Professor Nutt should have been advised privately that it is not his job to be determining policy –

Which part of Nutt’s lecture – uncontroversial at the time – determined policy?

There’s a great article on Ministry of Truth:

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2009/11/10/johnsons-flavour-of-the-month-leaves-bad-taste/

By the way, President Clinton fired his Surgeon general for talking about masturbation and smoking pot —

Advisers Advise and Ministers decide — often ministers might get conflicting advise and often there are other issues that are in play which the adviser many not be aware of.

Either way, going to this march or supporting this march is basically saying one is against democracy. I wonder if the students thought this through

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/29/cannabis-schizophrenia-classification

“Lib Dem science spokesman Dr Evan Harris has written to the home secretary demanding an apology for alleged ’slurs’ against Prof Nutt.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349300.stm

The account of the facts by Dr Evan Harris about Professor Nutt’s supposed campaign is illuminating. The Home Office advertised his forthcoming lecture on its website.

Dr Harris says, “Lord Drayson, the science minister, has now publicly criticised the home secretary for not consulting him over the matter and signalled that the government would endorse a code of practice for ministers under which Prof Nutt would still be in his position.”

It’s beginning to look more and more as though Alan Johnson will have to resign to restore the credibility of the office of Home Secretary.

The lecture was uncontroversial at the time – as is evident by the lack of fuss between then and now.

What about the lecture “stepped over the line of what was expected of advisors”? Did he breach the code of practice and if so how?

ukLiberty. I I have nothing further to add.

There have been many and varied scientific committees for decades, with a range of experts who have not behaved like frustrated children. They have understood their role.

As I said, if the professor wanted to campaign, even under the guise of academic freedoms, then he should have aligned himself with different fora.

I have given the council’s report careful consideration. Of its 21 recommendations, I accept all bar those relating to shape. I have decided to reaffirm the shape of the Earth, subject to parliamentary approval, as flat. My decision takes into account issues such as public perception and the needs and consequences for navigational priorities. …

Professor Nutt was delivering an academic lecture in July to an academic audience, in his capacity as a professor of pharmacology, on the relative risks from drug abuse – including tobacco and alcohol – by publicising data already in the public domain. What other conclusions could he have come to, given the published evidence? Sacking the professor isn’t going to change the evidence. All the sacking has done is to make the Home Secretary look foolish and intellectually incapable of debating the official policy on drugs.

The fact is that the number of deaths in Britain a year attributed to alcohol abuse – approaching 9,000 – is about three times the number of annual traffic accident fatalities.

By comparison, the number of deaths a year attributed to cannabis and ecstacy use runs only to several dozens. The obvious question is why isn’t the government doing more to curb the hugely damaging and costly consequences of alcohol abuse?

Could the answer relate to the buoyancy of tax revenues or to the lobbying power of the brewers and distillers?

“Total recorded alcohol consumption in the UK is estimated to have doubled between 1960 and 2002. . . The researchers . . found steady increases in death rates in Scotland, England and Wales during the 1970s. This accelerated in the 1980s, and again from the nineties onwards. In contrast, death rates for both men and women in other European countries declined by 20% to 30% from the early 1970s. Between the periods 1987-1991, and 1997-2001, male deaths from cirrhosis in Scotland more than doubled, and in England and Wales they rose by over two-thirds.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581530.stm

Scotland is in the grip of a health crisis after research revealed that more than half of men and 30% of women drink to excess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/22/scotland-alcohol-crisis

If that is unacceptable conduct for a government adviser, then any academic adviser to governments must abide by the stricture and accordingly refrain from making any critical comments about government policy to academic audiences at any time regardless of the evidence.

It should not come as a great surprise if many academics consider that official muzzling as an unacceptable intrusion into their professional research so as to prevent them from going wherever the relevant evidence takes them.

My own views on the subject of substances, their abuse and misuse, is very separate from the views I have regarding the unbalanced outbursts from Professor Nutt.

I note that this isn’t a rally for legalisation. But isn’t it about time we had a serious campaign in that direction? It’ll need political leadership of course which has been lacking. Where are the Lib Dems? Isn’t legalisation exactly the kind of thing a self-styled “radical” party of liberals should be championing?