SubscribeBBC NEWS | UK | Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked.
Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked
I guess if you’re interested in drug policy (as I am) the shit hit the fan over the weekend. Professor David Nutt was effectively sacked from his position as chief drug advisor to the government.
Why? Apparently because David Nutt gives advice and expresses opinions based upon scientific evidence. This evidence happens go against the government’s policy of “drugs are bad mmmkay”. Gordon Brown believes cannabis is lethal – I’m not joking.
So what happens when an advisory council is set up to classify (based upon evidence) the dangers associated with various substances so that the public can gauge their relative dangers, and the government then politicises this classification and further, starts sacking scientists who speak against it?
What does this do for said drug classification’s authority as an educational tool, or means by which to inform drug law formation?
It ruins it.
We can all agree that substance abuse of any kind is dangerous, and frequently ends in self harm or harm to others. Tobacco, cannabis, heroin, beefburgers. Most people have their flavour.
I’m not an anarchist. I think the government should be involved in helping protect people from themselves to some degree. However I think the current drug policy does not most effectively help those who are victims of drug abuse and I think that there’s promising evidence that decriminalisation is the way to go.
This “because we said so” message is bullshit, especially because it’s in the face of THE FACTS. All they have achieved with this fiasco is to undermine their own authority, apparently in order to pander to a certain demographic of voter who peeves at any drug use that isn’t good old tobacco or alcohol.
I don’t see how classifying cannabis as class ‘b’ is going to effect any-one’s decision to use it, given how commonly available it is and how little harm it does to those not predisposed to mental illness.
I do see how classifying the drug as class ‘b’ and not seeing any anecdotal (or scientific) evidence to it causing harm can steer someone towards making an equivalent choice about another class ‘b’ choice, or even lowering their expectation of there being a risk in trying a class ‘a’ drug.
I must be getting old, becuase I went from apathy, to a blog post, to a letter to my MP.
Eh. Flipping heck. What is the point of an advisor who spouts back what you say? That seems to be what they are asking for.