David Nutt, Drugs and Propaganda

Poor old David Nutt. There he was, on the BBC expecting a factually based scientific argument on the country's drugs and drug recovery schemes. All he got was a blinkered  opinionated journalist. All we got, as licence payers was a smokescreen that hid the vital arguments and data.

But for David Nutt, things went from bad to worse. He then was on a regional program and was confronted by someone who was simply uninterested on Nutts scientific studies or credentials and dismissed mere science as an also-ran. They preferred their own narrow viewpoint and were unwilling to bend, even when confronted with the facts.

A travesty for public information. But for the BBC it all made good television. Guardian Article Here

While alternative viewpoints are always useful, and must be heard, it is highly disturbing to find the BBC so in-thrall to such marginal and unverifyable viewpoints. They have just been hauled over the coals by an independant review. (Here). I expect the BBC will issue a myriad of weasel words, I doubt they will take any notice. they are far too self important for that.

It is a good thing that Murdoch has had his wings clipped. But I do fear that this is simply going to leave a triumphalist and self-centered BBC as an even uglier and opinionated organisation than it already is.

If the way they have treated Professor Nutt is anything to go by, we should not be expecting anything like scientifically accurate or informed commentary from the BBC. Just more self serving and sensationalist propaganda that they clearly prefer.

Drug Laws and Politicians

It is a pity Bob Ainsworth did not have the courage of his convictions about drug law reform when he was in office. (Telegraph Report Here).

Instead he sat in a government that buckled to the whim of the press, played to the gallery and crassly reversed policy on drug law reform. Finally his almer-mater Gordon Brown went on to sack Professor Nutt for his inconvenient though scientifically based views.

All this and not so much as a squeak out of Bob Ainsworth.

You have to ask if any of our politicians are really up to the job of making  informed decisions on reforming drug law. Especially after they have now packed the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) with yes-men and other assorted non scientists.

If anyone should have influence on this matter it is exactly the type of people Bob Ainsworth and his pals sacked that we should be listening to. (Guardian Article on David Nutt here)

Perhaps we should pay more regard to people like the Independant Scientific Committee On Drugs rather than spineless politicians out for a bit of quick publicity.

Professor David Nutt's blog is HERE It makes interesting reading.

In our society anyone who sells alcohol needs a license, needs to be approved by a magistrate and must be regarded as an upstanding citizen. Because of this the very severe damage that can be caused by alcohol is mitigated.

Yet to sell illegal soft/hard drugs exactly the opposite criteria are required. Any form of scum-bag can set up shop. Illegal he/she may be, but with no competition (except from other scum-bags) they can sell whatever they like.

It is no wonder that our society is a mess.

There is very little trade in illegally brewed/distilled alcohol because a known and safe source is available. People don't buy dodgy booze so criminals have no market.

Legalise the lot. Tax them, regulate them and use the money to mitigate the problems - Cut out the criminals.

You know it makes sense.