Prof. David Nutt (left) is Britain's most eminent psychopharmacologist, which means he knows better than anyone how drugs affect the brain.
As Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, it is also his role to convey to the Government his objective assessments of drugs' relative harms. Recently, Labour has decided to reject the ACMD's advice because, they argue, only Governments take a "necessary wider view."
I gave official evidence for one of the ACMD's reviews - the second one I think, there's been so many. It was painstakingly thorough, tediously so. They took evidence from from every conceivable source of knowledge on the subject, epidimiologists, forensic scientists, police, barristers, mental health charities, even the users themselves.
But the last two Home Secretaries evidentally thinks they have a more acute level of understanding of drugs, certainly more than these mere world-renown experts. For one thing, the politicians claim to be responding to public opinion, not something they usually adhere to on matters such as the economy, criminal justice or defence.
The last ACMD study included, for the first time, figures for people's perceptions on classes and penalties for drugs. Their attitudes were harsh when asked general questions - 32% thought cannabis should be made class A alongside heroin. But when asked about their own children, most thought cannabis possession should not attract a criminal record. Confusion clearly reigns among the people so perhaps they are not the most reliable sources of advice.
Our Gordon sees things more simply, clinically so. The PM told the Evening Standard he would, in his final months, leave a legacy of an even, "tougher policy on drugs...which is what people want".
If you watch Gordon now, particularly at PMQs, he has distilled his rethoric into the most common denominator of, what is right and what is wrong. He invariably gives long lists of where the Cons were "wrong" on economy, Europe etc. He can invert this when talking drugs, "it was right to reclassify cannabis. It is right to reject any attempts to reclassify ecstasy. It's right also to say that drugs can cause such damage, particularly when dealers are pushing drugs on young people." Talk about old school, he only forgot to say what a "scourge" they are.
Alan Johnson bravely e-mailed David Nutt the sack for challenging the Government on why they would not listen to their own advisers. Wor Alan argued there was a place for science and another for politics and it was not for Professors like David Nutt to "cross the line." Utter nonsense of course, if a scientist could not express what impact his views would have societally, then he really would be just a silly old boffin.
But, surely, it would be really foolish for a poltician to leap into the scientific arguments when he has zero expertise. Not so, Johnson. Nearly all drug experts say the causal link between cannabis and psychosis is weak but Johnson declared to the House on Monday, "the causal link is increasingly clear and will, I am sure, become well established in a very short time."
That is just baloney. The Tories would have laughed him out of the chamber if they weren't even bigger headbangers on drugs matters. Only the Lib-Dems made any sense whatever.
Drugs seems to be a subject like no other, where one simple assertion from either side is wilfully distorted beyond recognition. One columnist this week said the reason was drugs was an issue of science, health, education based on generational, class, cultural and racial differences. It was one of the only truism written all week which all sides might agree on.
____________________________________________________________
The Guardian printed an article of mine on Tuesday (link below). I was most gratified they put my words up against those of Ann Widdecombe, when you're views are diametrically opposed to her then you must be getting something right.
The Guardian printed an article of mine on Tuesday (link below). I was most gratified they put my words up against those of Ann Widdecombe, when you're views are diametrically opposed to her then you must be getting something right.
No comments:
Post a Comment