I am not as alarmed as some commentators about the current row over
the government’s drugs policy. Alan Johnson was right to dismiss
Professor Nutt from his position because of the way he chose to exceed
his mandate and evangelise for a particular position not shared by the
government, which he agreed to serve as an advisor.
There are
no absolute truths even in science. But even if one wishes to believe
that scientists invariably speak only the truth, science is but one –
admittedly valuable – aspect to any debate. In any civilised society
policymakers should listen to and take into account more than just the
received wisdom of experts.
Were that not to be the case, there
would currently be no limits on how scientists can treat laboratory
animals; no issue about voluntary euthanasia; and no debate about
cloning. And so the same is true with drugs.
There is not an
absolute right and an absolute wrong in this case, despite the best
efforts of Professor Nutt to persuade the public that there is.
Professor Nutt has only himself to blame for his demise – not for what
he believes or what his objective analysis demonstrates – but for his
entirely subjective, misleading and inappropriate presentation of an
objective case.
Claiming that taking ecstasy is safer than riding
a horse is spin, not substance, and I would imagine deeply distressing
to the thousands of families whose lives have been blighted by drug
abuse. If I asked 100 parents from Putney whether they would prefer to
learn that their teenage daughter was horse-riding or taking ecstasy, I
am fairly confident of the reply I would get: should politicians really
ignore such concern?
I do not believe it is right for a
government advisor to tour the media studios of Westminster attacking
government policy, even if he believes the facts substantiate his
viewpoint. Advisors advise and governments decide and that is how it
should be. Accountability demands it to be so. Professor Nutt has no
elected mandate to make decisions – if he wants to stand for parliament
on the platform he advocates he is free to do so, but as another
‘expert’ Craig Murray found out in Blackburn the electorate are not so
readily convinced by so called independent experts.
I do not
support a drugs policy that condones drug taking, makes it easier for
drugs to be obtained and diminishes the consequences for being caught
possessing or, worse, selling them. Those are my value judgements about
the sort of society I want to live in. These will be disagreeable to
some, and welcomed by others. That they accord with the vast majority
of the public reaffirms my view that it is Alan Johnson and not
Professor Nutt who is right on this issue. Public opinion is not the
sole reason a policy should be introduced, but neither should it be
beneath consideration.
Professor Nutt clearly could not
continue in his role given his diametrically opposing viewpoint. That’s
why he had to go. The sad thing is that the government had to sack him,
rather than him doing the honourable thing and resigning of his own
volition. His ferret-in-a-sack desperation to cling to a job he clearly
is no longer able to fulfil, and the personal vendetta unleashed since
being removed from it diminish the man and, more importantly, his work.
I do not agree that Alan Johnson took the right course. He is perfectly entitled to go against scientific advice, but I am not impressed that someone who is being talked of as the next Labour leader is taking a lead from the Daily Mail on social policy. There is little evidence to show that lowering the classification of cannabis caused an increase in use. Rather than argue about drug classification, maybe Alan Johnson should be asking why hundreds of people in his constituency feel the need to take drugs in the first place.
“..because of the way he chose to exceed his mandate and evangelise for a particular position not shared by the government, which he agreed to serve as an advisor”
What he *actually* did was publish research in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, The Lancet and a CCJS pamphlet (intended for academic eyes). I submit that that hardly counts as “evangelising” to the public at large.
Publishing research is part of his paid role as Professor of Pharmacology at Imperial. Publishing and discussing research in a free and open way is an essential part of professional science. Nutt did all this publication wearing his Prof-at-Imperial hat, not his ACMD hat.
Alan Johnson seems to expect unpaid scientific advisers to self-censor in academic journals in the interest of Government policy – that’s why so many other Government scientists are so annoyed. If Johnson limits their freedom to publish the results of research, he limits their ability to do their jobs.
“Professor Nutt clearly could not continue in his role given his ‘diametrically opposing’ viewpoint. That’s why he had to go.”
Should that not read, “Professor Nutt clearly could not continue in his role given his ‘professional’ viewpoint. That’s why he had to go.
Stuart, your whole article is twisted and that gives us an insight to the state of your mind.
Thank you for talking on this subject.
Alan Johnson was very wrong on this one. I think the Labour Party have seriously misjudged the public appetite for a ‘war on drugs’.
People want to be told the truth, and be treated like adults. How dare you attempt to force your ‘morality’ on others?
Does Alan Johnson now believe he can ‘create his own reality’?
The Office for National Statistics 2007 report has listed the number of drug related deaths recorded in coroners reports for England and Wales in 2005.
Tobacco 86,500
Alcohol 6,627
Heroin 842
PARACETAMOL 446
All anti-depressants 401
Methadone 223
Cocaine (including crack) 176
Amphetamine 103
MDMA/Ecstasy 58
ASPIRIN 14
And, wait for it….
Cannabis 0
(but, it was recorded that in 19 of the deaths that were related to alcohol or heroin the person had taken cannabis too.)
Obviously, when reclassifying cannabis as a B class controlled substance, next January, the Home Secretary needs to consider classifying paracetamol and aspirin as well!
As Galileo (the father of modern science) supposedly said under his breath when forced to recant by the Pope – under the threat of painful immolation: “and yet it moves”
“there are no absolute truths even in science” you say. What rot! That is the whole point of verifiable and falsifiable enquiry – it is independent of the possible prejudices of the investigator, i.e. it is objective. It does not depend on the authority of the person expressing the result, only on the weight of the evidence. Galileo was one of a very few people in the Christian West who stated his heretical view regarding the movement of the sun and planets (the Persian astronomers had come to the same conclusion long before) – or rather restated the findings of Copernicus more publicly in a way the Pope could not ignore.
Politicians like to think that numbers of votes for or against determine almost any matter. In science the only question is whether you are right or wrong – and you cannot be both at the same time.
I disagree with Stuart King’s position on drugs, but he is correct that people’s perceptions and beliefs are important. Logic and scientific evidence may point to one conclusion, but the public’s beliefs, howevere wrong, misguided, uneducated or biased one may think they are, have to be accommodated – that is what politics is about. However, we should also expect our elected representatives to take a more balanced, knowledgable and educated stance on issues, rather than follow public opinion like sheep – if they did that, the UK would bring back hanging and leave the EU.
What a terrible article. It sounds like Stuart King just reads newspaper headlines and has a very poor understanding of science. The analogies used are absolutely laughable, and only a fool would go along with the comparisons.
The fact that Stuart is a Parliamentary candidate says it all. There’s little hope for Labour if we use people like this to promote such an ill-considered way of thinking.
He has a poor grasp of the widespread use of drugs and wants to command how others live. People will take drugs and you have to deal with it. Just because they aren’t your thing doesn’t give you the right to tell lies and ignore science to get your way. Despicable. I thought I was on the Daily Mail website.