Pot Uproar Continues in UK-Resignations & Actions Planned

[Weedpipe]

Two members of Britain’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have resigned in protest after the group’s chairman, Professor David Nutt, was fired last week for criticizing the UK government’s decision to strengthen penalties for marijuana offenses. Chemist Les King and pharmacist Marion Walker said that the government wrongly dismissed Nutt and violated his freedom of expression.

Several other advisers on the once 31-member group are rumored to be “planning collective action” against British Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who has taken to the airwaves to defend his controversial sacking of Nutt.

Johnson said Nutt publicly campaigned against government policy and “crossed the line” when he said illegal drugs such as marijuana, L*D, and ecst*sy were safer than legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol.

“Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with,” Johnson wrote in today’s Guardian. “He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy.”

It certainly is frustrating, to say the least, (“mind-boggling” might be a better word) when the people hired to reassess flawed government policies get punished for doing just that. But now that many high-profile members of Britain’s scientific community are speaking out about the incident, there is reason to hope that more Britons will realize just how misguided their current marijuana laws are, and that they too should support a change in the way the UK classifies certain drugs.

Nutt himself has continued to speak out about his ousting and the reasons behind it, arguing that his actions—as opposed to Johnson’s—were motivated by science, not politics.

In Nutt’s own words: “When [UK Prime Minister] Gordon Brown says that cannabis is a ‘lethal drug,’ when it clearly isn’t, young people are not going to pay him any notice. You don’t reduce drug harm by lying.”



News Hawk- Weedpipe http://www.420Magazine.com
Source: Opposing Views
Author: Marijuana Policy Project
Contact: Opposing Views: Issues, Experts, Answers
Copyright: 2008 Opposing Views, Inc.
Website:Opposing Views: OPINION:Pot Uproar Continues in UK-Resignations & Actions Planned

[grow4ever]

[QUOTE=Weedpipe;886970]

In Nutt’s own words: “When [UK Prime Minister] Gordon Brown says that cannabis is a ‘lethal drug,’ when it clearly isn’t, young people are not going to pay him any notice. You don’t reduce drug harm by lying.”

Nutt should be Knighted not fired

[Oddnonsmoker]

“He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy.”

Meaning that he can't be allowed to do his job?

It certainly is frustrating, to say the least, (“mind-boggling” might be a better word) when the people hired to reassess flawed government policies get punished for doing just that.

That's because they don't want them to be reassessed. They're getting paid big bucks by PharmCo, OilCo, PaperCo, CottonCo, and ChurchofTemperance to reinforce a policy that earns them money at the expense of the common man. Governments are made to serve the people, not the supercapitalists who don't like competition.

This is the second article I've seen about this, so word might get out yet. Once it does, people will realize how bad of a policy this is and give us an even bigger push to the movement.

[User]

NewsHawk: User: http://www.420magazine.com/
Source: Times, The (UK)
Copyright: 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd
Contact: letters@thetimes.co.uk
Website: Times Online
Author: Mark Henderson


There's No Point in Advisers If They Can Say Only What Ministers Want

This Government is fond of promoting its decisions as "evidence-based policy", grounded in the findings of research. Civil servants and scientists, however, like to joke that what it really values is something rather different: policy-based evidence that justifies a course of action that has been decided on for political reasons.

Ministers, of course, are perfectly entitled to do this. They are democratically elected; expert advisers are not. While scientists might prefer politicians to do as they are told, their view is often just one of many factors to consider.

Few scientists who advise the Government are naive enough to expect that their opinions will never be overruled, but if this is to happen they rightly expect certain behaviour in return. They should be consulted in good faith before a decision has been made. Their advice should be clearly communicated to the public, along with an explanation of why it has not been taken. And they should not be admonished or silenced if their views are not politically convenient.

In the David Nutt affair, the Government has failed on all counts. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was asked to review cannabis after the Prime Minister had made his intention to toughen its classification clear. Its findings were then released through the Home Office press office, which briefed journalists negatively. Professor Nutt's dismissal has now provided the final insult.

This saga could certainly deter experts from advising the Government, not only in science but in other areas of public policy. We are not talking about ministers that are bound by collective responsibility, or Civil Service employees, but independent academics with a day job who often give their time and knowledge for free. They have a right to speak plainly, without being spun against or sacked. There is no point in having expert advisers if they can say only what the Government wants to hear.

In highlighting so clearly how ministers ought not to behave, Alan Johnson may yet have performed a service to colleagues who value scientific advice more highly than he does. His spectacular own goal with the scientific community presents an opportunity to strengthen its voice in Whitehall.

Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, would do well to use it to press for two sensible proposals made recently by the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee that would help to prevent a repeat of this fiasco.

An independent media office serving all of the Government's advisory panels would remedy the ridiculous situation where the Home Office was tasked with communicating scientific advice it was keen to undermine.

Departmental chief scientists, too, should be required to report and explain all instances where expert advice has been sought but not followed. Both measures would make ministers think twice before commissioning opinions they have no intention of heeding and then shooting the messenger.

[Weed420]

Its good to see atleast some public employees have enough personal integrity to refuse to lie to the public.

[ElectroPig]

The exact same thing happened in Canada, with the exception that noone was "fired" for doing what they were asked to do.

The Canadian Senate was asked to do a report on cannabis, and the report was completed in 2002. You can google "2002 Canadian Senate Report" and it'll be right there...they reccommended full re-legalization for anyone over the age of 15.