Scientific advisor on drugs sacked for telling truth

[brianthedog]

the advice was the opinion

 

having seen some of the damage cannabis causes i think the reclassification is a good thing and would be quite happy for cannabis dealers to be hung by anything other than their necks from the nearest lamp post.

 

You make a good point there. So an individual's opinion should come before that of someone who works and specialises in this field?

[andyofborg]

Because cannabis "causes schizophrenia"?

 

Although as cannabis usage has risen, schizophrenia cases have declined?

 

no

 

............

[andyofborg]

You make a good point there. So an individual's opinion should come before that of someone who works and specialises in this field?

 

all views have to be considered, which is what we pay ministers to do.

[brianthedog]

all views have to be considered, which is what we pay ministers to do.

 

But I would rather trust someone to make a decision based on considered medical opinion over someone making a decision based on political opion or bias. As you rightly say, we pay ministers to make decisions - the government advisors in question generally receive nothing in return (other than expenses).

 

Actually, mentioning expenses and politics in one paragraph hardly makes the advisors sound trust worthy either!

[Bloomdido]

How come I don't get sent to prison for drinking bleach or cutting my wrists but I can get 12 years for taking a tablet that makes me feel good?

[Bloomdido]

A study by David Ball of Middlesex University showed that between 1988 and 1992, 315 out of 708 sporting fatalities in the UK (or 44%) were from drowning.

 

Second place was taken by motor sports, with 65 deaths, closely followed by horse riding, with 62. Equal fourth were mountain climbing and air sports, including hang-gliding, parachuting and flying light aircraft, with 51 deaths. In sixth — just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water — were non-drowning accidents from all water sports, which accounted for 49 fatalities. (Times source).

 

Does our government have any watersports advisors? Look at the number of people these activities are killing. Never mind horse riding. I say ban all watersports now.

[quisquose]

http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/

 

Ben Goldacre wrote the above article about the Government ignoring the evidence on drugs back in June. In his final paragraph he writes:

 

Drugs instantiate the classic problem for evidence based social policy. It may well be that prohibition, and the inevitable distribution of drugs by criminals, gives worse results for all the outcomes we think are important, like harm to the user, harm to our communities through crime, and so on. But equally, it may well be that we will tolerate these worse outcomes, because we decide it is somehow more important that we publicly declare ourselves, as a culture, to be disapproving of drug use, and enshrine that principle in law. It’s okay to do that. You can have policies that go against your stated outcomes, for moral or political reasons: but that doesn’t mean you can hide the evidence, it simply means you must be clear that you don’t care about it.

[andyofborg]

But I would rather trust someone to make a decision based on considered medical opinion over someone making a decision based on political opion or bias. As you rightly say, we pay ministers to make decisions - the government advisors in question generally receive nothing in return (other than expenses).

 

 

it works both ways

 

considered medical opinion is that we are drinking far too much but political opinion is that any attempt to charge minimum prices, alter licensing hours etc etc would be unpopular so we are left to drink ourselves to death.

[donkey]

 

However, not all politicians act this way - the current US administration has listened closely to its scientific and other advisors; many governments across Europe have a better track record, even previous governments in the UK have had more favourable relations with their advisory panels.

 

 

On the other hand, the unusual spectacle of the Tories actually supporting the Government on this issue indicates a united front. Johnson's defence of his action was - to paraphrase 'Dr Nutt does not see the misery of drug addiction which taking ecstasy leads to'. Not only do the findings of the Drug Advisory Panel fly in the face of decades of hysterical propaganda from both sides of the house, but more importantly, MPs perceive his attempts to publicise the fact they have binned the findings, as a challenge to their authority. This is quite sinister. They are basically showing a united front in an effort to make an example of someone, merely for attempting to publicise the truth. It reminds me of the united front they showed in their attempts to prevent records of their expenses being publicised. Why not just go the whole hog and muzzle the press?

[Whatif wewin]

it works both ways

 

considered medical opinion is that we are drinking far too much but political opinion is that any attempt to charge minimum prices, alter licensing hours etc etc would be unpopular so we are left to drink ourselves to death.

 

You shpeak for yorshelf.