I find this all very odd and wonder who will leave next, three so far, who next?
I wonder what the future of the ACMD will be if it cannot give advice?
I think i've just about had enough of this govt.

I think the acmd will last longer than this government.

Trouble is the next one won't be any different when it comes to advice about drugs. The evidence has been there for decades but has been consitently ignored because of entrenched attitudes. Nearest I can think of is the matter of working mothers. Took about 50 years for that to get through.

(Bit like independent prescribing of CDs for addiction)

Its gobsmacked me this one, Prof Nutt is one of my heroes, and from govt's point of view precariously hanging on as they are, he timing iseems crazy - they can ill afford to lose another swathe of potential supporters like Simon, and now me. I can only assume they've been dying for a reason to get rid of this meddlesome scientist, I fear very much for the dead hand of politics getting right in and amongst the next ACMD. I have asked the NTA director of communications on behalf of SMMGP (sorry its a bit unilateral but I hope and trust at least some of you will support me) whether there will be an NTA statement on the ACMD resignations.

Susi,
I'm right behind you and you do write such a good letter

I think the NTA will need to be very careful. If it is seen to be backing Prof Nutt it will annoy the current lot, who are dissolving rapidly into a back stabbing survival-of-the-fittest mess, but more importantly may signal to the incoming lot that the NTA will interfere with government decision making. Regret at the loss of a good scientist may be the most they can afford to say.

But what do I know? I just vote.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Ho...olitics_With_Science

Dear, dear, dear, what a proper old-fashioned rant. I wish it was longer i'd have got some popcorn. It won't go directly to the one with Alan Johnson on, so you'll have to look for it.

Agree 100% Susi NTA must make a statement about this: if I was doing it I would stay general i.e. advisory boards need to be able to advise even if their advice is contra to view of gvt, if not not worth having

I agree with chris and susi. I hope we can also send a "SMMGP" view..

As a coal face worker I am always delighted that some people are able and funded to do the research and to analyse the evidence base and get it properly published, on behalf of the rest of us, so that the Guidelines can follow the best evidence.

I've only heard snippets of all this, but it seems clear that the "scientists" must be allowed to give their considered views, based on the evidence, then the government can presumably choose not to follow their advice, for "political" reasons, but I would have thought they should be able to stand up and justify that themselves,and explain their reasons. Then we all judge them at the next election I suppose. As I am a life long Labour voter its getting a bit difficult.

Here is a petition to number 10 to support Prof Nutt.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

it says this:
"On 30 October 2009 the Home Secretary sacked the Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Professor Nutt has expressed politically unpopular opinions such as -

"Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. Tobacco is ranked ninth"

and

"Cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively."

Drug policy should be based on science not hysteria. Scientists expressing their honestly held expert opinions should not find themselves in fear of losing their jobs.

Professor Nutt should be re-instated immediately. " (end of petition statement)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: judith yates,

Hi all,
I think this has highlighted the fact (at least to me) that this is not about the dangers of drugs (specifically cannabis) per se, it's about control. How sad that the ACMD have been asked for their opinion, based on studies and research by THE government. The answer clearly was not what the government wanted, so they sacked the messenger!!
There is a similar confusion with regards to the merits of drug classification and do they actually mean anything.. If the re-classification of cannabis back to a B had any validity, why do we have a chronic class A problem, as surely being an A would prevent people from using it?

A disgraceful decison by an increasingly disgraceful government.. shame on them.

I've signed it, not sure it will do any good, then this govt. does seem to make a few u turns of late.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...s/article6899528.ece

ahhh a review that's what is in order says Mr Johnson, put in plain language. 'Think like we tell you and everything will be grand'

Those in London might like to register for this Open Meeting with Prof Nutt on November 11th. I imagine it will be very oversubscribed, so register straight away if you are able to go..It should be an interesting discusion.

http://www.crimeandjustice.org...vidnuttaudience.html

I'm informed the NTA are not intending to make a statement. I guess they have the right to choose when they make them - in fact Chris, i think you are spot on, your version would have been worth saying.
I wonder if this is the dawning of a new kind of public life for prof Nutt? i was thinking today it would be great to see him with a little series on telly about how drugs work on your brain and doing that great thing he did at NCIDU where he synthesises an interdisciplinary theory, which links drugs, deprivation in childhood and the possible reasons for the correlation with other risk taking behaviour at cellular level via dopamine receptors. (In fact I'm also clearly in the wrong job - BBC commissioning editor here I come!)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Elsa Browne,

What madness - but then we all come across that from day to day. It's true that politicians will be looking for a way to cut costs in the future and any black marks may stick, so maybe NTA is being wary of raising its head for a reason. But it also needs to stand by the evidence .... a tightrope act perhaps.
Very deep shame for Prof Nutt who talks absolute sense from where I stand - but yes get on telly instead..... he could be the nerw David Attenborough ... I bet it's on Panorama soon enough ?

The NTA and principle that would be a first. When Jim mentioned in his post

"Who are dissolving rapidly into a back stabbing survival-of-the-fittest mess,"
I thought initially he was talking of the NTA, but if the cap fits.
There recent advertorial in last week’s guardian, a 4 page special celebrating treatment is an interesting way of spending our money. It was I suspect preaching to the converted. What chance of a similar piece being run in that most offensive of rags "The Daily Mail"
The disillusionment with this government is palpable,1997 and things can only get better seems a very very long time ago.

Well I've just heard I have a place at the open meeting with Professor Nutt next week. Anyone else going? Will give report back.

Hugo,
I wish I could afford to go all that way just for one night. I'll look forward to your feedback.
cheers

simon

I agree with what has been said so far - esp Chris's "advisers must be able to advise" view, but I do think there is an even more interesting issue here about how risk is communicated to lay people. That would be a really interesting, adult debate, which an intelligent government (and a less sensationalist media, including the BBC)could be having with ACMD and which might actually reduce the harm that cannabis and ecstasy do cause. The general media ( not here of course), get polarised in to "cannabis bad or not?" type of positions and the general public get so confused that they just stop listening.

My invitation was rescinded last week

Johnson unrepentant in the Independant today, I am curious as to the ACMD's response to johnson today.

I would also guess Robin Murrey will be after the chair? as a prohibisionist he may be just what the government wants to stroke its Johnson