Europe: British Science vs. Politics Battle Explodes As Top Drug Advisor Fired for Heresy http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/607/british_drug_advisor_nutt_fired_for_heresy The British Labor government has created a firestorm of controversy with its firing of Professor David Nutt, head of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) last Friday. Nutt was canned by Home Secretary Alan Johnson after the psychopharmacologist again went public with his criticism of the government for refusing to follow a science- and evidence-based drug policy. As of this week, after a weekend of furious back and forth in dozens of newspaper articles, two more members of the ACMD have resigned in protest over the firing, and a mass resignation of the 31-member body may come after a meeting next Monday. Johnson told parliament Monday that he had agreed to a request from the ACMD for an urgent meeting, but he also told parliament he had ordered a review of the ACMD to satisfy ministers that the panel is "discharging its functions" and that it still represents a value to the public. The ACMD's charge is to "make recommendations to government on the control of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs, including classification and scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and its regulations," its web page explains. "It considers any substance which is being or appears to be misused and of which is having or appears to be capable of having harmful effects sufficient to cause a social problem. It also carries out in-depth inquiries into aspects of drug use that are causing particular concern in the UK, with the aim of producing considered reports that will be helpful to policy makers and practitioners." In 2004 the Labor government down-scheduled mar1juana on the Advisory Committee's advice, shifting it from Class B, the middle rank in Britain's drug classification scheme, to Class C, the least harmful. The maximum sentence for possession of a Class C drug is two years; for Class B drugs it is five years. Tensions between the ACMD and Labor began rising last year, when Prime Minister Gordon Brown reversed that decision, saying he wanted to send a strong message that use of the drug is unacceptable. Tensions rose again when the ACMD recommended that Ecstasy be down-scheduled from Class A (most harmful) to Class B, and the Brown government promptly ignored that advice too. At that point, Nutt went public with his criticisms of then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. He also famously compared the dangers of Ecstasy to those of horse-riding, deeply offending both the horsey set and the Labor government. Smith told Nutt to shut up, and he managed to do so until last week. Last week, in a lecture and briefing paper at the Center for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, Nutt accused Smith of "distorting and devaluing" scientific evidence when she decided to reclassify mar1juana. He also said that Ecstasy and LSD are less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. "We have to accept young people like to experiment -- with drugs and other potentially harmful activities -- and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives," he said. "We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong." Nutt's briefing paper included a ranking of various licit and illicit drugs by comparative harm. Heroin and cocaine were ranked the most harmful in Nutt's scheme, with alcohol fifth, mar1juana ninth, LSD fourteenth, and Ecstasy eighteenth. "We need a full and open discussion of the evidence and a mature debate about what the drug laws are for -- and whether they are doing their job," Nutt said. That was too much for Home Minister Alan Johnson. He told parliament Monday that Smith had warned Nutt not to publicly disagree with ministry decisions again. "Well, it has happened again," said Johnson. "On Thursday October 29 Professor Nutt chose, without prior notification to my department, to initiate a debate on drug policy in the national media, returning to the February decisions, and accusing my predecessor or distorting and devaluing scientific research. As a result, I have lost confidence in Professor Nutt's ability to be my principal adviser on drugs." Prime Minister Brown is standing behind Johnson. An official spokesman said the firing was based on the "important principle" that advisers should present advice to ministers but not speak out against their policy decisions. "It would be regrettable if there were other resignations, but this is an important point of principle," the spokesman added. "The government is absolutely committed to the importance of having independent advice and evidence presented by advisory bodies." Nutt defended himself and attacked the government in a London Sunday times opinion piece. "My sacking has cast a huge shadow over the relationship of science to policy," he wrote. "Several of the science experts from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) have resigned in protest and it seems likely that many others will follow suit. This means the Home Office no longer has a functioning advisory group, which is very unfortunate given the ever-increasing problems of drugs and the emergence of new ones. Also it seems unlikely that any 'true' scientist -- one who can only speak the truth -- will be able to work for this, or future, Home Secretaries. One of the ACMD members who resigned, chemist Les King, said ministers were putting inappropriate pressure on scientists to make drug policy decisions based on political -- not scientific -- reasons. "It's being asked to rubber stamp a predetermined position," he said, warning that others could leave the council over the brouhaha. "If sufficient members do resign, the committee will no longer be able to operate," King said. Scientist and Labor MP Robert Winston said Nutt had a "very reasonable" point about the relative dangers of legal and illegal drugs, and that he was disappointed by the firing. "I think that if governments appoint expert advice they shouldn't dismiss it so lightly," he said. "I think it shows a rather poor understanding of the value of science." Reuters reported Saturday that the firing is causing consternation in scientific circles. Scientists told the news agency the decision could undermine the integrity of science in policymaking, including critical areas like health, the environment, education, and defense. "Scientific data and their independent interpretation underpin evidence-based policy making -- and nobody rational could possibly want a government based on any other type of policy making," said Chris Higgins, chair of an advisory committee on spongiform encephalopathy, or "mad cow" disease. Maurice Elphick, a professor of animal physiology and neuroscience at Queen Mary, University of London, said politicians should look elsewhere if they wanted data to back social policies and allow science to maintain objectivity. "If, however, politicians really do want to have an objective assessment of the relative risks to health of different recreational drugs, then they should listen to what the medical scientist has to say, not sack him." he said.
IMO, science should trump all. If a drug (or anything else) isn't as dangerous as we once thought, it should be treated as a less dangerous drug. This is like GWB "fixing the facts around the policy" WRT Iraq. Scientists should be able to take care of the science part and the politicians should deal with the politics part. If they don't want their scientists reporting that policy is out of line with the science, they need to change the policy because science doesn't waver based on politics.
So, I guess this one could have gone in the Hangout. It is kinda sad that we simply accept the fact that politicians will simply ignore the science in favor of demagoguery on this (and other) issue.
http://www.obsolete.com/ecstasy/russell.html Journal Article by Dr Russell Newcombe, Senior Lecturer at the Drug Use and Addiction Programme of John Moores University.
I think sometimes science is not enough. No one said the scientist in the article is WRONG - just that there is a drive to move youth away from using. The real issue here is whether fear is the correct strategy. Now whether science is relevant to politicians. Ofcourse it's relevant. It's just that, at this point in time, it was decided that stronger messages need to be sent out. It's simply a difference in policy. We don't punish people based on how badly their actions harm themselves. I don't care that the mortality rate for mar1juana or ecstasy is low - I think the main issue is how do we make alcohol less desirable because that's where the victim and user are not always the same person.
I heard about this story last week via this amusingly stupid piece: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...arrogant-gods-certainty-truly-hell-earth.html
MDMA is an extremely safe substance that causes very little physical damage. The biggest danger is heat stroke because of the environment in which it is generally taken and that danger is simple to mitigate, drink water and cool off every now and then.
to an extent your right, but you can't do MDMA every day. You can (smoke or not smoke) mar1juana, i don't see why they would put it in front of LSD. Is it because of the smoking aspect? People should look up what a vaporizer is.
Never understood how buying pot helps fund terrorism, while the trillions spent on oil is squeeky clean! lol
*shakes head* You buy oil from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, etc. mar1juana grows (mainly) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Thailand, etc. The correlation between availability of oil and mar1juana is probably negative - as in, the more oil there is, the less mar1juana. I don't know why, but that is the case. More importantly, you need oil to survive. You do not need mar1juana. Oil funds your friends in the Middle East. mar1juana (apparently) funds "terrorists" in the Middle East. If oil is NOT squeeky clean - you won't buy it (see Sudan). Key thing I have to note because of your comment: Not all brown people are the same - I got the impression you may think this because you could not differentiate between the oil countries and the mar1juana exporters. What you really should be asking is why you can buy a gun legally in the United States but not a joint - the answer to this question should lead you down the "who profits from what" hole. Good luck!
This is one of the biggest reasons it rates so low. For anyone who doesn't know, MDMA doesn't have the same effects the day after you take a dose. You generally have to wait a few days before you can "get off" again. This reduced effect also tends to reduce the potential for abuse because someone can't simply use it day after day. LSD has some of the same properties as MDMA with regards to consecutive day usage. FWIW, vaporizors can drastically reduce the health effects from smoking mar1juana, but most people are simply not aware of the option. Also, from what I understand, vaporizors are harder to use than most smoking options.
Actually, a significant percentage of the pot consumed in America is grown here. I read a recent article that drew a parallel between the US cracking down on pot smuggling at the Mexican border and the dramatic increase in cultivation inside our borders. In addition, the growers here started growing high quality hydroponic pot since they didn't have the expense of crossing borders. This has raised the average percentage of THC in the pot consumed here, but still not nearly to the level seen in British Columbia. Prohibition has so many unintended consequences it isn't even funny. I would argue that you don't "need" either. Furthermore, it would be far easier to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil than it is to eliminate the use of mar1juana. I'm pretty sure that we buy our oil from an exchange and don't discriminate based on country of origin unless there are embargoes or sanctions in effect. You are right on here. There are a ton of interests in this country and worldwide that make a pretty penny off of prohibition.
In related news: [rquoter] Medical mar1juana gets a boost from major doctors group The American Medical Assn. changes its policy to promote clinical research and development of cannabis-based medicines and alternative delivery methods. The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of mar1juana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research. The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that mar1juana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD. In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and devise alternative ways to deliver the drug. "Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis," said Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, noting that the limited number of studies was "insufficient to satisfy the current standards for a prescription drug product." The decision by the organization's delegates at a meeting in Houston marks another step in the evolving view of mar1juana, which an AMA report notes was once linked by the federal government to homicidal mania. Since California voters approved the use of medical mar1juana in 1996, mar1juana has moved steadily into the cultural mainstream spurred by the growing awareness that it can have beneficial effects for some chronically ill people. This year, the Obama administration sped up that drift when it ordered federal narcotics agents not to arrest medical mar1juana users and providers who follow state laws. Polls show broadening support for mar1juana legalization. Thirteen states allow the use of medical mar1juana, and about a dozen more have considered it this year. The AMA, however, also adopted as part of its new policy a sentence that admonishes: "This should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of mar1juana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product." The association also rejected a proposal to issue a more forceful call for mar1juana to be rescheduled. Nevertheless, mar1juana advocates welcomed the development. "They're clearly taking an open-minded stance and acknowledging that the evidence warrants a review. That is very big," said Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the mar1juana Policy Project. "It's not surprising that they are moving cautiously and one step at a time, but this is still a very significant change." Advocates also noted that the AMA rejected an amendment that they said would have undercut the medical mar1juana movement. The measure would have made it AMA's policy that "smoking is an inherently unsafe delivery method for any therapeutic agent, and therefore smoked mar1juana should not be recommended for medical use." Dr. Michael M. Miller, a psychiatrist who practices addiction medicine, proposed the amendment. "Smoking is a bad delivery system because you're combusting something and inhaling it," he said. Reaction from the federal government was muted. Dawn Dearden with the Drug Enforcement Administration said: "At this point, it's still a Schedule I drug, and we're going to treat it as such." The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment. In a statement, the office of the White House drug czar reiterated the administration's opposition to legalization and said that it would defer to "the FDA's judgment that the raw mar1juana plant cannot meet the standards for identity, strength, quality, purity, packaging and labeling required of medicine." The DEA classifies drugs into five schedules, with the fifth being the least-restrictive. Schedule II drugs, such as cocaine and morphine, are considered to have a high potential for abuse, but also to have accepted medical uses. Several petitions have been filed to reschedule mar1juana. The first, filed in 1972, bounced back and forth between the DEA and the courts until it died in 1994. A petition filed in 2002 is under consideration. Kris Hermes, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, said that advocates hoped the petition would receive more attention. "Given the change of heart by the AMA, there is every opportunity for the Obama administration to do just that," he said. In a report released with its new policy, the AMA notes that the organization was "virtually alone" in opposing the first federal restrictions on mar1juana, which were adopted in 1937. Cannabis had been used in various medicinal products for years, but fell into disuse in the early 20th century. Sunil Aggarwal, a medical student at the University of Washington, helped spark the AMA's reconsideration after he researched mar1juana's effect on 186 chronically ill patients. "I had reason to believe that there was medical good that could come from these products, and I wanted to see AMA policy reflect that," he said. The AMA is not the only major doctors organization to rethink mar1juana. Last year, the American College of Physicians, the second-largest physician group, called for "rigorous scientific evaluation of the potential therapeutic benefits of medical mar1juana" and an "evidence-based review of mar1juana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance." Last month, the California Medical Assn. passed resolutions that declared the criminalization of mar1juana "a failed public health policy" and called on the organization to take part in the debate on changing current policy. [/rquoter]
Anyone see the Len Bias 30 for 30 thing? Called Without Bias. The last part showed how f'ed up the drug war was when it started after his death. How the main expert witness for congress or something went to prison later for just making tons of stuff up including his qualifications.
