Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol Mark Tran guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 17.38 GMT
Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
"In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
"We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a whole."
Nutt had criticised politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs.
Arguing that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illicit drugs, the Imperial College professor called for a new way of classifying the harm caused by both legal and illegal drugs.
"Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. Tobacco is ranked ninth," he wrote in the paper from the centre for crime and justice studies at King's College, London, published yesterday.
"Cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively."
Nutt clashed with Jacqui Smith when she was home secretary after he compared the 100 deaths a year from horseriding with the 30 deaths a year linked to ecstasy.
Smith also ignored the recommendation of Nutt's advisory committee that cannabis should not be reclassified from class C back to class B, leading to heavier penalties.
He criticised Smith's use of the "precautionary principle" to justify her decision to reclassify cannabis and said that by erring on the side of caution politicians "distort" and "devalue" the research evidence.
"This leads us to a position where people really don't know what the evidence is," he said adding that the initial decision to downgrade the classification of cannabis led to a fall in the use of the drug.
Nutt acknowledged there was a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness linked to cannabis use. But he argued that to prevent one episode of schizophrenia it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using" cannabis.
Nutt also renewed his support for reclassifying ecstasy from a class A drug to class B, saying the advisory committee "won the intellectual argument" over the issue but obviously didn't win the decision after the home secretary vetoed the move.
He said the quality of some research papers about cannabis and ecstasy was so poor the articles had to be retracted.
Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice, said Nutt's briefing paper gave an insight into what drugs policy might look like if it was based on the research evidence rather than political or moral positioning.
Garside added: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that when it comes to the Home Office's relationship with the research community honest researchers should be seen but not heard.
"The home secretary's action is a bad day for science and a bad day for the cause of evidence-informed policy making."
> Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked > Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and LSD > were less dangerous than > alcohol <SNIP>> > "In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over > Professor Nutt's comments > which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers > of drugs.
<SNIP>
So they we have it! As if we didn't know already - Drugs policy has absolutely nothing to do with the harms drugs may cause or the scientific facts, it is all about obedience to arbitrary authority.
>Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked >Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than >alcohol
Rather than "his claims" I would say "he pointed out".
>Mark Tran >guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 17.38 GMT
>Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that >ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
Again, instead "claiming" I would say "pointing out", since what he said is factually true.
>Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were >more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
Again, "claimed" implies that his statements are without merit, when in fact it can be completely substantiated that indeed alcohol and tobacco are far more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
>A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of >the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
>"In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments >which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
>"We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and >society as a whole."
In this case, it should be pointed out that "give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs" basically means that he wants to lie with impunity.
> Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked > Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than > alcohol > Mark Tran > guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 17.38 GMT
> Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that > ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
> Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were > more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
> A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of > the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
> "In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments > which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
> "We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and > society as a whole."
> Nutt had criticised politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate > over illicit drugs.
> Arguing that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality > research on the alleged harm caused by some illicit drugs, the Imperial College professor called for > a new way of classifying the harm caused by both legal and illegal drugs.
> "Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. > Tobacco is ranked ninth," he wrote in the paper from the centre for crime and justice studies at > King's College, London, published yesterday.
> "Cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively."
> Nutt clashed with Jacqui Smith when she was home secretary after he compared the 100 deaths a year > from horseriding with the 30 deaths a year linked to ecstasy.
> Smith also ignored the recommendation of Nutt's advisory committee that cannabis should not be > reclassified from class C back to class B, leading to heavier penalties.
> He criticised Smith's use of the "precautionary principle" to justify her decision to reclassify > cannabis and said that by erring on the side of caution politicians "distort" and "devalue" the > research evidence.
> "This leads us to a position where people really don't know what the evidence is," he said adding > that the initial decision to downgrade the classification of cannabis led to a fall in the use of > the drug.
> Nutt acknowledged there was a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness linked to cannabis use. > But he argued that to prevent one episode of schizophrenia it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men > aged 20 to 25 from ever using" cannabis.
> Nutt also renewed his support for reclassifying ecstasy from a class A drug to class B, saying the > advisory committee "won the intellectual argument" over the issue but obviously didn't win the > decision after the home secretary vetoed the move.
> He said the quality of some research papers about cannabis and ecstasy was so poor the articles had > to be retracted.
> Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice, said Nutt's briefing paper gave an > insight into what drugs policy might look like if it was based on the research evidence rather than > political or moral positioning.
> Garside added: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political > calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that when it comes to the > Home Office's relationship with the research community honest researchers should be seen but not > heard.
> "The home secretary's action is a bad day for science and a bad day for the cause of > evidence-informed policy making."
To a certain degreeit was his own downfall. He publicly stated that "youve got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by cannibis" where he should have said "there are more fatalies involving horse riders than by the use of cannabis".
Noticed at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:02:48 -0700: Vicko Zoomba informed us:
> To a certain degreeit was his own downfall. He publicly stated that "youve > got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by cannibis" where > he should have said "there are more fatalies involving horse riders than > by the use of cannabis".
That was ecstasy, which in the interest of truth I must point out.
> Yet one more reason not to vote Labour at the coming general election.
You're off message. Please return immediately for re-programming.
I agree - if anyone canvasses in my area for the Labour Party I shall tell them that this Stalinist behaviour towards scientists, as well as the warmongering, makes Labour unfit for office. I don't give a toss whether the Tories would have done the same. The fact is, it was Labour wot dunnit.
>>"In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over >>Professor Nutt's comments >>which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers >>of drugs.
>>"We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise >>their harm to health and >>society as a whole."
> In this case, it should be pointed out that "give the public clear > messages > about the dangers of drugs" basically means that he wants to lie with > impunity.
How do we give the Government clear messages about the dangers of exercising arbitrary and irresponsible authority? Telling scientists what to believe. The impertinence of it.
Vicko Zoomba wrote: > To a certain degreeit was his own downfall.
IHMO Only is as much as he didn't keep his mouth shut.
> He publicly stated that > "youve got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by > cannibis" where he should have said "there are more fatalies involving > horse riders than by the use of cannabis".
Do you mean that although more people die from riding accidents it doesn't necessarily mean riding is more dangerous because there may be a lot more people riding that taking ecstacy (I'm sure he was talking about ecstasy not cannabis). If that is what you mean then prof. Nutt did take the number of episodes into account. The paper can be found here:
On 30 Oct, 17:44, "5trfg6h7" <jygffv...@jogrtyhf456v.com> wrote:
> Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that > ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
> Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were > more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
> A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of > the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
Professor expresses informed opinion, and is sacked as chair of an advisory council?
> "In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments > which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
> "We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and > society as a whole."
And I wonder to what "illegal substance" do they refer? Truth?
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:45:55 -0000, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>How do we give the Government clear messages about the dangers of exercising >arbitrary and irresponsible authority? Telling scientists what to believe. >The impertinence of it.
Politicians telling scientists to recant and punishing them if they don't is nothing new.
After the professor said, quite correctly, that taking ecstacy is less dangerous than horse riding Jacqui Smith gave him an injunction to "abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it" and to "abjure, curse, and detest those opinions." Or maybe I'm thinking of another scientist who's facts fell foul of the Authorities.
Still, Professor Nutt wasn't threatened with torture and sentenced to house arrest for life.
Svenne wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:45:55 -0000, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> > wrote:
>> How do we give the Government clear messages about the dangers of exercising >> arbitrary and irresponsible authority? Telling scientists what to believe. >> The impertinence of it.
> Politicians telling scientists to recant and punishing them if they > don't is nothing new.
Yes but the last batch were the Inquisition and you can expect them where ever there arises an institution with too much power.
> After the professor said, quite correctly, that taking ecstacy is less > dangerous than horse riding Jacqui Smith gave him an injunction to > "abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, > and not to treat of it" and to "abjure, curse, and detest those > opinions." Or maybe I'm thinking of another scientist who's facts fell > foul of the Authorities.
> Still, Professor Nutt wasn't threatened with torture and sentenced to > house arrest for life.
"Always look on the bright side of life." __From the fellows at Monty Python's Flying Circus
> Svenne
Professor Nutt is going to be ok but the danger of suppressing the divergent opinion is to the society as a whole in the UK.
> IHMO Only is as much as he didn't keep his mouth shut.
>> He publicly stated that >> "youve got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by >> cannibis" where he should have said "there are more fatalies involving >> horse riders than by the use of cannabis".
> Do you mean that although more people die from riding accidents it > doesn't necessarily mean riding is more dangerous because there may be a > lot more people riding that taking ecstacy (I'm sure he was talking > about ecstasy not cannabis). If that is what you mean then prof. Nutt > did take the number of episodes into account. The paper can be found here:
> From table 1 it appears that horse riding caused acute harm to a person > once in 350 episodes while ecstasy caused acute harm once in 10,000 > episodes.
> Gareth.
He should have shut up before mentioning LSD or Ecstasy. Big mouth blows Pot argument. Horse riding killed Superman on this side of the pond. That statistic I'm sure everyone knows. Damn Kryptonite horses. Bill Baka
> > Yet one more reason not to vote Labour at the coming general election.
> You're off message. Please return immediately for re-programming.
> I agree - if anyone canvasses in my area for the Labour Party I shall tell > them that this Stalinist behaviour towards scientists, as well as the > warmongering, makes Labour unfit for office. I don't give a toss whether the > Tories would have done the same. The fact is, it was Labour wot dunnit.
> Noticed at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:02:48 -0700: Vicko Zoomba informed > us:
>> To a certain degreeit was his own downfall. He publicly stated that >> "youve >> got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by cannibis" >> where >> he should have said "there are more fatalies involving horse riders >> than >> by the use of cannabis".
> That was ecstasy, which in the interest of truth I must point out.
> I'll never make Home Secretary like that.
Erm... since when has drug war ever been about the truth?
> On 30 Oct, 17:44, "5trfg6h7" <jygffv...@jogrtyhf456v.com> wrote:
>> Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been >> sacked a day after claiming that >> ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
>> Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a >> paper that alcohol and tobacco were >> more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and >> cannabis.
>> A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked >> Professor Nutt to resign as chair of >> the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
> Professor expresses informed opinion, and is sacked as chair of an > advisory council?
Professor expresses scientific and statistical facts, idiotic drug policy exposed, professor sacked.
>> Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked >> Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and >> LSD were less dangerous than >> alcohol >> Garside added: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears >> to believe that political >> calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is >> that when it comes to the >> Home Office's relationship with the research community honest researchers >> should be seen but not >> heard.
>> "The home secretary's action is a bad day for science and a bad day for >> the cause of >> evidence-informed policy making."
> To a certain degreeit was his own downfall. He publicly stated that > "youve got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by > cannibis" where he should have said "there are more fatalies involving > horse riders than by the use of cannabis".
Is getting the facts right important? He said no such thing
>> > Yet one more reason not to vote Labour at the coming general election.
>> You're off message. Please return immediately for re-programming.
>> I agree - if anyone canvasses in my area for the Labour Party I shall >> tell >> them that this Stalinist behaviour towards scientists, as well as the >> warmongering, makes Labour unfit for office. I don't give a toss whether >> the >> Tories would have done the same. The fact is, it was Labour wot dunnit.
> Agreed.
It would help if you had more respect for the truth yourself. Why not comment on what he actually said, rather than on what you 'kinda think' he said.
The difference between you and him is that he has evidence for what he says, not what you think you heard someone said he said on the radio.
> Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked > Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than > alcohol > Mark Tran > guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 17.38 GMT
> Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that > ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
> Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were > more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
> A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of > the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
> "In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments > which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
> "We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and > society as a whole."
> Nutt had criticised politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate > over illicit drugs.
> Arguing that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality > research on the alleged harm caused by some illicit drugs, the Imperial College professor called for > a new way of classifying the harm caused by both legal and illegal drugs.
> "Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. > Tobacco is ranked ninth," he wrote in the paper from the centre for crime and justice studies at > King's College, London, published yesterday.
> "Cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively."
> Nutt clashed with Jacqui Smith when she was home secretary after he compared the 100 deaths a year > from horseriding with the 30 deaths a year linked to ecstasy.
> Smith also ignored the recommendation of Nutt's advisory committee that cannabis should not be > reclassified from class C back to class B, leading to heavier penalties.
> He criticised Smith's use of the "precautionary principle" to justify her decision to reclassify > cannabis and said that by erring on the side of caution politicians "distort" and "devalue" the > research evidence.
> "This leads us to a position where people really don't know what the evidence is," he said adding > that the initial decision to downgrade the classification of cannabis led to a fall in the use of > the drug.
> Nutt acknowledged there was a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness linked to cannabis use. > But he argued that to prevent one episode of schizophrenia it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men > aged 20 to 25 from ever using" cannabis.
> Nutt also renewed his support for reclassifying ecstasy from a class A drug to class B, saying the > advisory committee "won the intellectual argument" over the issue but obviously didn't win the > decision after the home secretary vetoed the move.
> He said the quality of some research papers about cannabis and ecstasy was so poor the articles had > to be retracted.
> Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice, said Nutt's briefing paper gave an > insight into what drugs policy might look like if it was based on the research evidence rather than > political or moral positioning.
> Garside added: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political > calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that when it comes to the > Home Office's relationship with the research community honest researchers should be seen but not > heard.
> "The home secretary's action is a bad day for science and a bad day for the cause of > evidence-informed policy making."
> "John Watson" <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7l0so4F39d1trU1@mid.individual.net... >> Noticed at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:02:48 -0700: Vicko Zoomba informed us:
>>> To a certain degreeit was his own downfall. He publicly stated that >>> "youve >>> got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by cannibis" >>> where >>> he should have said "there are more fatalies involving horse riders >>> than >>> by the use of cannabis".
>> That was ecstasy, which in the interest of truth I must point out.
>> I'll never make Home Secretary like that.
> Erm... since when has drug war ever been about the truth?
Exactly. Which is why I'll never make Home Secretary.
> >>"In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over > >>Professor Nutt's comments > >>which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers > >>of drugs.
> >>"We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise > >>their harm to health and > >>society as a whole."
> > In this case, it should be pointed out that "give the public clear > > messages > > about the dangers of drugs" basically means that he wants to lie with > > impunity.
> How do we give the Government clear messages about the dangers of exercising > arbitrary and irresponsible authority? Telling scientists what to believe. > The impertinence of it.
As someone who has been a member of ENCOD.ORG, which is a Coalition of over 200 NGO's from around the world, including Opium growers, Coca Growers, Evo Morales, and many Drug Policy Alliances from this world we live. In doing such work one does get involved in & learn of many ludicruse intiatives and discraceful behavior by our governments and from the United Nations. Please go to www.youtube.com/viennabandd & watch a video called 'NGO-Silenced' - CND also 'Polak vs Costa' here you will see Dr. Frederick Polak (psychiatrist) question Mr. Antonio M. Costa on a point of 'fact', and see what he recieved for his trouble. Is this democratic? Watch it while you can.
On 30 Oct, 20:22, John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
> Noticed at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:02:48 -0700: Vicko Zoomba informed us:
> > To a certain degreeit was his own downfall. He publicly stated that "youve > > got more chance of dieing by falling off a horse then by cannibis" where > > he should have said "there are more fatalies involving horse riders than > > by the use of cannabis".
> That was ecstasy, which in the interest of truth I must point out.
> On 30 Oct, 17:44, "5trfg6h7" <jygffv...@jogrtyhf456v.com> wrote:
> > Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that > > ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
> > Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were > > more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
> > A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of > > the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
> Professor expresses informed opinion, and is sacked as chair of an > advisory council?
> > "In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments > > which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
> > "We remain determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and > > society as a whole."
> And I wonder to what "illegal substance" do they refer? Truth?
I wonder if Big Pharma Lobbies hard and/or pays for present drug- policy. Remember a Plant cannot be patented. irra
> >> > Yet one more reason not to vote Labour at the coming general election.
> >> You're off message. Please return immediately for re-programming.
> >> I agree - if anyone canvasses in my area for the Labour Party I shall > >> tell > >> them that this Stalinist behaviour towards scientists, as well as the > >> warmongering, makes Labour unfit for office. I don't give a toss whether > >> the > >> Tories would have done the same. The fact is, it was Labour wot dunnit.
> > Agreed.
> It would help if you had more respect for the truth yourself. Why not > comment on what he actually said, rather than on what you 'kinda think' he > said.
> The difference between you and him is that he has evidence for what he says, > not what you think you heard someone said he said on the radio.- Hide quoted text -
|
