Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
UK expert Nutt: Pot evidence 'was distorted' - FIRED Oct 09 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:55 pm
Cannabis evidence 'was distorted'
BBC News
29 OCT 2009
The row over the reclassification of cannabis has been reignited after the government's chief drug adviser accused ministers of "distorting" the evidence. Professor David Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, says it does not cause major health problems. He accused ex-home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of "devaluing" scientific research.
The Home Office said these opinions "do not reflect the views of government". A spokesman said: "Prof Nutt's views are his own." He added: "The government is clear: we are determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a whole." It comes after Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College in London and briefing paper to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs.
Precautionary measure
The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness, and claimed those who advocated moving ecstasy into Class B from Class A had "won the intellectual argument". Public concern over the links between high-strength cannabis, known as skunk, and mental illness led the government to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C last year. The decision was taken despite official advisers recommending against the change. Ministers said they wanted to make the move as a precautionary measure. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of cannabis classification, which was ordered in 2007, was the result of a "skunk scare", according to the professor.
In his lecture and briefing paper, entitled Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business?, he repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse. Prof Nutt also warned that the reclassification decision may lead to more people taking the drug. "It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet" he said, adding the government's approach "starts to distort the value of evidence". He cited research which "estimates that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia, we would need to stop about 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 years from ever using the drug".
He said skunk has been in wide usage for about 10 years but, he claims, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia. The professor accepts cannabis can sometimes cause mental illness, but argues it is safer than tobacco and alcohol and, overall, does not lead to major health problems. Prof Nutt said: "We have to accept young people like to experiment - with drugs and other potentially harmful activities - and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. "We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong." Following these comments, a spokesman for the ACMD said: "The lecture Prof Nutt gave at King's College was in his academic capacity and was not in his role as chair of the ACMD. "We acknowledge that the lecture has prompted further debate on the harms of drugs."
“ If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong ” - Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
Joined: Aug 13, 2009 Posts: 168 Location: Aotearoa
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:51 pm
What an unfortunate name Professor Nutt...
"to prevent one episode of schizophrenia, we would need to stop about 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 years from ever using the drug".
Now that is putting the mental health angle the NZ government is currently taking into real perspective! _________________ "I cannot stand by and see the truth distorted for political reasons" -Prof. David Nutt
Joined: Sep 24, 2005 Posts: 602 Location: new zealand
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:38 am
Prohibition is a sick political cult which gifts power to certain sectors of society and protects the pushers of P iss from competition from safer and softer drugs .........................
A cult will have a falsehood as one of its central beliefs.
The main falsehood that the cult of prohibition believes is that any recreational drug use ( apart from taking booze ) is "drug abuse " and a criminal offence.
That is cult thinking and is opposed to science and reason .......
I see here in New Zealand the police have been given MORE powers and laws to try and enforce the cult ......
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 5135 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:28 am
Nutt said "If scientists are not allowed to engage in the debate at this interface then you devalue their contribution to policy making and undermine a major source of carefully considered and evidence-based advice."
Which is true but, even if he is a scientist, he can't have missed noticing how much politics breeds on spin and outright bullshit
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/focusonpolitics Saturday at 5:10pm and Friday after 6:30pm - A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Focus On Politics for 30 October 2009 link opens media playerhttp://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/fop/2009/10/focus_on_politics_for_30_october_2009 Protest and civil liberty groups fear the Search and Surveillance Bill will extend the powers of police and other agencies to monitor and search people and their homes. (duration: 16′09″)
Download mp3 podcast: MP3
NZ Law Commissioner Warren Young is heard buying into the Search & Seizure paradigm on the basis that officials already have whatever powers, and this legislation is a logical step to close any loopholes... and police saying if we have to get a class c warrant we have to jump through all these hoops so by the time we get the warrant the evidence can be gone.. and Human Rights commissioner Noonan saying Bill of Rights breaches, not properly vetted by attorney general...
I didn't hear it all, someone who did emailed me about it. But one thing is screamingly obvious.... the more they entrench this paradigm the more difficult it is to peel it back, ie. because its illegal we need all these powers.
It will be interesting to watch what result the Law Commission's current discussion paper on Alcohol cause legislatively. After that the Misuse of Drugs Act review discussion paper is meant to be released.
They do these inquiries as directed by politiians. They did a search and seizure powers review a while back and this legislation is a result of that. Then it was supposed to be the MoD review... to be followed by the Alcohol review. Unfortunately the MoD discussion paper has been held up because when they got in the Nats asked for the Alcohol review first.
Showing his vintage Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:32 am
It was more likely the way he said it - emotively with Ministerial attacks - rather than what was said. I don't like his approach, it's rather cliche and I'm not convinced he is even debating as claimed - given rigidity. He's arguing from within the paradigm ie over classifications, trying to dismantle the existing system from within, rather than attacking the paradigm.
It strikes me as intellecually dishonest, when it is apparent his real agenda is legalisation, as he stressed the hippocracy of alcohol and tobacco being non classified. Why, as a supposed scientist is he taking the approach that his take on the science is infallible in findings and then conclusions. He is an advisor not god, so needs to stop throwing toys out of the cot when the world doesn't change overnight just by virtue of his pronouncements.
Factually he cherrypicks rather than presenting a neutral analysis when the public service should avoid bias. Yes cannabis has only low association with possible causality in schizophrenia - however it has a large role in exacerbating it so causes much cost in revolving door acute psychiatric admissions. Basis for claim -a decade of working in acute psych wards which does make me more knowledgeable on this real world evidence, that someone of Nutts training.
It is easier to assess harm of substances where use is out on the open, hence high ratings for alcohol and tobacco. But the amt of harm being used as a classification basis is really a load of cobblers, as classification itself using an assumption harder penalties deter hardly addresses the problems.
If alcohol was illegal there would still be alcoholics, ditto drugs and dependency/addiction. Having a sliding scale based on a guess at the harm index (that is all it can be under ban culture regardless how expert the experts claim to be) which aims to raise price is perfectly nuts (recipe for making bank robbers)which is perhaps what Nutt should have been stressing, rather than trying to grandstand by making insensitive controversial statements like comparing E to horseriding - dead E kids folks feelings thrown aside, to his peril we see after further bull riding in china shops.
Look at the debate over liquor - how do we price it to reduce demand in problem prone users, but not be so prohibitive as to cause users to have no options but turn to crime to fund the habit?
Nutt would have gone further and alienated fewer voters and public figures had he simply focussed on price / demand reduction / results, the best pathways - rather than focussing on attenuating the misguided framework. It seems he has got trapped in the standard legalising propaganda without realising how this radicalism worn on the sleeve can undermine development of support.
How would he expect comparisons between drinking and say rugby harm to go down? It's just as precocious to compare E and riding.
Last edited by zinger on Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total
Apparently the drug review is grossly underfunded too, unlike the boozers.
Can't see why both weren't done in one go, its an artificial divide and makes extra work with having to submit to both. OK need to get going as my legal plants will die without care. Root trainers to get in ground.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005 Posts: 730 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:00 am
Prof David Nutt is to be congratulated for having the courage and honesty to take a course that could result in his being sacked (and it did). Many advisors censor themselves for fear of such an outcome. This was shooting the messenger and sending a message. But the shot wasn't fatal and the message could get an answering.
Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 63 Location: The Year 3000
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:11 pm
Sadly Proff Nutt has been fired
Paul13 wrote:
Prof David Nutt is to be congratulated for having the courage and honesty to take a course that could result in his being sacked (and it did). Many advisors censor themselves for fear of such an outcome. This was shooting the messenger and sending a message. But the shot wasn't fatal and the message could get an answering.
The UK's chief drugs adviser has been sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, after criticising government policies. Professor David Nutt, head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, criticised the decision to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C. He accused ministers of devaluing and distorting evidence and said drugs classification was being politicised. The home secretary said he had "lost confidence" in his advice and asked him to step down. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is the UK's official drugs advisory body.
Following his sacking, Prof Nutt told the BBC he stood by his claim that cannabis should not be a Class B drug, based on its effects. He described his sacking as a "serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government". And he denied that he had been trying to undermine the government's policies on drugs. "I am disappointed because, to be honest, all I was trying to do was help. I wasn't challenging the government," said the former adviser. "We can help them. We can give them very good advice, and it would be much more simpler if they took that advice rather than getting tangled up in other sorts of messages which frankly really do confuse the public." Prof Nutt said he was not prepared to "mislead" the public about the effects of drugs in order to convey a moral "message" on the government's behalf. Earlier this week Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College, London, to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs. The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.
Phil Willis MP, chairman of the science and technology select committee, said he would write to the home secretary to ask for clarification as to why Prof David Nutt had been sacked "at a time when independent scientific advice to government is essential". "It is disturbing if an independent scientist should be removed for reporting sound scientific advice," he said.
Public concern over the links between high-strength cannabis, known as skunk, and mental illness led the government to reclassify cannabis to Class B last year. In the past, Prof Nutt has also claimed that taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse. In a letter, the home secretary wrote: "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD. "I would therefore ask you to step down from the Council with immediate effect."
In his reply, Prof Nutt said he was "disappointed" by the sentiments expressed by Mr Johnson. He added: "Whilst I accept that there is a distinction between scientific advice and government policy there is clearly a degree of overlap. "If scientists are not allowed to engage in the debate at this interface then you devalue their contribution to policy making and undermine a major source of carefully considered and evidence-based advice."
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the sacking had been "an inevitable decision" after Prof Nutt's "latest ill-judged contribution to the debate".
But Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the decision to sack the adviser had been "disgraceful". "What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?" he said. Mr Huhne said if the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy".
Similarly, Claudia Rubin from Release - a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law - said the expert should not have been penalised. "It's a real shame and a real indictment of the government's refusal to take any proper advice on this subject," she said.
And Prof Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said the government could not expect experts who serve on its independent committees not to voice their concern if the advice they give is rejected. "I worry that the dismissal of Prof Nutt will discourage academic and clinical experts from offering their knowledge and time to help the government in the future," he said.
Possession of Class B drugs carries a maximum sentence of five years in jail while possession of Class C drugs carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. In 2004, then Home Secretary David Blunkett had approved the reclassification of cannabis from Class B - which it had been since 1971 - to Class C.
But in 2008, Jacqui Smith announced that she would reverse the 2004 decision and put cannabis back into category B. The decision was taken despite official advisers recommending against the change. Ministers said they wanted to make the move as a precautionary measure.
Guardian article by Prof Nutt
The cannabis conundrum
By keeping cannabis as a class B drug, it's possible that, far from deterring its use, we actually increase its cachet 31 October 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/29/cannabis-david-nutt-drug-classification?commentpage=3&commentposted=1
As the headlines this week alone demonstrate, the whole process of determining drug classification has become quite complex and highly politicised. I focus on cannabis partly because it is the only drug that has been downgraded in the whole history of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which established the present system of drug classification, but also because the issues relating to cannabis pose a challenge to whether the act is working as it was originally intended.
- snip - see link for the rest - This article is based on a longer version published by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at Kings College, London, which itself was based on a lecture delivered by Professor Nutt earlier in the year.
UK marijuana policy sees 2 more resign 8:35AM Monday, Nov 02, 2009
Associated Press
London - Two more drug advisers to the British government have reportedly stepped down amid an increasingly heated debate over the country's marijuana policy. The resignation of chemist Les King from Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs follows the ouster of the group's chairman David Nutt, who was forced to step down after speaking out against the government's decision to tighten restrictions on marijuana.
Another council member, clinical director Marion Walker, has also resigned, Nutt said in interviews with broadcasters on Sunday. The debate has its roots in the British government's decision to officially reclassify marijuana as a more dangerous kind of drug. Previously marijuana was considered a "Class C" drug, whose possession could carry a sentence of up to two years in prison. But the government recently upgraded the drug to "Class B," meaning that the possession of marijuana could now result in up to five years in prison. Possession of "Class A" drugs such as Cocaine and Ecstasy could lead to seven years in prison.
King has warned that the group, which has advised the British government on drug issues for nearly four decades, could fall apart. "It's being asked to rubber stamp a predetermined position," he said, explaining that British ministers were putting inappropriate pressure on scientists to make decisions on drugs for political reasons. He said others could follow him by leaving the council, a move that would be deeply embarrassing for the government.
"If sufficient members do resign, the committee will no longer be able to operate," King said. The move to reclassify marijuana went against the advice Nutt and his council. The professor of psychopharmacology has consistently argued that drugs such as marijuana and Ecstasy are far less dangerous than alcohol and that the restrictions placed on them should be proportional to their potential harm. Britain's Home Office rejected his advice last year, calling the scientific evidence uncertain and saying that a message needed to be sent to marijuana users that possessing the drug is a serious crime. Although Nutt's position has long been known, Britain's Home Office Secretary Alan Johnson forced him to resign after he revisited the issue in recent media interviews and accused the government of distorting scientific evidence.
Johnson he respected Nutt's views but the adviser had "crossed the line." "You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against government decisions," he told Sky News television in an interview. "You can do one or the other, you can't do both."
Nutt's dismissal has caused dismay in the scientific community. Scientist Robert Winston, a lawmaker with Johnson's governing Labour Party, said Nutt had made a "very reasonable" point about the relative dangers of illegal and legal drugs, telling BBC radio that he was disappointed by Johnson's actions. "I think that if governments appoint expert advice they shouldn't dismiss it so lightly," he said. "I think it shows a rather poor understanding of the value of science."
The council has 31 members, three of which have now stepped down. Johnson said he would be meeting with the remaining members shortly. As for Nutt, he said he would continue to speak out on the issue. "I cannot stand by and see the truth distorted for political reasons," he told Sky.
link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10606766
MrNiceGuyNZ commented -
because he compared both legal and illegal drugs in an honest sense saw him lose his job.
Would you hang around if you knew your advice meant nothing to those in control?
Tony commented -
He was pushed he did not fall..
This is a political culture that influences New Zealands stance on cannabis.. The intimidation those within our own system suffer if they are seen to take a more liberal view of cannabis is what suppresses the truth..
I got an email from a medpot supporter from within the system.. it just simply said "I am not a Nutt"
tony
MrNiceGuyNZ commented -
Hi Tony, my second comment was in reference to the staff under him.
mrdee commented -
The reaction from the government was swift and unforgiving. Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked him by email.
"You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the political field and campaigning against government decisions," he said.
"You can do one or the other. You can't do both."
Damned if ya do, damned if they dont....
Tony commented -
It is a shame few of our expert drug adivisors to the Govt here in NZ don't tell the truth , rather they couch what they say to ensure the fit with what the political master dictates. We have few experts who are prepared to suffer the wrath of the clobbering machine..
I have seen skilled and strong minded staffer/ officials determine they could slowly and surely bring to the fore a positive medical cannabis direction. It does not take long for them to see the folly of of their way and join the do nothings, the subtle intimidation and the clobbering machine destroy them.
I have had some already contact me to example Prof Nutt.
tony
Squallzy commented -
I read about this story in the Rotorua Daily Post and I was really pleased to see these people stand up for their co-worker.
Good on em!
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 5135 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:35 pm
Many more articles covering the firing of Prof Nutt, I'm posting only the first para or two.
Professor Nutt's sacking shows how toxic the drugs debate has become
Ben Quinn
31 October 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/professor-david-nutt-drugs-sacking
The sacking of Professor David Nutt as the government's chief drugs adviser again underlines the sheer toxicity surrounding even the very debate surround the reclassification of illegal substances – an issue that has dogged Labour governments in particular. Policy in the area has been a political battlefield since at least 1970 when a special class B category was created for cannabis as a compromise between the Labour home secretary, James Callaghan, and others in cabinet who disagreed with his view that it was as dangerous as heroin. Another Labour government later resisted recommendations from the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in 1978 that cannabis should be further downgraded, before another Home Secretary, David Blunkett, finally accepted the reclassification to class C in 2002.
Drugs policy: Shooting up the messenger
31 October 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/31/david-nutt-sacking-alan-johnson
Professor David Nutt is an expert in his field: a professor of psychopharmacology at Bristol University and head of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London. He knows more about the brain's responses to anxiety, addiction and sleep than any politician or media commentator. He is precisely the sort of man who should be helping the government shape its drugs policy, which is why he was appointed and then reappointed to serve as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That is also why it is such a disgrace that Alan Johnson, the home secretary, sacked him late yesterday afternoon for having the temerity to point out some obvious truths about the government's populist and unthinking handling of the issue.
UK drug adviser fired after marijuana comments
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press Writer, LONDON
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010170280_apeubritaindrugchieffired.html?syndication=rss
Britain's top drug adviser was fired Friday after saying that marijuana, Ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. David Nutt's comments have embarrassed the British government, which toughened the penalties for possessing marijuana earlier this year over the protests of many prominent British scientists. Nutt said he was disappointed by his sacking, telling Sky News television that it might have something to do with the upcoming general election, which must be called by the middle of next year. "Politics is politics and science is science, and there's a bit of a tension between them sometime," he told the broadcaster by telephone.
Leading article: Unfair dismissal
31 October 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-unfair-dismissal-1812292.html
Professor David Nutt was sacked yesterday as head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, accused Professor Nutt of stepping over the line which separates advice and policymaking in a public lecture this week. Yet it is worth looking at precisely what Professor Nutt said. The point he made was that the Government's reclassification of cannabis from class C to class B was not justified by research into the danger the drug poses to health. He also called for a more rational official evaluation of the harm inflicted by all narcotic substances. Isn't this the sort of scientifically-based independent thinking Professor Nutt was supposed to produce? Or does this Government only want to hear advice that it is already inclined to follow?
Drugs: Prejudice and political weakness have rejected scientific facts
1 November 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/01/david-nutt-drugs-sacking
The sacking of David Nutt for insisting on the probity of scientific evidence that did not correspond to political exigencies has a significance well beyond the drugs debate. The essence of democracy is evidence- based argument, reason and genuine deliberation. Of course there will be a passionate clash of values and priorities, but if we cannot accept the facts we descend into a shouting match between rival prejudices. This is not the first time the government has shown its unwillingness to accept the primacy of science in the debate over drugs.
Six drugs service scientists may resign over sacking of chairman
1 November 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/six-drugs-service-scientists-may-resign-over-sacking-of-chairman-1812907.html
Leading members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are expected to resign over the sacking of its chairman, leaving the service in disarray, one of its leading scientists has warned. Dr Les King, a respected chemist and former head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service, said that anger over the "disgraceful" decision by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to remove Professor David Nutt could lead to a meltdown in the 40-year-old organisation.
Scientists rebel at sacking of drug czar David Nutt
November 1, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6898197.ece
The head of Britain’s leading medical research organisation rounded on the government yesterday for sacking its principal drugs adviser. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said scientists must be allowed to give “unfettered advice without the fear of reprisal”. His criticism followed the abrupt dismissal of David Nutt on Friday. This weekend Nutt said many of his colleagues on the advisory council on the misuse of drugs, which he chaired, could resign in protest. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them stepped down,” he said. “Maybe all of them will.”
Ministers face rebellion over drug tsar's sacking
1 November 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/01/david-nutt-gordon-brown-drugs
The government was at the centre of a furious backlash from leading scientists last night following its sacking of Britain's top drugs adviser. The decision by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, to call on Professor David Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has thrown the future of the respected independent body into severe doubt. There were claims last night that many of those who sit on the 31-strong council – which advises ministers on what evidence there is of harm caused by drugs – may resign en masse, raising serious doubts about how ministers will justify policy decisions.
David Nutt's sacking provokes mass revolt against Alan Johnson
1 November, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/01/david-nutt-alan-johnstone-drugs
Johnson faces 'collective action' threat from advisers as two resign in protest. The home secretary faces mass resignations from the government's drug advisory body over his decision to force out its chairman, who accused ministers of distorting scientific evidence on cannabis. Two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs resigned todayin protest at Alan Johnson's treatment of Professor David Nutt. Another member told the Guardian that the experts were "planning collective action" against Johnson, adding: "Everybody is devastated. We're all considering our positions."
The case of Professor Nutt and the need for political lies.
November 1st, 2009
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=93
UK drugs policy is in chaos and it’s all the fault of politicians playing to the media instead of making policy based on fact. To paraphrase Douglas Adams of “The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy” fame: The skills needed to get elected mean that anyone who has the ability to do so is precisely the sort of person who should never be allowed to. That would seem to describe politicians only too well as recent events have demonstrated. Alan Johnson is probably a nice bloke, but his qualification for holding high office was through experience of life being a postman, it’s hard indeed to see how he is better qualified to pontificate on the issue of drug use than someone who is a professor of psychopharmacology at Bristol University and head of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London.
Drug adviser rolled over cannabis claims
By Europe correspondent Philip Williams
November 2, 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/02/2730355.htm
A row has broken out in Britain, after the chief drugs adviser to the government was sacked when he said alcohol and cigarettes were more dangerous than cannabis. Other scientists on the drugs advisory council have resigned in protest, complaining the government is ignoring science in favour of popular myths.
Westminster's drugs paranoia can't last
2 November, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/drugs-westminster
Let's begin with 1989: a year currently being celebrated for the fall of Eastern European Communism, but on the home front, remarkable for slightly less respectable reasons. It was that year, after all, that saw the peak of the great youthquake known as acid house, and a recreational drug culture that had begun as the preserve of a few thousand metropolitan libertines decisively soak into the mainstream. Not that things were quite this simple, but it isn't a bad theory: if you want to understand the modern ubiquity not just of ecstasy, but cocaine, cannabis and LSD, think back to the teeming crowds that would gather for illicit raves, a milieu that came to all but define the UK's cultural cutting-edge, and a political and media class that was quickly scared out of its wits.
Labour is in denial over cannabis row
2 November 2009
Jeremy Sare
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/cannabis-row-drugs-david-nutt
As a former head of drug legislation and Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) secretary in the Home Office, I worked for some years with the estimable drug experts Professor David Nutt and Dr Les King. They may have been too modest to declare it publicly, but I can say they are certainly among the most respected figures in their fields.
This deep crisis of science on drugs and politics has been a long time coming. The political takeover of the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) started with the former home secretary, David Blunkett, in 2001. His unshakeable assertion that cannabis should be downgraded to class C fortunately coincided with the scientists' perspective, but the political die was cast.
Alan Johnson orders swift review of drugs advice body
2 November 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/02/drugspolicy-drugs
The home secretary, Alan Johnson, has placed the future of the expert body at the centre of the row over drugs policy in doubt by ordering a swift review of how it operates, the Guardian has learned. The disclosure follows his decision to sack Professor David Nutt as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) on Friday after the scientist renewed his criticism of the government's decision to toughen the law on cannabis.
Today, in response to an emergency Commons question, Johnson said that he had agreed to the request from the ACMD for an urgent meeting and insisted that his decision to sack Nutt was taken because of the way he had conducted himself as chairman and not because of the council's policy advice on drugs.
Last edited by paula on Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total
By Andrew Jack in London
Published: November 3 2009 02:00
The government's advisory body on illegal drugs risks collapsing under fresh resignations after the home secretary sacked its chairman for criticising the tough policy on cannabis.
In a letter circulating on Monday, many of the remaining 28 members of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs demanded a meeting with Alan Johnson amid "serious concerns" about future handling of their advice. David Nutt was sacked following a lecture in which he questioned the government's persistent rejection of his committee's recommendations. The case has sparked a broader debate about the extent to which politicians heed their independent advisers.
Mr Johnson said he respected Prof Nutt's views but had lost confidence in him over his criticism of the government, adding that he should have submitted his views in advance for approval.
"I asked Prof Nutt to resign as my principal drugs adviser not because of the work of the council but because of his failure to recognise that as chair of ACMD his role is to advise rather than criticise government policy on drugs," Mr Johnson said.
Les King, one of two committee members who resigned in protest over the dismissal, called Mr Johnson's action "disgraceful". "We are not the poodles of the Home office," he said. He expressed frustration that ministers had repeatedly rejected advice from the committee to reclassify cannabis as a less serious Class C drug, and argued that ministers revealed a "predetermined agenda" by indicating in advance that they were minded to maintain its Class B status.
The committee's own code says members should be objective, open and accountable "through ministers to parliament and the public".
Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College in London, who invited Prof Nutt to give his lecture, stressed that "at no point did he make reference to his role as chair of the ACMD, nor did he give the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the ACMD".
Sir John Krebs, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford and former head of the Food Standards Agency, said: "I cannot imagine any reputable scientist wanting to take on David Nutt's job with Alan Johnson. All academics will think hard about offering their advice in such a regime. Without science advice the government is compromised."
David Nutt's controversial lecture conformed to government guidelines
An interesting development in the row over the sacking of Professor David Nutt as the government's chief drugs adviser has emerged this afternoon. It appears that the lecture that provoked Alan Johnson to dismiss him (and the pamphlet in which it was subsequently published) conformed to the Government's own code of practice for scientific advisers.
The Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, as revised in 2007, sets out the ground rules for members and chairs. It states that committee rules should not normally preclude advisers from speaking out about their areas of expertise, so long as they do so in their personal capacity, and do not claim to be representing their panels. The key section is paragraph 106:
“Rules of conduct need not affect a member’s freedom to represent his or her field of expertise in a personal capacity. The committee's rules however should generally oblige members to make clear when they are not speaking in their capacity as committee members."
The comments from Professor Nutt that angered Mr Johnson were made in July in the Eve Saville lecture at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London, which was published as a pamphlet last week. And Richard Garside, the centre's director, has today written to the Home Secretary to point out that both the lecture and the pamphlet made it perfectly clear that Professor Nutt was speaking in his capacity as Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London, not as chairman of the ACMD. Garside writes:
"I have to conclude that the public confusion between Professor Nutt’s academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies."
The full letter follows after the jump.
Dear Home Secretary,
I am writing to you about your decision to dismiss Professor David Nutt as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
It was the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that asked Professor Nutt to present his analysis at a lecture at King’s College London in July of this year. Following the lecture Professor Nutt agreed to our publishing an edited version, which we did last Thursday. A copy of this publication, along with the press release, can be accessed on our website here.
The publicity material for the lecture can be viewed on our website here.
In your letter to Professor Nutt advising him that you were dismissing him from his role, you wrote that his contribution went ‘against the requirements on general standards of public life’ required by his position as chair of the ACMD. You went on to write:
‘As chair of the ACMD you cannot avoid appearing to implicate the Council in your comments and thereby undermining its scientific independence’.
I would like to make it clear that Professor Nutt gave his lecture, and agreed to its subsequent publication, in his capacity as the Edmond J Safra Chair of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London. This is stated clearly in the original publicity and in the subsequent paper. Professor Nutt made some references to the ACMD in his paper as it was relevant to his argument. At no point did he make reference to his role as chair of the ACMD, nor did he give the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the ACMD.
I have to conclude that the public confusion between Professor Nutt’s academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Academics who advise government should feel confident that they retain the freedom to act as independent researchers without the threat of political interference or undue pressure of any kind. It is in the public interest that you clarify your thinking on this matter and I look forward to receiving your response.
Yours,
Richard Garside
Director
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
Nutt case keeps getting better :) Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:56 am
Government's chief scientist backs David Nutt on cannabis
by Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Telegraph UK, 03 Nov 2009
Professor John Beddington, the Government's chief scientist has backed Professor David Nutt, the sacked drugs adviser, over his claims that alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful than cannabis. Prof Beddington, the country's top science adviser, said the evidence was "absolutely clear cut" but stopped short of criticising the removal of Prof Nutt.
However, he is now consulting other heads of expert committees to see if they have experienced difficulties or political interference in their roles. Only in August this year, Prof Beddington warned leading academics will be discouraged from working with government if they fear being reprimanded for expressing their views. It came as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, backed the decision by his Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to force Prof Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for criticising government policy, especially on cannabis.
The move has sparked a bitter row between the science community and politicians amid concerns over the future use of independent scientific advice. Two ACMD members have already resigned and there remains the prospect a mass resignation of the remaining 28 if they do not receive sufficient reassurances about the future from Mr Johnson in a meeting next week.
One member said last night that the situation is on a "razor's edge". The row over Prof Nutt followed a series of public comments including a view that alcohol and tobacco is more harmful than cannabis, ecstasy and LSD. He has also criticised the Government's decision to move cannabis back to Class B, against the recommendation of the ACMD. On whether cannabis is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Prof Beddington said: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it."
He said the sacking was the result of a breakdown in trust between Prof Nutt and Mr Johnson but stressed it was for scientists to offer expert advice and politicians to make policy decisions. "I think it's very difficult – when clearly trust had broken down between the Home Secretary and Professor Nutt – to see how that could go on," he said. "I think it's fair to say we need to make a distinction between scientific advice and evidence – which is the role of experts and scientific committees and the role of ministers – which is to make policy."
Mr Brown publicly backed Mr Johnson's decision to sack Prof Nutt and warned that the latter's comments gave the impression the Government was sending "mixed messages" about drugs. He told an audience of police, council workers and members of the public London: "Scientific advice is very important and we value it. You can see that with swine flu, with climate change and with all sorts of environmental problems. "But advisers advise and ministers have to make decisions. He added: "I think the issue here is we did have advice that we should not reclassify cannabis. We did not accept that.
"We have to take a broader view in the round that was more than just the scientific advice. It's about the effects on young people that drugs are harmful and not acceptable." The move has caused splits inside Government after Lord Drayson, the science minister, wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to reverse the decision. He said he was "pretty appalled" and claimed that Mr Johnson had made "a big mistake". However Lord Drayson later rowed back from his comments claiming they were a hasty reaction before knowing the facts. He said: "My comments in the email exchange were my immediate reaction to what had happened, without full knowledge of all the facts. "I have talked to Alan Johnson and he has assured me of the importance he attaches to scientific advice and his respect for scientific advice while being the person who has to make the final difficult decisions."
Quote
However, he is now consulting other heads of expert committees to see if they have experienced difficulties or political interference in their roles. Only in August this year, Prof Beddington warned leading academics will be discouraged from working with government if they fear being reprimanded for expressing their views.
end quote.
It is rather a shame we lack anyone with gumption and enough grunt to be listened to who might express similar views to this . They would find just how corrupted any debate on cannabis / medpot is in this country and how subtle and at time not so subtle intimidation/ influence suppresses the truth.
The one positive coming out of the Nutt event is it exposes the political interference for what it is , and it might just start some of our officials and the like thinking about how they too have been corrupted and manipulated by those with ulterior agendas . It is not going to take much to trigger a groundswell of change in NZ , only the the truth and a level playing field.
I wonder if our own special adviser to the PM, Prof Peter Gluckman has to think about the Nutt affair , will he be offering up the same advise as Nutt or will he toe the political line his master dictates .. In other words will he be giving John Key advise based on science or politics..
OR
Has he already given science based evidence similar to Nutt that has just been ignored??
To Professor Peter Gluckman,
Chief Science Advisor
C/O
The Liggins Institute
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
New Zealand
update or alternative contact details welcome
Tony wrote:
Quote
However, he is now consulting other heads of expert committees to see if they have experienced difficulties or political interference in their roles. Only in August this year, Prof Beddington warned leading academics will be discouraged from working with government if they fear being reprimanded for expressing their views.
end quote.
It is rather a shame we lack anyone with gumption and enough grunt to be listened to who might express similar views to this . They would find just how corrupted any debate on cannabis / medpot is in this country and how subtle and at time not so subtle intimidation/ influence suppresses the truth.
The one positive coming out of the Nutt event is it exposes the political interference for what it is , and it might just start some of our officials and the like thinking about how they too have been corrupted and manipulated by those with ulterior agendas . It is not going to take much to trigger a groundswell of change in NZ , only the the truth and a level playing field.
I wonder if our own special adviser to the PM, Prof Peter Gluckman has to think about the Nutt affair , will he be offering up the same advise as Nutt or will he toe the political line his master dictates .. In other words will he be giving John Key advise based on science or politics..
OR
Has he already given science based evidence similar to Nutt that has just been ignored??
tony
Last edited by Weightgain4000 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total
Have we heard any reporting on a recent research paper presented by a Doctor Glass from a certain research institute in Auckland that added considerably to the medpot argument .. or did it not get exposure ??
I was told about rather excitedly by another very supportive expert just before I went in Hospital , I had expected to see it front page news .
by Manny Frishberg
In the 13 years since California passed a law allowing for the medical use of marijuana, a dozen more states, including Washington, have followed suit. Today, all the Pacific states allow people to grow or possess marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation, as do several states in the Mountain West, a few in New England and some along the Eastern Seaboard – despite the continued insistence by the federal Food and Drug Administration that the herb is a dangerous drug with no valid medical benefits.
Medical MarijuanaBy far, the most widespread support for the move to allow marijuana smoking for medicinal purposes has been on behalf of people with AIDS Wasting Syndrome or on cancer chemotherapy. The chief benefit noted for these patients has had to do with a reduction in nausea and the stimulation of appetite, something anyone who has experienced the “blind raving munchies” can attest to.
Proponents of medical marijuana have not stopped there, however. Advocates cite reports that marijuana can be beneficial in treating a range of illnesses, even though the FDA and the Drug Enforcement Administration provide few, if any, opportunities for researchers to investigate these claims.
One of the least publicized of these claims is that cannabis can be a help for people with Multiple Sclerosis. MS affects the ability of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord to communicate with each other due to damage of the myelin sheath, an insulating coat around nerve cells that allow them to pass electrical signals. While theories abound for ultimate causes of MS, from genetics to environmental exposure to toxins, it is well understood to be an autoimmune disease. That is, the body’s natural defense systems attack the myelin layers in the brain. In that sense, it is like other chronic conditions, including Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lupus.
Recently, indirect evidence has surfaced which could go a long way in explaining the potential for marijuana to improve the outlook for MS patients. Scientists generally believe that marijuana’s high is a result of cannabinols, the active ingredients in the smoke, binding to a receptor on brain cells called CB1 receptors.
In June, Temple University physiologist Ron Tuma and his team released a report on work they have done studying a related receptor known as CB2. The Microvascular Research report reveals that selectively targeting CB2 receptors reduces injury and tissue death after a certain kind of stroke. Additionally, a New Zealand pharmacologist at the University of Auckland, Michelle Glass, recently noted that activating the CB2 receptors can shield neurons from damage, possibly by stopping immune cells in the brain, known as microglia, from triggering an inflammatory response.
Some drug researchers find this particularly exciting because binding proteins to the CB2 receptors does not result in people getting high. How much attention this gets from pharmaceutical companies may depend on how widespread the CB2 receptors are in the body, a matter of some scientific controversy. In the meantime, patients with MS will just have to put up with getting stoned.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
