tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612563867390490775.post8667632367412501618..comments2024-03-01T06:30:22.313+00:00Comments on Jourdemayne: Revolutions & Drugs PolicyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612563867390490775.post-40038342565996674252009-11-10T14:09:39.538+00:002009-11-10T14:09:39.538+00:00On of the issues that is glossed over - Alan Johns...On of the issues that is glossed over - Alan Johnson and his catamites use of the word 'campaign' applied to Professor Nutt's work. He's a jobbing professor whose work is on Drugs, their psychological effects, and risk assessment. To claim that doing one's paid work is a 'campaign' is an out right lie.Roger O'Donnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08122035493026541664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612563867390490775.post-79834547465202067072009-11-10T10:52:08.734+00:002009-11-10T10:52:08.734+00:00When the article talks of legal and illegal drugs ...When the article talks of legal and illegal drugs - this is a convenient misnomer; drugs are either controlled under the law or not. Controlled means they are subject to proportionate interference to realise the objects of the law. This does not mean that controlled drugs need to be prohibited, the law can and is supposed to be used as a tool of regulation.<br /><br /> Nutt's scale of harm is actually much closer to the way govt misinterprets the law than what the law says - according to the law the reason for controlling drugs is the social harm they cause, whereas Nutt's scale includes many factors which primarily impact upon individuals. This is because risk taking must be separated into categories depending upon the harm they cause the participant and the harm they cause to third parties. In fact alcohol must be ahead of heroin and cocaine in a scale of social harmfulness.<br /><br />The reason why Nutt was sacked is that he is set to expose the reasons given by govt for their refusal to administer the law rationally - historic and cultural precedents. These are the very same indices of discrimination that caused homophobia and racism. See drugequality.orgSunshine Bandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08351908969557708343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612563867390490775.post-21887309208480651922009-11-09T10:53:22.069+00:002009-11-09T10:53:22.069+00:00What scientists should do when asked about an issu...What scientists should do when asked about an issue, whether it is in the context of advice to the Government, a media interview or an invited lecture, is to give their honest opinion based upon the best available evidence. That is precisely what Prof Nutt did.<br /><br />The alternative, apparently supported by the comment above, is that scientists should either refuse to respond or give dishonest answers if their views contradict official government policy. One assumes that Prof Nutt was appointed as an advisor because of his knowledge and expertise on this topic and that he reasonably assumed that his role was to provide advice based upon empirical evidence. Otherwise, what is the point of having government advisors? Is their role simply to be that of "yes men"? If so, don't ask a scientist to do the job.Chris Frenchhttp://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/aprunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612563867390490775.post-5549906063260987962009-11-08T20:10:38.023+00:002009-11-08T20:10:38.023+00:00Should Professor Nutt have been sacked- Yes. He wa...Should Professor Nutt have been sacked- Yes. He was appointed as an advisor to the Government and should behave accordinigly. My recolection of events is that about 8 months ago cannabis was upgraded to a class B drug. At that time the panel, lead by Nutt, made it clear that they disagreed with the Govts reclassification, and that should have been an end to it. ie. Govt gets advise from drugs panel, Govt takes advise from many other sources, Govt reclassifies cannabis, drugs panel leaks or otherwise let's it be known that they think that the Govt are wrong. So far so good. <br />A couple of weeks ago I hear Nutt on the radio slagging the Govt of because they didn't take his advise. It is this behaviour that got him sacked. Others have sort to defend Nutt on all sorts of grounds - free speach, scientific independence, the fact that he may well be correct in his scientific analysis. But the fact is you can't advise somebody with one hand and brief against them with the other simply because they didn't take your advise. Anything else is simply an effort to muddy the waters. This is an arguement about how Govt advisors should behave. If you don't like it, don't become a Govt advisor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com