Government Adviser Sacked for Advising Government

[Moonbat]

David Nutt, UK Chairman of the Advisory Council on the misuse of drugs, was sacked last week by the Home secretary

"Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with. He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy."

Alan Johnson orders snap review of drugs advice body | Politics | guardian.co.uk


This really is a case of the government hiring advisers then not liking the advice they give and so sacking them. I have my own views on the legality of recreational drugs, but this actually proves that the government is not interesting in scientific evidence if it doesn't agree with thier world view. We have had threads before about legal drugs and victimless crimes but I'm more interested in the fact that (again) this government has chosen to ignore the advice of the experts.

I'm shocked by how far a government can go before the populace have had enough. This isn't a black/white arguement, there will be many people that agree with the HS, they would rather not hear evidence for the decriminalisation of drugs but refuse to budge on other legal drugs.

I even saw a comment (several similar ones infact) on-line that stated

(sic)How can you possibly compare drug users and dealers and all the cultural ties that go with them to me having a glass of merlot with my evening meal.

Any thoughts oh wise Chrons?

(that's me high)

[Ursa major]

Two things before I kick off:

1. An observation: Having read some of the intemperate posts on other sites, I'm beginning to doubt the idea that the use of a particular Class B (ex-Class C) drug makes one mellow.
2. Some of will you will know I'm not the greatest supporter of the legalisation of drugs. However, the comments in the rest of this post (I won't promise anything about subsequent posts of mine) will focus on the mechanics.

What do advisers do? I think the job of advisers is to give their advice; it is not their job to make policy. This is true whatever the subject. (I dread to think what all those posters on the Grauniad's site would say if the majority of experts on GM foods said that they were safe and the government were to automatically follow their lead; one assumes that the great majority of GM experts are working in the field () and wish the products of their work to be rolled out world-wide.) The bottom line is that this country is a representative democracy and so the representatives should always have the last say**.

Should Prof. Nutt have stayed in post? Not knowing the conditions under which one becomes a government adviser, I cannot say whether Prof. Nutt ought to have resigned on his own account, ought to have made to resign or ought to have kept his position. Given what I heard on Radio Four's World at One programme, where Prof. Nutt's statements on a number of statistics with respect to the adverse effects of cannabis use on mental health were being debunked, I do wonder if he was the right man to chair the committee, a rôle for which you would assumed a less in-your-face character would be a plus point. (Not that a shrinking violet would be ideal either.)

Science and Truth: Science is not Truth, but a mechanism for trying to determine (or get close to) it. If a government said, against the advice of mathematicians, that pi should have a value of 3, they are clearly flying in the face of the facts. Unfortunately most science subject to debate in the public arena is not so clear cut. We can believe that man is the principal driver of climate change, but we cannot know this (at least, not at the moment). We can believe that the legalisation of drugs will reduce the crime rate (or not), but until it is done, we don't know one way or the other. Just because a scientist beleives something, it doesn't make it true unless there is clear and incontrovertible scientific evidence that such a thing is true; and given we are looking at the reactions of millions of people - some (many) of whom are not making entirely evidence-based decisions - I cannot see how such evidence can ever be obtained in advance. (As someone who is a supporter of science, I find it worrying that some commentators wield the label, Scientist, as if it indicated infallibility.)


Anyway, that's enough for the moment....




** - I'm a supporter of PR, so I am aware of the somewhat unrepresentative nature of the UK's legislature/executive.

[woodsman]

Well said big bear...

Believing antropogenic climate change is, in itself, highly unstable ground and yet many scientists would argue it to be fact.

I don't think legalising something because its ;ess harmful than something already legal is any kind of argument at all. Banning sale or use of tobacco or alcohol would damage our revenue and probably do more harm than good (ineffectual distillation) to the populace, whilst being unenforceable.

[Sparrow]

I'll preface this by saying that I have done hardcore drugs in the now very distant past and I am a Liberal. Non-prescription drugs of any level should not be legalized, and there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
I think abuse of prescription drugs should be dealt with much more harshly than current standards.

As for Mr.Nutt, he is a PAID advisor not a government policy wonk, so it's totally inappropriate for him to be out in the public arena championing one policy over another. Nobody elected him to the House of Commons.
Give your advice and let the chips fall where they may.

And what the UK government is doing in regards to science pails in comparison to what the Bush Administration did to suppress and pervert scientific information.

[Ursa major]

As far as I know, Prof. Nutt was not paid for his work (although I assume he was reimbursed for his expenses).

[Sparrow]

Then how can he get "sacked"?

Assuming sacked translated into American English means terminated or fired.

[Ursa major]

Your assumption is, in normal parlance, correct. (With a lot of politicians and journalists, words mean whatever they want them to mean. )

As I understand it, Prof. Nutt was told his services were no longer required in that rôle. (The mechanism may have entailed the demand for a resignation.)






(First a fraudster called Madoff and now a Prof. Nutt; I wouldn't dare give my fictional characters names like that.)

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

This really is a case of the government hiring advisers then not liking the advice they give and so sacking them.

Except that he wasn't! He was sacked for criticising Government Policy in various speeches and for criticising the PM and other ministers. At least that is Alan Johnson's position. The Government doesn't have to take the advice of advisers. The real question is can an adviser give advice while also being openly critical of the Government they advise. I can see both sides here, and I can quite see why the committee have stood behind their Chaiman.

Personally, I don't agree with Prof. Nutt, but I think he should be allowed to speak his mind. I don't think this argument is black and white at all though. He says that Alcohol is much more dangerous than Cannabis because of the increasing amount of binge drinking. While that is undoubtedly true, that doesn't make Cannabis any less dangerous. There is a wealth of other scientific medical evidence about it causing psychosis. The active substances are a complex chemicals that stay in the fat of the brain and continues to have an effect weeks later. In teenagers, this has a long-term effect on their education. By comparison (in a still healthy Liver) Alcohol is rapidly broken down, and it occurs naturally in many foods such as bread and fruit drinks.

His comparison of the dangers of Ecstasy to Horse-riding was rather Nutty too.

[dustinzgirl]

Except for the fact that long term alcohol use does this:




And Cannabis has a much lowered effect:




I mean, if we are going to get all scientific, alcohol should be illegal and cannabis should be legal, based on the addictiveness and impact on the health of the body.

However, I personally think no drugs should be illegal. The government has no rights to tell me what I can and can not do with my body as they do NOT own my body.


PS: On further look, I don't think these posters are very accurate, since long term alcoholics suffer from severe weight LOSS not weight gain!!!!!

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Actually, DG, depending on whether or not they eat, they CAN suffer bad weight gain because alcohol is fat soluble. However, most tend not to eat so they actually do go through weight loss.


And based off scientific fact, DG.....there WAS a time-in our country at least-where alcohol WAS illegal. Remember the Prohibition? There's a reason the government scrapped that idea.


But you're right with the rest of it. The government does not own the bodies of its citizens and as such they shouldn't tell their citizens what they should or should not do with their own bodies. I've made the same damned argument with the weight issue the U.S. government seems so willing to shave off.

[jojajihisc]

I think it is an issue that should be left up to states.

Getting back to the firing of the professor...Advisors getting fired for not coming up with the answer the government wants to hear is probably fairly common. We don't hear about it all that often because most hirees know what is expected of them and they follow suit.

Interesting that this story should occur when in the U.S. the Justice Department just told prosecutors to ease back off the medical marijuana cases. Maybe the two countries are heading in opposite directions on this issue?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

I mean, if we are going to get all scientific, alcohol should be illegal and cannabis should be legal, based on the addictiveness and impact on the health of the body.

But isn't that the point? The policy isn't scientific, not because it wouldn't be better if it was but because it simply cannot be; the position of alcohol in our society prevents it from being so.

If alcohol was a new drug, it would be on that list, probably, at the very least, at category B. But it isn't a new drug; it's a drug that is used widely and it has had public acceptance for millennia. (Apart from anything else, it was, in centuries past, a means to treat dubious drinking water.)

As someone who neither smokes nor drinks alcohol, it wouldn't bother me at all if alcohol - and tobacco - products could be banned successfully; I don't believe that they can. Remember: the US tried to ban alcohol and failed. Alcohol has been part of Western culture for far too long for that. (And tobacco has also been used widely and openly for centuries.)

Even Prof. Nutt has not said the currently-illegal drugs are safe. So the question is: Do we really want unsafe drugs to become as entrenched in society as alcohol? If they did become so, would we ever be able to turn the clock back? Now if we want to have evidence-based policies, the evidence in front of our eyes is that something that is widely used is nigh-on impossible to ban later. That (together with fear of the Tabloids) is what drives the politics on this issue, not relative safety levels.

[mosaix]

Re the argument that drugs should not be banned because the Government should not be telling people what to do with their bodies - I'm ambivalent about this and have listened to discussion for and against but one thing that was said made me sit up and think and I'd appreciate other people's opinions. It goes like this:

Should any parent allow their children to take addictive drugs? I think most people would answer 'no'. Why? Because kids aren't mature enough and don't have the knowledge to make sound, rational judgments for themselves about taking drugs.

Well, the very nature of addiction takes away the ability of anyone, adults and kids, to make sound, rational judgment about taking of drugs. OK it's your body, but the addicted YOU isn't YOU anymore.

I don't think this train of thought is suggesting that the Government treats everyone as kids, please look deeper into the reasoning than that.

Opinions please.

[Drachir]

It appears that Mr. Nutt may have been a bit of a case.

[Moonbat]

There is a wealth of other scientific medical evidence about it causing psychosis

According the report by the Advisory Council there is only a very weak leak between cannabis and psychosis. Part of the report also stated that psycotropic substances and the mind altering states they induce CAN have very positive effects on personal growth, feelings and overall philosophy.

[alcohol is] a drug that is used widely and it has had public acceptance for millennia.

Psychotropic substances have been widely used for millennia as well. There is evidence of ritualistic in the uk use as far back as 3000BC. Many cultures have and still do use psychotropic substances as part of a rite of passage into maturity. Drugs that are now illegal have a history of being widely used around the world, they have been banned to the extent that we don't see many opium houses in the UK.

Well, the very nature of addiction takes away the ability of anyone, adults and kids, to make sound, rational judgment about taking of drugs. OK it's your body, but the addicted YOU isn't YOU anymore.

But people get addicted to many things and you don't take them away from them. People are addicted to food (take our new fattest man of 70 stone) we don't think that his desire to eat is NOT HIM. Some people become addicted to sports, to the gym, but you wouldn't take it away from them under the guise that they are no longer able to make a descision. People can become addicted to prayer, but would you remove thier faith because they can't be in a right mind to see how the addiction is changing them. The above argument is similar to the assumption that anyone who wants to commit suicide must be mentally unstable and therefore should be kept alive against their will as 'we' the sane people know what is best for them. That kind of righteous arrogance has no place in a free society.

Back to the point though.

If governments employ (voluntarily) experts to advise them on subjects, but then dismiss those advisors if they advise against government policy then aren't we in for a rough ride. I was under the impression that the goivernment was supposed to do what is best for the people not what is best for the government. (I know I'm naive beyond childhood) I don't think that it is right for the government to sack an advisor because he/she speaks his/her mind in public and goes against government policy. Prof Nutt was not a MP, he is not under any obligation to supoprt the government, he is there to advise them on a subject that he is an expert in.

Today G Brown has said that they (the government) don't want to send out mixed messages about drugs, they don't want to send out the message that it was acceptable for young people to experiment with cannabis, as this could lead to more becoming addicted to hard drugs. Even though statistical evidence suggests that decriminalisation actually reduces the amount of people that experiment with HARD drugs.

Ok, that's my rant over, please put your replies on the back of your hand, I will read them quickly as you slap me across the face