UK - Government proposes to scrap need for scientific advice on drugs policy

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Alok Jha, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 December 2010 19.24 GMT

With reader comments

Amendment removes requirement to appoint at least six scientists to Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/05/government-scientific-advice-drugs-policy

'Ministers will not be required to seek the advice of scientists when making drug classification policy in future, under new government proposals.

The police reform and social responsibility bill, published last week, contains an amendment to the constitution of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) that would remove the requirement on the home secretary to appoint at least six scientists to the committee.

A further amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would allow the home secretary to place temporary controls on substances for a year by statutory instrument.

The proposals will be of concern to the many doctors and scientists who have criticised the government's treatment of scientific evidence in the wake of the sacking, last year, of ACMD chairman David Nutt. The then home secretary, Alan Johnson, removed Nutt from the post after the scientist criticised politicians for distorting research evidence and claiming alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than some illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.'

'
 
edgarshade said:
The then home secretary, Alan Johnson, removed Nutt from the post after the scientist criticised politicians for distorting research evidence and claiming alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than some illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
Click to expand...

It was Nutt that claimed alcohol and tobacco were more harmful, not politicians. Seems the UK has sacked its copy editors as well.
 
Here is a link to the proposed bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/116/11116.175-179.html

"The Secretary of State may make an order specifying any substance or product as a drug subject to temporary control if"…

"the substance or product is a drug that is being, or is likely to be, misused, and that misuse is having, or is capable of having, harmful effects."


Frightening. Truly fucking frightening…
 
According to the coalition agreement: "We will introduce a system of temporary bans on new ‘legal highs’ while health issues are considered by independent experts. We will not permanently ban a substance without receiving full advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs."

It seems that any temporary ban will only last a maximum of a year… so it will be interesting to see if they honour the above when it comes around to permanently banning a substance. I also wonder who these 'experts' will be… Maybe Prof. Nutt's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs? That would be very intriguing! :)
 
The truth is that scientific advice has never weighed heavily when making decisions about drugs and their legal status.
Look at Nixon's efforts to get scientists to judge the effects of marijuana, then disregarding their conclusions because they did not match with his.
This is just making it clear that politicians, not scientists, determine the fate of drugs and chemicals.
 
The UK government just full on headbutted the worlds scientific community. Shame on them.

zidane_headbutt2.gif
 
seep said:
It was Nutt that claimed alcohol and tobacco were more harmful, not politicians. Seems the UK has sacked its copy editors as well.
Click to expand...

I have to take issue with Nutt on this one. Politicians are much more harmful than either alcohol and tobacco =D
 
Here is BBC Mark Easton's analysis and reader comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/12/politics_v_science_yet_again.html

'The government and the scientific community could be on a collision course over what critics describe as plans to "emasculate" the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Home Office says its proposals will allow "greater flexibility".

Campaigners for drug law reform are claiming the government is "reaping vengeance" over the David Nutt affair with plans to remove the statutory requirement for scientists to sit on the ACMD.

Readers will recall how Professor Nutt, the former chairman of the advisory body, was sacked after suggesting that classification of some drugs was at odds with their relative harm. Seven members of the council then resigned in disgust, resulting in a showdown between ministers and the science community.

Without public consultation or any prior notification, government plans to remove the need for scientific experts on the committee appear under the "miscellaneous" section of the Police Reform Bill [742KB PDF].'



'I understand existing members of the ACMD are broadly content with the idea of scrapping the requirement on the understanding it will make room for more social scientists to come onto the body rather than, perhaps, a dentist or a vet.

Critics of the move point out that there is no reason why you can't have more social scientists AND maintain the "key" scientific roles, but there has been growing ministerial disquiet that the strict rules can hamper the government's ability to move rapidly against a new drug threat.

In March this year, after a number of the scientists on the ACMD had resigned in protest at David Nutt's sacking, the home secretary was warned that the absence of a vet on the council meant the government could not proscribe mephedrone. I wrote about the crisis at the time.

In the end, Home Office lawyers found a way to work around the problem, aided by the fact that there was little Parliamentary opposition to the move to ban the so-called "legal high".

Since then, of course, there have been a number of learned articles suggesting that the absence of proper scientific scrutiny of the harms associated with mephedrone has made the situation worse, not better. Again, I wrote about this last month.

It is the desire to deal rapidly with new and potentially dangerous drugs arriving in Britain that is driving the government reform proposals for the ACMD. Section 149 of the Police Reform Bill enacts an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act allowing ministers to slap a temporary ban on any substance without consideration by the advisory council.

Some critics suggest that this is a "charter for political moral panic". The government argues it is a practical solution for dealing with the fast-moving threat from new and potentially dangerous drugs. Either way, it appears that hostilities may be about to start up once again between the worlds of politics and science.'
 
Also further discussion in the Guardian with reader comments.

Government heads for clash with scientists over drugs advice
A plan to remove the legal minimum number of scientists from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs risks further harming relationships with scientists and with evidence


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/dec/06/1

'When it comes to the government and drugs policy it is a case of "Hear no evil, see no evil, just speak evil". Perhaps evil is too strong a word but the previous Labour government tackled drugs policy by first shooting the messenger and then threatening his colleagues and successors. With its proposals to amend the law to remove a requirement to have effective science advice on drugs, this government is in danger of simply abandoning sensible inward communication.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill published last Thursday has five parts, with 10 chapters, 156 clauses and 16 schedules. Tucked away in part 5 "Miscellaneous" in clauses 149 and 150 and schedule 16 are proposals that have major implications for our drugs laws and that have the potential to damage the quality of scientific advice the government (and parliament) gets, and to further dent the scientific community's confidence in the government.

These clauses and the schedule amend the historic 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. This was a very forward-thinking piece of legislation that required the government, when banning a drug and criminalising potentially large numbers of people, to do so after having sought and received expert (including scientific) advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.'
 
I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. A conservative government will surely only put conservative social scientists on the board giving conservative reasons for conservative decisions. All sense is gone, people are realizing, surely...
 
In a way I think it is a good thing because it is virtually an admission that the stance that the government has been taking that their policy is based on scientific and medical evidence is no longer tenable.

The government has just lost a valuable ally in their propaganda campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top