The following series of events surrounds an advisory committe to the British government, which is supposed to provide the cabinet with independent advice concerning drug policy.
- 29 Oct: Professor David Nutt, chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs (ACMD), criticised politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs.
- 29 Oct, David Nutt: The... paradox is that schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population), even though cannabis use has increased markedly in the last 30 years. So, even though skunk has been around now for 10 years, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia. In fact, where people have looked, they haven't found any evidence linking cannabis use in a population and schizophrenia.
- 30 Oct: David Nutt fired.
"(Home Secretary Alan)Johnson wrote to Nutt saying he no longer had confidence in him as chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and asking him to consider his position.
Nutt had accused ministers of "devaluing and distorting" the scientific evidence over illicit drugs by their decision last year to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD.
A Home Office spokesman said: "The home secretary expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs."
In his reply, Nutt said: "If scientists are not allowed to engage in the debate then you devalue their contribution to policymaking."
The sacking is likely to raise concerns among scientists over the independence of advice to the government and may trigger further resignations. The Home Office describes the ACMD as an independent expert body that advises on drug-related issues, including recommendations on classification under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act."
- 2 Nov: The home secretary, Alan Johnson, has placed the future of the expert body at the centre of the row over drugs policy in doubt by ordering a swift review of how it operates.
Over the weekend, two other experts on the 40-strong body resigned in protest and members wrote to Johnson today warning more could follow and calling for urgent talks. It is thought that members could use a meeting next Monday to announce a mass resignation.
The purpose of the review of the ACMD, ordered in secret last month, is to "satisfy ministers" that the body is "discharging the functions" that it was set up to deliver and that it still represents value for money to the public. It will also ensure that the drug experts are operating in line with their terms of reference.
It is being carried out by Sir David Omand, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office.
- 11 Nov: Alan Johnson failed in an attempt to defuse the damaging row between the Government and Britain's top scientists after three more of his drugs advisers resigned last night...leaving the group without experts in key areas of expertise.
It is believed the Council was divided after yesterday's tense session with Mr Johnson. Some members wanted to accept his safeguards over their future work but others remained unhappy, accusing the Government of prejudging the review of cannabis ordered by Gordon Brown when he became Prime Minister. The drug was upgraded from Class C to B last year even though the Council opposed the move.
The Home Secretary promised his drug advisers yesterday that their views will be given "due weight" in future and acknowledged the need to improve relations with the Council. But he stood by his decision to dismiss Professor Nutt.
"I understand why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was concerned about this, said Mr Johnson. "Its major concern was because they felt Professor Nutt was being dismissed for his views. I reassured them that was not the case."
He added: "There is a duty I think to accept that politicians make the final decision. At my meeting we talked constructively about the future, about what we can do to reassure the science community that their decisions are important to us and they are given due weight."
Two bits of knowledge should be taken from this story, friends.
First, this is how drug policy is made, not only in the UK, but wherever in the world drugs are banned. Drug enforcement brings in fines, and tax money that they control. Beside that, it makes the chiefs of police, sheriffs, and police unions happy. Politicians who support drug laws get these endorsements that voters value. And finally, a lot of industries with a lot of contribution money have a strong interest in keeping industrial hemp out of the marketplace. For these and other reasons, politicians at every level have strong incentives for keeping recreational drugs illegal. So they start with that conclusion, and pack commissions like this one with "experts" who will tow the company line. These expert findings are represented as unbiased and independent.
Next, this is how policy is made in many, many areas where government has no real business. They distract you from the fact that they have no explicit authority in those areas with pleas of sympathy for "victims" and breathless reports to scare you into support for ignoring the restrictions on their authority. Consider this next time you hear a report on gun deaths, global warming, terrorism threats, DUI statistics, or immigrants causing disease and crime. Are such panels, commissions, and acedemic reports based on fact, or the incentive to find what their sponsors are looking for?
David Nutt thought his commission was supposed to be independent. Until the facts showed him something the government did not want him to find.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://ifaq.us/trackback/13
