Firing of Prof David Nutt

[bascule]

This has been a pretty interesting story... the UK's chief drugs adviser was fired after making a public statement that cannabis and LSD are less harmful than alcohol:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8336635.stm

 

Other scientists and government advisers have quit in response to the firing.

 

Is this a battle of science vs politics?

 

Update:

 

Another adviser has resigned:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8336884.stm

Edited November 1, 2009 by bascule

[Sisyphus]

The rationale given was that he crossed the line from giving advice to campaigning against the government's position. That seems like just a lame excuse, but it's not entirely indefensible. The broader issue definitely is science vs. politics though. "This was not about Prof Nutt's views, which I respect though I don't agree with them." Oh really? You don't agree? On what basis? Sounds like straightforward truthiness to me, deciding to "disagree" with science when it's inconvenient, as if everyone's opinion is equally valid on scientific fact.

[gre]

Hmm... Lets see here...

 

What would you rather have in your area? 10,000 people drinking alcohol or 10,000 people doing acid.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hmm... Lets see here...

 

What would you rather have in your area? 10,000 people drinking alcohol or 10,000 people doing acid.

 

Depends on whether I wanted to buy their houses after the police arrest them and loot them, or whether I want my house to maintain its value. Or did you mean legal usage?

[gre]

For entertainment.

[ajb]

Statements that he made may be scientifically correct, but that is not the point.

 

The general public do not want (recreational) drugs to be widely used in our society. Thus, government policy is largely set influenced by public opinion. The government must do all it can to rid our society of such drugs.

 

Prof. Nutt's making of the statement in public appears to be somewhat in conflict with government policy. Again, irrespective of the scientific validity.

 

What he may have failed to see is the social and economical loss due to cannabis.

[CaptainPanic]

The general public do not want (recreational) drugs to be widely used in our society.

Except for the case of cannabis, which is already widely used in all the Western world.

 

What he may have failed to see is the social and economical loss due to cannabis.

Please elaborate on this, because I believe I disagree. I'd like to have a little more explanation though. What "social and economical loss due to cannabis" are you talking about?

 

I live in the Netherlands, where we tolerate cannabis use.

The Netherlands is right there in the top-10 of the wealthy nations, it's a functioning democracy and has, on average, quite happy people (#4 in the world on some (probably subjective) list).

Explain to me how this country would be better if we'd change the law and made cannabis illegal again... if that is what you claim.

Edited November 2, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[ajb]

Except for the case of cannabis, which is already widely used in all the Western world.

 

More people don't use it than do. I am sure that most people would rather drugs not be part of our society.

 

Please elaborate on this, because I believe I disagree. I'd like to have a little more explanation though. What "social and economical loss due to cannabis" are you talking about?

 

From personal experience I know the effects of regular cannabis use.

 

1) Paranoia

2) Laziness

3) Disengaging with your family

4) Providing inappropriate child care

5) Money spent on drugs that should be used to feed your children

6) Cannot work due to paranoia

7) Mood swings

 

 

I am sure I can go on. All very unhealthy things for society don't you think?

 

I should also add that from what I have seen, government provided social care pays for a lot of the drugs. Meaning the Tax payer gets the bill for the drugs and any problems coursed later.

 

 

I live in the Netherlands, where we tolerate cannabis use.

The Netherlands is right there in the top-10 of the wealthy nations, it's a functioning democracy and has, on average, quite happy people (#4 in the world on some (probably subjective) list).

Explain to me how this country would be better if we'd change the law and made cannabis illegal again... if that is what you claim.

 

You honestly can tell me that in Holland, there is no problems at all with drug taking? If so, maybe you need to look harder.

[Sisyphus]

The general public do not want (recreational) drugs to be widely used in our society.

 

I strongly disagree. Recreational consumption of alcohol, a "harder" drug than cannabis, is extremely widespread, and enjoys tremendous popular support. Not to mention nicotine, or even caffeine. What I think you mean to say is that a majority (probably, for the time being) of the public do not want certain specific recreational drugs to be widely used. And in that sense you have a point, from a pure democratic perspective. Although I have to wonder to what degree those feelings are the result of misinformation, if government officials are dismissed for saying scientifically correct information.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I am sure I can go on. All very unhealthy things for society don't you think?

 

Rather unhealthy, yes. But then, the whole point is that alcohol is worse. And a better point is that the social cost of fighting a "war on drugs" (I realize that's an American term, but the same principles apply) is tremendous as well. Aside from just a personal freedom standpoint, how good for society is filling up prisons, funding organized crime, and tying up the resources of law enforcement?

[ajb]

So we are back to the argument that as alcohol is not illegal, then everything should not be illegal.

 

The personal freedom is not an issue, simply because it is not just the individual that pays the price. The whole of society does. Can I refuse to pay the part of my taxes that go towards the cost of drug related crime, medical treatments and welfare for the addicts?

 

 

I can see no real benefit to the individual or society from drug use. Please correct me.

[Sisyphus]

That was not the argument. The argument is that the social cost of outlawing it is greater than the social cost of legalizing it, full stop. The comment about alcohol was just a correction of a blanket statement about "recreational drugs." It does, however, also serve as a useful analogy for several reasons, not just because "if it is legal, then everything should be." It is useful rhetorically as a counter to fearmongering. More than that, though, it's a test case. In America, at least, we had a disasterous period of prohibition of alcohol. This dissuaded practically nobody that wanted it, but it did make the product less safe, and fund vast networks of violent, highly organized criminals willing to run the black market, and put a lot of otherwise productive people in jail. Sound familiar? And when prohibition ended, was society suddenly overrun with the "social ills" of alcoholics?

 

And then, of course, there's the Netherlands. You ask if there are any cannabis-related problems in the Netherlands, but that's the wrong question. You should ask whether those problems are worse than in places where it's illegal.

[JillSwift]

So we are back to the argument that as alcohol is not illegal, then everything should not be illegal.

 

The personal freedom is not an issue, simply because it is not just the individual that pays the price. The whole of society does. Can I refuse to pay the part of my taxes that go towards the cost of drug related crime, medical treatments and welfare for the addicts?

 

 

I can see no real benefit to the individual or society from drug use. Please correct me.

There is probably no benefit to society from recreational drug use. No matter the drug.

 

And it matters not one whit.

 

Whether drugs are legal or not isn't about stopping drug use. We know that the drugs are going to get used, the question is how we are going to control use.

 

Making the drugs illegal isn't working out very well. Drugs are still readily available, carrying only a risk of arrest for possession, and with no regulation for safety and quality, and a high price as the dealers and manufacturers need extremely broad margins to cover losses to law enforcement.

 

So we end up paying not only for the welfare of the addicts, but also for the addicts' drive to crime (robbery mostly) to pay for their addiction, the cost of housing users and addicts in prison, the costs of law enforcement specific to drug control, and ambulance/hospitalization/funerary for those who get unsafe additives in their drugs or get drugs that are unusually potent.

 

Legal but regulated use would eliminate or significantly reduce the costs by allowing the reduction or elimination of law enforcement specific to drugs and housing users and addicts in prisons. Regulation would make drugs more safe and of predicable quality, reducing the costs of caring for the medical aspects of drug use. The costs to manufacturers would be lowered, and margins could be narrowed, making the drugs easier for users to afford (and feed their addictions) possibly lowering the drive to crime.

 

Removing the potential for arrest on admitting your addiction will also allow more addicts to get help controlling their addictions.

 

If you can't eliminate it, control it.

[ajb]

All valid points, but I think we are digressing.

 

I don't think it is right that a government adviser make public statements that go against government policy, irrespective of the scientific validity of his statements. I think it is that simple really.

[JillSwift]

All valid points, but I think we are digressing.

 

I don't think it is right that a government adviser make public statements that go against government policy, irrespective of the scientific validity of his statements. I think it is that simple really.

Why?

 

I can see the firing for political reasons - as politics is not a science and is instead a wild frenzy of emotional reactions and careful presentations of choices to the public (aka, "spinning").

 

But to call it "wrong" seems utterly baseless to me.

[ydoaPs]

I can see no real benefit to the individual or society from drug use. Please correct me.

 

Legalization=>regulation=>taxation=>helps economy

legalization=>mass production & regulation=> safer product more readily available than laced product

legalization=>no possession/selling arrests=> less crowded prisons

 

more?

[Mr Skeptic]

All valid points, but I think we are digressing.

 

I don't think it is right that a government adviser make public statements that go against government policy, irrespective of the scientific validity of his statements. I think it is that simple really.

 

I think it would have been morally wrong for him not to. We need our government to be run based on the facts, and not on silly nonsense -- that's why we have science advisers in the first place. If he did not take into account social or economic factors, then there need to be other people to point that out as well. However, firing him does not make sense. It is reminiscent of the research firms hired by tobacco companies.

[ajb]

I think it is wrong as his role was to advice the government, not to openly go against policy. I think that anyone must be careful making statements about drugs, the government cannot be seen to do anything that appears to encourage drug use. I thought the declassification of cannabis was a wrong move. Not on a scientific basis, but because it gave the wrong message.

 

If he wanted to do that, then he should have quit first.

 

You cannot run a country on facts alone. People are emotive.

[JillSwift]

I think it is wrong as his role was to advice the government, not to openly go against policy. I think that anyone must be careful making statements about drugs, the government cannot be seen to do anything that appears to encourage drug use. I thought the declassification of cannabis was a wrong move. Not on a scientific basis, but because it gave the wrong message.

 

If he wanted to do that, then he should have quit first.

 

You cannot run a country on facts alone. People are emotive.

 

Yes, you've said all this already. The question is why?

[ajb]

Why was he wrong?

 

Did I not answer that?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Legalization=>regulation=>taxation=>helps economy

legalization=>mass production & regulation=> safer product more readily available than laced product

legalization=>no possession/selling arrests=> less crowded prisons

 

more?

 

You could insert your favourite crime into the above.

[JillSwift]

Why was he wrong?

 

Did I not answer that?

No, you didn't. You made the assertion that he was, but didn't offer reason.

 

You could insert your favourite crime into the above.

Odd, it failed to work for robbery, murder, most business torts...

[Sisyphus]

You could insert your favourite crime into the above.

 

You can't, really. But that's not the point. You asked what was the social benefit of drug use. However, the real question is what is the social benefit of legalization, which is a different question. Clearly there are benefits, so the assertion that there are none is disproved. And these should be weighed against the cost of keeping them illegal. That is what is being compared. Drug use vs. non-drug use is just a red herring.

 

And just as you can "insert your favorite crime," you can also "insert your favorite currently legal recreation." Do sports have a social benefit, other than the fact that people enjoy participating in and spectating them? They do have a cost, in injuries to players, countless hours lost that otherwise might have been "productive," post-game riots, etc. The point is that obviously there are pros and cons to making anything illegal, and it has to be considered on a case by case basis. So pointing out pros that can be applied to "your favorite crime" is precisely the point. Not "are there benefits" or "are there costs" but, "how do they weigh against one another?"

[CaptainPanic]

More people don't use it than do. I am sure that most people would rather drugs not be part of our society.

Same goes for opera music. I hate it, and so do many people. So, let's make that illegal too.

 

Shall we just outlaw everything that a majority of society dislikes? I know we don't want that.

 

From personal experience I know the effects of regular cannabis use.

 

1) Paranoia

2) Laziness

3) Disengaging with your family

4) Providing inappropriate child care

5) Money spent on drugs that should be used to feed your children

6) Cannot work due to paranoia

7) Mood swings

 

I am sure I can go on. All very unhealthy things for society don't you think?

 

Repression, control and a police state cause:

1) Paranoia

2) Inefficiency

3) A large workload which contributes nothing to society

4) Money spent on police that should be used to feed your children

5) A very significant portion of the population in prison

6) A dislike of one's government

 

I am sure I can go on. All very unhealthy things for society don't you think?

 

Just look at the countries that have the strictest police. How successful are they compared to countries with freedom?

 

 

I should also add that from what I have seen, government provided social care pays for a lot of the drugs. Meaning the Tax payer gets the bill for the drugs and any problems coursed later.

Here's a link to Dutch data regarding healthcare for addicted people.

 

People registered for:

Alcohol addiction: about 539.200

For opiate abuse: about 25.000 to 29.000

For cannabis: "much less"

 

This is a state sponsored institute. And the numbers honestly strengthen my belief that cannabis is harmless to our society - especially when we note that the number of users exceeds one million.

 

The costs for "verslavingszorg" (that's the care for addicts) equals 12-20 million euro/year... or about 0.75 - 1.25 Euro per person per year.

 

 

You honestly can tell me that in Holland, there is no problems at all with drug taking? If so, maybe you need to look harder.

Sure we have problems with drugs. We however do better than other countries on the point of cannabis (note: I'm only addressing that particular drug).

I don't need to look harder - I have lived here for quite a while.

 

But those problems affect a small portion of the users... mostly people who came into contact with the heavier types of drugs. Note: the heavier drugs are illegal, and are sold on the streets. People who only use cannabis cannot buy these in the regular shops.

As far as I'm concerned, cannabis is a category on its own.

Edited November 2, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[Phi for All]

As a science adviser to the government, I applaud Prof. Nutt's willingness to speak the truth rather than peddle the government line. Advisers should not me "yes men".

 

From personal experience I know the effects of regular cannabis use.

 

1) Paranoia

2) Laziness

3) Disengaging with your family

4) Providing inappropriate child care

5) Money spent on drugs that should be used to feed your children

6) Cannot work due to paranoia

7) Mood swings

Your list points are either subjective or could be directly related to the illegal nature of cannabis. How much of the paranoia, mood swings and disengaging are because you are doing something that could get you busted? And I know plenty of people who are not lazy when under its effects. I also think cannabis is probably not a drug many people starve their children over, that sounds like the hard stuff, and legal competition would probably bring prices down.

 

As has been said already, the point is not whether cannabis and LSD should be legal, it's that they are not as bad for you physically as alcohol. And that's been tested scientifically.

[padren]

Personally I think it's dangerous to make people in advisory roles to have to second guess scientific facts they refer to simply for the sake of their jobs.

 

If he was distorting scientific facts or mischaracterizing their veracity to push an agenda I could see that being cause, but I did not see this as anything but his admitting the science does not support the political line.

 

To me, it's no different than firing people who do a study on environmental impacts because they release a report counter to the political desire to drill in a national park.

 

 

As for cost to society, we have lots of things that cost society we overlook.

 

Lots of people are injured skiing and other recreational athletic activities - pushing all our health insurance costs up. Should we ban those for the greater good? Encouraging youth to engage in art, music and literature in schools leads to a lot of failed attempts at careers in the arts who then end up on welfare. Perhaps we should ban those classes - they are clearly gateways to economic underachievement.

 

Lets not forget all the accidents that cost society as a result of people driving long distances on vacation, boating accidents, all the things that end up adding to our national burden. A lot of non-profit organizations do unpopular work and yet they don't have to pay their fair share to society, so maybe we should repeal tax exempt status for non-profits and churches while we are at it.

 

When you start taking generalized statistics for various cross sections of people, you invariably are able to identify "increased costs" associated with that generalized group. Does that mean each person in that group is costing society? Of course not - but if you want to talk about generalizing groups and assume it's safe to consider them all "guilty by association" of weighing down society we have a long way to go to "engineer" the perfect society. Of course, who's "vision" is used as a template for that society becomes the real hot issue. (Not to mention whether anyone has the right to unduly force their vision on others.)

 

Based on your posts so far, it sounds like you endorse the "hysteria induced semi-democratic mob rule" vision that suppresses scientific facts that contradict the mob's preconceptions. What a wonderful vision for a society that sounds like.

[ajb]

Ok, you guys are right, lets all get of our nut on drugs!

 

I give up