Cannabis Drugs Row Advisor Sacked

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

We all know that politicians are mostly grubby and unsavoury people who will do almost anything to curry favour with the most ignorant-yet-angry voters in society. But what is the point of a government seeking independent scientific advice (based on expert studies and hard, impartial data) if it then just dismisses that advice because it is politically expedient?

This is not just relevant to the drugs debate. (Anecdotally I know of someone who was severely affected by cannabis use, but I accept that any number of personal stories does not outweigh the importance of proper, extensive research.) It is also relevant to the way that this government has held scientific advice, military advice and many other forms of expert advice in contempt when it doesn't suit their "gut feeling", i.e. what makes them look better in tomorrow's paper, or what can save them the most money.

If the evidence suggests cannabis should be Class C then the government should have to offer a compelling reason to reject that advice, not shoot the messenger when he reasonably points out that they are ignoring the message.

Labour ministers are so gripped by short-termist madness that, like a rat on a sinking ship, they'll do anything to survive. Yet these kind of decisions really do have an effect on real people.

Haven't politicians been spending too many years favouring severe punishment over possibly more effective strategies (such as partially-decriminalised regulated suppliers) just to appeal to the "string 'em up!" brigade? Drugs really do cost lives, but successive governments just seem to hope that the problem will magically disappear if they criminalise enough people.

We have so many prisons that are overrun with 1st time drug offences. Many times they were caught with having the stuff in their car. At least that's how it is in my state.

Prof Nutt criticised the reclassification of cannabis
The UK's chief drugs adviser has been sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, after criticising government policies.

Ahhh, bless this land and its freedom of speech!

Would agree with everything Tim says.

What I heard on the radio was that everyday a young person in the UK dies from alcohol posioning.

This highly regarded scientist says that Canabis is less dangerous than either drinking or smoking. So why don't the government listen?

Personally I would legalize it and earn some money from the tax on it.

And what are you doing up at 4.00 AM Tim? Early start or late night?

On Nutt's sacking, it's sad but I think inevitable considering the way he levelled criticism at the Government. Kind of like those idiots on Facebook who say that the chain who employ them are evil bastards, and are then shocked and outraged to find themselves with a P45. Free speech is one thing, but openly criticising who you're meant to work with is another.

Regarding reclassification, I'm unaware of what the different types actually mean. All I know is that I'm against those kinds of illegal drugs in any form.

What is perhaps the greatest pity however, is that his message about tobacco and alcohol will now be lost (unless his replacement takes up the same line). They are the most damaging drugs that this country suffers from. I suspect that his comments on those two matters may have been somewhat taken into account in the decision to dismiss him.

Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2009, 10:55 AM BST

Regarding reclassification, I'm unaware of what the different types actually mean. All I know is that I'm against those kinds of illegal drugs in any form.

View original

So if they made it legal you wouldn't mind it?

EDIT:

Oh, I'm with you, you just basically mean ALL drugs, whether they're legal or not?

Check this out:

"Drugs: the real deal"

"This is the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. It was devised by government advisers - then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings...."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drugs-the-real-deal-410086.html

Quote: Morrace @ October 31 2009, 11:37 AM BST

Check this out:

"Drugs: the real deal"

"This is the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. It was devised by government advisers - then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings...."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drugs-the-real-deal-410086.html

View original

I would like to know what the weighting factors were used in that study. It all seems to me to be comparing apples with oranges.

On the whole I favour decriminalisation, for social rather than health reasons. Driving a problem underground does not really help anyone, other than the career criminals who profit by it; and in the case of narcotics, as in others areas of health and safety, people should be allowed some freedom from the nanny state.

I agree with everything Tim says about the Government disregarding expert advice, but as Aaron says, you cannot publicly criticise your employer and not expect consequences.

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 12:05 PM BST

I agree with everything Tim says about the Government disregarding expert advice, but as Aaron says, you cannot publicly criticise your employer and not expect consequences.

View original

This Professor's employer was indirectly the Home Office via the body he was working for. It is a very worrying state of affairs when a the representative of a body that is set up to offer scientific advice, independent of government, is then not allowed to speak up when that independent scientific advice is ignored.

A political culture where those who are employed to independently advise government are first ignored, then effectively sacked for pointing out said advice is being ignored, is not a healthy one. We as the public need experts in public bodies to be able to speak out when government is choosing to disregard expert opinion. We need to know when this is being done so as to be able to scrutinise government effectively. Labour have had a disgraceful habit in this respect of smearing anyone who disagrees with them as partisan. (Go and explore the decisions and machinations between government and expert advice in the lead-up to war in Iraq to see why advisory committees should remain independently-minded and have a duty to the public to speak out when ignored.)

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 12:05 PM BST

It all seems to me to be comparing apples with oranges.

View original

Comparing apples with oranges is a different kettle of fish - or even a whole new ball game within a kettle of fish. One fruit naturally depends on another fruit, so it is either primary fruit which is going to start the Implementation is given forced ranking or the fruit which gives the fruit of the implementation is given the forced ranking, in between the transfer of a juicy fruit for several fruits are given less recognition when compared to Class A (and below) drugs both legal and illegal.

As my late, lamented Maiden Aunt used to say, "Put that in your crack-pipe and f**kin' smoke it."

Trust me, I have more reason than most to be aware that this Government is not good at listening to advice. I was just saying that that being the case, the response to criticism was predictable. He took a stand, doubtless appreciating the consequences. Kudos.

Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2009, 10:55 AM BST

What is perhaps the greatest pity however, is that his message about tobacco and alcohol will now be lost (unless his replacement takes up the same line). They are the most damaging drugs that this country suffers from.

View original

But they are lovely and taxable. If the Government could find a way of regulating sales of Pot etc and taxing it the stuff would be on the shelves.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 12:22 PM BST

A political culture where those who are employed to independently advise government are first ignored, then effectively sacked for pointing out said advice is being ignored, is not a healthy one.

View original

Damn right.

Looks like a case of putting political dogma ahead of science. Another blow for the reality-based community.

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 12:32 PM BST

Trust me

View original

Hellooooo! This is the internet - cyberspace - remember? Why the FUCK should I trust you!!

Quote: Morrace @ October 31 2009, 12:40 PM BST

Why the FUCK should I trust you!!

View original

I have an honest avatar.