Drugs Tsar accuses government of distorting the facts on drugs
Sexed up / distorted documents from Government to justify their actions sound familiar at all? Yes indeedy – but its about drugs not illegal wars this time. …..
The delightfully named Professor David Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), has reopened the row on drugs classification by accusing ministers of “distorting” the evidence about the effects of cannabis.
You will recall that May last year, Jacqui Smith decided to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C because of what she called “widespread concerns” about the increasing prevalence of Skunk. This was despite the AMCD review (commissioned by Gordon Brown) saying it should stay class C.
“There is a compelling case for us to act now, rather than risk the future health of young people” said Jaqui Smith at the time. Well actually no Ms Smith – no compelling case at all - unless the compelling case was “bloody hell our poll ratings are down – we need a quick publicity stunt now”. And as I have said before this Government knows that the ”save the kids” line never fails. (Drugs bad, but porn ok – is that right Jacqui?).
Having his august body ignored – or indeed worse – having its work distorted has clear wrankled Prof Nutt for some time. Through his lecture and briefing paper, entitled Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business he has reignited the row. He re-iterates that cannabis does NOT cause major health problems, creating only a “relatively small risk” of psychotic illness, and that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse ! That’ll have the Pony Club in all sorts of a quandry. But the most damning statment is of course the accusation of Government distortion of the research.
Why do Governments appoint quango’s such as the ACMD only to ignore them on the important stuff ? And what can the possible benefit be of lying to young people – scaring them with a distorted version of the facts – when surely what they need – and have a right to expect – is accurate information. Prof Nutt says “ If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong” . You are right there prof. In fact it will almost certainly have actively encouraged some to actually take it.
Clearly we can’t now blaim skunk on the Tories schizophrenic behaviour. Are they liberal today or not? Errr No. not today. Tory home affairs spokesman James Brokenshire has said: ‘Rather than adding clarity to the debate on drug classification, Professor Nutt’s comments will add even more confusion.‘ What’s there to be confused about? The Government twisted the facts to suit its own agenda. Der….
(ps: sadly Professor Nutt also states that alcohol should rank on a “harm scale” fifth, behind only cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy- so no doubt the next round of restrictive legislation on alcohol WILL contain copious amounts of Professor Nutt’s research…..)
October 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
the next round of restrictive legislation on alcohol WILL contain copious amounts of Professor Nutt’s research
That will be when supermarkets stop selling alcohol and drinks companies stop lobbying & funding political parties.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Angela was it not you who was bitching the other day about me campaigning against the war on drugs
October 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Ziggy that comment does not even merit a sensible reply
October 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
You were having a go at me & so I’m simply repling in kind
October 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
You are incorrect. I was not “having a go” as you put it. Nor was I “bitching” about your “campaign” against the war on drugs. I was asking you to desist from making personal attacks on other contributors. That clearly fell on deaf ears. Oh well.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:11 am
“…Professor Nutt’s comments will add even more confusion.”
There is a scientist in Sweden who specialises in doing proper research into healthy eating and suchlike, and keeps embarrassing the government’s public health bodies by showing that their advice (“drink two litres of water a day” etc) has no scientific foundation. She often gets criticised for “confusing the public”. But as she pointed out in an interview, it is better for the public to be confused about something than it is for them to have a confident, but wrong, opinion on it.