Truth hurts, eh!?!?

idi banashapan · 30-10-2009, 18:29

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

Proff. David Nutt is asked to step down in light of his comments regards drugs and the governments policies. I'm guessing the real issue is the fact Proff. Nutt publicly voiced the evidence that alcohol and tobacco are far greater risks to peoples health. But that doesn't suit the governments tax income!!! Guess the truth does hurt, eh Mr. Brown?

AdamD · 30-10-2009, 19:34

Heh I was thinking the same thing.

Government: Hey we want your professional advice on drugs
Professor: Well, you got it wrong
Government: What!? You're fired!

Stupid government.

Mr Angry · 30-10-2009, 19:37

At least he got off lighter than Kelly.

Osem · 30-10-2009, 21:24

Well you see this government rather likes to appoint 'independent' experts to obediently confirm the official line. They don't take too kindly to people disagreeing with them though.....

danielf · 30-10-2009, 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamD

Heh I was thinking the same thing.

Government: Hey we want your professional advice on drugs
Professor: Well, you got it wrong
Government: What!? You're fired!

Stupid government.

Actually, it was more like:

Government: Hey we want your professional advice on drugs, as we're trying to reclassify cannabis.

Professor: Well, we looked at it, and we think you were right at the last reclassicifcation when it was downgraded.

Government: Errm, could you please not look at the actual evidence, but rather at the message reclassification sends out? We really want to reclassify this stuff you know.

Professor: Bogof. I'm a scientist. I look at evidence. The evidence does not support your plans for reclassification.

Government: Oh well. We'll just ignore the scientific advice we sought from you and reclassify anyway.

Professor: Twerp.

Government" What? You're fired!

nomadking · 30-10-2009, 21:46

What people who agree with that 'expert' are saying, is that they personally agree with what he said. If an 'expert' disagreed with something on their own personal agenda, then I'm sure they would only be too ready to criticise that 'expert' and say that they were talking nonsense.

**Hugh** · 30-10-2009, 22:22

But surely the government hire the expert for his Subject Matter knowledge - and should take notice of it.

**Damien** · 30-10-2009, 22:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

What people who agree with that 'expert' are saying, is that they personally agree with what he said. If an 'expert' disagreed with something on their own personal agenda, then I'm sure they would only be too ready to criticise that 'expert' and say that they were talking nonsense.

I don't have any idea how dangerous certain drugs are. I do know that sometimes popular opinion can be wrong and this guy knows more than I do on a topic. You have to the fairly ignorant to just dismiss his views out of hand because it disagrees with a existing bias. If I had evidence that the experts view is open to disagreement than fine. That's not what happened here. They just want to overrule him because the view is not popular.

SMG · 30-10-2009, 22:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Actually, it was more like:

Government: Hey we want your professional advice on drugs, as we're trying to reclassify cannabis.

Professor: Well, we looked at it, and we think you were right at the last reclassicifcation when it was downgraded.

Government: Errm, could you please not look at the actual evidence, but rather at the message reclassification sends out? We really want to reclassify this stuff you know.

Professor: Bogof. I'm a scientist. I look at evidence. The evidence does not support your plans for reclassification.

Government: Oh well. We'll just ignore the scientific advice we sought from you and reclassify anyway.

Professor: Twerp.

Government" What? You're fired!

Just about summs it up.

nomadking · 30-10-2009, 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't have any idea how dangerous certain drugs are. I do know that sometimes popular opinion can be wrong and this guy knows more than I do on a topic. You have to the fairly ignorant to just dismiss his views out of hand because it disagrees with a existing bias. If I had evidence that the experts view is open to disagreement than fine. That's not what happened here. They just want to overrule him because the view is not popular.

Doesn't "the view is not popular" mean that the "expert's view is open to disagreement"? I'm sure that for an 'expert' that has one opinion there is another that has the opposite or differing view.

If what is now known about Tobacco was know before, then it would have been classed as an illegal drug. It is only because Tobacco is so widespread in usage that it isn't.

Will21st · 30-10-2009, 22:58

What a dumb move.... but what does one expect of Nu Labour??

BBKing · 30-10-2009, 23:06

Quote:

But surely the government hire the expert for his Subject Matter knowledge - and should take notice of it.

You're the Government. You're in the poo. Do you worry more about a) the tabloids and the opposition smearing you as 'soft on crime' or b) the facts?

It's noticeable that the prize tit Chris Grayling would have done exactly the same as a prize tit Alan Johnson on this one, they're both driven by the tabloid agenda, which is currently taking aim at the perfectly sound and sensible Dr. Evan Harris MP, presumably for having the temerity to take an objective, evidence based look at things*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...abortions.html

* and, more to the point, often adopts progressive positions opposed to the Catholic Church, which the Mail's appalling editor Paul Dacre is a prominent supporter of. The difference here is that Dr. Harris is actually elected - he's been active in recent weeks in the burgeoning movement to insert some sanity into British life around supporting science, exposing various forms of denialism, libel, freedom of speech etc. and a jolly good thing too.

30-10-2009, 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

If what is now known about Tobacco was know before, then it would have been classed as an illegal drug. It is only because Tobacco is so widespread in usage that it isn't.

Its been known since the 1930's/40's that tobacco was linked to cancer. But that has never stopped any government outlawing it, it just makes them too much damn money....

31-10-2009, 12:42

Just legalise drugs for a start and then start to work on getting rid of the problem but that is far too sensible an approach for this or any other government to take. As for this government sacking him big shock as their past history shows how well they deal with differences of opinion to thiers doesn't it.

idi banashapan · 31-10-2009, 12:53

i think that kind of attitude is rife in any establishment whereby there are those of an authoritive position and those who 'merely' comment. you'll always get a few who get a superiority complex and will try to shoot down anyone who thinks different to themselves.

It's just in this case, due to it being a MASSIVE money maker (ie, alcohol and tobacco), the government had 2 choices... sack him, call him wrong and try to belittle the facts he has aired, or agree with him and change all their policies on drugs / alcohol resulting in less revenue.

personally, I tend to agree that alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging than a lot of other illegal substances out there.