Jump to content

Cannabis evidence 'was devalued'

Sachinism

By Sachinism
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sachinism Newbie

Sachinism

Posted
Posted

The row over the reclassification of cannabis has been reignited after the government's chief drug adviser accused ministers of "devaluing" the evidence. Professor David Nutt, of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, says it does not cause major health issues. He accused ex-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith of "devaluing" scientific research. The Home Office said his view did not reflect that of the government. In 2004 cannabis went from class B to C. In 2008, Ms Smith returned it to B. A Home Office spokesman said: "Prof Nutt's views are his own." He added: "The government is clear: we are determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a whole." It comes after Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College in London and briefing paper to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs. Precautionary measure A spokesman for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said Prof Nutt spoke as an academic, and not for the council. The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness, and claimed those who advocated moving ecstasy into Class B from Class A had "won the intellectual argument". Public concern over the links between high-strength cannabis, known as skunk, and mental illness led the government to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C last year. In 2004, then Home Secretary David Blunkett had approved the reclassification of cannabis from Class B - which it had been since 1971 - to Class C. But in 2008, Jacqui Smith announced that she would reverse the 2004 decision and put cannabis back into category B. The decision was taken despite official advisers recommending against the change. Ministers said they wanted to make the move as a precautionary measure. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of cannabis classification, which was ordered in 2007, was the result of a "skunk scare", according to the professor. In his lecture and briefing paper, entitled Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business?, he repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse. Prof Nutt also warned that the reclassification decision may lead to more people taking the drug. "It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet," he said, adding the government's approach "starts to distort the value of evidence". He cited research which "estimates that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia, we would need to stop about 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 years from ever using the drug". He said skunk has been in wide usage for about 10 years but, he claims, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia. The professor accepts cannabis can sometimes cause mental illness, but argues it is safer than tobacco and alcohol and, overall, does not lead to major health problems. Prof Nutt said: "We have to accept young people like to experiment - with drugs and other potentially harmful activities - and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. "We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong." Prof Nutt added: "All drugs are dangerous and what we're trying to do is educate the population of drug users about the harms of drugs so that no-one can say they haven't been told." Following these comments, a spokesman for the ACMD said: "The lecture Prof Nutt gave at King's College was in his academic capacity and was not in his role as chair of the ACMD. "We acknowledge that the lecture has prompted further debate on the harms of drugs." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8331038.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sachinism Newbie

Sachinism

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The UK's chief drugs adviser has been sacked by home secretary Alan Johnson after he criticised the decision to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C. Professor David Nutt, head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, has also previously claimed that taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than riding a horse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sachinism Newbie

Sachinism

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The government's former chief drug adviser today accused the prime minister, Gordon Brown, of tightening the law on cannabis for political reasons. Professor David Nutt warned that other experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) could resign in protest at his sacking by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, yesterday. Nutt was forced to quit after he accused ministers of "devaluing and distorting" the scientific evidence over illicit drugs when they decided last year to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD. Nutt told the BBC today that Brown had "made up his mind" to reclassify cannabis despite evidence to the contrary. "Gordon Brown comes into office and, soon after that, he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a class B drug. He has made his mind up. "We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, 'No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it's still a class C drug.' He said, 'Tough, it's going to be class B'." Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Nutt said: "He is the first prime minister, this is the first government, that has ever in the history of the Misuse of Drugs Act gone against the advice of its scientific panel. "And then it did it again with ecstasy and I have to say it's not about [me] overstepping the line, it's about the government overstepping the line. They are making scientific decisions before they've even consulted with their experts. "I know that my committee was very, very upset by the attitude the prime minister took over cannabis. We actually formally wrote to him to complain about it," he said. "I wouldn't be surprised if some of them stepped down. Maybe all of them will." Nutt's 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. It is not thought that the home secretary spoke directly to Nutt before requesting his resignation in writing. Johnson accused the professor of going beyond his remit as an evidence-based scientist and accused him of "lobbying for a change in government policy" rather than giving impartial advice. "It is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them," Johnson wrote to Nutt. "As my lead adviser on drugs harms I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities. "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD." The decision followed the publication of a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London, based on a lecture Nutt delivered in July. He repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. He accused the former home secretary, Jacqui Smith, of distorting and devaluing scientific research when she reclassified cannabis, and repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy were no worse than riding a horse. The charity DrugScope's director of communications, Harry Shapiro, said: "The home secretary's decision to force the resignation of the chair of an independent advisory body is an extremely serious and concerning development and raises serious questions about the means by which drug policy is informed and kept under review." Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London, accused Johnson of undermining scientific research. He said: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...