Firing of Prof David Nutt

[JillSwift]

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

 

I give up

[Sisyphus]

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

 

I think you know that's an egregious strawman, so I'll assume you're joking in this, and take your surrender at your word.

[ajb]

Well, I think that you have not seen first hand what drugs, legal or otherwise can do to individuals and families.

 

I am sorry, but you will never change my mind to think that drugs are a good thing nor change my stance that society should do what it can to prevent such a tragic waste of humanity.

[Phi for All]

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

What a horrible suggestion! And you're the only one who made it.

 

I advocate legalizing only cannabis in the US, and I don't use it anymore. Why are you strawmanning the whole position by suggesting that everyone should use *all* drugs?

[ajb]

I advocate legalizing only cannabis in the US, and I don't use it anymore. Why are you strawmanning the whole position by suggesting that everyone should use *all* drugs?

 

See my post above.

[JillSwift]

Well, I think that you have not seen first hand what drugs, legal or otherwise can do to individuals and families.

I know you are dead wrong on this. I worked with teens and young adults for 12 years, all of whom had a drug problem of some intensity. I know exactly what the costs of drug use are.

 

I am sorry, but you will never change my mind to think that drugs are a good thing nor change my stance that society should do what it can to prevent such a tragic waste of humanity.

Strange that you think there is a single person here asking you to change your mind on drugs.

 

What folks are saying, including myself, is that current methods fail to work, and are extraordinarily expensive for the tiny return value.

 

Rethink drug use? No.

Rethink methods for drug control? Yes.

[ajb]

 

Strange that you think there is a single person here asking you to change your mind on drugs.

 

 

It seems to be the overall impression I am getting. But this is slipping further away from the initial issues of the thread.

[Sisyphus]

nor change my stance that society should do what it can to prevent such a tragic waste of humanity.

 

Good! Then we agree: let's stop this ridiculously counterproductive outlawing, and think up ways that would actually mitigate said tragic waste instead of making it worse at huge expense.

[iNow]

AJB,

 

I appreciate your passion on the topic. I can tell that you are being sincere, and that you care about the outcome. None of us disagree that the negative aspects of drug use should be mitigated, and that we should not encourage it.

 

The challenge, as I think is obvious by now, is that real problem mitigation does not come from a punishment/imprisonment model when it comes to substance abuse.

 

Your argument reminds me a bit of those who lobby to teach abstinence only sex education. The goals are compelling... Prevent teenage births, poverty for young people who cannot adequately care for their offspring, encourage a strong family unit and social norms... etc. Those goals are good ones. However, as has been shown time and again in study after study, abstinence only policies simply don't work, and often result in WORSE outcomes for youngsters when compared to those offered real sex education regarding contraception and safe sex practices.

 

The same issue is at play here. When conducting a cost/benefit analysis, the costs of imprisonment and arrest for marijuana use FAR outweigh the slight benefit of use minimization gained from this approach. And, as others have argued, there are MUCH better ways to mitigate the risks you cite... We even have a real test case with Holland to support the contention that there are more effective approaches within a legalized framework than within the framework where use/possession is illegal.

 

We all agree that the aforementioned risks should be mitigated and attended to. That's where the discussion really has meat. We can come together to find BETTER solutions... Solutions which have merit and are based on more than a desire to "punish" the people who use, and instead are based on a desire to "help" them to get better and contribute once again as a productive member of society.

 

Imprisonment exacerbates the problem and leads to new ones, it does not ameliorate it.

 

 

Back to the OP... Politics should never trump truth. Nutt presented the facts, facts which are supported by the science. It's a very nasty thing indeed to be fired for telling people the truth just because it does not align with someone's politics. We here in the US experienced that WAY too often with Bush and his policy on climate change. Let's learn from our mistakes, protect people who have integrity and tell the truth, and adjust our policies accordingly.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am sorry, but you will never change my mind to think that drugs are a good thing

 

Who here suggested that drugs are a good thing?

 

nor change my stance that society should do what it can to prevent such a tragic waste of humanity.

 

That's what we are trying to do, by legalizing certain drugs. If the costs (personal, social, economic, etc) of use of a drug are less than the costs of an attempt to reduce usage of the drug, then clearly it is the attempt to control the usage of the drug that is in the wrong.

 

For example, suppose we declared a death sentence for drug usage. This would likely be more effective at reducing drug use than simply fines and jail time. However the social cost is quite clearly unbearably high (and people would have much more trouble rationalizing it as them doing it for their own good, though they would find a way).

 

Now, I'm sure you'll agree that the above example is a case of the cure being worse than the ailment, but what we are saying is that the same is true with current drug policy.

 

We simply cannot keep putting people in jail (which leads them to more crime), confiscating their stuff (again leading them to more crime), preventing them from getting jobs (again leading to more crime), denying them college grants (again leading them to more crime), destroying their marriage (can happen due to prolonged jail time, also leads to more crime). Sensing a pattern here? Oh right, and we also funnel money into the crime sector, since making drugs illegal means that criminals have a monopoly on drugs. Higher costs of the drugs combined with inability to get jobs due to drug testing, means many users must turn to crime to buy their drugs.

 

But who benefits from this? The individual drug user? No, we destroy his life. Society? No, we destroy people's lives, spend a lot of money doing so, and increase crime rate. Individuals that we scared away from using drugs? Perhaps, but couldn't this also be accomplished via other methods, such as education, which wouldn't carry such high social costs? It's not like there's very many people who would use drugs if they were legal who wouldn't use them anyways, and you also need to consider how much harm the drugs cause.

 

So, who benefits from having the drugs be illegal?

[ajb]

Ok, I am sorry. This is a very emotive issue to me, for very personal reasons. I have let that cloud my argument.

 

How we get rid of drugs, I have no idea.

[bascule]

I think it is wrong as his role was to advice the government, not to openly go against policy.

 

You think government advisers should be yes men who uphold the status quo whether or not they think it's wrong?

[Phi for All]

How we get rid of drugs, I have no idea.

This is a big part of the problem. The adviser wasn't talking about "drugs", he was talking about cannabis and LSD being being less harmful than alcohol. Just two "drugs", but suddenly people start talking about making "drugs" legal and that, rightly, freaks them out. I would oppose simply legalizing cocaine or heroin, but there is enough evidence that suggests cannabis can be legalized without more adverse affects than keeping it illegal would have.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You think government advisers should be yes men who uphold the status quo whether or not they think it's wrong?

 

There's a difference between what he believes as an adviser and what he should say when speaking to the public. I think ajb is advocating that Prof. Nutt give his advice to the government as much as he'd like, but avoid going out to the public and saying "the government is wrong!" on the side.

[ajb]

You think government advisers should be yes men who uphold the status quo whether or not they think it's wrong?

 

His job was to provide scientific/medical advice to the government. From there they consider it along with other advice. His role ended there. Policy is not made on the advice on one man (or group) alone. Other factors including public opinion come into the equation.

 

I assume he was not happy with government policy. That is fine, but he cannot force the democracy to act on his word.

 

This has nothing to do with him being a "yes man" as you put it. I think he over stepped his position and he lost the faith of the government. I don't think it is a case of anyone not believing what he said, but I don't think his statements were in line with the governments stand on drugs.

 

Again, this has little to do with if he is correct or not. I cannot see that a senior adviser can continue if he publicly goes against the policies of the government by making these statements. Especially on issues that are very emotive and can have very wide social implications.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There's a difference between what he believes as an adviser and what he should say when speaking to the public. I think ajb is advocating that Prof. Nutt give his advice to the government as much as he'd like, but avoid going out to the public and saying "the government is wrong!" on the side.

 

Indeed.

 

It almost does not matter if drug X is better or worse than drug Y. The government must be seen to be tough on drugs.

 

I don't understand why anyone would want to undermine policy on drugs publicly like that.

[bascule]

His job was to provide scientific/medical advice to the government.

 

This has nothing to do with him being a "yes man"

 

I don't think his statements were in line with the governments stand on drugs.

 

Do you see the contradiction here? He was effectively fired for doing his job, because in the course of his duties he came to disagree with the government position. When he gave advice to the contrary of the status quo, he was sacked.

 

To me this is a clear case of the government wanting advisers to look for a scientific basis to the government's existing position, which isn't how science works. You don't start with a foregone conclusion and look for evidence to support it. You start with a hypothesis and look for both evidence that would confirm it or refute it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's a difference between being a "yes man" when you're giving the government advice and being a "yes man" when you're speaking to the public. The former is bad; the latter not so much. The issue was with Prof. Nutt not being the latter.

[ajb]

There's a difference between being a "yes man" when you're giving the government advice and being a "yes man" when you're speaking to the public. The former is bad; the latter not so much. The issue was with Prof. Nutt not being the latter.

 

Exactly.

 

In any position like his former, one has responsibility to report findings to the government truthfully. The issue is that one must be very careful what is said publicly.

 

I do not see that there is much of a contradiction here. I do not think his public statements like "saying cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine" is particularly helpful to anyone. All three need addressing.

 

Also saying that the reclassification of cannabis is "political" is a strange thing to say. Of course it is political and not based solely on scientific findings.

[bascule]

I do not see that there is much of a contradiction here. I do not think his public statements like "saying cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine" is particularly helpful to anyone. All three need addressing.

 

On the contrary, I think it's immensely helpful for the public debate on this issue to be science-centered. The science is being suppressed because it's politically inconvenient.

 

Also saying that the reclassification of cannabis is "political" is a strange thing to say. Of course it is political and not based solely on scientific findings.

 

It wasn't based on scientific findings at all. They asked the panel for advice, then promptly ignored all of it.

 

Needless to say the panel is a bit miffed. The decision was entirely political and not based on the advice of the panel.

 

At that point having a panel is little more than a dog and pony show to try to lend scientific credibility to the government's opinion. The panel obviously does not approve of this.

[SH3RL0CK]

The decision was entirely political and not based on the advice of the panel.

 

 

Strange that politicians would make decisions based solely upon political realities...

[JillSwift]

I don't get it.

 

What Nutt did was a bad career move. It's politics, going against the grain of what your boss is up to is a surefire way to get fired.

 

But I keep seeing hints that there's some moral issue with what Nutt did. Words like "bad" and "wrong" being tossed about. If there is a moral issue, can someone make it clear what it is?

[bascule]

Strange that politicians would make decisions based solely upon political realities...

 

Yes, it's awfully great of them to completely ignore the science when it isn't politically convenient. Why can't the scientists simply be good citizens of the political echo chamber and say what the government wants to hear?

[padren]

But I keep seeing hints that there's some moral issue with what Nutt did. Words like "bad" and "wrong" being tossed about. If there is a moral issue, can someone make it clear what it is?

 

From what I can gather it sounds like he was expected to have a moral obligation to tow the party line. Like, how if you are a PR rep for a company, you are expected to not make statements that embarrass the company.

 

I think that's it, either that or since the government is trying to protect us from drugs by scaring us about them, he hurt us by telling everyone that scientifically, they aren't as scary as some other substances.

[JillSwift]

From what I can gather it sounds like he was expected to have a moral obligation to tow the party line. Like, how if you are a PR rep for a company, you are expected to not make statements that embarrass the company.

That doesn't really sound like a moral issue, rather a business one. If you're harming a businesses goals, they punt you. Not over morals, but you're just in the way (Morally speaking, they have no obligation to keep you otherwise.)

 

I think that's it, either that or since the government is trying to protect us from drugs by scaring us about them, he hurt us by telling everyone that scientifically, they aren't as scary as some other substances.

The moral issues I find here are of honesty and consistency. I think it's immoral to run a scare campaign (dishonest thanks to hyperbole and associative guilt). It's more foolish to run a scare campaign against marijuana and accept alcohol (inconsistent and dishonest).

 

So I wind up where I was at the start. It's not at all surprising to me that Nutt was fired. He went against his boss' goals, so he was just in the way. No moral quandary there.

 

What he said is true. Folks may not like that it's true, but what we like and dislike has no effect on what is true or untrue. No moral quandary there either.

[padren]

That doesn't really sound like a moral issue, rather a business one. If you're harming a businesses goals, they punt you. Not over morals, but you're just in the way (Morally speaking, they have no obligation to keep you otherwise.)

I agree, but I think it's seen as "sabotaging" their goals. Along the lines of "If you don't like their approach, don't join their cause" but to join an anti-drug agenda to soapbox the exact opposite is disingenuous. Of course that's not how I feel - I think he was hired to be objective, and now they are kicking him for being honest. People who are already very skeptical of any pro-legalization or evidence suggesting the health risks are small probably don't see it that way.

The moral issues I find here are of honesty and consistency. I think it's immoral to run a scare campaign (dishonest thanks to hyperbole and associative guilt). It's more foolish to run a scare campaign against marijuana and accept alcohol (inconsistent and dishonest).

 

So I wind up where I was at the start. It's not at all surprising to me that Nutt was fired. He went against his boss' goals, so he was just in the way. No moral quandary there.

 

What he said is true. Folks may not like that it's true, but what we like and dislike has no effect on what is true or untrue. No moral quandary there either.

 

I don't think the moral argument in favor of his firing is strong - personally I find it reprehensible. I would suspect that most of those that feel what he did was wrong, are skeptical of the science and concluded he misrepresented it.

Something to the effect of sampling that physical health costs are less than alcohol, while ignoring that the mental and overall quality of life costs are immeasurably higher than alcohol and that the whole disintegration of our very society is held at bay only by our constant and ongoing war on drugs.

 

If people already believe he is misrepresenting the science, then his motives are suspect - he is either naive and failed to follow the correct checks and balances that would have kept him from misrepresenting the facts, or he intentionally and maliciously misrepresented them. Of course I don't agree with that perspective, but with the right preconceptions I can see how people would find his actions morally objectionable.