Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Nov 09
21:37
Joined:
Date Joined:
27 Jan 05
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.
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."
Well there you go............another scientist for Johnson to throw darts at. Where do we go from here? The only sense I've seen in this argument comes from the Lib Dems.........never thought I would say anything along those lines. I can only assume Johnson knows more than the scientists..........get your bunsen out Alan.............remember to taste the mixture first.
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.
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."
Well there you go............another scientist for Johnson to throw darts at. Where do we go from here? The only sense I've seen in this argument comes from the Lib Dems.........never thought I would say anything along those lines. I can only assume Johnson knows more than the scientists..........get your bunsen out Alan.............remember to taste the mixture first.
Show More
I have always thought that MPs should not make laws about drugs unless they admit to using them themselves.
If they have never used any drug, how can they know why people take drugs, why they take a certain drug, why they like it, why they stop, etc.
Look at 'binge drinking'. They don't understand it cos they've never done it - so they just try to stop alco-pops being sold - and that's going to work. Not.
If they have never used any drug, how can they know why people take drugs, why they take a certain drug, why they like it, why they stop, etc.
Look at 'binge drinking'. They don't understand it cos they've never done it - so they just try to stop alco-pops being sold - and that's going to work. Not.
Shab
Many of the MP's have tried drugs...........darling Jackie admits to using pot in her youth.
Many of the MP's have tried drugs...........darling Jackie admits to using pot in her youth.
The only sense I've seen in this argument comes from the Lib Dems......
Well done to Chris Huhne, in particular, for showing some balls.
The Tories' support for Alan Johnson on this issue is just embarrassing, imo.
Well done to Chris Huhne, in particular, for showing some balls.
The Tories' support for Alan Johnson on this issue is just embarrassing, imo.
For once I agree with you Dr J - I would rather be ruled by unelected scientists than elected politicians.
I wouldn't go quite that far, noddys, but Alan Johnson's rank idiocy in this matter has cost him lots of support among voters, imo.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539