When was professor nutt sacked

He criticised Smith's use of the "precautionary principle" to justify her decision to reclassify cannabis and said that by erring on the side of caution politicians "distort" and "devalue" the research evidence. Nutt acknowledged there was a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness linked to cannabis use.

But he argued that to prevent one episode of schizophrenia it would be necessary to "stop 5, men aged 20 to 25 from ever using" cannabis. Nutt also renewed his support for reclassifying ecstasy from a class A drug to class B, saying the advisory committee "won the intellectual argument" over the issue but obviously didn't win the decision after the home secretary vetoed the move.

He said the quality of some research papers about cannabis and ecstasy was so poor the articles had to be retracted. Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice, said Nutt's briefing paper gave an insight into what drugs policy might look like if it was based on the research evidence rather than political or moral positioning.

Garside added: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. Nutt's courage nuts? On the day we can stand together with that kind of courage, we'll create a new and healthy society.

Also, a total aside, I just happened to notice that this little notice could use an edit: All anonymous comments will be reviewed by a moderatOR before going live. Psychotrophic : Nutt's comments: [link] R. No debate, no rationalization, just boom, you're fired.

I was shocked that such a high-ranking government official would make such honest remarks about the true dangers of drugs. I guess I shouldn't be too shocked by the reaction, but it is depressing. The winds do feel to be changing You could almost say the Home Secretary is nutts At least now we know who to trust in a way; it's like the battle lines have been drawn between the office held by Prof.

Nutt and the Home Secretary. Thanks to Prof. Nutt we know who intends to lie to us, and who is merely forced to do it. In , Prof Nutt and colleagues undertook a limited attempt to create a harm ranking system, sparking controversy over the criteria and the findings. The new, more complex, system ranked alcohol as three times more harmful than cocaine or tobacco. Ecstasy was ranked as causing one-eighth the harm of alcohol.

It also contradicted the Home Office's decision to make the so-called legal high mephedrone a Class B drug, saying that alcohol was five times more harmful. The rankings have been published to coincide with a conference on drugs policy, organised by Prof Nutt's committee. He said it was important to separate harm to individuals and harm to society.

The Lancet paper written by Prof Nutt, Dr King and Dr Lawrence Phillips, does not examine the harm caused to users by taking more than one drug at a time. Gavin Partington, of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, said alcohol abuse affected "a minority" who needed "education, treatment and enforcement".

Mr Partington, who is the spokesman for the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, said millions of people enjoyed alcohol "as part of a regular and enjoyable social drink".

We need to focus policy around that minority, which is to do with education, treatment and enforcement. A Home Office spokesman said: "Our priorities are clear - we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug-related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good.