• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged British drugs advisor sacked / Science & Nazis

commandlinegamer

Philosopher
commandlinegamer
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
9,688
Location
Mazes of Menace
The Home Secretary sacked his drugs advisor after he questioned the governments reclassification of cannabis and stated that the drug was less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. On the BBC News tonight he claimed the government were pursuing a moral course.

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

Should we be surprised politicians ignore scientific evidence?

(This story could probably be in the Science or Current Events forum but I judged it an overtly political decision.)
 
commandlinegamer said:
The Home Secretary sacked his drugs advisor after he questioned the governments reclassification of cannabis and stated that the drug was less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. On the BBC News tonight he claimed the government were pursuing a moral course.

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

Should we be surprised politicians ignore scientific evidence?

(This story could probably be in the Science or Current Events forum but I judged it an overtly political decision.)
Click to expand...
He wasn't sacked, he was nickel bagged. :cool:
 
A couple of questions:
- Can you/someone tell me the difference between class (A,) B and C please.
- Did he actually say that 'the green' was "less dangerous"? I didn't see that in there. It kinda seemed to me that with the reclassification and some serious time being the consequence that he was saying the govt were pursuing a moral line; maybe the time doesn't fit the crime. That statement actually makes sense. For someone that works in the industry, I can tell you that the dangers (especially medium to long term regular-type use) can be devastating. But that is true for mosts drugs, legal or no.
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
A couple of questions:
- Can you/someone tell me the difference between class (A,) B and C please.
Click to expand...

Class A carries the heaviest penalties class C the least.

- Did he actually say that 'the green' was "less dangerous"?
Click to expand...

No Cumbrian villages have not been part of the debate.
 
geni said:
Class A carries the heaviest penalties class C the least.



No Cumbrian villages have not been part of the debate.
Click to expand...



Para #1. Ok, and presumably alcohol and tobacco are not classified? i.e. this is a criminal type classification.

Para #2. Lol - serves me right. Did he actual say that Marijuana was "less dangerous"; I didn't recall seeing that as I read.
Anyway, aren't the Cumbrians more famous for cocaine?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Para #1. Ok, and presumably alcohol and tobacco are not classified? i.e. this is a criminal type classification.
Click to expand...

Niether carries criminal penalties for use so are not classified. Neither is khat.

Para #2. Lol - serves me right. Did he actual say that Marijuana was "less dangerous"; I didn't recall seeing that as I read.
Click to expand...

Earlier this week, Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College, London, to say that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness and it was actually less harmful than nicotine or alcohol.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8335189.stm

He's correct of course.
 
What annoys me most about these types of incidents in the war on drugs is the story accepts the moral framing offered by the governments excuse for the sacking.

They're looking at it from a "moral" angle.

Well why do they get to own that term? Are they suggesting that people advocating for legalization are somehow disagreeing that its a "moral issue"?

It IS a "moral issue", and it just so happens that plenty of people consider the morality behind prohibition to suffer from multiple flaws - consequences that play out in a very inequitable and immoral way.

I guess this is just a pet peeve I've had for a while. I just picture all these self-satisfied moralizers seeing themselves on the side of angels when really their policy achieves the opposite.
 
It seems to me there are a few issues here:
1. I have no doubt that the minister/govt are coming from a moral standpoint. For cannabis to be put in class 'B' rather than the lowest (presumably) based alone on the effects of cannabis is politics not medicine or science.
2. Obviously I wasn't present, but it seems that if he's saying the "risk of psychosis" from cannabis was less than alcohol or nicotine - he is right of course. Is this what he meant or was he making a broad based generalisation about the overall effects of cannabis on the individual/society compared with alcohol/tobacco? If the latter are we talking % based on usage or the bare numbers? And would in itself make for a fascinating discussion.
3. Depending on #2, there are other effects that need to be taken into consideration regarding the overall impact; the social and individual fallout from cannabis use does and can have severe repurcussions when used heavily (which is true also for alcohol and tobacco). It very much depends on how it is used (socially, habitually or addictively), the regularity and amount, as well as the individual concerned.

Seems there is quite a bit of info missing at the moment.

That said, the dismissal seems more one of political expedience to scotch any possible debate contrary to its' own agenda, than anything else.
 
I don't think there can be any doubt that this is a politically motivated sacking, and from what I've heard from Nutt in the past I actually think the government was right (to summarize) to say he'd stepped over the line into campaigning, which is a conflict of interest for an independent scientific advisor.

That aside, he is right in stating that current (and past) government drug policy is not based on a scientific evaluation of the actual and comparative harm of each drug but on what society as whole "feels" is what it wants.
 
I don't recall the government claiming that drugs laws were made wholly according to scientific evidence. Science is an inadequate resource to determine social policy. Advisors should not expect it to work any other way.

It is not obvious why this involved a sacking though since that likely encourages the story to mushroom. Also it appears to have brought on a protest resignation today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/uk_politics/8336635.stm
 
Francesca R said:
I don't recall the government claiming that drugs laws were made wholly according to scientific evidence. Science is an inadequate resource to determine social policy. Advisors should not expect it to work any other way.

It is not obvious why this involved a sacking though since that likely encourages the story to mushroom. Also it appears to have brought on a protest resignation today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/uk_politics/8336635.stm
Click to expand...

As far as I know Nutt's main bone of contention is that the government has made claims that the science does not support, for example he claims that Gordon Brown has stated that cannabis is lethal.
 
"Socially" it could be declared lethal I suppose, depending on your point of view and/or tendency to use of hyperbole. Claiming it is medically lethal would tend to cement distrust in government health advice.
 
What really bugged me was when the reason for the sacking was given as the government havong "lost confidence in his ability to offer unbiassed advice."

That was unbiassed advice, you moron. What he wasn't doing was giving the biassed advice you wanted.

For the government to weigh issues differently from the science and say, yes, but we believe that social considerations demand a different decision, is one thing. But to demand that the science should say what the sociologists want is pernicious.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
For the government to weigh issues differently from the science and say, yes, but we believe that social considerations demand a different decision, is one thing. But to demand that the science should say what the sociologists want is pernicious.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was the issue. More like "Thanks for the sciencey part but please leave the biased populist recommendations to us"
 
Francesca R said:
"Socially" it could be declared lethal I suppose, depending on your point of view and/or tendency to use of hyperbole. Claiming it is medically lethal would tend to cement distrust in government health advice.
Click to expand...

He (apparently) called it lethal as in the sense it is a substance that will kill you - which can only be applied to cannabis if we also redefine water, coffee and tea to be Class A "lethal" drugs.
 
If I remember the science that just isn't the case.

I was under the impression heroin was dangerous because of the number of opiate receptors in the vicinity of the brainstem, whereas cannabinoid receptors were located in a different region entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom