Briefly, for those who believe Professor Nutt is a genuine scientist who was martyred for uttering objective truths about drug use, I recommend this article by Melanie Phillips. Hat tip to Marky.
There isn’t the space on this blog to analyse why he so richly deserved the sack, but from what I’ve seen so far of the BBC’s continued coverage this morning , you won’t see it there. And for the record, though I am not a scientist, I do sit on a body which contains many experts on drugs (working in both academic fields and rehabilitation) who have markedly different views from Professor Nutt and his fellow government cronies. What they have been saying has been a huge matter of concern to my committee for years. But its views are consistently ignored by the BBC.
Every argument has two sides, and I’ve rarely found ms. Philips to be a voice of reason and balance, here’s Mark Easton’s take on prof. Parrott’s views back in february (when most of the media had little interest in this)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/02/ecstasy_risks.html
I don’t condone either view, but one shouldn’t question whether someone is a genuine scientist without seeing the defence
That would be the same scaremongering Melanie Philips who has a thing for using pseudo-science to spread lies about vaccination? Great source old chap.
Honestly, this blog is usually very good but its reaction to Professor Nutt stating the uncontroversial – at least amongst those who have any relevant knowledge/experience – truth about recreational drugs is pathetically Daily Mailesque.
Look – Nutt might be total shite on the science (being appointed to an “independent” panel by this load of shysters is good evidence of this) but he was not sacked for crap science. He was sacked because he said out loud that the government decided to go against his advice (as it was entitled to do – he is only an “advisor” after all) but LIED about why. To repeat: he was not sacked for shite science – he was sacked because the government LIED and he had the nerve to point this out.
Melanie’s analogy with climate science is true as far as it goes (ie many of those presently supporting Nutt on a “free speech” basis would support the sacking of a climate change sceptical scientist on any basis you care to name) but that has nothing to do with free speech and all to do with those knuckle heads continuously bleating about “consensus” and “the science is in”. As I wrote in a previous thread on this site, occasionally the BBC gets it right which implies that too often the BBC gets it wrong and Melanie points out at least one area where the BBC gets it wrong – climate change.
The day I see a load of ecstacy users, pile out of a pub and beat the shit out of each other, then I might start to think Nutt is wrong. The fact that Britian is awash with violent piss heads and that alcohol abuse counts for more deaths, violence, vandalism and crime then all drugs put together and multiplied by 100, should make people realise that Nutt has a point.
Melanie Philips is just trying her academic best to be original about the way she crucifys the man and her puritanical opposition to drugs. She can’t be seen to follow the herd mentality of the MSM that she attacks daily, so why not get him from another angle. Poor sod.
But for christ-sakes, who cares what he was sacked for. The point is that he has made the brazenly obvious even more obvious “Alcohol is more deadly than ecstacy”, and if it gets people talking about it, then good.
Personally, I like to swallow great big fat handfuls of ecstacy every weekend. And I like a few lines of columbian marching powder up the old schnoz every now and then. And I’m not going to be told not to have a bloody good time of it – and escape the miserable shithole that is Britain by getting off my face – by some fat, sweaty turds in Westminster.
if the BBC are on the same side as me on this, then good for them. They are a bunch of scrounging toss-rags that need to be executed immediately, but before they go can they please ensure I can still have a bloody good time every weekend.
there is a first time for everything and this is it.
I am going to defend Nutt and the Beeb (God help me I thought hell would freeze over but the time has come)
My degree was in cellular biology/biochemistry and although I havent used my training much since qualifying I do see the merit in what Mr Nutt says.
Firstly
Alcohol is more dangerous tha ecstasy. Purely from a scientific point of view.
If you were planning on legalising drugs you definately wouldn’t choose alcohol first.
MDMA is relatively harmless or at least quite a bit less harmful than alcohol. It was used as a theraputic drug in the 60s and early seventies but was criminalised when hippys starte to abuse it.
Obviously you cant uninvent alcohol and the use of alcohol in society is so ingrained and it is so much part of our lives that it would be virtually impossible to swap legalities of MDMA for ethanol.
We have a well structured control system surrounding booze that would be very hard to replicate in the short/medium term e.g. control of sale, tax implications testing and purity standards.
How would you control abuse of MDMA e.g. when driving. Breathalysers dont work for MDMA.
So although I agree with Mr Nutt in practice we could not swap out one drug for another and as we dont really need another recreational drug why add more problems.
So pharmacologically E good
Sociologically E Bad
The Governmetn have been hoist by their own petard (sp?).
They have so often spun and leaked to grease the passage of whatever they want to do that it has backfired on them spectacularly – someone has done it to them.
Other than that, it is now clear that politicians only call on tame scientists when they are able to support policy.
Global warming anyone?
Why the BBC is going so over the top in this particular case will hopefully become clear soon.
I had a briefing from a drugs squad officer once. Im not talking about a senior officer who is part of the liberal elite, but a Detective Constable. I remember his words to the effect of ‘if anyone says that cannabis is not dangerous, tell them to come and speak to us’. I drink lots of alcohol; have never beaten anyone because of it, but made an idiot of myself. My stepson started on cannabis ‘recreactionally’. He is now so spaced out on it that he cannot work or do anything. The minute he gets up he smokes it. He gets up about mid-afternoon and goes to bed around midnight. He doesnt have a life. With ecstasy, many youngsters have died just taking one. How many people have died drinking one alcoholic drink?
What M. Phillips has said if you had bothered to read the whole article is that other scientist have completely destroyed Nutt’s argument. Yet some people are completely ignoring this. Other members of the advisory committee disagree with Nutt; why is little air-time being given to them?
“With ecstasy, many youngsters have died just taking one.”
Urban myth mate. Name ONE person who has died as a direct result of taking ONE ecstac y tablet.
For one thing I am not your mate. How about Leah Betts? Im sorry but I dont remember any other names but her parents campaigning was the one everyone remembers. She may have taken others in the past before that fateful night, but it was just the one that killed her.
Leah Betts did NOT die as a result of taking an ecstacy tablet. You must get all of your news from the BBC, who just like you, will accept the first thing they are told to launch their anti-drug tirade.
Leah Betts died from water intoxification. She became paranoid after taking an E and drunk too much water until her brain swelled up. The ecstacy did not kill her. Water did. But being a special constable – and having such superb investagative skills you would of course already know this.
Alcohol and illegal drugs is a red herring. It is one thing to prohibit something that has been in general use by the large majority of the population for centuries and another to prohibit something with the intention of preventing its use from becoming generalised.
If we were starting from scratch and someone had just discovered a leaf that the American Indians were smoking that would go on to kill a large proportion of its users, accounting for hundreds of thousands of deaths (tabacco) I doubt it would be legalised. But we’re not starting from scratch, we have to take into account how ingrained tabacco is and therefore we don’t prohibit it. This naturally offends the tidy minded who wish everything to be reduced to some simple formula when life is more complicated.
Travis Bickle, it may well be that you have never commited a violent act or a crime whilst under the influence of your drugs. However, I’ve drunk alcohol for many years and I haven’t done those things either. Some people are just inately violent and will hit out if drunk. Others aren’t. You are proposing that people using ecstacy or coke are never violent, don’t commit acts of vandalism or otherwise criminal offences. That is just plain ridiculous. Ask anyone who has been burgled and they’ll tell you that the thing they are most frighteded of is coming across someone on drugs who has lost control. Burglary for drug money is rife in parts of my town and believe me, the burglars are perfectly capable of violence. Nutt deserved to be sacked because he is a naive buffoon.
Indeed. The idea that drug takers only harm themselves is ridiculous.
The other great danger of legalisation is that if presently illegal drugs became much more generally used it would be difficult to prohibit them again even if the effects turned out to be highly undesireable. Having let the genie out of the bottle, it could be impossible to get back in.
Burgling for drug money? Sounds like a Daily Mail headline. How do you know they were burgling for drug money? Did they leave a trail of syringes in their wake?
Incidentally, to the follow the logic of your own argument, there are more people who burgle because they are inate criminals rather than druggies.
I know for a fact. I am a special constable and have arrested druggies who have burgled/stolen purely to get money for more drugs.
I agree with Ed (RSA) about finding a leaf that turns out to be tobacco today. It wouldnt be made legal. Everyone knows that alcohol and smoking are harmful, but you could not possibly make them illegal now. That is another reason not to make drugs legal. Also, what do you think all those drug dealers are going to do if drugs were made legal? Get a job stacking shelves at Sainsburys?
Hobby Bobby eh? And I’m almost certain that no hobby bobby would EVER be given the job of arresting a burglar, so again, you are talking out of your arse. You woul have no idea at all if the burglar was stealing for drugs except when he wants to give a bleeding heart story to some judge.
It’s not about the science! He was an adviser, who was campaigning against Government policy. He was sacked as an adviser. He’s perfectly free to campaign against the policy all he likes. If he wants the law changed he can campaign for that – but not while he’s a Government adviser. It’s just the same for with Civil Servants, Chiefs of Staff and Special Advisers. Democracy means rule by the people, and we achieve that through elected representatives. It’s a completely separate issue what you think about the science.