other scientific advisors have quit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8336884.stm

exactly wow. I'd imagine it would take some serious balls to make a stand like that. With a bit of luck this story could snowball into something huge.

tallaght01 · 02-11-2009 01:33PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

It's easy to be cynical in this day and age :rolleyes:.

.

That may be true. But nothing you have said changes the reality of what I said.
Obviously there are exceptions. But most of those jobs are a crock.

Prof.Badass · 02-11-2009 02:06PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

That may be true. But nothing you have said changes the reality of what I said.
Obviously there are exceptions. But most of those jobs are a crock.

True, but just because something is a certain way doesn't mean we should accept it. We should be trying to change it, which is what these scientists are doing by publicly stepping down from their positions.

tallaght01 · 02-11-2009 02:09PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

True, but just because something is a certain way doesn't mean we should accept it. We should be trying to change it, which is what these scientists are doing by publicly stepping down from their positions.

I think they're doing a great thing. I don't know why you took my stance as being at odds with that.

They're crappy jobs where you don't get listened to unless you say what they want to hear.

People stepping down because that's the case can only be a good thing.

Pat Sheen · 02-11-2009 02:29PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

If you look at their original misuse of drugs act you'll see that to prompt the goverment into a radical overhaul of drugs policy based on future evidence is exactly why the acmd was set up.

I disagree. The acmd was created to ensure any future ammendments to the law would be considered independently of government and would be based on scientific evidence. No more, no less. Would you call keeping cannabis class C and downgrading mdma to class B as a radical overhaul? I wouldn't. Professor Nutt and the council recommended synthetic cannabinoids, gbl and bzp analogues for inclusion under the UK MoDA. This is not exactly Tim Leary here but the politicians have spun it like he is.

wudangclan · 02-11-2009 03:46PM

In the latest in this row,it seems the British home secretary,Alan Johnson,is ordering a review of the ACMD,the composition of it's members ,how they research and how they report their findings,presumably to get results more suited to the government line.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6899528.ece

opinion guy · 02-11-2009 03:51PM

wudangclan wrote: »

In the latest in this row,it seems the British home secretary,Alan Johnson,is ordering a review of the ACMD,the composition of it's members ,how they research and how they report their findings,presumably to get results more suited to the government line.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6899528.ece

wow. i think we might see alot more resignations.

i really hope all this leads to experts actually being listened to in future. thou sometimes what leads to someone being considered 'expert' is itself an act of politics.....but thats a thread for another day

Prof.Badass · 02-11-2009 05:12PM

Pat Sheen wrote: »

I disagree. The acmd was created to ensure any future ammendments to the law would be considered independently of government and would be based on scientific evidence. No more, no less. Would you call keeping cannabis class C and downgrading mdma to class B as a radical overhaul? I wouldn't. Professor Nutt and the council recommended synthetic cannabinoids, gbl and bzp analogues for inclusion under the UK MoDA. This is not exactly Tim Leary here but the politicians have spun it like he is.

He is not against prohibtion, but (along with others on the council) he seems to really be pushing rationalism and a more science-based approach. People will need to start thinking rationally about drugs before any sort of proper debate can begin, so from my point of view, what they're doing is a good thing.

He once suggested that Alcohol be replaced with a simmilar but safer drug. He seems to be the only person pushing this argument which is proof that the average person does not have a rational and consistent understanding when it comes to recreational drugs. Making radical statements like "ecstacy is less dangerous than horse riding" is one way you could get people to start properly thinking about drugs.

Captain Havoc · 02-11-2009 05:27PM

I think I would be good in that role, loads of cash just for "advising" the government that drugs are bad and legalising them would lead to a public outcry but we shouldn't ban cigarettes and alcohol because it would be seen as taking away civil liberties, no scientific backround needed at all.
Where do I apply?

opinion guy · 02-11-2009 06:51PM

jerseyeire wrote: »

I think I would be good in that role, loads of cash just for "advising" the government that drugs are bad and legalising them would lead to a public outcry but we shouldn't ban cigarettes and alcohol because it would be seen as taking away civil liberties, no scientific backround needed at all.
Where do I apply?

Except they don't get paid for fulfilling this role

Pat Sheen · 02-11-2009 10:30PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

He is not against prohibtion, but (along with others on the council) he seems to really be pushing rationalism and a more science-based approach. People will need to start thinking rationally about drugs before any sort of proper debate can begin, so from my point of view, what they're doing is a good thing.

He once suggested that Alcohol be replaced with a simmilar but safer drug. He seems to be the only person pushing this argument which is proof that the average person does not have a rational and consistent understanding when it comes to recreational drugs. Making radical statements like "ecstacy is less dangerous than horse riding" is one way you could get people to start properly thinking about drugs.

To tell you the truth after reading the Times story linked to above I'm getting the distinct feeling this whole row has been cynically engineered by Brown and crew. Johnson ordered a secret review of the acmd 2 weeks before this argument blew up and he demanded it deliver a verdict by early 2010. Governments never review things that fast unless there's something else on the agenda. They had the acmd in their sights already and causing a storm in the red-tops about comments Nutt made sometime back were nothing more than an excuse to smear a scientist (another one!) and leave most of the public with the impression that a review is probably a good thing now we know that this Nutt is a nutter. If the acmd resign en masse then Johnson can claim the MoDA and drugs policy in general is in crisis, giving him a free hand to redesign the acmd into a nodding dog. At the heart of it all next year is an election year and we all know what weak governments do with drug law when an election is looming.

opinion guy · 02-11-2009 10:43PM

Pat Sheen wrote: »

To tell you the truth after reading the Times story linked to above I'm getting the distinct feeling this whole row has been cynically engineered by Brown and crew. Johnson ordered a secret review of the acmd 2 weeks before this argument blew up and he demanded it deliver a verdict by early 2010. Governments never review things that fast unless there's something else on the agenda. They had the acmd in their sights already and causing a storm in the red-tops about comments Nutt made sometime back were nothing more than an excuse to smear a scientist (another one!) and leave most of the public with the impression that a review is probably a good thing now we know that this Nutt is a nutter. If the acmd resign en masse then Johnson can claim the MoDA and drugs policy in general is in crisis, giving him a free hand to redesign the acmd into a nodding dog. At the heart of it all next year is an election year and we all know what weak governments do with drug law when an election is looming.

Yes I'd say there's been a back story or a behind the scenes row. Nutt a nutter ? No mate. He's bang on

Pat Sheen · 03-11-2009 01:40PM

The illegality-logic loop:

MP "You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one."

Professor Nutt "Why not?"

MP "Because one's illegal."

Professor Nutt "Why is it illegal?"

MP "Because it's harmful."

Professor Nutt "Don't we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?"

MP "You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one."

Support and Reinstate Professor David Nutt: We want an evidence based drugs policy Group on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=169748050377

Pat Sheen · 04-11-2009 07:43PM

Professor David Nutt says he will establish a new scientific committee if the current advisory body disbands. Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8342454.stm

Nutt's got nuts!

My name is URL · 04-11-2009 09:53PM

Pat Sheen wrote: »

Professor David Nutt says he will establish a new scientific committee if the current advisory body disbands. Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8342454.stm

Nutt's got nuts!

Hmmm, I wonder who's offering him the funding

Richard Branson maybe? (question no. 5)

grizzly · 07-11-2009 05:06PM

Interesting comparison of how alcohol/cannabis fatalities are reported in the UK.

blubloblu · 07-11-2009 06:06PM

Cannabis fatalities?

Davei141 · 07-11-2009 06:08PM

blubloblu wrote: »

Cannabis fatalities?

Yeah how does that work?

waitinforatrain · 07-11-2009 10:17PM

Davei141 wrote: »

Yeah how does that work?

Yeah +1 to this. Maybe it includes indirect deaths like being absolutely baked and crossing the road when there was a car coming etc. but I've still never heard of this happening

Edit:

• The cannabis death's figure is a bit dubious in my opinion. Firstly, how can you die from cannabis? It's extremely non-toxic. There has never been a single documented case of fatal cannabis overdose. Also, the government's own figures don't tally. While drug figures from the Office Of National Statistics register 19 cannabis related deaths, the mortality stats from the same office log only 1 death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/06/drugs-bnp

Prof.Badass · 17-11-2009 06:25PM

3 more advisors have resigned :eek:.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091111/tuk-three-more-drug-advisers-quit-6323e80_1.html

wudangclan · 17-11-2009 06:29PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

3 more advisors have resigned :eek:.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091111/tuk-three-more-drug-advisers-quit-6323e80_1.html

I believe that makes 6 in total starting with Prof. Nutt,2 in the days following his resignation and these 3.
We'll probably still have to wait a generation to see real change but at least the tide is turning.

Pat Sheen · 17-11-2009 10:14PM

Synthetic booze with antidote and no hangover could be trialled in Scotland Nov 16 2009 By Lachlan Mackinnon A NEW type of synthetic booze can give you the buzz without the hangover, experts claim. Taken as a pill, an injection or in liquid form, the effects could be instantly cancelled out thanks to an antidote. Professor David Nutt - recently sacked as a government drugs advisor for suggesting alcohol was more harmful than ecstasy - claims the synthetic booze could save lives. He's developing it at London's Imperial College. And he believes Scotland would be the perfect testing ground when it's available in three years. Nutt said: "The prototype is in the form of a tablet or injection. In the future, I envisage it as a liquid to mix with a fruity drink. To sober up, they could take another liquid antidote. I hope eventually a person would be able to take the antidote then drive home but this is still a long way off." He went on: "Someone needs to step up to the plate and this is the country to do it. Scotland has the highest rate of cirrhosis in the world. The Scottish government is now beginning to talk sensibly about intervening with alcohol and minimum pricing and I think they should say 'We want an alcohol substitute'. 'We want to encourage people to make one and if it's good we will allow it to be used and price it the same as alcohol'...... full story: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/11/16/synthetic-booze-with-antidote-and-no-hangover-could-be-trialled-in-scotland-86908-21825691/ Btw The Sun and Daily Mail published stories (on their websites, not sure if they made the paper copies) on Sat 14 attacking David Nutt's son which then strangely vanished a day or two later although there's still traces on google news.

Herbal Deity · 18-11-2009 02:07PM

Heard about this ages ago. It's based on valium afaik.

It's far, far too ahead of its time to be viewed as anything more than a crazy notion, let alone to be even considered being made legal. However, I applaud David Nutt in his promotion of a sensible, scientific attitude towards drugs.

British drug scientist sacked in government row.

Comments