I just listened to the worst thing I’ve heard so far about the Nutt Sack scandal – BBC Radio 4’s “The Report“, that aired on Thursday. Not only is this as balanced as a lone fat guy on a see-saw, but their arguments compel you to shout at the computer as you listen along. This program was more damaging to my mental health than any kind of “skunk” might be. My favourite bits are when the reporter asks if he can get high by smelling some cannabis and when this woman’s son has a “schizoid episode” because he robbed his mum’s jewellery. Unbe-fucking-lievable! A BBC Radio producer actually got in touch, and encouraged me to pass the link around (excellent marketing there by the BBC, and for once I’m not being sarcastic) so here goes: you can listen to it here.

So, let’s have some fun! I’ll be giving away a 5g bag of Mellow Yellow to the best comment on this post deconstructing this program. You can pick your favourite bits or you can pick apart the entire thing bit by excruciatingly painful bit. Points will be awarded for thoroughness, any references to relevant facts and the cut of one’s jib. I’ll pick the best one by Dec 14th.

I’m very excited! Coffeesh0p has just brought out its own brand of delicious incense – Mellow Yellow!

I’ve never done anything like this before, so working out how to “release a product” was an interesting experience. My first problem was finding some decent bags to put it in. I spent about a million hours searching Google and emailing people trying to find the perfect packaging, but everything I came across was unacceptable for one reason or another. I eventually settled for some 3×5″ resealable antistatic bags, which do look pretty cool, but are perhaps a little bit big. They’ve also got some nasty printing on the one side, but that’s ingeniously covered up by the labels we had printed. To a “professional incense merchant”, they may look a little tacky, but most people should be pleased. I’m sure customers would rather I save a little bit of money on packaging and pass the saving along to them.

The incense itself is really light and fluffy, so you do get quite a large volume of it. It’s mainly yellow, hence the name, but with flecks of orange wild dagga flowers, blue lotus petals and purple lavender. It burns very evenly and its relaxing effects can last for several hours. This is definitely my favourite incense on the market at the moment – that might sound like bollocks, but I’m not going to put our name to something terrible am I?

I probably won’t give away any on here, but we’ll include a free 1g sample with all orders over £30, while stocks last.

It turns out that not all MPs are useless! If you remember, I wrote to my MP about this whole Dave Nutt business, and she got back to me in this post. She’s since been in touch again, forwarding me a copy of the letter she’s sent to Alan Johnson:

Further to our recent email correspondence about the sacking of Prof. David Nutt, below is a copy of the letter I have sent to Alan Johnson today.  I will send you a copy of the reply I receive.

Next week I am co-sponsoring a cross-party event with Evan Harris (Lib Dem) and Peter Bottomley (Con) at which Prof. Nutt will be speaking to MPs.

Regards, Lynne Jones

And here is that letter:

Dear Alan

Professor David Nutt

As I was unable to be in the House to hear your Statement on Monday regarding the removal of Professor Nutt as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), I wanted to write to you to express my concerns.

I have seen a copy of your letter sacking Professor Nutt on the BBC website and I have read the Hansard of Monday’s debate.

During the debate on your Statement you infer that Prof. Nutt was removed for not being clear when speaking personally at a lecture to Kings College (London) that he was not speaking for the ACMD and for publishing documents relating to the Government framework without giving the Home Office first sight of them. You also say it was unacceptable for him to criticise Government Ministers and Government policy.

On the issue of speaking personally or on behalf of the ACMD, I note from a report in the 3 November edition of the Financial Times that Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College, who invited Prof. Nutt to give his lecture, stressed that:

“at no point did he make reference to his role as chair of the ACMD, nor did he give the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the ACMD”

Given this, on what basis are you arguing that it wasn’t ‘clear’ that he was speaking personally?  Surely it would be a matter for the members of the ACMD to complain if they felt this was the case (when in fact members of that Committee have resigned in protest at your action against Prof. Nutt).

On the question of publishing documents, unless you want to stop advisers expressing their views publicly, what are the reasons for the Government insisting on first sight of material published on the subject areas advisers give advice on?  Can you clarify what the documents were that Prof. Nutt published without first showing them to the Home Office and what action your Department would have taken had you had first sight of the documents?  Specifically would the Home Office have taken any action to change the content of the documents in question?

In the House on 2 November you said that whilst Prof. Nutt had the right to ‘express his views’ he did not have the right to criticise the Government and its drugs policy framework.  Isn’t this putting restrictions on his right to express himself independently in his role as an academic with expertise in this area?  It seems to me that this is different from campaigning against Government policy as you have accused him of doing.  If the Government wants independent evidence-based scientific advice doesn’t it have to face the consequences if it ignores the advice given?  Why didn’t you just defend your policy if you have confidence in it?

I should also be grateful for your response to the widespread criticism that your decision has received from the scientific community and the concern that you have jeopardised the relationship between independent scientific advisers and Government.  In particular, I noted the letter in the 2 November edition of the Times from Ian Stolerman, Emeritus Professor of Behavioural Pharmacology from the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London:

“All scientists who work without pay to advise the Government must surely be considering their positions.”

And no doubt you will have heard Professor Colin Blakemore, former head of the Medical Research Council, on the Today programme and his comment that:

“This is not just an issue about drugs: the Government depends very widely on advice from experts who give their time freely.”

Critics of your decision are backed up by the recent Government response to the Innovation, Science and Skills Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2008–09, published only a matter of days before the sacking of Prof Nutt, which states:

“The Government agrees that the independence of science advisers is critical. It was precisely for this reason that the GCSA wrote to then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to express concern over her criticism, in Parliament, of Professor Nutt (Chairman of ACMD) with regard to an article he published in a peer-reviewed journal“

I note that despite this official Government declaration of concern over criticism by your predecessor of the ACMD Chair, on Monday, you referred to Jacqui’s criticism of Prof. Nutt as if this somehow justified your own action against him.  Do you accept that your dismissal of Prof. Nutt contradicts the Government’s position as outlined in this recent Response to the ISS Committee Report?

Turning to the issue of the classification of cannabis itself, in 2007, before the announcement in 2008 that cannabis was to be reclassified back to class B, I tabled an Early Day Motion about the dangers of cannabis use that I would like to bring to your attention (text printed on the back of this letter).  From this you will see that, whilst I accept that there are hazards associated with cannabis use, as does Prof. Nutt, this would not of itself justify the reclassification to class B, as classification is about relative hazard – the very point of Prof. Nutt’s comments.

Furthermore, in the EDM, I also pointed out that the downgrading of cannabis to class C from class B in 2004 was actually associated with reduced cannabis use by young people, as evidenced by the following table produced by your own Department with information from British Crime Survey respondents:

As you of course know, cannabis was reclassified from B to C with effect from January 2004 and reclassified back to B in December 2008 with effect from January 2009.  As you will note from the above statistics for this period, the proportion of 16-24 year-old respondents declaring cannabis use in the previous year fell from 25.3% in 2003/04 to 18% in 2007/08.  I was therefore very disappointed by your response to the question put to you during the debate on your 2 November Statement by George Howarth:

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): If my right hon. Friend had taken Professor Nutt’s advice and lowered the categorisation of cannabis, and if as a result more young people had started to use it, would not that have been irresponsible?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I think it would have been. That is why my predecessor decided not to take that advice and why that decision has been endorsed by this Parliament.

I would be interested to know why you did not base your answer on the statistical evidence on cannabis usage rates amongst young people during the period when categorisation was lowered.  Were you unaware of the above data or were you aware but misleading the House in your reply by your suggestion that it was because more young people started using cannabis when it was classified downwards to class C that Jacqui reclassified the drug upwards?

Either way, your failure to refer to your own published data on this particular question serves to reinforce the point that Government is ignoring evidence on issues relating to drug classification.

LYNNE JONES MP

Brilliant! When I first got in touch, I had no idea she’d even respond, let alone write a letter to Alan Johnson! She’ll copy me in on his reply too, should he ever write back. Somehow I don’t think he will…

If you haven’t written to your MP yet, please do so. Details on how to get in touch with them can be found here.

This week has been a massive middle finger not only to every single scientist, but also to legal highs users all across the UK. Today, I’m going to be moaning about both.

Malcolm Tucker: The angriest man on telly

Firstly, as everyone will know Prof. David Nutt was sacked as head of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Ever since this news broke, I’ve not been able to shake the image of Prof. Nutt getting a bollocking from Malcolm out of The Thick Of It. On its own, this isn’t big news; people get sacked all the time. But the reason why he got sacked is gobsmacking.

The Situation

It all started in 2008 when the government decided cannabis was far more deadly than ever before, what with all these new “skunk” strains appearing, and reclassified it back up to Class B. Of course, because the cannabis was “much stronger” than in previous years (for more on why that’s total horse shit, read Bad Science), everyone who smokes it will get schizophrenia, or so Gordon “Golden” Brown would have us beleive. Actually, he just pulled that straight out of his arse. Prof. Nutt, et al., wise to this bullshittery, recommended against the reclassification and was ignored. More recently, Dave (I’m sure I can call him Dave) published a paper comparing the dangers of ecstasy with the dangers of horse riding, finding that horse riding was actually more dangerous – “Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms” [pdf; 65 kb]. This wasn’t a piece of propaganda published by some idgit with an agenda; it was a paper in a peer-reveiwed journal, alongside other factually accurate and interesting publications – all Dave did was let the evidence speak for itself. Dave’s final piss-take of current policy came when he delivered a lecture on entitled “Estimating drug harms: a risky business?” [pdf; 366 kb], basically saying the same thing that this episode of Horizon says – heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone are the only drugs more harmful than alcohol, while LSD, ecstasy and cannabis are all less harmful that both alcohol and tobacco. As a result, Alan Johnson, our beloved home secretary and ex-postman, has lost confidence in the advice given by Dave, with over 40 years of relevant scientific background in the subject. Here are my top quotes (and interpretations) from Alan “I’m a fucking moron” Johnson:

This was not about Prof Nutt’s views, which I respect though I don’t agree with them.

This means “I don’t understand the importance of evidence” or “I disagree with the evidence because it doesn’t support my conclusion”

You cannot have a chief adviser… campaigning against government

This means “We’re not willing to accept advice that goes against the political message we’re trying to send”

There are not many kids in my constituency in danger of falling off a horse – there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction.

This means “What goes on in my constituency is applicable to the entire country.”

More Dangerous Than Ecstasy

This last (and most recent quote) is my favourite. Not only does it show an unbelievable arrogance, it also shows a deep misunderstanding of either the research or his constituency. Horse riding kills more people than ecstasy – that’s a fact. Is he arguing that thousands of people are at risk from a hitherto-unheard-of ecstasy addiction? Bollocks!  Or is he perhaps saying that all drugs are a problem? In that case, the comparison to horse riding isn’t fair, since that only applies to ecstasy, not all drugs. Who’d have thought that one single sentence could make someone look so stupid? Oh, and one final point – what about cheap, legal alcohol? I wonder how many people in his constituency have been sucked into hopeless despair though alcohol addiction?

Why Dave Is In The Right

Firstly, the Code o’ Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees states:

Rules of conduct need not affect a member’s freedom to represent his or her field of expertise in a personal capacity. The committee’s rules however should generally oblige members to make clear when they are not speaking in their capacity as committee members.

Guess what – the lecture was given as the Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London, not as chairman of the ACMD. This was made perfectly clear. BAM! Next, the Misuse of Drugs act includes the following within the ACMD’s remit:

educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs and for giving publicity to those dangers

BOOM! If that includes setting the current drugs policy straight in order to better communicate the relative harms of illegal drugs, then well done Dave for doing the job you were hired to do!

The Resignations

So far, other than Dave, Dr Les King and Marrion Walker have resigned. Les is part-time advisor to the Department of Health, and was a senior chemist on the ACMD, who’s responsible for drafting the legislation I’ll talk about shortly. Marrion is the clinical director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust’s substance misuse service and was the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s representative on the ACMD. As you can imagine, the resignation of these key figures has been a massive blow to the ACMD’s future credibility.

With any luck, the rest of them will resign next Monday, and no other respectable scientist will take their place.

What YOU Can Do About It

Facebook has been the primary theatre of action in this conflict between reason and the idiot brigade in power. If you use Facebook, you might like to join the “Support and Reinstate Professor David Nutt: We want an evidence based drugs policy.” group, which has been set up by the Students for Sensible Drug Policy UK. There are tonnes of comments, discussion, links ‘n’ all that, and it’s currently just over 8600 members strong. Alan Johnson’s Facebook page was public until very recently. Last time I went on there, it was covered in comments informing him of his own stupidity.

There are also a couple of worthwhile petitions UK residents can sign:

• Reinstate Prof. David Nutt
• Evidence-based Drugs Policy

And finally, I’d suggest writing to your local MP. Obviously, an actual letter would carry more weight than an email, but if you’ve got 10 mins to spare, you can use the website WriteToThem to find your local MP and fire off an email. I sent one off yesterday and got an encouraging reply this morning. I copied one someone else wrote from that Facebook group above and edited a few bits here ‘n’ there, and if you do the same, please edit my letter before you send it – that website won’t send identical messages. Here’s what I wrote:

Dear Lynne Jones,

I am writing to express my disappointment at the recent sacking of Professor David Nutt, Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs by the current Home Secretary, Alan Johnson.

It is the role and duty of a scientist to objectively determine truth and fact about the way in which the world works, and to present the evidence demonstrating those facts. Whether such facts are convenient, inconvenient, comfortable or uncomfortable or happen to contradict government policy is irrelevant. A scientist influenced by political expediency is not a scientist.

I fully understand that advisers advise and that ministers are responsible for decisions on policy, but the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, as laid down in the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971 include the following:

“educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs and for giving publicity to those dangers; ”

Professor Nutt has made public remarks about the relative risks of the use of substances currently illegal in the UK, comparing them to other legal substances and other common leisure pursuits. This fulfils the remit, quoted above, of ‘educating the public’, especially since the current drugs classification system does nothing to highlight the relative harms of illegal drugs.

In this case, the facts, as determined by the scientific method, may well cause many members of the public to question current Government policy. This is only right and proper in a democracy.

By asking Professor Nutt to stand down, the Home Secretary has sent a message that he finds it acceptable to disrupt the education of the public and that he is willing to suppress those who have a clear remit to present the public with facts in order to do this.

It is also worth noting that the document: “Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy: Government Response to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2008-09 – Science and Technology Committee ” states the following in Appendix One:

“SAC members should not be criticised for publishing scientific papers or making statements as professionals, independent of their role as Government advisers. (Paragraph 64)

“The Government agrees that the independence of science advisers is critical. It was precisely for this reason that the GCSA wrote to then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to express concern over her criticism, in Parliament, of Professor Nutt (Chairman of ACMD) with regard to an article he published in a peer-reviewed journal. ”

To my mind, the actions of the Home Secretary are undemocratic, dishonest, an attempted suppression of freedom of speech and a middle finger to anyone who understands and appreciates the scientific method.

Should not the Home Secretary now be considering his position?

I would be grateful for your thoughts.

Yours sincerely,
John Clarke

Here’s her reply:

I agree with you. When the issue if reclassifying cannabis back to class B in 2007, I tabled the following parliamentary motion:

EDM 209

RESPONDING TO THE DANGERS OF CANNABIS USE

That this House supports the mental health charity Rethink in its call for a public education campaign to convey the dangers of cannabis use; offers this support in light of the recent review of research published in the Lancet, which concludes that frequency of cannabis use increases the risk of psychotic illness such as schizophrenia by up to 40 per cent.; calls for clarity on the cannabis debate, particularly regarding the strength of skunk varieties of the drug; believes that reclassifying cannabis will not in itself lead to a decrease in the number of people who use it; notes that the proportion of young people using cannabis has actually fallen since it was reclassified in January 2004 from 25.3 per cent. of 16 to 24 year olds in 2003-04 to 20.9 per cent. in 2006-07; and urges the Government to commit to the development of a long-term awareness and information campaign with health promotion rather than a change in the law as the main lever to reduce use, in addition to funding research into the link between cannabis use and mental ill health.

If search under cannabis on my website, link below, you will find further information on my views and a report of a meeting of the All-Party Group on Mental Health on cannabis and schizophrenia.

I will pass on your comments to the Home Secretary to get his response.

Personally, as a former scientist myself, I despair at the selective use of science by colleagues from all parties and this latest example will no doubt give me further opportunities to raise my concerns. [My emphasis]

Regards

LYNNE JONES MP

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

http://www.lynnejones.org.uk

That’s certainly much better than I’d have hoped!

Legal Highs ban

Next up is the BZP/GBL/Spice ban – here’s the proposal [pdf; 46 kb]. It looks like it goes into effect on December 23rd. I can’t give much more detail yet, since I’m not really a chemist, but it looks like all the decent smoking mixes will be gone by then. Better stock up before Christmas.