fun
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/popecolour468.jpg?w=468&h=652

article
http://order-order.com/2009/11/02/you-cant-have-politicians-stepping-into-the-scientific-arena/

what nutt really says
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"abelard"  wrote in message 
news:ofsue5dipnpdbepkbhr42ajrabnf4gd05h@4ax.com...

> what nutt really says
> http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf

He's said considerably more than that.

At issue seems to be how he expresses his knowledge and opinion - as a 
scientific advisor or in his personal capacity; in private, or in public?

Postman Johnson alleges that he "undermined" government policy by speaking 
publicly about policy in his official capacity.

The fact that he's a "scientific" adviser doesn't make him an oracle. Drugs 
policy is a matter of public policy as well as a matter of fact.

This is the case for most other areas. For example it could be a 
scientifically provable fact that food from Zimbabwe is safe to eat, but 
that doesn't mean we should eat it.

Science doesn't trump everything else.

There's an argument that Nutt's offences are negligible, and that the 
marxist postman is using them as an excuse to get rid of Nutt because his 
views are too contradictory. That may be true. But it's also the case that 
Nutt is not elected, and Johnson is.

Think back to when the army started getting involved in politics. It did so, 
presumably, because it believed it had a better grasp of the facts and that 
entitled its generals to influence public policy. Now we have the 
undesirable situation of generals popping up all over the place and giving 
their opinion about defence policy.

As a footnote, there's a funny moment in Hansard where Johnson mishears what 
a LibDem MP says:

"Alan Johnson: The ACMD has done a good job, but of course it is the 
politicians' job to take into account a whole range of other views, not just 
the views of the scientific community but the views of-[Interruption.]

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): Focus groups.

Alan Johnson: "Bogus views", says a Liberal Democrat Member. [Interruption.] 
I was going to say the views of Parliament and the views of the public-if 
those are considered to be bogus, then I beg to differ."

DVH wrote:
> There's an argument that Nutt's offences are negligible, and that the 
> marxist postman is using them as an excuse to get rid of Nutt because his 
> views are too contradictory. That may be true. But it's also the case that 
> Nutt is not elected, and Johnson is.

The real problem isn't with politicians making decisions, but with the 
government demanding that a part-time adviser (not a full-time civil 
servant) take, in effect, a vow of silence. Where would this stop? Since 
Nutt's day job is as a psychopharmacologist, would he have to change the 
way he researches and reports his results to fit the ideological agenda 
given to him? You won't get any competent academics agreeing to this!

Will HMG now hire some of the tiny minority of academics who actually 
agree with the "war on drugs", or junior or minor-leaguers for whom 
appointment to a government advisory committee would be a big step up 
(and for which they would be suitably and compliantly grateful)?

The way to avoid this mess becoming even messier, and for HMG not to 
look even more stupid, is to adopt a workable policy on recreational 
pharmacology.

"Ishvara"  wrote in message 
news:hcosir$nf3$1@aioe.org...
> DVH wrote:
>> There's an argument that Nutt's offences are negligible, and that the 
>> marxist postman is using them as an excuse to get rid of Nutt because his 
>> views are too contradictory. That may be true. But it's also the case 
>> that Nutt is not elected, and Johnson is.
>
> The real problem isn't with politicians making decisions, but with the 
> government demanding that a part-time adviser (not a full-time civil 
> servant) take, in effect, a vow of silence. Where would this stop? Since 
> Nutt's day job is as a psychopharmacologist, would he have to change the 
> way he researches and reports his results to fit the ideological agenda 
> given to him? You won't get any competent academics agreeing to this!

You're right, I think.

There's also the vast and unexpected ambiguities of the term "scientific 
adviser". It's clearly not "provider of scientific facts allowing 
politicians to make up their own minds", but certainly implies that they 
should recommend policy.

>
> Will HMG now hire some of the tiny minority of academics who actually 
> agree with the "war on drugs", or junior or minor-leaguers for whom 
> appointment to a government advisory committee would be a big step up (and 
> for which they would be suitably and compliantly grateful)?

That might happen. On the other hand, the two sets of people might be able 
to get together to agree what their respective jobs should be.

>
> The way to avoid this mess becoming even messier, and for HMG not to look 
> even more stupid, is to adopt a workable policy on recreational 
> pharmacology.

And good luck to them!