David Nutt tells it how it is and is sacked

[Jux]

So the Government don't like it when one of their advisors actually takes notice of real evidence which doesn't quite accord with their stated policies (even though they say they want debate) and so sack the guy who says "but hang on...."

edgar - that is exactly my point.

your gran was obviously addicted to opiates because she couldn't NOT be, however she wasn't an 'illicit' addict so didn't have any of the drug related harm associated with illicit opiate use.

drinkers & smokers pay tax on their addictions....

drug users dont...

guess that's why the government want us all to continue drinking.

reminds me of those teenage girls sentto a teen bootcamp in the US - one was a heavy weed smoker.

before she went, her mother blamed the drugs - for her daughters lifeless, useless behaviour.
after the camp, the girl stopped smoking . but her behaviour remaind the same. the durgs were just a symptom of her unhappiness.

the research done by the government found that weed use in people (classically university stiudents) who were well off had virtualy no negative effect. they stop smoking, get jobs, get married...some of them even become cabinet ministers.

and anecdotaly, that's how things have gone for even the heaviest weed smokers i knew at university. (maybe not the cabinet minister thing)

on a slightly different point, i always wonder why parents of heavy smokers want it to be made more illegal - whatever harm the drug does, a prison sentence is most grievously harmful.
i thought one of the reasons for the original down grading as Jack Straws son sold a newsreporter some weed.

i really don't believe sending someone to jail is an effective form of therapy. Having a criminal record definitely does make life mmuch harder.

it's the whole "drugs scene" thing parents don't like.....and i can understand it..

very seedy....

CoteDAzur: "diamorphine [is] used in UK for pain relief in dire situations, where patient is not expected to survive and hence where heroin's severe addiction and harm don't matter."

......... not quite true, as it is used in (most?) hospitals in Scotland as the drug relief of choice during child birth (rather than Pethidine). And I am assuming that they are expecting labouring mothers who want pain relief are going to survive!

daftpunk, if cannabis were legal, the Government could tax that too. California is already considering it, because they have a huge financial deficit.

Ooooh, so do we...

olkn; thanks for the link....

sure i'd rather cannabis was legal, it would raise millions in revenue and cut crime in half.

i want it sold in waitrose...in a nice fair trade paper bag....

No Waitroses near me, can we extend that to Asda?

We've only got a co-op.

Anyway, Alan Johnson has just resigned over this sacking.

whaaaaaa???

if you shop in asda you need all the drugs you can get..

Really Jux?? Nothing on the beeb. Two more advisers have thrown their toys out of the pram

really re alan johnson???

really???

where?

Channel 4 News - headline story. Had Keane (another from the Drugs Advisory Board who has also resigned) and Robert Winston, both being interviewed. The Home Office has been declining invitations to talk to Channel 4 for 3 days.

That's dh shouting headlines out to me from the kitchen while dd asks me questions about her homework.

Many apologies. Two advisors resigned. AJ hasn't. Very sorry. again

The goverment has acted in a very childish manner - they dont like the evidence or advice so they keep it from the public and feed us rubbish.

Regardless of what I think about drugs I am not an expert, but niether is the goverment and from a view of not trusting the goverment I have gone to thinking they are delibratley decieving me - and if they are decieving us delibratly on this what else are they doing?

Henry VIII behaved like this, he didn't like the advice then off with your head.....

I think the government has been extremely unwise. It is not unusual for expert advice to be basically ignored - you can see this from looking at the many recommendations from government written reports that are ignored or put on the shelf, generally with a couple of lines of banalities as to why the recommendations will not be followed up (rarely the real reasons, which are generally that the recommendation is too hard or too expensive or not in line with political or supposed public feeling). It's not particularly unusual for the expert to publicly complain about the decision, although some do it more obliquely than others, and being very outspoken is looked down upon (in a "not done" sort of way). What is unusual is for the expert to be summarily sacked.

Bearing in mind that these posts are not paid, so the expert in question is doing it either because they genuinely think they are influencing policy in an area they deeply care about, and/or for the prestige (generally only within their own professional community). If experts think as a result of the last few days that their reports will be ignored, and that they will not be able to raise their concerns because they may get a curt letter from a minister sacking them for being "political", then I think there will be a real problem because the really good experts that care about their field will not take up these posts. These experts are appointed as independents, not as part of the civil service.

I think that drug related psychosis is quite common and a real danger. I think that peopel completely underestimate the destructiveness of cannabis. I don't think that science can truly measure it's effects. It has certainly tainted my life and those of people I know.

That's not to say that alchohol and drink aren't also very dangerous. He shouldn't have been sacked but the message should be that all drugs carry health risks and should be used with caution. I don't think that ecstacy and cannabis should be classed as less dangerous even if that is the case as it would encourage more people to use them.

posh - how do you know that thoses things wouldn't have been tainted anyhow? Unless you have a clone there is no way of knowing.

it could be that some peoples brains are more switched on to pyschosis and the drugs switch the switch in some people, perhaps those same people are more likely to take drugs in the first place...

hm. if you knew someone who had a psychotic episode, who drank alot, giving up the drink would be an appropriate and (likely) effective part of their treatment. this wouldn't mean that 'alchohol causes psychosis' ...more 'alchohol can be a contributory factor in cases of psychosis' - the same is true of cannibis.

people with severe mental issues as a general rule don't look after themselves particularly well. Drug abuse (of both illegal and legal drugs) is one way this is demonstrated.

if it was as simple as 'cannibis causes psychosis' an epidemic of psychotic behaviour would have hit Britain years ago.

I had a friend who had a psychotic episode. He was also using very large amounts of pot. He'd also buy us our supply, the difference being the amount that would keep us quite happily for a month he'd run through in a day or two. Whether he was self medicating (not at all unusual when people have mental health problems and are also drug users) or whether the pot brought about his psychosis I don't know. There is a strong association in young men, but I'm not sure if it is a correlation or causative. In any case, as with alcohol (probably a better comparison that cigarettes) there is a range of use and a range of effects. For most people it is something they enjoy on occasion with no ill effects, similar to a glass of whiskey perhaps, whilst for others it can have terrible effects (similar to an alcoholic, or binge drinker).

Classifying it as a scary drug in all circumstances is both wrong and counterproductive. The point made by the Council was that it was decided a long time ago that classification should be on the basis of harm. The level of harm should then be determined by a group of experts (and the council is 40 strong with a wide range of expertise). If the advice is then ignored the classification is not on the basis of harm, but on the whim of politicians. Now you could say that politicians are elected to make decisions and that's how it should be. And that's fine, but then they shouldn't pretend otherwise and waste the time of the experts, who should then be free to campaign for different decisions to be made in the hope that the general consensus will change, and then the political decision woudl be different.

Very well put Nooka.

Nooka, you are very sensible. Very well put.

I heard Sir Iain Blair on the radio this morning. He can talk against Gov policy, the army boffs can talk against Gov policy, other advisors and experts can talk against Gov policy.

Is this some kind of reverse psychology whereby the Gov are seen to be being unreasonable thus pushing the 'undecideds' in the population in the direction of favouring the scientists/experts and therefore becoming favourable to the decriminalising of drugs, thus giving the Gov the opportunity to gain tax revenue and all the other benefits of the legalisation of drugs?

Doncha just love conspiracy theories?

Posh - surely it would be better to explain the risks (i.e DH's family has history of schizophrenia so they are at higher risk with cannabis - one of his brothers had a phsychotic episode when smoking a lot) and how to minimise them than just putting a blanket 'they are bad, don't do them' message out.

"Bearing in mind that these posts are not paid..."

Have I missed something? Where did that idea come from? A very good friend of mine is a (fairly low level) govenment advisor in the healthcare field. She is very well paid for the couple of days per month she puts in.

TBH, I think David Nutt is acting like a spolit brat who has thrown his dummy out of the pram. It was his job to advise - and the minister's job to decide.

I think we're a long way from evidence-based politics. Not to say it wouldn't be a good thing, but political decisions are mostly driven by political expediency, ideology... oh, and focus groups. David Nutt needs to get over himself.