More could quit, drugs panel tells Johnson
The home secretary has been told by his drugs advisers that unless he gives them assurances "about the role and treatment of the Council and its work", more scientists will quit.
The BBC has obtained a copy of the letter sent to Alan Johnson by a majority of ACMD members. They make it clear that the sacking of Professor David Nutt on Saturday has "brought to the fore wider and pre-existing concerns".
"For some members," it continues, "these matters are of such seriousness as to raise the question whether they can, in good conscience, continue on the Council".
Here is the letter in full.
It is clear from the last paragraph that it had been intended that the letter should remain confidential. However, a copy was sent to the BBC by one of those involved in its formulation.
Separately, there is a move by scientists and advisers more generally for clarification and reassurances on the role of specialist advisory committees and their members. I understand that one idea is for a new code of conduct to be agreed by government which would set out three important principles:
• a recognition that advisers do not lose their scholarship or academic freedom if they freely offer expertise to ministers;
• that ministers must consider seriously the expert advice they receive (and not dismiss it before they have even read it as some members of the ACMD felt the government did in respect of their recommendations on cannabis and ecstasy);
• that if government decides to reject the advice of an advisory panel, they publish both the original advice and their reasons for not accepting it.
While the ACMD is clearly looking to offer the government a way out of this mess with the request for a face-to-face meeting with the home secretary, ministers have successfully opened a debate on whether scientific and other academic advisers are respected for their expertise and their independence.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~23~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The final line "..debate on whether scientific and other academic advisors are respected" demonstrates the farce of current Government ministers. Scientific advisors and other academic advisors are generally selected by ministers and in almost all cases can demonstrate expertise in the relevant field. Surely the debate should be " How do we get credible ministers capable of understanding scientific advice" .
Complain about this comment
Alan Johnson is unlikely to look favourably upon Prof. Les Iverson as the representative of the ACMD,
this is from
' THE BECKLEY FOUNDATION SOCIETY & DRUGS: A RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
WEDNESDAY 19TH FEBRUARY 2003
A DINNER DISCUSSION HOSTED BY THE BECKLEY
FOUNDATION AT THE ROYAL SOCIETY
The Role of Drugs in Society'
' Is It Possible To Have Recreational Drugs Which Are Relatively Safe?
Les Iverson
• There have been no deaths to date caused by the use of cannabis.
• Cannabis should be legalised not just decriminalised because it is comparatively
less dangerous than legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.'
His views certainly do not coincide with current government policy.
My feeling is that we should legalise all drugs, regulate all drugs and most importantly Tax all drugs.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton.
"..a new code of conduct.."
yes, a proper contractual relationship between government and advisory bodies would seem to be the way forward.
but even with a contract along the lines outlined above, the government could still accept a report and then simply put it in the cupboard to gather dust; I cannot imagine the government signing up to a contract which would oblige them to act.
Complain about this comment
I would love to be a fly on the wall for this as it concerns the nation should this not be held in a public arena as they have offered to inform him on how he is to be spit roasted, or again is this not in the best interest of the public.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well done Mark, for having the courage to post that letter. You can probably expect to hear from Alan Johnson though, unless he remembers the first rule of holes - when you're in one, stop digging.
I doubt very much whether or not anything will change in the immediate future, unless this escalates into a row that sees all the tabloids turn on the government. There are only 214 days to go until, barring a major miracle, our odious government will be out on its ear for a long time to come.
In spite of the questions raised over their lack of competence, it's likely that many if not all of the government ministers are painfully aware of this, and the lack of support, coupled with a looming election, means that their hands are tied. They believe that they simply have to be seen to be in charge, and are likely to become increasingly dictatorial over the coming months. They'll stay inside their comfort zone - I'm right and don't argue because I'm in the government - right until next May, as they're simply incapable of contemplating anything else.
It takes a lot of experience and wisdom to accept criticism from one's advisers, even when those advisers know more about the subject than oneself. If Alan Johnson possessed any real qualities of leadership and statesmanship, he would have followed the proposed code of conduct without any need for it to be written down. As it is, he's displaying the typical qualities of an incompetent dictator - shooting the messenger.
All we can hope for now is that the dying duck in Westminster doesn't do very much more damage before the end. As it is, the only fitting epitaph for this sorry shower should come from Shelley - "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Complain about this comment
"that if government decides to reject the advice of an advisory panel, they publish both the original advice and their reasons for not accepting it"
Yes, that's the really important bit, as I see it.
Ministers are, of course, free to ignore the advice of scientists if they wish. However, fundamental principles of democratic accountability suggest that if the chose to do that, then they need to explain why. The electorate have every right to know on what basis ministers make their decisions.
I suspect that this has all got so unpleasant this time because ministers really didn't have a good reason for ignoring the scientific advice, other than some kind of ideological dogma, and therefore started throwing their toys out of the pram and blaming the scientists when it became clear that they had acted against scientific advice and were unable to give a good reason why.
Complain about this comment
This is a discussion which will not be live on TV with the party leaders will it?
I do think that it should be taken because the population is suddenly out of step the MP's. Sorry, it is the other way around but they do not see it that way. The politicians that is.
I cannot wait for canvassing to come around. Or even public meetings.
Complain about this comment
Is it Liam Donaldson next ?
From wikipedia
Sir Liam Joseph Donaldson (b. 3 May 1949, Middlesbrough, England, UK) is currently the Chief Medical Officer for England.[1] As such he is principal advisor to the United Kingdom Government on health matters and one of the most senior officials in the National Health Service (NHS).
(my emphasis in bold)
and this is what he said in the Telegraph
'He recommended setting a minimum price per unit of alcohol at 50p and tightening licensing laws so local authorities had to consider the deaths and ill-health due to alcohol in the area before granting new licenses for pubs or clubs.
Earlier Gordon Brown rejected the minimum price per unit idea, which would see the end to cans of lager and cider sold at less than the cost of a bottle of water, saying he did not want the majority of moderate drinkers to pay more.
However, Sir Liam vowed to continue to push for the measure, saying it was backed by evidence and had the support of the medical community.
He alluded to the fact that he had been calling for a ban on smoking in public places for many years before it was finally accepted by ministers.'
And how does this differ from the Prof. Nutt situation ?
Complain about this comment
Just watched Mr A JointSon fall apart only to be saved by the other goon on another death in afghan and how we should remember him and all that have fallen on remembrance Sunday with a poppy, oh how true this is another innocent life lost in the war on drugs just seems ironic that they died for the control of the opium poppy
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The advice of such people got us to were we stand today did it not in this wonderful world full of science.
A jointson also said that once advice had been taken then the adviser should butt out does he not understand that today's research has come on from when last the advice was given which is the whole point to taking scientific advice to stay up to date with current harms and issues. If a subject has to be revisited because the science beings to Undermine the current thinking on the subject then it should be reassessed and not just dismissed as overstepping the mark as A jointSon seems to think.
Complain about this comment
#9 BobRocket:
'He recommended setting a minimum price per unit of alcohol at 50p and tightening licensing laws so local authorities had to consider the deaths and ill-health due to alcohol in the area before granting new licenses for pubs or clubs.... And how does this differ from the Prof. Nutt situation ?"
Tax, dear boy. Tax. As we know full well, mulcting the taxpayer is far more palatable to Westminster than anything involving original thinking on social evils. Gordon Brown probably rejected the idea because it would lower the government's popularity even further, rather that from any concern over public health.
Good call in bringing Sir Liam Donaldson into the discussion - that guy is well out of line. He should have been kicked out for exceeding his remit, not Professor Nutt. I didn't notice Professor Nutt doing any lobbying last time I looked.
Complain about this comment
If they feel unable to back the decision which has been made then they should resign. That would be the correct thing to do.
No decision maker should ever give in to blackmail by advisers.
They gave advice. A government decided not to take that advice. Live with it or go.
Complain about this comment
CaledonianComment #11.
"Meanwhile, in the real world, does anyone actually believe that the drug peddlars and the drug users, together with all their dreary retinue of street girls, urchins, hospital and HIV cases, really give a toss about what either Alan Johnson or the ACMD say ?"
yeah, go on, make fun of the victims -- feels good, doesn't it? ;-(
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark your refer to the messiah kings and the first prohabition in 25ad with Jesus Christ giving out the jewish holy oil aka oil of kings. So yes its been a very long fought war this.
Complain about this comment
# 14
No decision maker should ever give in to blackmail by advisers.
===========================================
Blackmail? Sorry but you have lost me completely with that comment.
Rejecting advice is fine, but rejecting it before it is given and not explaining the rejection in a coherent fashion is verging on crass stupidity. I take it you didn't read the letter from the ACMD above?
Complain about this comment
I drove my car through a GM crop and asked the Dunstable police what right they had in protecting New Labours finacial interests in promoting this rubbish and at the same time deny me my God given right to use a natural plant (Marijuana) for pain relief and the answer was to send me to a place where GM food was forced upon me and repeatedly threatened with life changing, brain damaging chemicals because of a difference in view. You might want to belive that the Truth is a lie but that is the reason for all the World's chaos.
Complain about this comment
Stripped of all the bru-ha-ha, this is a really fundamental debate about the sort of society we want.
On the one side we have the forces of rationality and reason asking for a free, open society with grown-up debate and discussion.
On the other we have those looking to create an autocracy based on prejudice and populism - a consensus of the ignorant and uninformed.
The debate in Parliament showed that politicians of both the red and blue colours seem to favour the latter. The BBC, as an organisation dominated by arts graduates with the thesis of post-modern relativism ringing in their ears, is getting it wrong in its reporting by seeking to 'balance' opinions.
Listen up reporters - not all opinions are equal - some should and do weigh more heavily than others - opinions based on evidence and reason. Experts are experts for a reason. There is no point trying to balance the opinions of politicians and Daily Mail readers against the ACMD members. To do so is to let the forces of unreason triumph - to invite the autocracy of the ignorant.
I fear we may be setting off down the road to a peculiarly British theocracy - with either a blue or red Pope laying down canonical law - like "Cannabis is Class B".
Complain about this comment
I hope more of them do quit. The goverment has consistantly ignored advise from experts on this matter and many others.
Whats the point of the expert advisers being there in the first place if their advise is not only ignored but totally contradicted?
It happens in all sorts of areas and the goverment end up looking silly, the advisers get discredited. Then when the press jump on a piece or pieces of poor or inconclusive research neither have the authority or credibility to counter it.
It's happened with MMR jabs, climate change, swine flu vacine, mobile phone masts, drug dangers and many more. It's a problem that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later or it will carry on for years, I doubt change to a tory goverment would change it in any way at all either.
I hope that this incident gives the scientific comunity the amunition to make some serious changes in the way goverment policy is influenced by real scientific reasearch. There needs to be real cooperation so that the policies are workable, affordable and above all based on the real scientific facts of the issue not political point scoring.
Complain about this comment
# 21 - glomal111
Agree with everything you say. I think we are now at the top of a very slippery slope, heading for Dictatorship. Govt seems to want to control every aspect of our lives. How we think, what to eat, what to drink, where we can go, where we can protest, how to protest, what we can say, what we can find funny. Britain is becoming an increasingly dark place to live, ruled by ignorance.
Complain about this comment
seems the same conversation is going on in the USA.
Jessica Corry on Fox News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMGcpU9QcAA
Complain about this comment
I have damaged vertebrae and find that Marijuana is the most effective remedy and think it stupid that someone like J Smith or the postman should have the right to call me criminal because of her own lack of understanding. I have an argument with the law but we live in a country dictated to by chosen people and a pile of private members bills a mile high that never see the light of day. I am a vegetarian and don’t take drugs like alcohol – cigarettes are less addictive if heated over a naked flame until the chemical additive vaporizes – why not take a few minutes with a smoker, a packet of cigarettes and a lighter to test for yourselves? (Be careful not to burn the paper and then ask is that as addictive and the answer will always be exactly the same!) The British Government is influenced by the tax revenue concerns and alcohol lobby groups and public opinion is in the hands of those who have interests I am sure that there is not one person in the British Government or the News media who has more genuine concern to deal with the issue of drugs than Mr Nutt. The British Government doe’s not do God or logical Truth for they have there own. The British Government and the BBC would be lost without a war to fight and so the language is always about the need for ever more war usually served up in five year doses. It is no surprise that logical truth is readily dismissed after all we live in a country with universities all over the place teaching maths and physics and yet no one has got a calculator and 9.81m/s/s and realised that the Trade Tower collapse allows no factor for resistance in its rate of decent! For 2000 years one united, un-criticisable group have understood that the book of life is your subconscious acceptance rather than a twisted book of ordnance survey on a Golden Chair of lies in London.
Complain about this comment
People need to realise that the dangers of taking drugs like extacy and cannabis are tiny compared to other everyday risks.
These risks are not properly highlighted by the drug classification scheme at the moment.
The only reason cannabis was as high on the list of dangerous drugs was because it has the same problems as tobacco smoking and is almost always smoked with tabacco which can lead to a general smoking addiction.
Complain about this comment
#15 -------- if the government is so concerned about "victims" why not hang pushers? I wasn't aware that my comment at #11 was "making fun" but rather stating fact. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
glomal111 #21.
neebols456 #23.
second (third??) that.
Complain about this comment
eh what always smoked with tobacco..
youll find a huge proportion of people use vaporizers and water bongs to smoke green.
CC because they would need to hang around 2 million people in the UK alone think that's called genocide. suggest you look up the definition of supply.
Complain about this comment
CaledonianComment #27.
"..why not hang pushers?"
too many established, well-connected people among them.
Complain about this comment
I really don't see why the goverment doesn't just legalise most drugs so the can tax them and regulate the dealers like with alcohol. If they took tax on the massive amount of chemicals people put through their bodies then they might chip away at their debts slightly.
Then maybe they could use the money spent trying to stop drug use on addicts.
It would take money away from organised crime, stop naive or curious people getting involved with seriously dodgey people and reduce crime comited to feed adictions.
Seems like a no brainer, but then politics isn't decided by peoples brains very often is it.
Complain about this comment
'29. At 5:47pm on 02 Nov 2009, CommunityCriminal wrote:
eh what always smoked with tobacco..
youll find a huge proportion of people use vaporizers and water bongs to smoke green.'
I did say 'almost' always smoked with tobacco. Its only the real 'stoners' that use vaporisers etc. plus the people that do use bongs and vaporisers probably smoke alot of joints aswell.
The tobacco with it is definatley an issue. A significant proportion of cannabis smokers are straight tobacco smokers as well. Plus straight cannabis smoke has the same issues as tobacco smoke. It's smoke going into your lungs, thats never going to be a good thing really is it.
Complain about this comment
First of all no one has been stopped from saying anything.
All that has happened is that Prof Nutt cannot speak as the chair of the ACMD. He can still voice his concern but will not have the extra weight that that role gave him. In fact it could be argued that by no longer being part of ACMD, he can campaign more actively.
Now for the point about ministers not taking experts advice without good reason. Today a group of transplant experts said that the shortage of donated organs could be reduced dramatically if organ donation was compulsory. The only real objection is that there are large numbers of people who would claim it is an infringement of their civil liberties. Hardly a sound scientific objection, so should we ignore the objection and do what is a provable scientific fact which few would contest on a scientific basis?
I do agree with the scientists that they should be able to expect some explanation for their advice being ignored. They will however have to accept that sometimes the explanation may not be exactly scientific. They might just have to accept that the explanation that lowering the classification of a drug is seen by the government, the electorate and drug users themselves as an indication that the fight against drugs is being given a lower priority. This is not a welcome message.
Complain about this comment
well actualy as a cannabis smoker i have the same lung capacity as a none smoker and the same force volume as a none smoker which im afraid is a science fact not speculated fiction based on comparative drug coctailing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19679602
Complain about this comment
"33. At 5:59pm on 02 Nov 2009, Boilerbill wrote:
Now for the point about ministers not taking experts advice without good reason. Today a group of transplant experts said that the shortage of donated organs could be reduced dramatically if organ donation was compulsory. The only real objection is that there are large numbers of people who would claim it is an infringement of their civil liberties. Hardly a sound scientific objection, so should we ignore the objection and do what is a provable scientific fact which few would contest on a scientific basis?"
Yes we should, but we should make political alterations to cater for those that object. For example bring in an anti-donor system, so those that disagree with the idea of their organs being used, for whatever reason, can make sure that doesn't happen.
The politics bit it what the politicians are for, the science bit is what the experts are for. If they work together in a real cooperative way then the politicians can change or reject the idea and the experts will understand the reasons why. They may still disagree, and then they may bring the press/public into the debate. Thats how expert advice sould work, and the experts ahouldn't be sacked for telling people they disagree with goverment policy.
Complain about this comment
Mark
Your three principles make sense, so will probably be rejected out-of-hand by Labour and Conservatives alike. The politicians use expert advice like drunks use a lamp-post, for support not illumination [Daryll Huff]. Even if they were to agree them, does anyone honestly believe either of the main parties would respect them if the going got tough?
The scientists and other experts would be well advised to make sure at all costs that they remain unpaid and independent - because if they were to be paid, the Government would have much more of a lever over them. Being more intelligent than the politicians, I'm sure they realise this...
# 6 Theory of holes.
The problem is that governments (especially this one) blame the hole rather than themselves for not looking where they were walking...
Complain about this comment
"34. At 6:11pm on 02 Nov 2009, CommunityCriminal wrote:
well actualy as a cannabis smoker i have the same lung capacity as a none smoker and the same force volume as a none smoker which im afraid is a science fact not speculated fiction based on comparative drug coctailing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19679602"
Interesting paper, will put it on my reading list.
My point still stands though, smoking cannabis with tobacco has the same negative effects as smoking tobacco and it can cause a tobacco addiction. I've seen it in cannabis smoking friends, most smoke cigarettes too, at least 2 think it started from smoking weed. The papers abstract did also mention it was correcting for tobacco use in the cannabis users.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you, just pointing out that tobacco use alongside cannabis is one of the only health issues. Since tobacco is legal (and apparantly much worse for you according to the linked paper, the ACMD and a significant amount of other research) I don't get why cannabis isn't as well let alone why it was upgraded.
Complain about this comment
It's right and proper that scientists advise the government on the biochemical effects of drugs on users but they should not dictate or expect to dictate government policy which has to take in to account other factors.Though the detrimental effect to the user of a particular drug may be small, the government does have to take into account the effect of that user's behaviour on the public.The police can no doubt demonstrate that many drug users are so reliant on their drugs that they will take to crime to feed their habit.Professor Nutt is quite right however that other additions like alcohol and tobacco are more likely to affect a greater number of the public either personally through alcoholism, lung cancer etc or through secondary activity like drink-drive accidents, binge drinking incidents and passive smoking etc.
Complain about this comment
Mark thankyou for continuing to follow this issue in your blog, this is an issue than means a lot to me and many others personally and left us all seething.
This had a far wider implication than i think a lot of people realise. This isn't just about drugs this is about far reaching issues.
This sets a precedant politcally and even legally to an extent. Afterall is the BBC not a independant government body? Who's to say the government won't start sacking BBC journalists if they go against the government line?
Complain about this comment
19. At 4:54pm on 02 Nov 2009, neebols456 wrote:
Blackmail? Sorry but you have lost me completely with that comment.
Rejecting advice is fine, but rejecting it before it is given and not explaining the rejection in a coherent fashion is verging on crass stupidity. I take it you didn't read the letter from the ACMD above?
====================================
The letter sounds fine (apart from the bit where they say it is confidential, but then by some mystery the BBC has a copy)
I was referring to the following....
"The home secretary has been told by his drugs advisers that unless he gives them assurances 'about the role and treatment of the Council and its work', more scientists will quit."
Give in to me or I will resign?
If you are in a job, try that one out with your boss tomorrow. Everyone I can think of who ever said that to their boss was lucky if they got the reply "we will be sorry to see you go."
Bottom line: they are advisers. Give the advice. It might be accepted, it might not. If you can't live with that then move on.
Complain about this comment
#40 jon112uk
"If you are in a job, try that one out with your boss tomorrow. Everyone I can think of who ever said that to their boss was lucky if they got the reply "we will be sorry to see you go.""
You've clearly never been employed anywhere that either thought you were a valuable employee or respected your opinion then!
Besides which, they weren't being paid for this, he's not their boss, the ACMD was doing the politicians (and, no doubt, their own reputations, sure) a favour by compiling reports and advice.
If the government want to continue to get advice from scientists and continue to enjoy any sort of credibility in their legislation, they'll consider listening. The politicians have much more to lose here.
Just like your boss if you're actually an effective, intelligent and useful worker.
Complain about this comment
You have to wonder what the point of classifying drugs is actually for in the first place. Since Nu Labour came to power there has been no effective policy on drug use (or misuse ), is using drugs a crime or not? If it is then why are habitual users not in jail? If it's not a crime then why waste millions of pounds on policing drugs? As far as drug trading is concerned, the same question applies. Either drug dealers go to prison and remain there indefinitely or as seems to be the policy of this government they are allowed to carry on their business with little or no problem. Again millions of pounds and innumerable police man hours are wasted aprehending drug dealers who are back trading on the street within a very short time. It is a total waste of police time and taxpayers money , and it would be better to give up the pretence of fighting the drug trade and selling them in Boots, then at least the taxpayer could collect the tax, rather than forking out and the fatal effects of unrestricted access would reduce the problem considerably in a very short time.
Complain about this comment
Talking of the harms of street drugs Myself and the Wife have just had to go get our 18 year old son who has just been mugged by a knife point. lucky he had the scene just to hand over.
Mr Johnson this this is right Im speachless..
Complain about this comment
I thought the best source of wisdom in this debate would be the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) itself
This is what it has to say on the subject of advisors...
----
(2) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Council to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to them capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem, and to give to any one or more of the Ministers, where either the Council consider it expedient to do so or they are consulted by the Minister or Ministers in question, advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with social problems connected with their misuse, and in particular on measures which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken-
(a) for restricting the availability of such drugs or supervising the arrangements for their supply;
(b) for enabling persons affected by the misuse of such drugs to obtain proper advice, and for securing the provision of proper facilities and services for the treatment, rehabilitation and after-care of such persons;
(c) for promoting co-operation between the various professional and community services which in the opinion of the Council have a part to play in dealing with social problems connected with the misuse of such drugs;
(d) for educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs, and for giving publicity to those dangers; and
(e) for promoting research into, or otherwise obtaining information about, any matter which in the opinion of the Council is of relevance for the purpose of preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with any social problem connected with their misuse.
-----
I cannot see how anything done or said by Professor Nutt in any way conflicts with his statutory duty under the Act. He is fulfilling his legal requirements. He has been sacked for doing his job exactly as the law prescribes.
End of.
Complain about this comment
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/11/charles-clarkes-history-of-the-drugs-advisory-committee.html
Complain about this comment
Governments have lost their relationship with the people they are to serve. They are simply self-serving institutions with the primary goal of self-preservation. As with banking, the government seems to know nothing about what is going on or is continuing failed programs because of the influence of the vested interest groups. As with most social programs, they lack any incentive to actually solve the problem. Informal social organization is much different from formal governmental organization, the separation seems to becoming greater. Like the Russian bureaucrats, writing reports about their successful programs as everything fell apart around them, they fail to take an assessment of reality. The balance between the desires of the people and the desires of interest groups is out of balance. Policy is by and for the few at the disadvantage of the many. The criminalization of drugs has created a monster that must be feed. What has been the results of this policy? Governments create advisory groups to approve things that the government wants to do, not to listen to the advice of the group. Citizens spend entirely too much time responding to things the governments do or want to do and the governments spend entirely too little time responding to what the people would like them to do. We have returned to the ruling class and catering to their likes and dislikes rather than developing policies that reflect the will of the people. The Defenders of the Faith, as wrong-headed as ever, using power to convince the people of the waywardness of their beliefs. After the political facilitation of the banking industries theft of the people's money it is difficult to understand how the governments insist that they have any moral authority.
Complain about this comment
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/11/david-nutts-controversial-lecture-conformed-to-government-guidelines.html
Complain about this comment
"Give in to me or I will resign?
If you are in a job, try that one out with your boss tomorrow. Everyone I can think of who ever said that to their boss was lucky if they got the reply "we will be sorry to see you go."
Bottom line: they are advisers. Give the advice. It might be accepted, it might not. If you can't live with that then move on."
I don't think you quite understand the situation. These people are UNPAID and work in a voluntary capacity and the board is made up of people from the scientific feild as well as the police and other bodies.
If these people quit they cannot be replaced with anything other than yes men who will have a remit for providing evidence to back up government policies, if they find somthing that contradicts government policy they will be expected to keep that information out of the public domain.
Are we living in communist china here or what?
Complain about this comment
Well it seems students are getting anoyed a the implications for science and the opinion of policy makers towards them...
Rally for Professor David Nutt and Evidence Based Drugs Policy.
We are calling on members of the academic community, parents, young people, students and concerned members of the public to join us at 12pm on Saturday the 7th of November outside Downing Street. We will be there to show our support for Professor Nutt and to call on the government to back evidence based drugs policy by respecting and upholding the independence of the ACMD.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy UK
http://www.ssdp.org.uk
THIS PROTEST IS NOT ABOUT THE LEGALISATION OF DRUGS: IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ALL PROTESTORS ATTENDING STICK TO THE MESSAGE. THIS IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT LISTENING TO THEIR OWN ADVISERS.
Complain about this comment
"37. At 6:45pm on 02 Nov 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
My point still stands though, smoking cannabis with tobacco has the same negative effects as smoking tobacco and it can cause a tobacco addiction. I've seen it in cannabis smoking friends, most smoke cigarettes too, at least 2 think it started from smoking weed. The papers abstract did also mention it was correcting for tobacco use in the cannabis users."
I agree with you, but you miss the point entirely. You see culturally in the united states the traditional 'joint' would be made from pure marijuana and would not not have a 'roach' (filter made from card), this is because they typically smoked cannabis sativa like acupoloco gold smuggled from mexico (much stronger than 'skunk' by the way and this was in the 70's) and it came in a herbal form.
In the UK and rest of the EU our cananbis supply has tradionally come from morrocco and we have primarily smoked hashish made from cannabis indica plants, they make hashish because the flowers themselves are less potent. This would be smuuggled in to gibralter in to spain and across the EU. If you smoke hashish then you tradtionally smoke in a joint with tobbacco and a roach as you say.
But the point is these practises are dictated by avilablility and lack of education. The best way to smoke weed or hashish is with a vapourizer this involves heating the subtance until it steams or vapourizes rather than burns, this not only gives the user a bigger hit for the amount used but it also negates any carionegenic substances entering the lungs.
In Amsterdam they have the 'cannabis college' which is a charity helped by the government that educates tourists about the use of marijuana and that is only possible because it is tolerated.
Complain about this comment
Excellent link ComminityCriminal
I hope this gets picked up by the BBC and other news sites, unlike the Daily Mail's current cannabis lies.. How does a paper get away with printing such blatant falsehoods with being prosecuted ? I can never understand this.
Thank you Mark for keeping on top of this.
glomal111 #21.
neebols456 #23.
Fully agreed with and worried about.
This is definitely about more than why are the drugs separated in harm just because two are legal.
The fact that government policy has now been openly admitted (by the government) to be purely based on what the government wants us to believe instead of the actual truth should get everyone up complaining not just the people who think the drug policy is wrong.
Regarding the relative harm between the 2 legal drugs and the range of illegal drugs there is always one thing that the figures seem to forget to mention.
The legal drugs which kill and seriously harm thousands every year and will continue to kill and seriously harm thousands each year are produced in controlled regulated environments, to strict quality measures.
While the illegal drugs that even the governments figures admit do nowhere near the amount of harm compared to legal ones, are produced with no control, no regulated environments and definitely no quality control measures... Yet they are STILL safer, Can anyone imagine just how much LESS harm these illegal drugs would cause if they were produced to the same standards as legal drugs are made to with guaranteed strength and quality. Instead of being knocked up by a bunch of criminals somewhere with no real regard for the end result.
Complain about this comment
48. At 8:33pm on 02 Nov 2009, bigsammyb wrote:
I don't think you quite understand the situation. These people are UNPAID and work in a voluntary capacity and the board is made up of people from the scientific feild as well as the police and other bodies.
======================
I understand better than you think - I've had more than one advisory post in the public sector.
Don't believe that people do things like this just out of the goodness of their heart. For academics positions like this are referred to as 'esteem indicators' the pay back can come via pay at your own institution or by other positions which do pay. This is a very senior position which would lead to significant indirect rewards.
Paid or unpaid - the politicians are still your boss.
To be honest I'm amazed that these guys seem to think you give ADVICE and the decision makers are in some way obliged to do everything you say. Particularly when the advice was so naïve.
Complain about this comment
Looks like the continuation of Policy Based Evidence .....
Complain about this comment
another good example of how the media (in this case, "our own" BBC) distort the facts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8337185.stm
alcohol is evidently neither a drug nor of concern.
sick.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #52.
whilst what you say makes sense, you're still defending a corrupt setup, slavers probably had more respect for their chattel than these "bosses" have for us.
Complain about this comment
Keep at it Mark, you were one of the few interested in this topic back in the days of Smith, so kudos to you, and I will keep following this
Not really much to contribute here - we all know the story, this just comes down to which side the sword falls on - Johnson or Nutt, and whether the government can somehow defend itself by saying it can make scientific decisions without scientific evidence
I think this is key:
"that if government decides to reject the advice of an advisory panel, they publish both the original advice and their reasons for not accepting it."
I want to see their reasons for doing it - they can ignore advice if they want, but we need to know on what basis, I think in this day and age we expect our elected politicians to consult people who at least know something about the issues, and won't settle for using the law 'to send a message'
Complain about this comment
there's more to this than meets the eye.
The UN convention on drugs 1961 (as amended) reinforces the decision to grade cannabis in with heroin and actively encourages the most severe sanctions against mere posession of a small quantity of weed.
The UNOCD has tried to put pressure on nations that it sees as not complying with the agreement, mentioning the UK, Holland and others specifically.
Perhaps Nutts' offence was highlighting Alan Johnsons impotence in this matter.
(whereas Donaldson was only highlighting discrepancies in UK law)
Funnily enough there is some interesting stuff in the UN Office on Drugs and Crime report 2006 (you will have to google it as it is a pdf) spread across 420 pages in 2 volumes.
JOHN HICKMAN wrote an interesting article in the Baltimore Chronicle about it.
The 2009 report is available as well, a snooze inducing 314 pages which I haven't yet read.
Complain about this comment
Hurrah for Colin Blakemore.
His contribution to Newsnight was very good indeed.
Lord Young's contribution was also very good - but I found his views a little dated and anachronistic.
The time when Government Ministers could do all the work behind closed doors and then tell us, the public, how it is going to be have gone.
Not only is deference to a supposed authority a thing of the past, politicians as a class have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over and over again.
So now they, the politicians, have to explain themselves to us - their employers - clearly, openly, transparently and without obfuscation whenever possible.
Alan Johnson needs to explain precisely why David Nutt was sacked - and why Cannabis is classified as Classs B despite the best scientific advice which clearly indicates it should be Class C.
Ministers now have to explain themselves - or be sacked by their employers. This is an active, participative, democracy - some of us will insist on it being an active, participative democracy - even if the politicians don't like it.
And a half-cheer for the BBC. They are trying to do what an independent media is supposed to do in a democracy. And a bigh hurrah for the BBC's use of Internet technology - there are at least some British institutions living in the 21st Century.
Complain about this comment
BobRocket #57.
"..an interesting article in the Baltimore Chronicle.."
brilliant, thumbs up!
Complain about this comment
43. CommunityCriminal
Want to reduce drug crimes and reduce the likihood of it happening again???
Decriminalize!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
It has been proven. The politicians are only pandering to hysterical opinions.
Complain about this comment
Well I have now read the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report 2009.
Shocking really.
I suggest that Alan Johnson sits down and reads section 2, CONFRONTING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: DRUG CONTROL AND THE CRIMINAL BLACK MARKET
Then we may see some evidence based policy.
Complain about this comment
Reference to UN Offfice of Drug Control is pertinent and highlights the inactions of Governments holding the prohibitionist war on drugs stance.
These ideas originate with religiously motivated individuals and groups with huge mounts of unelected power and influence.(House of Saud, Scandinavians, WASPs etc).
Unelected. Powerful. Influential.
HMMMM.
Complain about this comment
5. At 10:19pm on 02 Nov 2009, jr4412 wrote:
jon112uk #52.
whilst what you say makes sense, you're still defending a corrupt setup, slavers probably had more respect for their chattel than these "bosses" have for us.
=================================
I never said I was willing to defend all their decisions.
One of the things that goes with the 'decision maker' status is that they have to take responsibility for the decision they make.
(The adviser is only responsible for the advice they give)
Complain about this comment
JRMacClure I know the facts and the lies of this government we have worked hard as a community to reduce drug harms and bring about a better living environment, this morning we start the build of a community marketgarden. Last year my wife won an award for safer communities. since the reclassification of cannabis we have seen a rise in crime in street theft 3 knife crimes within 1000 yards of our house. This government and the morons in charge have undone 3 years of very hard work.
no victim no crime is what I work for this government works for many victims and many crimes.
Complain about this comment
The ACMD proposes "that if government decides to reject the advice of an advisory panel, they publish both the original advice and their reasons for not accepting it."
This is of course a brilliantly scientific and logical way forward, so doubtless will not even be considered .... after all it would constrain any future government to act of facts not ideals - neither party would want thta.
This is a highly suitable topic for Question Time - not dugs, but the validity and importance of scientific advice in the political process. The people want more
Complain about this comment
One of the things that goes with the 'decision maker' status is that they have to take responsibility for the decision they make.
This would make Hitler a very good leader would it not after all his armies were damn impressive however you feel about the war.
no our children bear the responsibility of their actions.
Complain about this comment
I have decided I am going to follow the Governments example and disregard the 'advice' of the Government. Cannabis is now legalised in my house...
Complain about this comment
Yay Bansis can I come and have a coffee in peace :)
Complain about this comment
oh Bansis please remember to put up a small notice by your front door stating the UDHR article 18 and ECHR article 9 both give you human rights freedoms to act in accordance to conscience and protect anything that is labeled with such a sign.
Complain about this comment
COULD resign?
Words are cheap. Let's see some action.
I have a horrid feeling that Johnson may (in NuLab's dictatorial way) simply abandon these advisory councils if they don't stump up the evidence the government wants to hear. We'll be ruled by Jacqui-Smith-styled knee-jerking hysteria, emotion, irrationality, with no regard for the public at all.
Labour will continue to force its vision of normality on us in spite of the country being virtually ungovernable and stony broke. Is this violent, broken society with them helpless at the helm what WE want? Will things get better under the Tories?
Still, at least we know we can't trust them. We know their drug "education" is daft - those ads don't scare kids when so few have experienced the heebie-jeebies with cannabis. Since their message is highly suspect, education can't proceed usefully. When we should be telling new users never to mix illicit drugs with alcohol, we know the target audience is hardly going to listen.
So it's almost as if further resignations would be pointless. The experts will be overruled by the postman, the closed-minded autocrat we have for a prime-minister and the various children we have for ministers.
Perhaps, sensing that, no other advisors have resigned.
Complain about this comment
The way I see it so I have no real care if the babylon system wishes to imprison me, is we are in the last throws of babylon cannabis is a pure Christian Medicane which Jesus commanded to be given to the peoples of the world to heal and its triumph is in the end of the bible. So all that stand against the herb of the bible are evil. The daily actions of these Evil people are seen and felt by us all.
Re:22:1: And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Re:22:2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Re:22:3: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Re:22:4: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Re:22:5: And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
Re:22:6: And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Re:22:7: Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Re:22:8: And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Re:22:9: Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
Re:22:10: And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Re:22:11: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Re:22:12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Re:22:13: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Re:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Re:22:15: For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Re:22:16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Re:22:17: And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Re:22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Re:22:19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Re:22:20: He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Re:22:21: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Complain about this comment
LOL the king James Bible is banned from the BBC.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
For me this issue is all about freedom. Freedom of speech without repercussions, freedom to live your life, your way, without being stepped on by the Government. Freedom to make an informed choice without being criminalised. Everyday in this country we are losing our freedom to state control. I think it's about time the worm turned.
Complain about this comment
I don't see what all the fuss is about - governments ignore advice all the time on a whole range of subjects. Nutt had to go - his advice was rejected, got into a strop about it and went bleating to the press whilst still an adviser. It seems to me he almost wanted to be sacked as he is now free to express his opinions.
There is a lot of sanctimonious indignation on these threads only because most posters agree with the views of Nutt. Some people seem to be elevating him to the status of a demi god, when in fact he is only an expert in a field where scientific opinion is very much divided. He came across as very arrogant when he said the argument (i.e. his) was won, thereby proclaiming himself superior to anyone who holds a different view. His fatuous horse riding comparison was a classic strawman argument.
The government also frequently disregards advice from climate change advisers, even though there is a very large majority consensus among scientific experts in the field, much more so than in the drugs field. Now suppose a climate change adviser had said it was essential to double the price of petrol and diesel to combat climate change - the government then rejected the advice but the adviser reacted in the way Nutt did and he was sacked. How many people expressing indignation at Nutt's treatment in these threads would be doing the same in that scenario - I suspect far fewer because most people would not agree with the advice for selfish reasons, even though they are not scientific experts on climate change. In fact, whenever climate change proposals are aired, the blogs and message boards are full of climate change deniers rubbishing the views of the vast majority of scientists in this field, even though most of the deniers are not experts and have simply googled dubious evidence which supports their own views. Scientists are rubbished all the time - so is your indignation only reserved when scientists you agree with are rubbished?
Next year there will be a general election when you can vote out the government if you feel strongly on this issue. As the Tories hold much the same views on drugs, I assume most of you will be voting Lib Dem. Going by these threads it should be a landslide win for the Lib Dems!
Complain about this comment
#21:
What an excellent post! Well said!
Trouble is, most reporters don't have any science qualifications and so don't know which point of view should carry more weight, so they just give equal weight to informed and uninformed arguments. There are some honourable exceptions of course, like Ben Goldacre, but sadly they are in a tiny minority.
Complain about this comment
Thats it you may remove the 2nd rant on KJB.
The tree of life
12 friuts of use it is damn versitile ait it.
effects the frontal lobes or the forehead.(our main fear with children using it)
How did a book writen 1500 years ago know about the effect on the frontal lobes of the brain or the forehead.
Complain about this comment
ComunityCriminal, are you like a crazy person? Do try to be coherant please.
50. At 8:47pm on 02 Nov 2009, bigsammyb
Fully aware of and agree with pretty much everything you say.
My point is still relevant though, most people in Britian that smoke cannabis smoke it with tobacco.
I'm not saying thats a reason it should be banned, I'm not even saying its a significant problem nor am I saying people shouldn't smoke it.
I'm saying it's one of the only problems there is with cannabis use and one of the only reasons that cannabis ranks as highly on the danger list as it does. Considering its fairly low down on the list to start with, removing the tobacco element would make it pretty safe.
Taking that into consideration, why did they upgrade it?
It's not because cannabis leads to harder drugs, trust me it doesn't. The only reason people think it does is that sometimes cannabis dealers are seriously dodgey people that deal in other drugs. In my experience its the opposite that is true, harder drugs lead to cannabis use.
Complain about this comment
75. At 11:29am on 03 Nov 2009, amazingHampshireHog
You hit the nail on the head in the first sentence. Goverments constantly ignore scientific advise from people who have devoted their entire life to understanding the area they advise on. Its ludicrous and needs to change sooner than later. If goverments actually listened to experts instead of populist arguments from people who dont understand the facts the world would be a much better place.
I'm reminded of the classic Yes Minister episode where Hacker stops a company developing a chemical because it has a similar name to a chemical that caused a disaster and the press have jumped on the story. Even though there are scientific reports showing its perfectly safe and it would have put millions into the economy.
It happens all the time and it one of the biggest problems with the way our political system works. Politicians make the decisions that please the most people, and people have their oppinions altered by the press stories which frequently dont understand or missrepresent the facts.
Complain about this comment
Yes thanks and doing well ;)Not my fault i was brought up with the Church of England and I believe in the track of history it sets out that I enjoy the archaeology of our lives and the science that brings about these things.
That I'm not afraid to express full thought without worrying about what people think of my content. Or is Christian belief not allowed to be part of this argument?
A lot of Christians believe Obama is the 'thief in the night' but that's another matter.
Complain about this comment
#79
Politicians make the decisions that please the most people, and people have their oppinions altered by the press stories which frequently dont understand or missrepresent the facts.
=======================================================
Wholeheartedly agree with this. Do we really want our lives, society run in this fashion. The press/media have a lot to answer for on this score - but all they are interested in is sales/viewing figures.
By the way, the No.10 petition to reinstate Prof Nutt is now up to 1,988. If you feel strongly about this please sign up.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Has this Government got Nutts?
Apparently not.
Complain about this comment
@75...'his advice was rejected, got into a strop about it and went bleating to the press'.
Well in fact Prof Nutt's advice wasn't even listened too, Gordon Brown changed the law without advice from the ACMD. He didn't go 'bleating' to the press, he wrote in an academic paper and gave a talk to a group of fellow academia. The problem is peoples beliefs blind fact.
Complain about this comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/03/david-nutt-drugs-policy
Dave says his part
Complain about this comment
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23763767-gordon-brown-im-right-to-overrule-drug-advisers.do
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal.
Thx for the link that was a very interesting article. I loved the last bit...
'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."'....
The intelligent parts of society are up against an impregnable wall of stupidity and ignorance.
Complain about this comment
Colonicus42 thanks for the nutter response to my post from the bible stating personal belief about an age old subject now you see how we feel about ~Mr A jointSon Complete raving lunatic :)
Complain about this comment
Me to was a classic case of intelligence V's Moronic Perspectives.
Complain about this comment
bansis #87.
yes, adding my thanks to CommunityCriminal and #86.
"The intelligent parts of society are up against an impregnable wall of stupidity and ignorance."
methinks you left out willfulness!
Complain about this comment
Even the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government agrees with Prof Nutt's view of cannabis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8340318.stm
Complain about this comment
“It is the human meaning and the social role of science, its military and commercial issue, its political significance that are undergoing confused re-appraisal.”
From C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination 1959
And 40 years on the "confused reappraisal" continues. In fact, the ACMD is more than a group of scientists - it also includes social scientists, police officers, a judge,people who have managed drug treatment agencies and experts in drug prevention and education. Their range of expertise informs the Council's discussions and recommendations.
Complain about this comment
#88 CommunityCriminal
Sorry, it was ment as a friendly digg, not the pretentious backhand it came out as.
I think the problem we face is that there is a public conception that a few beers or a glass of whiskey is a decent and acceptable thing to do. But taking MDMA before a night out or smoking cannabis with friends to relax of an evening is deviant behaviour and unacceptable. Both are bad for you, I don't think many would deny that, and alcohol is much worse than most drugs. To suggest that one should be illegal, or more illegal, than another based purely on public conceptions is wrong. The facts have to be taken into account and the real world implications of those facts.
Look at civil partnerships for example, there was a section of the public that held the conception that they were bad, but they were justifiably ignored because of the 'facts' of the matter. Admitedly it was a smaller section of the public that held those views, but the principle is the same. Public preconceptions should be ignored when making policy if the preconceptions go against the facts of the matter.
Complain about this comment
Could anyone out there provide some evidence that alcohol use is less harmful than cannabis use ?
I spent some time last night and today trying to find any evidence for this but all I could find was research showing that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis so if anyone has any links they could provide showing any evidence to the contrary I'd very much appreciate it.
Complain about this comment
Why did Eddie Ellison, the former operational head of Scotland Yard's Drug Squad, argue for legalisation of all drugs?
Find out at:
http://eddie.gn.apc.org/index.php?pID=1
Complain about this comment
Eric Carlin, your comment is spot on. Over the last few days I've heard johnson and other politicians across the board (bar Chris Huhne) all say that the ACMD's evidence is based purely on science and they dont take into account the social aspects of drug harm (which prof Nutt's matrix of harm does in fact do), yet as you say there are police officers drug treatment experts and scientists, these are the people who are in the best place to judge social problems drugs cause. They give a rounded opinion on drug law not just a scientific one. The politicians confuse the mis-informed public opinion for social I think...
Complain about this comment
The question actually has to come to mind is our government now educated well enough to cope with the 21st century do they understand the information given to them. Do they understand the social effects.
Were I live we are feeling it as I said last night my son was mugged 1000 yards away from the house at knife point the week before a stabbing at the bottom of my road again less than 1500 yards away. This has only started again in the area during the B phase of cannabis before this we had year on year falls in crime within our direct community. With lack of evidence such cases are never solved CID gave a 90% figure of failure to prosecute in such cases to my son after he went to the ID this afternoon.
Complain about this comment
Jack....
'Could anyone out there provide some evidence that alcohol use is less harmful than cannabis use'
thats the point, that is what makes some of use angry over the hypocrisy of their law, there is not a shred of evidence to prove alcohol is safer than cannabis. That is why the anti cannabis lobby always come up with the 'cannabis makes you crazy, leads too harder drugs and kills you rubbish'..for the sakes of our children we need an itelligent fact based debate over drug classification where we and the experts are listened too by the politicians, and not just shouted down or sacked...
Complain about this comment
HaHa No worries Colonicus42
thats just the way things are with Headlines is it not ? ;) you know when someone makes a stament that dosen't fit the true picture of things :)
Complain about this comment
Wont it be a bugger if they have to publish experts advice as it will mean that they cant say "XYZ is banned and all the experts agree with me". it will be a new experience for politicians to have to tell the truth .
Complain about this comment
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/11/03/backing-for-drug-expert-s-revolt-91466-25075351/
Complain about this comment
The present government responds more readily to headlines in the popular press than to carefully considered advice from expert committees. The truth is that they are afraid of the tabloids.
It is not surprising that the result has been that very little progress has been made towards solving the problems of drug misuse, alcohol abuse, crime, multiple deprivation, etc. When the election comes, New Labour will probably pay the price of disappointing their former supporters.
The agendas of the tabloids and their owners, have no relevance to solving these problems But they have the power to make or break governments, because of their abilty to influence many voters in the crucial middle ground
Something should be done about this. At least newspapers should be required to be truthful. Ideally they should also be required to follow the same rules as radio and TV and maintain a reasonable balance.
Complain about this comment
What i really don't understand is why the government ignore the statisics.
When they made cannabis class C cananbis use dropped significantly. When they changed it back to B use increased significantly.
In every single country in europe that has decriminalised cannabis and other drugs the results have been staggering, to the point where the dutch have to close down prisons becuase they don't have enough in mates to fill them!
Why doesn't the government publish a report than go on TV and explain scientifically why they have kept cannabis at class B? Why don't they provide there own findings as to why they have done this? All i have heard so far is anecdotal evidence based on presumption and ignorance.
So come on Alan Johnson, stand on national TV and explain to the people of this country why you think you know better than a council made up of scientists, the police and health experts?
Complain about this comment
bansis #96
That's a very good point.
Politicians and many parts of the media are making the ACMD advice out to be some abstract or theoretical scientific data presented by people with no experience of the real world.
A full list of the ACMD panel can be found here:
http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/about-us/committees-and-members/list-members/
It includes a Deputy Chief Constable, a Judge, Psychologists, School Inspectors and many other members who appear to have lots of experience of the real world effects that drugs and prohibition has on our society.
Complain about this comment
The scientific body gathered evidence and established clear facts from it's findings.
No government wants to be seen as soft on drugs (or smoking which is the common method of taking cannabis), so cannabis was never likely to be legalized even though it should be.
But Government should accept the evidence and reclassify the drug appropriate to the evidence presented.
To refute the findings because they don't like the facts merely shows cowardice and is a disservice to the public, but to insist on the sacking of the scientific experts themselves is shameful.
Complain about this comment
"The Advisory Council recommended the reclassification of all Cannabis preparations from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It concluded that the classification of Cannabis as a Class B drug was disproportionate both in relation to it inherent toxicity and to that of other Class B substances (such as amphetamine). However, in making its recommendation the Advisory Council wished it to be clearly understood that Cannabis was unquestionably harmful and it was anxious that the dangers associated with the use of Cannabis were widely known."
Date: Mon Mar 31 14:51:38 BST 2003
http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/cannabis-class-misuse-drugs-act
"Although cannabis is unquestionably harmful, its harmfulness does not equate to that of other Class B substances either at the level of the individual or of society."
Date: Thu Jan 19 13:20:50 GMT 2006
http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/cannabis-reclass-2005
Selected quotes from the ACMD: Cannabis: Classification and Public Health (2008) paper
"The most worrying individual harms are the effects on mental health
but, since the (ACMD) Council’s previous review the evidence has become more,rather than less, confused. Although there is a consistent (though weak) association, from longitudinal studies, between cannabis use and the development of psychotic illness, this is not reflected in the available evidence on the incidence of psychotic conditions. The most likely (but not the only) explanation is that cannabis – in the population as a whole plays only a modest role in the development of these conditions."
"Evidence about the social harms associated with cannabis is clearer.
Despite public anxieties, there is little real evidence that cannabis is a significant cause of acquisitive crime or of anti-social behaviour."
"Decisions about advising on classification must, ultimately, be based on the Council’s collective judgement about the relative harmfulness of
substances within, and between, classes. On balance, taking into
account the totality of the relevant issues and very mindful of the actual and potential harms, the majority of the Council advises that cannabis and the cannabinols remain in Class C."
I can't link directly to the PDF but you can read the whole report as a PDF, the link for that can be found here: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/acmd-cannabis-report-2008
Complain about this comment
bigsammy, the only science that has been used by the 'allegedly immoral' jaqui smith, alan johnson, gordon brown and all the rest of the politicians since 1928ish, is the science of misinformation. They have become experts in it. Recently it has gone from misinformation to outright lies and scare tactics, as Prof Nutt quite rightly pointed out. Do you think they are stupid enough to go on TV and make their outrageous claims. As of yet I still havent heard the evidence that proves cannabis is harmful, smoking it may cause lung cancer but that is an indirect harm from tobacco plus there are other methods of ingestion that dont cause harm like eating it (oh yeah sorry you may choke on it), and the link between mental disorders and cannabis is very vague and still hasnt been proven. As far as I can see it the dangers from cannabis come from the fact you could be arrested by the police, you dont know what is actually in your spliff, could be rat poison for all you know, you fund criminal activity and maybe you could get hurt in gang related violence connected to cannabis(im clutching at straws here), all harms that the law has created, who created the law, shouldn't they be held responsible for all the harms drugs cause, oh it was politicians.
Complain about this comment
I think alot of the anti-cannabis crowd need to try before they judge. If they sat around with a few mates, smoking (not an insane amount, to experience the most extreame effects) for a few hours and having a chat and a laugh with their friends they might realise that its not all that bad. The problem is whenever one of them does they go out of their way to get smashed and experience the halucinations (which are rare and easy to deal with) and end up feeling sick and not enjoying it.
Would you introduce someone to alcohol by giving them a half pint of vodka to neck?
There needs to be some rational debate, and we need to cut out the scare tactics.
Complain about this comment
Professor Andrew Parrott, who is regarded as one of the country's leading experts on ecstasy said that "nearly every statement Nutt made about the effects of ecstasy was incorrect" and "displayed a staggering disregard for the empirical evidence" which showed that ecstasy was at least as powerful as cocaine.
Furthermore, the Government’s own National Director for Mental Health, Professor Louis Appleby, told the Advisory Council last year that cannabis should be reclassified as more harmful because there was now sufficient evidence that it could contribute to a pattern of relapse and risk in mental health patients.
It's very easy to get swept along by the media storm, but as in many situations, digging a little deeper shows in this case that Professor Nutt is not necessarily as expert as he may seem to be.
Complain about this comment
glynderi, I never heard Prof Nutt arguing that the effects of ecstasy were any less powerful as some thing like cocaine. Some might argue its even the other way round especially with regards too MDMA, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. His comments were made about the dangers of Ecstasy, and comparing them too horse riding. Should the effect of something on you affect it's legality?, should we ban Christmas as it makes millions of children extremely excitable?. Obviously we have laws too deal with these types of issues in certain situations, they are called driving whilst under the influence. We shouldn't be legally classifying some thing because it makes you feel happy.
Complain about this comment
right effects on the brain is measured in effect on the synaptic highways how receptors are effected. not on percentage of strength of drug
The process of getting drunk involves all the synaptic centres for all drugs combined in the effects upon the brain and the chemical balances involved in getting intoxicated.
in order for Professor Andrew Parrot who is an expert in E to say that its effects were as strong as cocaine he would have to have the same expertise in cocaine? or can that be based on casual link of classification?
Complain about this comment
Re comment 109, glynderi
"the Government’s own National Director for Mental Health, Professor Louis Appleby, told the Advisory Council last year that cannabis should be reclassified as more harmful because there was now sufficient evidence that it could contribute to a pattern of relapse and risk in mental health patients."
That "evidence" is not evidence - it is just the flawed speculation of Psychiatrists and their fanatical mental health lobby.
One thing that really needs to be clearly understood and stated in all of this debate is that mental health workers, Psychiatrists, even Professor's of Psychiatry, are absolutely NOT scientists.
Psychiatry is NOT a science - it is a theory, based on and supposidely proven by clinical observation and deduction. Basically it's assumptions based on observations.
The problem is that Psychiatries clinical observations and deductions are fundamentally flawed and even criminally abusive. They are over-assuming, polluted, and self-fulfilling. The BBC's own Horizon program late in 2008 showed that top Professors from the Royal College of Psychiatry made massive over-assumptions in their observations, and they actually, on television, misdiagnosed someone as being schizophrenic who wasn't and who actually had nothing wrong with them at all.
And Psychiatries over-assumptions really are criminal - according to the 2005 Capacity Act that came fully into law in 2007, Psychiatrists are legally obliged to properly and fully understand a patients situation and background. NHS Psychiatrists don't investigate or properly understand anything about their patients, they just make massive over-assumptions and jump to premature conclusions. Psychiatrists who come across people temporarily intoxicated on pot, without giving those people any proper opportunity to recover at all, just diagnose them as being psychotic and therefore of having schizo-effective disorder, and they immediately force anti-psychotic medication on them for the rest of their lives to make them 'compliant', medication that retards and disables them. If the patient tries to stop the anti-psychotic medication that is chemically leubotimising them, the Psychiatrists claim the person is 'non-compliant', is therefore deteriorating and 'relapsing', and they force the anti-psychotic medication on them again - and so on, for ever. In terms of pot, NHS Psychiatry is one enormous fraud and is nothing but a gulag. As standard a thing, Psychiatry and NHS Mental Health Services misdiagnose temporary intoxication from drugs / drug induced psychosis, as severe inherent mental illness. It's like saying someone who is drunk on alcohol is schizophrenic, and that if you have a propensity for alcohol to make you drunk, then you have a propensity for schizophrenia. It's just laughable.
NHS Psychiatrists and Mental Health Servcies are behaving like the Police, the Court, the Judge, and the Jury, all at the same time. It is entirely self-policing and it is entirely corrupt. The simple truth is that Psychiatrists & NHS Mental Health Services are a form of Police etc, and consequently they should be working to PACE Guidelines (Police and Criminal Evidence Act).
And in terms of this debate, Psychiatrists and NHS Mental Health Services testimony cannot have any validity at all, not until they are regulated by PACE style guidelines.
Complain about this comment
from page 7 of the governments reponce to cannabis classification and public health.
'research on the biological mechanisms involved in
cannabis addiction, its consequences and potential
treatments.'
Treatment for cannabis addiction is death strangly enough we naturaly run on the same stuff. :) cystic fybrosos is a fault in a cannaboid receptor CB1 what illness will they cause as they try to cure the body of cannabinoids.
Complain about this comment
Drinkers get VAT New Year break
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8340923.stm
good move by the treasury convince the public that its cheap booze new years on them, I wonder what the tax will be on all the extra cheap pints n spirits for that period against the savings for the tax payer. or will the feeling to drink up before it gets more expensive actually land a larger bill to maintaining public order and medical treatment for all those that have the extra one on the chancellor this new years eve.?
Good thinking towards public health.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This government and all past governments are the biggest drug pushers in all this.
In 1958 Macmillan,then chancellor was provided with evidence (by government advisers) of the serious dangers of smoking tobacco,he wrote to the prime minister,stating that if this information was released to the public then people would stop smoking and consequently income tax would have to increase by 17d in the pound,this would of course,do them no good at the next election,this evidence was suppressed and the consumption of tobacco continued at the same rate.
Given that a high percentage of cannabis smokers are already tobacco smokers,it was the government who provided the "starter drug" in the first place,sold in packs of 5,and sometimes packs of 2,affordable for teenagers at the time,the government continued to recruit new smokers and keep the revenues rolling in.
As for legalizing cannabis,it wont happen in the near future and I dont know if I even care about that any more,some friends of mine have just returned from Holland where it is legal, and they were paying more for the legal stuff than we're paying for the illegal stuff,the only advantage being,that if it doesn't work very well,you can take it back and get a refund with consumer rights legislation.
Complain about this comment
I'm bored of being a "criminal". I have never mugged, robbed or stolen from anyone. I work hard and pay taxes. Why do I live in fear of being 'caught'?
Complain about this comment
slightlyallthetime is weed legal in Holland or just decriminalised in certain zones. I know they only allow a certain amount of 'cannabis bars' too open in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, so maybe the ones that operate have a monopoly over prices as competition isn't big. Drug policy shouldn't be concerned with prices imo. It should protect society, and our laws are not, drug crime is rife, children are targeted and drug users are being put at risk. The only solution I believe is legalisation, then the monopolies commission could regulate prices.
Complain about this comment
Its worth thinking about the post election CUTS,
PM "Is there any where u can find cuts?"
Home Sec, "Well Yes there are a few very expensive advisors that we set up for PR reasions but always ignore, I'm sure we can come up with some excuse to sake the lot of them and not appear like we are doing a U turn."
Complain about this comment
Drinkers get VAT New Year break...Great news for the Government licensed drug dealers, not for me as I will probably foot the bill but hey do I care, I will be sat in the safety of my house no nuisance drunks trying to accost me, rolling a...
Complain about this comment
Re,118,bansis.I'm not sure to tell you the truth,I thought it was legal in Holland,you can buy it over the counter in the cafes and sit beside the canals and smoke it without fear of being busted,which sounds like legal to me,but you may be right,it may just be decriminalised,my friend who visted Amsterdam recently told me he wanted to buy a single joint from a cafe and was asked for 12 euros,he complained and got the price reduced to 3 euros,which still sounds expensive to me.
And I do agree that it should be legal and kept out of the hands of unscrupulous dealers,targeting children,but can you see this lot in government doing that,or the next lot for that matter.
Governments just refuse to see the truth,or believe any evidence that is contrary to their already pre conceived positions.If all the money that was generated by the illegal drug trade was taken out of the financial markets then we'd have a stock market melt down of gigantic proportions,I read somewhere some years ago that 80% of the paper money circulating in London had traces of cocaine on it,so it would appear that the whole system is embroiled in the drug trade,it has the facade of respectability but underneath lurks the criminal element,politely ignored by those who are making loads of money out of it.
I've been waiting for 40 years for cannabis to be legalized and I dont think I'll see it in my lifetime,in the early 70's,Rothmans even designed a packet to house tobacco/cannabis cigarettes when it was thought that legalisation was imminent,and here we are 40 years on and no nearer to legislation,that's why I no longer care if it's legalized or not,I'll carry on smoking it and so will everyone else,it's a far more suitable drug for today's financial climate,remembering the old phrase..."Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope".
Complain about this comment
Long live freedom of speech.
Long live democracy.
Just don't expect it to be fair.
Complain about this comment
Govt should not prevent scientists discussing their theories and data within the Public Realm - as *in a democracy* it is ultimately the PEOPLE who decide upon such matters - and they must have accurate information.
the fact that Johnson is apparently unaware that it is WE who employ HIM, is yet another disgusting example of the culture of arrogance, ineptitude, and gross political ignorance that has turned this country (or at the very least our supposed "masters, rulers and 'elites'") into a laughing-stock across so much of the world.
extra commentary in the comments here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2007/07/drugs-cannabis-gordon-brown
Complain about this comment
bansis & slightlyallthetime
Cannabis is decriminalised in Holland, not legalised.
In my experience the price of cannabis in Holland is higher than in the UK but the quality is far higher too.
Many British people who have only ever smoked resin or low quality home-grown cannabis go to Amsterdam and are shocked at the prices, this is because they pay a relatively low price for their very low quality cannabis at home and also because Amsterdam is a tourist city so the prices are higher there than in other parts of the country.
For example, you can get an ounce (28 grams) of resin for about 40 pounds where I live whereas you are likely to pay about the same amount for a quarter ounce (7.5 grams) of White Widow or Purple Haze in an Amsterdam coffee shop.
To be fair though, good quality Thai Stick is selling for about 120 an ounce round here at the moment and this is about the same price you'd pay for it in Amsterdam, it's just that relatively few cannabis users in the UK are able to get hold of such good quality cannabis and are restricted to resin or low quality home-grown as that is all that is available where they live.
Most seasoned visitors tend to stick to Utrecht as you get far fewer tourists, lower prices and a more homely feel to the coffee shops and bars that are selling cannabis.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal wrote:
"well actualy as a cannabis smoker i have the same lung capacity as a none smoker and the same force volume as a none smoker which im afraid is a science fact not speculated fiction based on comparative drug coctailing".
You may believe that. Others take an opposite view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7217601.stm
The fact is that if you smoke enough cannabis (and tobacco) to really cause you severe lung and ciculatory illness, it will be too late for you to do anything about it. Your best chance of a longer healthy life may well be keeping cannabis illegal and expensive which restricts your consumption to a level that does you far less harm.
Complain about this comment
The fact is that if you smoke enough cannabis (and tobacco) to really cause you severe lung and circulatory illness, it will be too late for you to do anything about it.
you mean abuse it like an alcoholic would ?
smoking cannabis in vaporizers has no carcinogenic materials as its the natural oils cold in most cases that your inhaling, if inhaling natural oils is bad for you then please call for an immediate ban on all home air fresheners that use perfumes.Water bongs cool the smoke rapidly and also removes a percentage of the carcinogenic material hence why you have to change the bong water daily.
You can not ban cannabis that's a very silly idea its a natural plant of the same family as hops which is what we get beer from, its also a powerful sedative hops that is.
Also by keeping cannabis banned you move very green technology from the available to use list to the pity we cant use that list. One drop of water keeping an ocean of cheap renewable fuels and technologies banned
Complain about this comment
This is well worth a read...
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-very-worst-policy-to-combat-drugs-456871.html
When will polytrickians get the facts right and stop with myths, get the science right.
Complain about this comment
busby2 funny thing you say there keep it illegal will reduce what i can smoke.
Lets see its ILLEGAL i can get it any day of the week I smoke it every day of the week in place of high level anti depressants. So please how will this help this keeping it illegal. If I as an adult with my limited social contact and circle of friends can do with with little or no trouble, how easy do you think it is for a 13 - 15 year old to get hold of considering the circle of friends/people to communicate with they have?
Your last conclusion on smoking also included tobacco which i fully understand the danger of so its not credible evidence as combined drug use is being observed.
Complain about this comment
Seems the prof's inbox got a bit full public backing is overwhelming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8343004.stm
Nutt announces new drugs body if the current one fails to find satisfaction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8342454.stm
Complain about this comment
#112. At 9:46pm on 03 Nov 2009, Luminous-Layne wrote:
"Psychiatry is NOT a science - it is a theory, based on and supposidely proven by clinical observation and deduction. Basically it's assumptions based on observations.
The problem is that Psychiatries clinical observations and deductions are fundamentally flawed and even criminally abusive. They are over-assuming, polluted, and self-fulfilling. The BBC's own Horizon program late in 2008 showed that top Professors from the Royal College of Psychiatry made massive over-assumptions in their observations, and they actually, on television, misdiagnosed someone as being schizophrenic who wasn't and who actually had nothing wrong with them at all.
And Psychiatries over-assumptions really are criminal - according to the 2005 Capacity Act that came fully into law in 2007, Psychiatrists are legally obliged to properly and fully understand a patients situation and background. NHS Psychiatrists don't investigate or properly understand anything about their patients, they just make massive over-assumptions and jump to premature conclusions. Psychiatrists who come across people temporarily intoxicated on pot, without giving those people any proper opportunity to recover at all, just diagnose them as being psychotic and therefore of having schizo-effective disorder, and they immediately force anti-psychotic medication on them for the rest of their lives to make them 'compliant', medication that retards and disables them. If the patient tries to stop the anti-psychotic medication that is chemically leubotimising them, the Psychiatrists claim the person is 'non-compliant', is therefore deteriorating and 'relapsing', and they force the anti-psychotic medication on them again - and so on, for ever. In terms of pot, NHS Psychiatry is one enormous fraud and is nothing but a gulag. As standard a thing, Psychiatry and NHS Mental Health Services misdiagnose temporary intoxication from drugs / drug induced psychosis, as severe inherent mental illness. It's like saying someone who is drunk on alcohol is schizophrenic, and that if you have a propensity for alcohol to make you drunk, then you have a propensity for schizophrenia. It's just laughable."
= = = = = = = = = =
I agree 100%. It's amazing what they actually get away with. They've found a few miracle drugs that alter or suppress symptoms then ride on the back of them to claim they can rationalize everything about spirit-body-mind.
One needs to steer very clear of them. Psychiatry/psychology and whatever are no sciences anyway, simply because the experimenter/observer features too strongly in the outcome of any 'test'. As you say, they are observers only. They are still at the medieval stage of development.
It's obvious why - they can't get to the data in patients - that is, actual experiences which are beyond words simply because there is no experiential vocabulary. At best they're black-box merchants except they expect their speculations about what's in the black box to be treated as gospel.
Look at their record: ECT, Frontal Lobotomies; Clitterectomies... not so long ago either. Barbaric
One thing that's certain: if you're sane and mix with them you'll soon go mad.
Complain about this comment
"Psychiatry is NOT a science - it is a theory, based on and supposidely proven by clinical observation and deduction of a cocaine user.
One thing that's certain: if you're sane and mix with them you'll soon go mad.
to damn right the drugs these people use are horrific and cause more health problems than they fix.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, the single greatest failing of governments over the decades is failing to build and enlarge the base needed to strengthen democracy. Thee is neither desire nor foresight to educate people to judge for themselves and give them the enthusiasm to want to know more. Instead, politicians and public servants are keener on power, surveillance, control, spin, deception, secrecy, self-importance, self-congratulations and self-interests. So the society have slowly become reactionary without digested, informed judgment. They believe and act as if they need the rst of us only for blood, sweat and tear as they see fit.
Remember the story of "The soldier and his horse" by Aesop ?
There is no need for private advisers. Let scientists publish and air their opinions from which everyone can access and make their own judgements.
Complain about this comment
The new Drug war begins :)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6903660.ece
Gets my vote
Complain about this comment
"125. At 5:12pm on 04 Nov 2009, busby2 wrote:
CommunityCriminal wrote:
"well actualy as a cannabis smoker i have the same lung capacity as a none smoker and the same force volume as a none smoker which im afraid is a science fact not speculated fiction based on comparative drug coctailing.
You may believe that.
The fact is that if you smoke enough cannabis (and tobacco) to really cause you severe lung and ciculatory illness, it will be too late for you to do anything about it. Your best chance of a longer healthy life may well be keeping cannabis illegal and expensive which restricts your consumption to a level that does you far less harm.
Ok, so lets ban tobacco as well then. It's more harmfull after all. Thats the whole point of the Profs argument!!!! Cannabis isn't as harmfull as many legal drugs so why should it have been upgraded. As ComunityCriminal has been saying you don't have to smoke cannabis with tobacco (although most do admitidly).
If your argument is that if a drug is abused it should be banned then we should ban pretty much everything, including caffine and sugar.
Complain about this comment
ACMD should be scrapped and a body that deals with the matter in a socially responsible way given the powers to advise..you see most people do not want an ever increasing number of drug or alcohol addicts ...so control has to come from somewhere since we are mere humans we do not have the power to control ourselves so that control has to come from somewhere
Complain about this comment
Threatening to resign - you wouldn't need to try this as blackmail if you had a decent boss because they would already value your opinion and work!
Why did this letter appear at the BBC courtesy of one of the advisory group? I don't have any issue with it being published here, but I'm curious as to the reason a confidential letter which states it is to be for the eyes of Alan Johnson only suddenly ends up in the public domain......!
I agree with other posters that the need for the government to justify their rejection of the advice is crucial. (Hasn't Alan Johnson already said that he chose not to take the advice given for moral reasons on behalf of voters? Which ones are they exactly? Would these be the same ones who won't vote because they're so disillusioned with the whole political animal regardless of party? Frankly Mr Johnson, I think most people would far rather your party did something about anti social behaviour in ALL walks of life. Given the on-going rumblings over expenses, I am not convinced that many MP's have a grasp of the whole moral concept thing anyway!)
Also, if this requirement to explain why advice was rejected, I'm sure there are any number of advisory reports that don't sit happily with the government. I have to ask - the recent Cambridge report on education - were they advisors or independents?
I'm sure Professor Nutt and co are passionate about their advisory roles, and the government take their governing role just as seriously. However, this whole furore is really getting out of hand. It's a bit like my daughter sacking me as her mother because she didn't take my advice and I told my best friend so. Follow that with her father resigning in support of me being sacked!
This is totally ridiculous - a family row in the public domain. Yes it's a principle at stake here, but ultimately I see nothing wrong with a polite
'Thank you for your advice. I have decided not to take it on this occasion because there really is a much bigger picture to consider, despite all the evidence to the contrary'
followed by
'I think you should take my advice because...xyz....I will tell others about the evidence, but if you choose not to follow the advice I have given, that's your decision'
and finally, to end the conversation:
'I respect your superior knowledge and thank you again'
'You're welcome - I respect your choice to act (or not) on my advice'
They should stop brow beating each other over this - it's ridiculous!
Complain about this comment
Another PR disaster for Gordon Brown and his team. Can't they manage their own advisors better than this? To get to the point of public mud slinging is just inept.
These advisory council members are unpaid volunteers with professional lives outside of their council roles. So I don't see they can be expected to forgo their independence and the expression of their personal opinions to toe the government line at all times. They are independent advisors and need to be managed as such, not sacked on a whim because of something they said at dinner.
Complain about this comment
Re Oldsitkaspruce & comment #135 "we are mere humans we do not have the power to control ourselves so that control has to come from somewhere"
That is honestly one of most disgusting, appalling, & facsist points of view I've ever seen in my life. Apparently we can only be free if we have someone to tell us exactly what to do & who to be!
I think it was Tatitus who said something like "The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise". Our Government & establishment are fear driven, consequently they are properly degenerate, and they stand in the way of the shining light this country could and should be.
Complain about this comment
Fraid Luminous Layne thats the way the cookie crumbles and are you a prime example of the free spirited ?
Complain about this comment
Luminous-Layne, its the likes of Oldsitkaspruce alan johnson is pandering too by sacking Prof Nutt. Imo these types of people are the biggest threat too our freedom. “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.” A Lincoln.
Complain about this comment
oldsitkaspruce @135 and 139
Ok lets set out your views in practice then.
Currently banned substances stay banned, no doubt with tougher sentences for possession and dealing.
Tobacco and Alcohol get banned, after all "we are mere humans we do not have the power to control ourselves so that control has to come from somewhere". I suppose it wouldn't bother you if simply being in possession of a bottle of beer meant a potential 2 year prison sentence.
Looking further afield, caffeine, many people drink too much Tea and Coffee and are addicted to caffeine. It is proven to detrimentally effect you short term memory and hand eye coordination. There are health implications to your kidneys etc from excessive consumption. So maybe caffeine should be a class C drug.
Sugar, causes obesity and tooth decay when 'abused', so should be banned or possibly regulated to the degree that tobacco is currently.
Fatty foods, again regulation to the level of tobacco.
What about sex, after all "we are mere humans we do not have the power to control ourselves so that control has to come from somewhere" right? So you have to apply for permission to have sex, everyone has to have screening every month for STDs etc. Sex without using STD protection should be a criminal offence.
How about regulation about who can have kids.
What about extreme sports, surely they should all be banned, "we are mere humans we do not have the power to control ourselves so that control has to come from somewhere", right?
Your stance is pointless and so full of holes even a child could counter your argument.
What, pray tell, is 'socially responsible'? I suppose you mean conforming to what is socially accepted.
So is being a Goth socially responsible?
What about having pink/green/blue hair?
How about being gay?
If we never challenged what is socially accepted then we'd still be living by Victorian values and never having any fun.
I'm fairly sure that pretty much everyone who is pro-legalisation would want more addicts. Nobody wants to see people addicted to anything. But the legalisation argument does provide help for addicts through the tax revenue made from the newly legalised drugs. Plus there would be less money for organised crime, less street crime to fund addictions etc. etc. the list of benefits is huge. I've no doubt that the list of detriments is just as long.
The argument is that if something is relatively safe compared to legal drugs, why was it upgrade to class B against the advice of experts? It doesn't make sense. If you can come up with a decent argument I'd love to hear it, but keep your fascist 'ban everything bad for you' attitude to yourself.
Complain about this comment
Funny that most people seem to be comparing Controlled Flowers (Hemp, Opium) to Ethanol (Alcohol)..Is the reason these powerful plants were made illegal in the first place because someone managed to synthesize the pain revieving qualities of these plants ? and then Patent them..I believe co-proxomol killed thousands of people before it was quietly removed from the shelves after decades and much profit as the populace no longer is allowed their genetic or "God given" right to the pain relief we have all evoloved with!
A War on Medicines does not sound so Honorable
Complain about this comment
142. At 12:59pm on 06 Nov 2009, Observation2
Good point.
Something some people don't know is that 'Heroin' is (well was initially) a trademarked name for the substance. It was used as a pain relief untill the addictive nature was noted and then the drug 'morphine' was synthesised to perform the same function with, unless I'm mistaken, pretty much the same active compound.
Complain about this comment
Morphine, Codeine and Heroin are all opiates that come from the same poppy. Two of them the WHO class as essential too human life...
Complain about this comment
Heroin is now(again) a legally prescribed drug in the UK, under its 'trade name' of a trade name diamorphine. The 3 recent heroin prescription trials showed crimes committed by addicts dropped by two thirds. Draconian controls just don't work, and our attempts too control others have proved it.
Complain about this comment
Time to see what your MP stands for.
Early Day Motion
EDM 2244 POLICYMAKING ON DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39505&SESSION=899
Complain about this comment
There are very serious implications to all this.
The ACMD is a statutory body- the Government is obliged to maintain it. Already, it is in breach of its charter by not having a senior pharmacologist.
If the ACMD can no longer function, the statute which requires it, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cannot function either.
There are 10,000 people in jail under this Act. The taxpayer has funded the Act with untold generosity over the years, as a gigantic and failed effort has been made to apply it. Or, to be precise, misapply it, as the exemptions from classification of alcohol and tobacco have never had a legal foundation.
A tiny group of discredited and unpopular politicians have brought this long- standing statute to the edge of extinction. They have done this against the strong current of public opinion, against the better interests of the people, and in total repudiation of any notion good governance.
The Government is acting in utter contempt of the Law.
The principal behind the Misuse of Drugs Act is one which commands general approval. It is that the classifications of drugs should correspond to the drugs' capacities to do harm. The idea is to protect the health of the public. This is the core principal that the Government is actively rejecting. Both Labour and the Tories have some higher priority than your health and mine. We have yet to hear what that higher priority is. Nutt was getting dangerously close to asking, and that's why he was sacked.
They have contempt for our Law, and they have contempt for our health. It's treason.
Complain about this comment
Professor nutt made the mistake of taking a dispassionate scientific view based on facts, this did not agree with NuLabours need to take a moral view on drugs that has no basis in science or facts.
They have done the same with smoking, to be sure smoking kills people, but only the smoker, alcohol kills other (normally totally innocent) people and sometimes the drinker as well. I would rather be in a room with a chain smoker than a drunk.
Complain about this comment
I think this blog has almost run its course. (Thanks for bringing this one up, Mark. Even eminent whistleblowers need publicity).
We have a clear choice;
1, Continue prohibition, resulting in:
a, More police time wasted
b, Richer drug barons
c, Endemic disrespect for the police
d, Distrust of the government
e, Continued availability of cannabis for the one group it might harm, i.e. children. As someone once said, currently the
minimum age for cannabis is £10.
2, Dutch-style decriminalisation, resulting in;
a, Police focussing more on real crime.
b, Less alcohol usage as some alcohol users move across to cannabis.
c, A drop in cannabis-related crime as it could then be supplied legally.
or 3, Complete legalisation, which will give us:
a, Police not wasting any time with their current cannabis-fetching operation.
b, A complete separation of the cannabis supply from more damaging drugs. (Bad news for drug barons).
c, Greater support for the police. A Government that could once again be trusted to put people before party funds.
d, Doctors being able to prescribe medicinal cannabis to save NHS money (bad news for Pharmaceutical
companies).
e, Fewer kids obtaining cannabis because of the fear of a seller from losing their livelihood.
So, folks, next time you read a newspaper scare headline related to cannabis will you, dear reader, have the sense to look behind that headline and actually THINK about the issue?
..or are you going to continue to act like performing seals and applaud the government next time they're "tough on drugs"? Your
call.
Complain about this comment
Euforiater, Unfortunately it appears the majority of the population prefer too act like performing seals.
Complain about this comment
Nutt sacking row deepens
Scientists want maximum respect
from The Register 6th Nov
Seems like the science geeks are stamping their feet.
Complain about this comment
Skimmed the comments, the point is simple.
A democratic govnt. is ignoring and influencing the activities of a statutory body.
if this occurred in east europe UK news would say it was a return to totalitarianism.
Here on BBC i read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8350660.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8350697.stm
Neighbour snooping and net monitoring.
Already, council officials can search your home without a warrant on practically any pretext on the assumption of 'proceeds of crime'
Are you all crazy or what - WAKE UP - TS NO LONGER THE UK - EUROPE HAS MORE FREEDOM THAN YOU
Complain about this comment
An advisory body has decided to quit and has not signed the warning notice. sheesh. i am so shocked and scared for my home country now. i have watched ths slide for the last 15 years. How quick it happens.
Complain about this comment
So more experts may give up, good I'm fed up with all of these so called experts only knowing what they want to know.
Complain about this comment
in the light of traducer's #152, here's a nice bit of trivia :-))
the BBC HYS has a 'debate' on the £90M lottery win, asking "How would you spend £45 million?"
I currently see 15 posts on the first page of Readers' Recommended, 9 of those (ie. 60%) say they'd leave the UK.
Complain about this comment
On last nights BBC News Newspaper Review, they said that in a poll conducted by (I think it was) the Times, in the last 10 days or so both the Tories and Labour have lost 1% off the numbers of people who'd vote for them. What else could that be but people loosing faith in our main political parties because of their extreme and abusive attitude toward pot and pot smokers? 1% for both main parties sounds tiny, but actually that's a massive minority. If that drop in support for the two main parties and for our Parliament had been caused by any other issue, it would be massive news today. It's not just our Government that's totalitarian and false about pot, it's our entire Establishment. Our Establishment and this generation of middleclass people & wannabe middleclass hangers on who are in control of our Country right now, want our Country and our culture to grow old and die with them - it's obscene.
Last night they were celebrating the end of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe with the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall - even Gordon Brown had clambered onto the bandwagon and was there, proclaiming the divine importance of freedom & liberty - just as him and his Parliament are creating a new oppressive, cruel, selfish, conceited, and utterly unfair totalitarian state in Britain. What a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
glomal111 #21.
neebols456 #23.
Euforiater #149.
Some sense on a BBC forum at last. Viewed from outside, the UK is beginning to resemble an austere, yet totally inept autocracy.
Remember this isn't the first time the incumbent government has totally dismissed expert advice and then acted completely of it's own accord - David Kelly?
I've said it before and will re-iterate: the government doesn't know what to do with drugs beyond the fact that they're happy for them to remain illegal so they can continue to use the fines collected as a revenue stream.
Complain about this comment
LuftHamza #157.
"Viewed from outside, the UK is beginning to resemble an austere, yet totally inept autocracy."
and that's from the outside! from within we see a surveillance culture gone barking, politicians striving to 'free' us lose from the 'evil' EU Human Bill of Rights, and more.. (but the moderators would balk at it)
on another BBC blog, a poster opined that the UK is now well ahead of the former East-Germany in terms of oppression; it is difficult to disagree.
Complain about this comment
#158.
oops, bad edit, should read:
..striving to 'free' us from the 'evil' EU..
Complain about this comment
breaking news (on Channel4).
another three members of the ACMD have resigned following an 'emergency' meeting with government representatives.
that's six (including D Nutt) out of 31 total.
Complain about this comment
If individual experet advisors are to be gagged, then how will we ever get to the truth, we certainly cannot trust MPs.
Every person in this country must have a supreme right to voice concerns when it comes to public information, this may be challenged by any number of other authorities, but never supressed.
The minister must explain and not hide behind trite comments like "advisors Advise, but Ministers Decide" we the public have had enough of Dictatorship, we wany Democracy.
Complain about this comment
I have a PhD in biochemistry, an LLB, have had a successful career and married well, in spite of having smoked the dreaded weed for years. From the Canadian LeDain commission to the present it was clear that cannabis was not as bad as alcohol in all departments.
As a former scientist I am really starting to get pissed off at the constant gagging of scientists by government and industry. If you want to strangle the canary before going down the mineshaft, don't be surprised if you suffocate.
Don't make it MORE illegal. Legalise the bloody stuff, you MPs, and stop being a bunch of wimps.
Robin Ord
PhD, LLB
Complain about this comment
rwo #162
"As a former scientist I am really starting to get pissed off at the constant gagging of scientists by government and industry. If you want to strangle the canary before going down the mineshaft, don't be surprised if you suffocate."
It's difficult to pinpoint what's going on with the government right now. Either they're making too much money from drug posession fines to think otherwise, or there's a lobby at work.. who stands to lose out if alternatives to alcohol and tobacco find their way into a legal marketplace?
The behaviour in itself is quite baffling. all of a sudden, the expert advice is simply ignored after 30 years of successful cooperation. for me it definitely sounds like there is pressure on the subject matter coming from somewhere.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS