Firing of Prof David Nutt

[JillSwift]

...with the right preconceptions I can see how people would find his actions morally objectionable.

Heh. With the right preconceptions, all things are immoral.

 

Thus is the quandary of morality.

[iNow]

Heh. With the right preconceptions, all things are immoral.

 

Thus is the quandary of morality.

 

Bah. Morality is not such a difficult question.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44881

[bascule]

If people already believe he is misrepresenting the science, then his motives are suspect

 

I don't see anyone here claiming he misrepresented the science.

 

Does anyone think he misrepresented the science? If so, that's a different story.

 

The only claim I'm seeing here is that he spoke out against the politics.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't see how it matters whether he spoke publicly or privately, unless he disclosed classified information or was misleading. On the contrary, having the public understand exactly how the government reaches its decisions seems like it should strengthen their support of the government's decision, unless the government is making the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons.

 

Is it in a science adviser's job description to give credence to the government's position regardless of what the science says?

[The Bear's Key]

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

True for some people, but not everyone's affected like that. Some feel pleasant highs and/or sensations, while others feel very much the exact opposite. Which could be due to physiology. And if so, likely it's not a universal problem.

 

 

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.

Better place is Amsterdam where pot is legal in coffee houses.

 

Amsterdam's main attractions, including its historic canals, the Rijksmuseum, the Van Gogh Museum, Hermitage Amsterdam, Anne Frank House, its red-light district, and its many cannabis coffee shops draw more than 3.66 million international visitors annually, as of 2009.[11]

 

 

Interestingly, another "vice" of theirs -- brothels in the red light district -- seems to be on a decline. All by its own maybe?

 

While 26 percent of the tourists come to the district to have a "look", the number of brothels is decreasing sufficiently for the Chamber of commerce to sound the alarm.[107]

 

 

And surely there's problems. But on closer inspection, do they have more society problems (caused by weed) than us?

 

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html

The study compared the cannabis (marijuana and hashish) habits of users in Amsterdam and San Francisco to test the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health.

 

"We compared representative samples of experienced marijuana users to see whether the lawful availability of marijuana did, in fact, lead to the problems critics of the Dutch system have claimed," said Reinarman. "We found no evidence that it does. In fact, we found consistently strong similarities in patterns of marijuana use, despite vastly different national drug policies."

 

Highlights of the study include:

 

• The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco.

 

........

 

• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.

 

• Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods.

 

The Netherlands effectively decriminalized marijuana use in 1976, and it is available for purchase in small quantities by adults in licensed coffee shops; in the United States, marijuana use carries stiff criminal penalties, and more than 720,000 people were arrested for marijuana offenses in 2001.

 

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Dutch Ministry of Health.

Note the study's funded by government, in part by a subset agency of the National Institutes of Health. If researchers in government are free to be honest about their studies, we're better able to deal with those studied problems.

 

 

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

The problem is others also see first hand what criminalization of pot -- as the first solution -- can do not just to individuals and families, but to prison overcrowding, justice, and society.

 

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.

Well, if he's going against 1) politicians skewing or hiding results, or 2) against government, would be different things.

 

The issues are very emotive for both sides.

 

Thus facts with objectivity are crucially necessary -- especially when it can have very wide social implications.

[DrP]

The public want to know the truth - not to be lied to. No-one disagrees how dangerous drugs and alcohol are - we just want the facts. Alcohol is a more dangerous drug than dope - fact. We have a class system based on how dangerous the drug is. Heroin is class A and rightly so. Canabis fits into class C. If the government make it class B then it defeats the whole point of the graided system in the first place...... What are they going to do next? Ban Alcohol? That would be the next logical move if you up the class of canabis.

[padren]

Simply because this thread needs more wharglbargl:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224858/Yes-scientists-good-But-country-run-arrogant-gods-certainty-truly-hell-earth.html

 

Now he has been sacked, the scientific establishment is in an uproar of self-pity and self-importance. How dare mere politicians question their judgments? They are scientists, aren't they? And what scientists say must be taken as true.

 

The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts.

 

Honestly I can't tell for certain if this article is satire, but it doesn't seem to be. The fact it Godwin's itself half way through raises my satire detector alarm, but that hasn't been a very good indicator as it used to be.

[john5746]

I agree with that article, but that doesn't mean we need to lie to ourselves. A drug rating shouldn't be the only thing to determine legality.

[CharonY]

The public want to know the truth

 

The public should want to know the truth. However, most of the time the public really wants a reaffirmation of their respective opinions. Padren, sadly it does not really read like satire.

Edited November 3, 2009 by CharonY

[DrP]

That's because alot of them are sheeple with an average IQ of about 100. No disrespect - that's just the general public for you.

 

The Times and Telegraph both ran stories about the support he is getting from other scientists in his dept. They think his dismisal was unfair.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think it's parody, unless the Daily Mail itself is a long-running parody. The whole thing is basically one giant, self-righteous straw man (that is, "science is infallible"), with several gratuituous appeals to emotion thrown in. Godwinning is pretty standard, though it's particularly funny in this case, as a better Godwin could be made on the subject of challenging foregone conclusions...

[bascule]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6517340/Lord-Drayson-David-Nutts-sacking-has-caused-serious-concern-in-science-world.html

 

Lord Drayson, the UK Science Minister, has expressed concerns over the firing of Prof Nutt:

 

''If I had been asked by the Home Secretary before he took that decision I would have said that a decision to dismiss Professor Nutt would have caused serious concern,'' he told The Times.

 

''It's very important that in future the chief scientific adviser and the Science Minister are consulted before ministers take decisions to sack independent scientific advisers.''

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How To Keep People Convinced Government Policy Is Correct:

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Professor John Beddington, the UK's chief scientist, has backed Professor Nutt on his statements about cannabis.

 

I think it's safe at this point to say the scientific community has spoken and the government is wrong.

Edited November 9, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.