Scientific Drugs Adviser Sacked For Advising On Drugs. Scientifically
Nov 4th, 2009 | By Bock | Category: Politics, healthProfessor David Nutt is an expert on the harm caused by drugs, both legal and illegal. He’s a scientist, and it’s his job to study and report objectively on the evidence. He deals in facts.
Until a few days ago, David Nutt was the man supplying the British government with hard scientific facts about drugs, a task that included advising on classification according to the harm they cause.
Unfortunately, the politicians didn’t like a scientist approaching his job in a scientific way, and sacked him for asking uncomfortable questions, such as why society bans cannabis while it tolerates millions of deaths from alcohol and tobacco.
They first became annoyed at Nutt in January this year, when he wrote an article called Equasy, an overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms.
He defined Equasy as equine addiction syndrome and pointed out that a ban on horse-riding would prevent about 10 deaths a year in Britain and 100 accidents on the roads.
Making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms and would be, in practice, very easy to do, Nutt wrote.
The purpose of the article, he said, was to show that the damage caused by illegal drugs could sometimes be equal to or less than the harm caused by other activities.
He identified what he called the critical question of why society tolerates – indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use.
Since the arrangement of drugs into Classes A, B and C is supposed to be a way of measuring their potential to cause harm, Nutt looked for the evidence necessary to put ecstasy in Class A, but was unable to find any.
His mistake was saying so.
The Home Secretary at the time, Jacqui Smith, demanded an apology. In other words, Nutt was required to recant, a bit like Galileo, though on a smaller scale. Pretend you didn’t mean it and say you’re sorry.
Nutt’s reply later in the year was to publish a paper on the relative damage caused by illegal drugs, compared to legal ones such as alcohol and tobacco. He annoyed the politicians beyond measure by pointing out that a drug’s classification should be based on the evidence available and not on political choices. This approach, he suggested, would devalue the evidence.
Or to put it another way, deciding the answer before reviewing the facts makes no sense.
He made an even bigger mistake when he used a scientific analogy to judge the relative dangers of ecstasy.
Nutt asked which would be safer to offer a stranger – peanuts or ecstasy? The answer is ecstasy of course, because peanuts can, and do, kill people and the statistics show far more deaths from nut allergies. Why, Nutt asked, are peanuts legal despite being deadly dangerous to many people? And why, if peanuts can be sold freely, are ecstasy and cannabis illegal and classified as dangerous drugs?
He went on to point out that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than many illegal drugs, such as cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.
Nutt wasn’t arguing for the legalisation of these drugs. He was doing what any competent scientific adviser would: examining the logic behind the policy.
As he said in the New Scientist,
No one doubts that heavy users of marijuana are risking trouble with their mental health. What I have simply pointed out is that we need a consistent policy, recognising that heavy users of alcohol and tobacco are more numerous and are causing themselves – and others – even more trouble through their indulgence.
Of course, Nutt should have realised the wasn’t dealing with logical people. He was dealing with politicians.
Medical use of cannabis is approved in Canada, Holland and many US states, but not in Ireland or Britain, although doctors are free to prescribe far more addictive and dangerous drugs, including heroin.
In David Nutt’s field, anyone who decided in advance what result he wanted from an experiment, and hid any conflicting evidence, would be denounced as a fraud, but Nutt failed to understand how politicians think. He failed to realise that they start with the answer they want and will happily bend all the facts until they fit.
Nutt himself summed it up best:
Policies that ignore the realities of the world we live in are doomed to fail.
_____________________
He’s got an unfortunate name though, has our Dr Nutt.
Thank fuck it didn’t happen in this country, that’s not to say it couldn’t have let me hasten to add.
Where is the logic in paying for an expert to make a clear objective argument, then sack him because he said something the minister in question didn’t want to hear?
I don’t usually do this but 12th paragraph, last (incomplete) sentence:
Um, “would devalue the” er….what?
I only brought this up since it brings discontinuity to an otherwise fine post.
Sure he has a point there is relative damage caused by illegal drugs, compared to legal ones but it seems obvious that that is only because legal drugs such as alcohol are legal and wildly available to the masses.
If cannabis and ecstasy were legal they would cause just as many problems as legal drugs.
Saying it’s safer to offer someone ecstasy rather than peanuts is ridiculous.. just getting in your car is statistically more like to cause you harm..
It’s a pseudo argument, doesn’t seem to be based on facts at all but more on persuasion. Not saying he doesn’t have a point, but if you’re going to argue the case to legalize certain drugs base it in and of themselves and not comparatively.
Kirk — Thank you. I meant to fix that typo earlier.
Audrey — Can you describe the problems cannabis and ecstasy would cause if legally available?
I argued this point before with someone who works in mental health, and was shot down. Apparently, though I don’t have any facts etc., I was told that cannabis has far more mental health effects than beer and so on, though I was not knowledgeable enough to get stuck into to argument with her (nor did I have the bloody desire to be honest…..)
This research was discussed on the Andrew Marr show last Sunday Morning on BBC1, AM was interviewing a bloke, not sure who as I missed the start of the interview, I think he was Britians Chief Medical Officer. He asked him about this and whether he agreed that Alcohol & Tobacco were more dangerous than cannabis, but couldn’t get a straight answer, no surprise there.
The problem with this issue / debate is the establishments answer will always be politically motivated & driven, no-one in authority / power will ever tell the truth or stray even slightly from the agreed hymn sheet.
I’m not completely convinced on the safety / merits of legalising Ecstasy / LSD / Acid, I’m not an expert here as they were never my drug of choice, although mind altering might be beneficial in this country at the moment.
Cannabis, except among really heavy users, is certainly in my opinion much safer that alcohol, and I speak from a lot of experience here. The genetically modified skunk that has appeared in recent times is a little worrying though as it seems to induce a similar response in idiots that too much booze does.
I would certainly rather bump into a group that were stoned rather than pissed on a night out.
“I would certainly rather bump into a group that were stoned rather than pissed on a night out.”
Me too….!
How many lives could be saved if the government immediately outlawed salt?
I call on the government to ban salt, and if they refuse, let them explain why to the bereaved families.
Why was cannabis prohibited in the first place? I don’t think it had anything to do with public health.
Banning mechanically propelled vehicles too Bock. Come to think of it, non mechanically propelled vehicles too.
Banning mechanically propelled vehicles would also save lives Bock. Come to think of it, non mechanically propelled vehicles aren’t 100% safe either. Unfortunately the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, and/or firearms is probably necessary for the enforcement of said ban. Hmmm. Maybe we should just keep lowering the blood alcohol limit and forget about the enforcement. Yeah, that’d do it.
Audrey — Can you describe the problems cannabis and ecstasy would cause if legally available?
Well firstly risk of addition (psychological or physical dependence), behaviour problems, social problems , financial problems, health problems – in a big portion of users – some not all..as it is with legal drugs.
Neither cannabis nor ecstasy are addictive. Perhaps you meant habit-forming?
Can you be more explicit about what social, behavioural, financial and health problems you’re talking about?
Cannabis and ecstasy a can be addictive.. have a read if you want –
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/drugs/marijuana.php
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/drugs/ecstasy.php
They can be habit-forming, which can cause problems for some people but they are not physically addictive. It’s important to get this accurate for a rational discussion.
Did you actually read that link before you sent it in? It looks like a private profit-making clinic, and the information given for each drug listed is word-for-word the same. It’s not a reputable source.
It’s hardly irrational to say they are addictive. For some people those drugs can become psychologically addictive.. as opposed to physically addictive. Even gambling is addictive for some. I’d hardly call that a habit when someone has a compulsion to do something that is damaging to their lives.
Audrey, by your logic many things in our lives are addictive. TV is addictive, coffee is addictive, salt is addictive, chocolate is addictive…. We have strong compulsions for all the above listed items… It is not the compulsion to do something or wish for something that should be under the microscope but rather the damage it causes for our bodies and the level of damage that should be closely analyzed.
There is no evidence of Cannabis being as dangerous as (lets say) Opiate based drugs…. Let us also not forget those legal drugs which doctors prescribe that are highly addictive such anti-depressant pills….
Making Cannabis illegal is hypocritical…
Nevin, I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s the problem that those compulsions cause that is the issue.
However I don’t agree with legalizing cannabis.. just because it’s less harmful than some prescribed drugs or other illegal drugs doesn’t mean it’s not harmful when excessively used. Why legalize a mind altering drug that would cause a lot of problems for some addictive type people.. there’s enough problems already with the legal drugs – e.g. alcohol.
Audrey — Stay with the programme. At the moment we’re dealing with the addictiveness of the substance and we’re establishing that neither cannabis nor ecstasy are inherently physically addictive. What you’re talking about is psychological dependency on the part of some people, which is an entirely different discussion.
One reason that cannabis should be legalised – To take millions of euro away from criminal scum, tax it and let it help the economy. People are going to use it no matter what the laws so it might as well be accepted and put to use.
Excellent post BOCK, very well expressed.
I have been in favour of legalizing all banned drugs for quite some time.
And for your commenter Al, cannabis was made illegal first in the US by the passing of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 ( http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm ) organised by William Randolph Hearst Jnr. in an act of organized revenge against Mexico for the loss he suffered years earlier when the Mexican General Pancho Villa invaded Texas and ’stole’ 800,000 acres under trees which belonged to Hearst. The trees were for his paper mills which fed his massive newspaper publishing empire. Hemp is of course a better material for producing paper. Hearst invested in wood pulp treated with chemicals from his partners Dupont which wasn’t a great blend; hence his yellow journalism as the papers very quickly yellowed.
Only recently, 2007 in fact, did the idiots of the US DEA relent and allow the growing again on American farms of the non-canabis variety Industrial Hemp.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/finally-the-us-can-again-grow-industrial-hemp/
I hope the good doctor writes about the law and drugs and political interference, could be interesting.
To be totally practical, if cannabis was legalised there would be massive revenue potential, There would also be the potential to bring certain underground elements into the open but thats a bit tricky because you would be left with all the other drugs, cocaine, heroin, illegal cigarettes etc. It just might create better access for drug dealers to reach their audience, if they could legally set up shop, pay rent, rates, vat, tax etc, could’nt they also just set it up to sell other more dangerous drugs much easier ? i don’t know, just a thought.
I doubt that legalising cannabis would make any difference to its use, except to make it easier for those afficted with life long illness for who it has been a benefit, I don’t think it would suddenly become most peoples relaxation choice.
Its a very fine line between addiction and habit forming, both produce extreme difficulty when navigating the abandonment of any substance, sedatives, cannabis, painkillers alcohol etc, the physical and the psychological are inextricably linked.
With regard ecstacy, it is an extremly dangerous drug and should never ever be legalised, it is completly unregulated and it’s effects are entirly dependent on the individuals brain chemistry, one single ecstacy tablet can destroy and disable certain brain function.