Cheif Advisor of Drugs Policy sacked after telling the truth about cannabis.

Prof. David Nutt, the Chief Advisor on drugs policy was sacked today by the Home Secretary (Alan Johnson) because he criticized the reclassification of cannabis and said that cigarettes and alcohol are more dangerous than cannabis and ecstacy.
In the past he has also said that in terms of danger, horse riding and ecstacy are about the same.


This really pisses me off!
What's the point in having independent advisors such as Prof. Nutt if as soon as they say something the Government doesn't like they sack them!

 

I don't know really what these old white fuckers ,on either side of the pond ,are afraid of.I just don't get why they are such no-nothing cowards.They're even afraid to let farmers here grow hemp!Against medical m even when the voters pass a bill saying it can be used for such.It just goes on and on.

 

White fuckers ??? Well I never..

Peace

 

Shame, a drugs advisor called Professor Nutt seems quite appropriate

 

Yeah, I though that too, lol.
On the news they kept referring to him as just 'Nutt', I would have found it funny if I wasn't so pissed off.

 

You sound like you are a Liberal Democrat : "
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.

I personally felt like Prof. Nutt got a little too big for his boots...
I'd say it came down to more of a clash of personalities than the reclassification issue.

 

Come again? What point is it that you're trying to make here? A professor from England who openly tried to re-classify cannabis as a safe drug has what to do with a medicinal use in the states? Are you pissed at our government for slating him?

We grow hemp over here by the way...massive fields of it.

 

No,I'm not mad at anyone.I just get disgusted at the archaic attitudes of legislators here in the US and over there regarding medical marijuana use and recreational use that should,I believe,be legalized.I guess I just happened to notice that white folks pretty much rule both countries.Who grows the hemp there?The government or farmers?What is done with the hemp as regards finished product/s?

 

Well,my point is too,is that when a duly appointed man ,an educated man,tries to lay out what he believes to be the truth to the legislators--he's gone.They just don't want to hear it.

 

I get what you're saying actually, just remember that most white folk hate those white folks as well...they stink of aristocratic bureaucracy's which undermine anyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth and sleeps under a diamond encrusted blanket woven from gold leafs and red tape....they're not white folk, they're greedy powerful paranoid androids sent from deep within walls of uncharted unjust leadership...they have corporate blood and will stop at nothing to be winners of a game they've invented which prevents decent people from making a world which lives in peace together because this will result in true power to the people...

...but you already knew that

Check this site out...it's a step in the right direction at least...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/27/society.conservationandendangeredspecies

 

Thanks raskalization.Good read and hopefully the fact that farmers are proving its worth there will help here.I have a friend in the central valley of California ---a farmer with lots of land,that has been lobbying the legislators there for years to let him grow hemp and construct a hemp biodiesel plant. NO go.

 

looks like people are walking out in protest to the firing of mr.nut...

 

White devils...

Peace

 

niggers.

oh sorry.

 

Oh my, no wonder you have a bad rep.. ....

Peace

 

Sometimes disagreeing with expert advice is no bad thing. I think this was probably an excuse as the Home Secretary probably either thought it would make him seen as 'tough on drugs' or there was a personality clash. Professor Nutt may have been misquoted.

 

Apparently the reason Prof. Nutt was sacked is because he 'strayed into politics' by 'going to the media' and seemingly contradicted and criticized the government.

But as for going to the media, Prof. Nutt is one of the top scientist in his field so everyone has a right to know his view on the subject.

It is scientific fact that canabis and ecstacy aren't as dangerous as cigarettes and alcohol but I guess the Home Secretary has social impacts to think about aswell.

I kind of lost where I'm going with this because I'm tired but I guess basically I don't agree with the H.S. and think it was a mistake sacking ol' Nutty., things are out of wack with the drugs policies and they need to be sorted.

VOTE LIB DEMS!!! lol

Goodnight.

 

Why Professor David Nutt was shown the door:

Your leader on drugs policy (Shooting up the messenger, 31 October) is long on righteous indignation but short on logic.
Professor Nutt is indeed a reputable scientist whose views on drugs policy are well known. However, his role as my principal adviser was to (unsurprisingly) present advice. It is the job of the government to decide policy.
Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with (as does Professor Robin Murray, who wrote in your newspaper on Friday).
He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. This principle is well understood and long established.
As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point. There are not many kids in my constituency in danger of falling off a horse – there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction.
Alan Johnson MP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/02/drug-policy-alan-johnson-nutt

 

What exactly is the evidence that he was "campaigning against government policy"? As far as I understand it was over the content of an academic lecture given at KCL, the delivery and publication of which would be his right and duty as a practising research scientist in the field... if he were "campaigning" against government policy it would indeed make his position untenable but that seems quite possibly to be empty and innaccurate rhetoric. Having views which contradict political opinion and expressing those views in a personal capacity in an academic context is not contrary to the role and duty of an independent scientific advisor...

http://timesonline.typepad.com/scie...cture-conformed-to-government-guidelines.html

An edited version of the lecture is downloadable:
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/estimatingdrugharms.html