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...."

Nutt wasn't paid.

I don't think he's behaving like a spoiled brat at all. what has he done that was tantrum-like?

he was asked to be an advisor. he agreed. he gave his advice. his advice was ignored. he also talked about the issues in public, which was part of his paid job as a lecturer. he was asked to resign. he was asked by he media what he thought about it all. and he told them.

sorry, can't see any tantrum there.

As an aside, anyone who is interested in finding out about drugs (legal and otherwise) and their ACTUAL effects on people might want to read this book: www.amazon.co.uk/Buzzed-Straight-Abused-Alcohol-Ecstasy/dp/0393329852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid =1257167106&sr=8-1. It's not perfect, and it's from an American point of view, but it's OBJECTIVE and will equip you with most of the facts you/DC need to make an informed decision.

I accept I was wrong about Nutt being paid.

Neverthless, it is politicians who are elected and are expected to take responsibility for the decisions that they make - not unelected "experts".

Let's not forget also that many experts have subsequently shown to be incorrect in their judgements.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." - Albert Einstein

"I think there's a world market for about five computers." Thomas J. Watson, chairman of the board of IBM.

His Ecstasy vs. horse-riding comparison thing is just daft. There are so many other factors at play that you can't compare them sensibly. They are both dangerous.

More people die in road traffic accidents than die of stab wounds, but that doesn't necessarily make carrying a knife a sensible or "safe" thing to do, quite apart from the legality.

wel, why not? -

people go horse riding and take ecstacy to have fun.

horse riding causes injury and in some rare cases death

Ecstacy has caused adverse reactions in a tiny minority of those taking it, in some of these cases death.

because one is a drug, it is illegal and you can get a stiff jail term even for possession, let alone PWITS. The other is actively encouraged by the government.

No one is just allowed to drive a car. You have to be trained and to pass a test first. Then you are subject to numerous obligations regarding the use of your car, pay large amounts of money to government for the privilege of driving it, are liable to collect punishments for its misuse etc

No one would suggest that carrying a knife is remotely comparable to driving a car. However, if it were, it would be regulated and taxed in some way too. I think they have some sort of system like this in place in America regarding guns.

So that goes goes to show comparisons are daft.

I don't think the comparison is daft at all -David Nutt wasn't suggesting that drugs and horse-riding should be subjected to the same legal regime and policy framework. by pointing out that the risk of harm is similar the comparison serves to show that government policy is based on much more than harm and risk. which leads us to question what exactly it is based on and whether govt policy is correct. he was making an interesting comparison intended to make us think a bit more and question certain assumptions - why and how should govt respond to drugs. an entirely legitimate and interesting device.

Anne Widecombe (apologies for probably shocking sp) made a good point today, that you're more likely to die from a road accident than from murder, but that doesn't mean we should advocate murder.

I work in scientific research, and you can pretty much find published to back up any point you want to make, and conveniently ignore all the research that doesn't support your point.

The govt policies need to be based on more than just facts and figures. There has to be an element of common sense in there too, which is nothing to do with science or statistics, but has everything to do with protecting our children from the misconception put out there by Nutt that drugs are harmless and acceptable.

published data (tut tut)

There has to be an element of common sense in there too, which is nothing to do with science or statistics,

common sense eh?

if it has nothing to do with science, stats or other means of demonstratin the reality - what value does it have?

if common sense tells me one thing, and you another - don't we go to science for the tie breaker??

'common sense' tells me that ecstacy is not, in the great scheme of things, that harmful if thousands of people take it every weekend and only a tiny minority have any lasting ill effect. Science may back me up on this (though new research is always published, yada yada) - the stats are certainly favourable.

what do you mena by 'common sense' if that desn't include looking at evidence?

I think AW's point is missing a very crucial point (suprising given her background) we're not talking about advocating anything. we're talking about whether it's right and proper for the govt to criminalise something and/or legislate about it. govt failure to criminalise and/or legislate about something doesn't mean govt advocates it. it simply means it doesn't think it's a proper subject for the law and govt. as far as I know there's no law on tiddly winks. doesn;t mean govt advocates playing tiddly winks.

in fact the more I look at AW's point (as reported here - haven't seen/heard the original) the more nonsensical it seems. I'm really struggling to see her point. was she trying to say that it's ridiculous to decide what to criminalise and what not to criminalise on the basis of the chances of death happening? because last time I looked the chances of a death happening on the back of murder is, erm, 100%. and the reason we criminalise it is largely because the death (which is 100% sure to come about) is of someone other than the person doing the act.

[still puzzling over AW's point...]

ann widdecombe was a lawyer no? and a politician, therefore sense is less imporant that persuasiveness.

i don't find it persuasive because it is not a relevant point, (as you explain in your post) - but if other people do, she has achieved her political objective.

The horse-riding/ecstasy comparison does not stand up because it doesn't take account of the element of randomness. An experienced horse-rider knows how to minimise the chances of danger. An experienced drug-taker doesn't have that same measure of control.

Also, data on Ecstasy is going to be patchy and inconclusive because it has only been around in popular use for about 20 years.

My understanding is that Prof Nutt was giving a lecture, as an academic, rather than from his role as government advisor, and criticized the government's decision not to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C (Misuse of Drugs Act) which were the recommendations of the scientific advisory panel.

In other words, he was critical of the government for not taking his advice and that of his fellow scientists.

But the drug debate, like a lot of other issues, isn't solely based on scientific data, but on public perception, public policy, and government policy.

The Home Secretary felt that Prof Nutt's role as an advisor was not compatible, not due to freedom of speech, but rather from the stance that you don't slag off your boss in a public forum.

fe8
)doesn't take account of the element of randomness. An experienced horse-rider knows how to minimise the chances of danger. An experienced drug-taker doesn't have that same measure of control.

not true. with the right knowledge drug takng can be made safer. (though not absolutely safe)

Even an experienced drug-taker can end up buying something which contains something they have no knowledge of.

I repeat my point above about the two decades' worth of knowledge being very, very small.

It's a totally daft comparison. He may as well have said you are more likely to die of drinking Lucozade than throwing yourself off a tall building. Because, sure enough, if you drink stupid amounts of Lucozade you'll end up in hospital. This doesn't mean we should not take precautions to stop people throwing themselves off tall buildings.

If you have control over the supply of drugs then you can have control over the quality of the drugs you have control over. It's the main reason I'm in favour of legalising the whole bloody lot of them.

Does anybody actually take drugs because they have weighed up their comparative safety in relation to other activities?

I haven't taken drugs (only) because I weighed up their comparative safety but I certainly did weigh up their comparative safety. it was without doubt part of my decision-making process.

"Anne Widecombe (apologies for probably shocking sp) made a good point today, that you're more likely to die from a road accident than from murder, but that doesn't mean we should advocate murder."

It wasn't a good point at all - it was completely fatuous and logically incoherent.(Most) people don't get in the car with the intention of killing someone. People do die in road accidents every day, but the proportion of deaths versus the total number of people using the roads is very very small. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out, and hopefully you can already see where I'm going, but... murder as an activity has a much higher death rate (approx 100%) than driving a car does. I've been driving for over 20 years and my death toll stretches to a rabbit and a small vole.

By the way, an interesting book for anyone interested in historical, cultural and political attitudes to drugs around the world is "Drugs, Intoxication and Society" by Angus Bancroft. It's quite an eye-opener about some of the inconsistencies in legislative attitudes towards drugs. Did you know, for example, that the minimum sentence in the US for possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine is 5 years. You'd have to be in hundred times that amount of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence. There's no pharmacological difference between the two except that crack has added baking soda. The crucial difference though is that crack is mostly used by poor people, whereas powder cocaine is largely the preserve of the middle classes.

hatwoman - yes, but that's the opposite of what I asked.

There is a misleading dichotomy being set up here. It's akin to saying "you are more likely to die in a car crash than throwing yourself out of a first-floor window. So how can we make people understand that throwing yourself out of a first-floor window is actually safer than they think?"

... when we should be asking "why do people throw themselves out of first floor windows, and how can we help them not to do it?"

an experienced horserider can still fail to notice a horse being in the rough, or fall prey to circumstances beyond their control.

my mum broke her wrist after a van driving past startled the horse....

althogh she was a really great example of someone attempting suicide acidentally on purpose through her riding style (jumping the fence on the cliff path, for instance)

and the reason it was feared E may have longer term negative conseuquences was serotonin depletion - though this theory appears flawed as the original premise (that the amount of serotonin in the brain is finite) was incorrect. so far research points to ecstasy users having greater levels of empathy & happiness (though i believe there may be a selection bias here, E users are not a randmonly chosen section of the population.

If the government really cared about mental health, it would be addressing extreme poverty and looking after kids in care better, rather than making those kids (and a whole segment of the young population with them) into criminals