Nutt sacked: Government advisor fired for telling truth about drugs

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

sickening

it is such a fucking joke. people should be able to make informed decisions about what they want to do with themselves.

What Mr Nutt was on about....

Its quite a worrying manifestation of what type of government is ruling us. One that ignores scientific evidence because it doesn't back up their political agenda; one that sacks people who talk facts instead of lying? Is that what democracy means then? Maybe in China, but here ffs???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/31/david-nutt-sacking-alan-johnson

(Alan Johnson, the home secretary, who sacked Prof. David Nutt) it seems, welcomes independent advice when it agrees with his own prejudices but does not have the strength of character to listen to people who tell him difficult truths... what is the point of having an independent panel of experts if its members are sacked when they offer expert advice?

So much for fucking democracy, what a crock of shit, but really what else is there to replace Labour with that is much better?

The Nutt sacking was not anti-democratic, it was simply anti-scientific. Politicians who have to be elected need to please the electorate, most of whom are scientifically illiterate and almost all of whom have irrational moments when it comes to risk analysis. Sucking up to the electorate's prejudice and stupidity is democratic, however distasteful the result might be to those of us who see the errors of judgement which this brings. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that Nazis and Bolsheviks both carried out policies by decree which they thought were justified by science, so it doesn't do to get too upset that we are ruled by the stupidity of crowds rather than the too fallible 'wisdom' of people with the power to impose their sometimes erroneous science.

That is not to say that I disagree with Nutt's analysis of the relative harms of the various drugs, or that I don't think Johnson is a dumb fuck for sacking an advisor just because the advice fails to support his moral crusade against giving people personal choicer in the matter of what they do to their own bodies, but we should not confuse the stupidity of individual politicians with a failure of democratic principles.

Nutt sacked.

I doubt he'd agree but it's worth the sacking just for the headline.

The Nutt sacking was not anti-democratic, it was simply anti-scientific. Politicians who have to be elected need to please the electorate, most of whom are scientifically illiterate and almost all of whom have irrational moments when it comes to risk analysis. Sucking up to the electorate's prejudice and stupidity is democratic, however distasteful the result might be to those of us who see the errors of judgement which this brings. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that Nazis and Bolsheviks both carried out policies by decree which they thought were justified by science, so it doesn't do to get too upset that we are ruled by the stupidity of crowds rather than the too fallible 'wisdom' of people with the power to impose their sometimes erroneous science.

That is not to say that I disagree with Nutt's analysis of the relative harms of the various drugs, or that I don't think Johnson is a dumb fuck for sacking an advisor just because the advice fails to support his moral crusade against giving people personal choicer in the matter of what they do to their own bodies, but we should not confuse the stupidity of individual politicians with a failure of democratic principles.

Hmm... Broadly agree with what you're saying here but, apart from electing these fuckers and using the word 'democracy' in conversation, shouldn't we be asking the question, "what actually makes you think that you are living in a democracy anyway?" Sorry if that didn't make too much sense to some of you, I'm a bit wasted right now.

...we should not confuse the stupidity of individual politicians with a failure of democratic principles.

I think sacking someone for doing their job and being honest about it is exactly that.

I think the major result of this decision will be in regard to alcohol use rather than illegal drugs, we (the UK) will continue to drink outselves into an early grave because of the reassuring legal classification of Alcohol.

If you go against what the idiotic establishment want you to say then you get fired or worse, end up dead.

I saw Nutt being interviewed on Newsnight and he wasn't that impressive to be honest, and didn't do his case much good. He said he saw his role as reducing the harm of drugs to society as a whole. As a scientific advisor his job was narrower than that, though. He was responsible for researching and investigating the dangers of drugs and advising the government. The govt then makes the decision on classification because that is a law making activity. Parliamentary sovereignty etc..

i met Professor Nutt about 15 years ago when i was a student in bristol. at the time, i was very impressed with him - clearly a man who knew what his role in life was (he's a psychiatrist!) and someone who cared deeply about finding out as much as he could about his area of expertise. at that stage, he'd just been selected as the chair of some independent commission into drugs use, hence why i went to see him (i also care a lot about drugs and think there are very strong arguements as to why they should be legalised. partly because i grew up on the borders of islington/hackney and have seen the many negative effects).

i will also repeat the WHO guidance on what health is - "a state of complete physical, social and psychological wellbeing, not just the absence of disease" - thus i think Prof Nutt was entirely within his remit for advising the government and disagree with strongly with james1822 (who's points of view seem to belong in 1822 and not in the 21st century).

anyway, i do hope we haven't heard the last of prof nutt. a very good guy....

As a scientific advisor his job was narrower than that, though.

His job was narrower than that, but some regard the old practice of keeping advice to ministers secret as one of the failures of democracy, insofar as ministers could state that they were making policy on the basis of scientific advice without ever having the advice subjected to public scrutiny. While Nutt was not employed to speak more widely on drug policy, he should not have been sacked for so doing. For the sake of transparency, he and other advisers should be free to explain to the public the full content of, and background to, their advice, without fearing for their employment if they do. Only then can we see how well our elected representatives are seeking and acting on expert advice when making policy. Johnson, and many ministers before him, has sought to shield himself from criticism by suggesting that his policy is scientifically sound and therefore inevitable, and has thrown a hissy fit when the scientist has stood up and told the world that the minister is wilfully ignoring the science and basing policy on moral prejudice instead.

seems another one has resigned in protest!! well done les king!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/01/drug-adviser-les-king-quits

mitre, i don't know where you been over the last few months, but it was not kept secret that the government went against the ACMD's advice on the reclassisfication of cannabis and didn't downgrade esctasy. i even wrote a letter asking why they were wasting money on the ACMD when they clearly didn't listen to them.

and oh dear guardian

A member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has resigned in protest at the government's treatment of its head, who was forced to step down last week after saying that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol or** nicotine**.

he actually said tobacco, nicotine by itself is not that bad, and there has been research into it for possible theraputic uses.

mitre, i don't know where you been over the last few months, but it was not kept secret that the government went against the ACMD's advice on the reclassisfication of cannabis

I was thinking about decades ago rather than months ago.

isn't there strong evidence to suggest that skunk is significantly more harmful than the kind of cannabis that was around previously? Maybe they should split cannabis/skunk in terms of classification?
no

isn't there strong evidence to suggest that gin is significantly more harmful than the kind of beer that was around previously? Maybe they should split beer/gin in terms of classification?

no

however there are a lot of bullshit for example news articles saying it's 30 times stronger than it was 10 years ago...

read more

legalise all cool drugs, not the serious shit. people know dangers, as there are dangers with everything in life we have a choice to do or not. At least peopel who chose to do drugs wont be criminalized, skint and likely eating mostly dog wormer or brick dust in every pill.... ALL drugs were generaly stronger years ago, drugs now are shit, not like good old days of the super dove.

However ive never taken drugs before and did not live in the clubbing 80s so i could be talking bullshit.

yeah, it's a pretty open and shut case of a politician getting rid of an advisor because his advice was politically troublesome. happens all the time, but normally not so much in the public eye.

be great if this guy gets canned soon too

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Balls[/ame]