The BBC is rousing itself today into a highly-predictable frenzy of indignation over the aftermath of Professor David Nutt’s justified sacking as head of the government drugs advisory committee.
As a Biased BBC reader has pointed out, the pro-cocaine culture at the BBC is both illegal and has demonstrable victims. Now the BBC journalists are whipping this story up as if it were entirely a matter of academic freedom, when in reality, Professor Nutt and his associates are wet liberals who are as wrong in their analysis of drug-taking and its impact as our chums at the Met Office are about so-called “climate change”.
The real scandal here is that for years, the corrupt government of Blair and Brown has stacked so-called advisory committees with their own cronies and poodles. When their pigeons come home to roost, they don’t like it. Chances of the BBC investigating that? Zero.
The TV media are doing their ‘nut’ over this story. Cocaine really is their lifeline. So how does making Cocaine legal help society? Criminals would simply move on to something else, guns perhaps.
The BBC continually attack America for allowing legal ownership of guns whilst we don’t yet seem to think that legalising drugs is a good idea.
I’d much rather be allowed to own a gun than be able to do a line of coke in the BBC toilets.
I see no evidence of “rousing” or an “indignant frenzy” on this issue.
Whilst I see no BBC bias on this matter, however, I accept that the Beeb are usually keen to see government interference in many aspects of people’s once free lives as if people are so fragile as to be unable to make decisions themselves.
But, on this issue, we now know that the govt have made a moral policy decision, yet *dishonestly* dressed it up with scientific support that held no scientific basis.
Most Govts consistently subvert both morality and science when it suits them and the Left are no different to the Right in this dishonest manipulation.
In this case, Labour choose to ignore the law od identity, and petulantly sacked the person who has caused them much embarrassment when that person has pointed out that A is A.
Now I am not one to ride on the back of a single so-called expert authority, but I would never trust a politician or civil servant to make a rational decision on my behalf. I wish they would leave that to me thank you very much.
Will
Scientists continually told us that there was WMD in Iraq yet the BBC decided that the decision to go to war was political. Governments act on political decisions all the time. What pissed me off was some other leftie twat who was upset that the views of the public were being taken into consideration.
Yer shit that isn’t it? it’s called democracy something scumbag drug using twats in the media and “scientists” wouldn’t understand.
Like I said why no legalise guns as well? They are dangerous are they not? Legalise and control gun use, I’m sure there is a good scientific reason for that as well.
Well the left in general of all shades have always regarded the views of the public with contempt. What is needed, according to them, is an enlightened elite to tell people what to do, whether that’s the nanny state or Lenin’s bolshevik vanguard.
The trouble is that the left likes to talk about democracy, but doesn’t like the results when people actually get the chance to choose, because the ignorant, reactionary masses have a nasty habit of rejecting the leftist utopia.
This is nonsensical – I can understand that you want to portray the BBC as pro-drugs but abusing scientists and experts in their field as ‘wet liberals’ and using that as the crux of the argument is ridiculous, do you know more than them? You also simultaenously manage to attack both sides of the argument, impressive
And these constant referrals to cocaine use are nothing to do with bias, in some threads people seem to imply they fund it with the licence fee.. – yes, cocaine is illegal, but if a member of staff is caught using it they have been sacked (admittedly they seem to come back a few years later, richard bacon), there’s nothing more they can do if their staff want to take drugs in their leisure time and aren’t caught, could be the same for any workplace
Taking drugs will show up in ANY sample taken. I’ve worked for several organisations where drug use is instant dismissal, off duty or not. Bob you’ve obviously never worked for an organisation that has a drugs and alcohol policy?
Your attitude is the problem, legalising drugs solves NOTHING, except making Cocaine cheaper for beeboids. The criminals will simply move on to something else (like guns or prostitution) and we will still be left with thousands of useless drug addicts. The BBC is getting upset here because they are pro drugs like the rest of the liberal wet left. The fact that most of the public opposes tihs view just annoys liberals who like to either igonre public opinion or fiddle any vote to ensure they get their way.
The fact that the prat who got sacked couldn’t work out that alcohol kills more people simply because MOST people drink, not everyone (outside of the BBC at least) takes drugs.
The issue of drugs testing has come up, the BBC responded (in this article) by saying you can only use drugs testing when it concerns the safety of your job:
There is no contractual right to test employees and, as is made clear by Government guidelines, any such right should only be introduced in the workplace in order to address an identifiable risk to safety.
‘To make random drug-testing the norm would be a gross intrusion into the privacy of law-abiding employees.’
this debate is almost solely about cannabis – it’s non-addictive, so there won’t be any addicts, and for some reason you fail to understand that the advice was based on proportion (of course it was) – I’m struggling to believe in you any more, martin
i feel robin horbury is making a mistake comparing professor nutts work with illeagal drugs and climate change research. whist no research is perfect professor nutts work is based on verifiable work that can be reproduced. in other words his work provides empirical data. as long as this work is undertaken carefully this is valuable research that can be used to make resonable claims. such as alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. which is demonstrably true.
climate change research on the other hand mostly uses computer models. these are wide open to being ‘fixed’ to get the results you want. moreover then the worst case scenario’s from such models are then proposed as fact. worse. then measured data is ‘bent’ to fit the computer model.
i have read both professor nutts orginal research work and some of the original research papers on climate change. professor nutt produces excellent work which is hard to find fault with. most original climate change research is utter rubbish which would serve more use to wrap your chips in than as research.
I am already suffering this debate with drug takers on other web sites but just want to add a well done in your analysis here Robin.
Watched Nutt on Sky on Friday evening say Horse riding is less dangerous than taking E. Just shows you. All those qualifications but this guy presents himself as a complete idiot. Lots of academia no understanding. Complete ignorance of the destructions drugs wield to individuals, families and communities.
First bit of common sense from Labour (for porbably the wrong reasons) but have laws of statistics and all that.
what is this problem with horse-riding analogy, some have said it’s offensive etc but it’s perfectly true and an enlightening way of putting it
put it this way, get a thousand people on a horse, and give another 1000 an E – more people will die from horse riding
The fool Nutt is not comparing like with like. The left attack smoking which is indisputably unhealthy yet there is considerable evidence that nicotine maintains mental acuity and delays the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. On the other hand, cannabis is now revealing itself as being very dangerous to the mind, especially of younger people. Cannabis use has serious implications which the mad Prof just doesn’t get. Then again, the entire medical establishment has been infiltrated by the left – just look at the rubbish on Iraq that The Lancet came up with recently.
Alan you are flying in the face of scientific reality, theres nothing worong with the advice Nutt gave, he wasn’t sacked for that. I doubt legalising drugs would make society worse, (could it be any worse, I doubt it.) This is a war that can’t be won.
Neither can the “war” on theft, fraud, speeding, drunk driving, rape, or murder be won. Some people will always commit those crimes, yet we don’t use that as a reason to abandon those categories of crimes. Framing it as a “war” is patently ridiculous – we don’t hear of a “war” against fraud or a “war” against theft etc.
There is seldom a situation bad enough that it cannot be made worse by a bad government policy, and I believe the drugs situation could become much worse.
Professor David Nutt, MRCP, FRCPsych, FMedSci, is a world-renowned expert in the effects that the use of drugs has on a person, and specifically upon a person’s mind. To emphasise again, he holds visiting professorships from universities in numerous countries. Any criticism of his work based on the allegation that he is a “wet liberal” merely undermines the author of such an attack. He is a scientist, not a columnist.
Further, he has not advocated the legalisation of cocaine, a drug that is clearly extremely dangerous, and he rates high upon his harm index. He merely proposes, based on his own and others’ extensive and life-long research into the subject, that some drugs, such as cannabis, are less dangerous than other activities, particularly drinking alcohol. He advised that ketamine be changed from class C to class B last week (a fact ignored by the media) because of the dangers that this nasty chemical brings to its abusers.
The neuropsychopharmacology expert also suggests that criminalising the use of cannabis may in itself be more dangerous to users than taking cannabis. You will find that there is almost no robust evidence to support the idea that psychosis is induced by cannabis smoking. Some papers have tentatively suggested links, and while this is an area of extensive research, no definite results have been thus uncovered. The caveat is that researching the dangers of illegal substances is an area fraught with difficulty. This does not mean any sound-minded person should jump on the Broadsheet Bandwagon.
Professor Nutt particularly notes that Ecstasy (MDMA) directly causes very few deaths per year, fewer, in fact, than horse riding, per user, a fact that is, to my knowledge, unchallenged by statisticians.
Effectively, Professor Nutt’s view is that there is little reason to support much of the current drugs legislation policy besides historical and cultural coincidence. If this is sufficient reason for you, or indeed the government, be plain and admit it. The job of scientists, however, is to bring evidence to the table.
If you propose that the Home Secretary’s decision to fire him was acceptable, because he should not be allowed to speak when the government ignores his professional advice, fair enough. The BBC has issued robust questioning to him on this point. However, disparaging his work when you have provided no peer-reviewed proof that his work is in disrepute is foolish. If you have conducted some research beyond hearsay to support your perspective, I should like to see it.
great post, Rob, you said it when I really couldn’t be arsed – you’ll learn why soon
But keep it up!
The U.K. already has its fair share of “turn on tune in drop out” than it needs I cannot see how more mind altering drugs will help society. I’ve seen too much serious mental illness, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia and psychosis from the use of cannabis, mushrooms and LSD to know that taking drugs can be like playing Russian roulette with your mind. I’ve known friends and acquaintances that are a testament to the harm experimenting with drugs can have on the mind (as well as the tax payer) and two that I fear will never come back from their life in hell.
I myself suffer from general anxiety disorder and related depression for 20 years now after smoking cannabis caused (or at least triggered at the time I was high, which I would say equals a direct link) a massive anxiety attack. Had I never touched drugs, who knows… Getting high is not worth spending time in and out of psychiatric wards, it really isn’t.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224578/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Fatuous-dangerous-utterly-irresponsible–Nutty-professor-whos-distorting-truth-drugs.html
And why should I agree with Melanie Philips?
I admit she makes a good stab at persuasion, but it’s still mostly just opinion, I would note that Mark Easton did a review of prof. Parrott (Philips’ main man) back in February – a counter-weight to her own view perhaps
make up your own minds, people:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/02/ecstasy_risks.html
When it comes to news and comment about anything involving the government it isn’t sensible to use a government funded broadcaster.
“Professor David Nutt, MRCP, FRCPsych, FMedSci, is a world-renowned expert in the effects that the use of drugs has on a person, and specifically upon a person’s mind….”
Yeah well, Allan XXXX MSc BSc(Hons) CEng MIMechE does work in the oil sector and his reports are checked before issue to clients and, guess what: for all my expertise and letters after my name etc. errors can be found in my work which is why my peers check it before it’s issued. Melanie Phillips simply points out that Prof Nutt’s statements are not accepted by his peers. Besides, enough of us know people who have been doing dope for a few years and the results are quite plain to see. I forgot to mention that reefers are far more carcinogenic that ordinary tobacco. That alone refutes the Prof’s case.
Spot on Allan. Anything that confuses your mind or causes detatchment from reality or quite possibly worse can only be bad. I can only conclude that those bigging up Nutt enjoy the odd sniff / toke themselves. There is patently nothing to be gained from protracted arguments on which is worse, alcohol or drugs. Both are bad. Dope fiends tend to have one thing in common: they can’t do the job. Coke fiends lack confidence and use the drug as a means of getting that little bit of self-esteem they don’t have.
As for Nutts credentials, I have spent sufficient time in a previous life in academia to know that in many cases letters after the name and publications are NOT a good enough indicator of sharpness of intellect. There are plenty of vague charlatans. A lot of good research comes out of many universities, and also quite a lot of garbage. There are often huge disparities.