http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33723358/ns/technology_and_science-science/...............Enough said!! there pissed an ant taking the queens shit no more!!

This whole farce is opening a nice can of worms.

Mr Nutt was right in speaking out. The government cannot keep going with fingers in ears jumping up and down saying La la la la la I can't hear you !!

Unless, of course, that government isn't concerned about a scientific foundation for their decisions. I seem to recall that someone said that drugs were a unique problem that deserved special consideration (i.e. enforcement). IOW, there will have to be more of a public uprising in Great Brittain to convince Parliment that they've made a mistake. The US seems to be at at tipping point one direction, while Canada and GB are fallng backward into the land of prosecution and enforcement.

Government's chief scientist backs David Nutt on cannabis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...n-cannabis.html

Professor John Beddington, the Government's chief scientist has backed Professor David Nutt, the sacked drugs adviser, over his claims that alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful than cannabis.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 4:28PM GMT 03 Nov 2009

Prof Beddington, the country's top science adviser, said the evidence was "absolutely clear cut" but stopped short of criticising the removal of Prof Nutt.

However, he is now consulting other heads of expert committees to see if they have experienced difficulties or political interference in their roles.

It came as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, backed the decision by his Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to force Prof Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for criticising government policy, especially on cannabis.

The move has sparked a bitter row between the science community and politicians amid concerns over the future use of independent scientific advice.

Two ACMD members have already resigned and there remains the prospect a mass resignation of the remaining 28 if they do not receive sufficient reassurances about the future from Mr Johnson in a meeting next week.

One member said last night that the situation is on a "razor's edge".

The row over Prof Nutt followed a series of public comments including a view that alcohol and tobacco is more harmful than cannabis, ecstasy and LSD.

He has also criticised the Government's decision to move cannabis back to Class B, against the recommendation of the ACMD.

On whether cannabis is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Prof Beddington said: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it."

He said the sacking was the result of a breakdown in trust between Prof Nutt and Mr Johnson but stressed it was for scientists to offer expert advice and politicians to make policy decisions.

"I think it's very difficult – when clearly trust had broken down between the Home Secretary and Professor Nutt – to see how that could go on," he said.

"I think it's fair to say we need to make a distinction between scientific advice and evidence – which is the role of experts and scientific committees and the role of ministers – which is to make policy."

Mr Brown publicly backed Mr Johnson's decision to sack Prof Nutt and warned that the latter's comments gave the impression the Government was sending "mixed messages" about drugs.

He told an audience of police, council workers and members of the public London: "Scientific advice is very important and we value it. You can see that with swine flu, with climate change and with all sorts of environmental problems.

"But advisers advise and ministers have to make decisions.

He added: "I think the issue here is we did have advice that we should not reclassify cannabis. We did not accept that.

"We have to take a broader view in the round that was more than just the scientific advice. It's about the effects on young people that drugs are harmful and not acceptable."

The move has caused splits inside Government after Lord Drayson, the science minister, wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to reverse the decision.

He said he was "pretty appalled" and claimed that Mr Johnson had made "a big mistake".

However Lord Drayson later rowed back from his comments claiming they were a hasty reaction before knowing the facts.

He said: "My comments in the email exchange were my immediate reaction to what had happened, without full knowledge of all the facts.

"I have talked to Alan Johnson and he has assured me of the importance he attaches to scientific advice and his respect for scientific advice while being the person who has to make the final difficult decisions."

Unless it's so blatantly wrong and/or out of whack, then there is an obligation to speak out, especially when one occupies a position that folks listen to.

Well like Dr. Nutt stated in a different article I read earlier, when we tell kids lies about how bad cannabis is and aren't up front and truthful with the information. The kids soon realize that they were lied to and then think well they lied to me about pot, maybe they are also lying about herion and methamphedamine. Personally I believe we should tell the kids the truth from the beginning, they are smarter than we give them credit for and will learn very soon where we are lying and where we tell the truth. I believe we are sending the kids the wrong message when law enforcement lies about pot. JMPO

Except we already lied to the kids about: Santa Claus, The Easter bunny, Halloween, Christmas, The Tooth Fairy, etc etc etc.

The Parliment is looking for an answer to a social ill that they've identified, and scientific evidence was not high on the needs list. The British newspapers jumped all over the dangers of Pot, but I'm not seeing as many articles on the dismissal situation and how the British public views it.

I'm afraid the path to legaliztion is a jungle that we'll have to bushwack through with a pocket knife. We're approaching a political tipping point in the US, but the rest of the world is still bound by existing Treaties and Memorandums of Understanding.

Three more drug advisers quit over sacking of Professor David Nutt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...David-Nutt.html

The trio quit the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs following a crunch meeting with Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, who earlier this month told Prof Nutt to step down after criticising Government policy.

They are understood to be Dr John Marsden, Dr Ian Ragan and Dr Simon Campbell and their departure follows the resignation of two other members as the row over the future role of the ACMD deepens.

The meeting had been called because members of the advisory body wanted reassurances from the Home Secretary that they could continue in "good conscience" and that their advice would be respected.

The row erupted after Prof Nutt said the dangers of alcohol and tobacco were more serious than those posed by Ecstasy and LSD and criticised the decision to reclassify cannabis as class B, against ACMD advice.

Prior to the news that three more had gone, Mr Johnson said he had told the body that their views will be given "due weight" in future.

He said he stood by the decision to remove his chief drugs adviser but wanted to improve relations but was "very sorry" to lose Marion Walker and Dr Les King, who quit earlier this month.

Mr Johnson said: "I understand why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs were concerned about this.

"Their major concern – and the reason why two very good people who I'm very sorry to lose – was because they felt Prof 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 earlier on 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.

"At the end of the day we have to make the decision but nevertheless we think there are things we can do to improve the way we work with the committee."

Mr Johnson said a joint code between Government and scientists, proposed by the Royal Society, was being considered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Government's chief scientific adviser.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "Whilst we backed the original decision, by now I would have expected the Home Secretary to be able to sit down with other members of the Council and rebuild confidence and stability in what they are doing. Quite clearly he has failed to do that.”

In a joint statement released by the Home Office, the meeting was described as "very constructive" but made no mention of any impending resignations.

The statement said: "The Home Secretary emphasised the value he placed on ACMD's advice, the important contribution the ACMD had made to government drugs policy in the past and how he expected it to continue do so in the future.

"The ACMD summarised their concerns regarding how their advice is received by the Home Office and over the dismissal of Professor Nutt.

"The discussions were very constructive and it was agreed that the ACMD would continue discussions with the Home Office and Government Chief Scientific Advisors in establishing a way to work collaboratively together into the future with the common purpose of reducing drug related harms in the UK."