Professor David Nutt

[TheGuyFromThere]

For those of you who have no idea who Prof. David Nutt is, he's a British scientist that was formerly the head of the ACMD, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

 

He found a while back (like most scientists) that the drugs policy in the UK was a load of sh*t, as it did not classify drugs on a scale of harm (as it was originally intended) but in fact all the recommendations made by the ACMD were completely ignored and in fact the government often acted completely against the recommendations of the ACMD.

(IE: ACMD Said cannabis was basically harmless - so the home office increased it from a class C to class B drug)

 

A few days ago Nutt spoke out against the govt (while he was still at his head of ACMD position) basically saying how UK drugs policy was a complete farse and that the govt never take the advice of any experts and the home secretary Alan Johnston, fired him.

 

Basically, Nutt told the truth of his findings, expressed his opinion through his (and everyone's) right to freedom of speech - and was sacked.

 

Several of Nutt's co-workers have since walked out and more are expected to leave at a meeting to be held on Monday.

 

Today (nov. 2nd) Alan Johnston has decided to 'review' the ACMD itself, so it's not over yet and Johnston is simply digging himself a hole.

 

Just wanted to bring to the attention of the forums how stupid our [british] government is and how it doesn't care for science or the opinions of the British people.

 

Hopefully this doesn't infringe on the rule about advertising, but there's a petition set up on the No. 10 website to have him reinstated.

 

Any and all Brits should sign this if they care about the freedom of speech that Britain essentially created 400 years ago.

 

Also, before somebody says this belongs in the OFS, it already is there and secondly I think this is more a political topic than a drugs one.

 

Discuss.

[Mainland Marauder]

 

Also, before somebody says this belongs in the OFS, it already is there and secondly I think this is more a political topic than a drugs one.

 

Discuss.

 

How about I move this to Debates & Discussion? I do think this is worth a separate discussion outside of OFS.

 

Science is not the process of collecting data, then manipulating it to validate some preconceived notion or policy. But government often thinks so. Telling the truth can be dangerous to your work arrangement, sadly.

 

I hope one day, maybe when I'm an old man, people look back at prohibition and wonder "what the hell were they thinking?" Kind of like we do today with alcohol prohibition. That didn't work, and neither is the War on Drugs.

[Jean Capel]

Well, I definitely agree that this man should be reinstated because him being sacked over scientific data is a load of horsesh*t, but I must say I disagree that ecstasy is less harmful than cannabis, considering that any time you use ecstasy your can drop all of your serotonin at once, leading to extreme, incurable, life-long depression.

 

 

But hey, I'm not a scientist, so who knows how they judged it, whether it was on what it can do or statistics. Either way, this man told the truth, and spoke out against a corrupt system, if I was a Brit, I'd sign, but alas I'm not.

 

 

 

 

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

Politics and Truth rarely go together for very long or far.

 

Often the greatest reward for truth from politics is death.

 

So, thus far he has received or discovered how to become a runner up for the bronze medal or something. One day, if he keeps it up, he may even get a chance of the Gold Metal of Death by Assassination, but I doubt it.

 

We still get to see him ridiculed publicly and made fun of ad nausium by the media and powers at large and a few talk show hosts are going to agree with him and smirk and a few others crack jokes.

 

What can you do?

 

It is the way they want it.

[Toke]

Well I do admire the guys balls. Most of the time in politics if you don't agree with the big boys then you have two options a)resign with some dignity or b)be fired. Things like this happen in the US every day, usually with police officers but the result is always the same, you never hear from them again as their opinion is white washed and forgotten.

 

I really dont get it. Sure I can see our respective governments cracking down on crack/cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and meth as those are are f*cked up drugs, trust me I know. But marijuana, good god the money that could be had with legalization of it.

[agincourtsalute]

Michael Portillo (not that I'm a fan of his) said thursday on the this week program " the government should've explain why they went against his advice but were right to sack him because the government has the final say and they can't have their advisors speaking out against them".

 

I think he had a good point, if the government want to go against the advice of the professional advisers appointed by them then they need to come out and explain why they're doing that. But at the end of the day it is the government who have the final say for better or for worse.

[TheGuyFromThere]

 

Michael Portillo (not that I'm a fan of his) said thursday on the this week program " the government should've explain why they went against his advice but were right to sack him because the government has the final say and they can't have their advisors speaking out against them".

 

I think he had a good point, if the government want to go against the advice of the professional advisers appointed by them then they need to come out and explain why they're doing that. But at the end of the day it is the government who have the final say for better or for worse.

I neglected this topic...

 

Of course the government have the final say, they're the government, and it's their job to have the final say.

 

But when that 'say' is firstly, not voted upon and secondly, completely against what democracy stands for, then you no longer have a government that act within the interests of their people, but act as a tyranny, a dictatorship.

 

What the government have effectively done is hire a group of scientists to perform research, and then completely disregarded their research. It's fair to assume they've been disregarding their research for a long time, because I highly doubt that today's findings on cannabis are any different to their findings 20 years ago. Or even 100. Or 1000.

 

Since Nutt resigned, a further 7 I think followed suit.

 

It's since fallen out of the news but I think I'm going to give it a quick google to see what has come of this.

[Mike Tequeli]

I was quite disappointed to learn that David Nutt is part of some weed is better then alcohol prohibitionist organization. http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/dope-lobby

 

Prohibitonism is a problem because I honestly cannot defend alcohol on the basis of safety alone like I can with Marijuana.

[Otter]

That article seemed awfully opinionated, to me. Regardless, I was always under the impression that Nutt's drive to classify Alcohol as a dangerous substance was meant to be a wakeup call, not something to be taken seriously. Sort of like 'banning Fantasy Fiction' in defense of role-playing games.

[TheGuyFromThere]

I was quite disappointed to learn that David Nutt is part of some weed is better then alcohol prohibitionist organization. http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/dope-lobby

 

Prohibitonism is a problem because I honestly cannot defend alcohol on the basis of safety alone like I can with Marijuana.

That article seems to be taking what it really was and turning it into something else.

 

All Nutt did was talk about the evidence he found. As it happens, his opinion is formed from the evidence that cannabis is a lot less harmful for you than alcohol or tobacco and that a&t are mistakingly seen as being 'safe' and 'ok' because they are socially acceptable.

 

That article has turned Nutt telling the facts into Nutt campaigning against alcohol because he supports some sort of communistic mind oppression

 

Conspiracy theory, much?

[General Goose]

Cannabis should be legalised. Now, I never had it, and it ain't in my list of things to do, and apparently there is a more dangerous type out at the moment (don't know about that), but, hey, the Netherlands has fairly low cannabis consumption rates for western Europe.

 

Signed. Reinstate the guy. His position should be apolitical AND respected by the government.

[Mike Tequeli]

 

I was quite disappointed to learn that David Nutt is part of some weed is better then alcohol prohibitionist organization. http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/dope-lobby

 

Prohibitonism is a problem because I honestly cannot defend alcohol on the basis of safety alone like I can with Marijuana.

That article seems to be taking what it really was and turning it into something else.

 

All Nutt did was talk about the evidence he found. As it happens, his opinion is formed from the evidence that cannabis is a lot less harmful for you than alcohol or tobacco and that a&t are mistakingly seen as being 'safe' and 'ok' because they are socially acceptable.

 

That article has turned Nutt telling the facts into Nutt campaigning against alcohol because he supports some sort of communistic mind oppression

 

Conspiracy theory, much?

Not really, I mean it seemed more like they were emphasizing that alcohol makes ragers and cannabis does not. The article's viewpoint itself doesn't really matter as much, as the pro marijuana temperance movement seems to be very real. I know Dom that you appear to be part of the 'Marijuana legalization only' school of thought, but I figure if one can support legal alcohol that other more psychoactive or dangerous drugs should be allowed in a legal market.

 

It would be better if people realized that something being legal is not the government's green light to abuse it. Tobacco sold in stores should not imply that it is safe, as Nutt seems to think people are hung up on.

[xrk]

and apparently there is a more dangerous type out at the moment (don't know about that)

You mean "skunk"?, its not new or dangerous.

I smoked it for years, not once did I want to batter a small animal with a rusty axe nor did I rape any old women like the papers said I would...

But seriously, dont listen to the media they talk complete crap. after the lies Ive read in the media in the uk about weed, it makes me wonder about lots of conspiracy theories.

I mean now they are even telling us that skunk isnt cannabis thats how much they know.

 

99% of problems with weed are because its illegal!

they know this.. but there must be more money in it being illegal than legal (though probably more to do with votes i think tbh)

 

It makes me feel sick that some other adults can tell me I can go to prison for growing a plant (up to 15 yrs iirc) or punished in anyway simply for having a couple of grams of dead plant esspecially while the same adults practically encourage people to drink poison and act like pricks all f*cking weekend.

 

aggggghhhh

 

in anycase

it was wrong to sack nutt and possibly a mistake because it shows the gov for what they are.

for example they basically say.....

about drugs scientists are idiots and dont know what they are talking about but we must listen to the scientists on climate change because they know what they are talking about...