And another thing…

Hmm, they posted it today. I hope they have applied to the Police to be allowed to demonstrate (but timing sounds tight).

Would be rather embarrassing to have everyone arrested (and yes, arresting peaceful protesters is authoritarian Tom)

I do like the location comment – very good!

This all sounds a little unlikely. If students act like I did when I was at uni, they’ll never make it out of bed on time.

Are there Nutt badges yet?

Cartoon?

Ashtrays?

Well it’s no bad thing, people protesting about someone being dismissed for telling the truth. Still, the fact that that someone was dismissed for telling the truth should come as no surprise from this administration, particularly when their former leader lied as easily as most people breathe.

There’s nothing wrong with watching SpongeBob Squarepants >:|

Did you want me to give you a lift Tom. I can pick you up and drop you back home.
You can have a drink or 2 then.

Unfair and unfunny stereotyping, shame on you Tom.

Yeah, and I like TV Burp! >=[

Any of the fools who accuse Labour Ministers of lying like to take the Nutt test?

Smoke some cigarrettes and then drive round an empty car park. Then smoke some marijhuana and repeat.

We would soon see how much safer the latter is.

Nutt was trying to make popular propaganda and got caught. He rightly forfeited the Home Sec’s confidence.

TV Burp is good. Shame on Tom for ridiculing the fine work done by Harry Hill.

I am absolutely not ridiculing Harry Hill – he’s one of my favourite stand-ups and I’ve seen him live four times (his Morrisey impression’s genius).

I don’t think anyone in government said that Nutt was wrong. They couldn’t, really, since the truth of his comments on drug morbidity is completely backed by the figures.

The problem was his making judgements on government action ex cathedra. Rightly, it wasn’t considered apposite behaviour for a government advisor.

The situation was mishandled on all sides in my view.

Liberanos:

What should Johnson have done differently?

Agreed that tobacco is more carcinogenic and whatever Nutt said which Was true? Pointed out that the dangers of mood altering, nerve numbing/enhancing drugs pose problems beyond the health of those who abuse them?

The “Home Sec & Chief Drugs Advisor Public Row” was played quite loudly enough, surely?

Should his statement have said in addition to what it did say: “We’re really hoping that kids don’t take up dope, because . . well it tends to make them dopes”?

I thought Harry Hill was Harry Worth with a puppet cat. Where’s the cat?

It would prhbably be best if we all just agreed that Mr Johnson knows best and leave the government of the country to people who know what they are doing.

All this protesting never does any good and probably only causes a lot of litter.

Those who lack any sort of commonsense prob should study irony once they have mastered their proto-sarcasm.

@Quietzapple

I think Alan Johnson should not have created the (wrong) impression that he was ignoring that expert advice with which he did not agree, and ‘punishing’ the advisor for expressing those views.

Johnson should have reprimanded him, not sacked him.

And the advisor should have apologised for overstepping the mark.

Net result, considerably less bad blood all round.

@ Liberanos

Johnson didn’t give such an impression, just read his statement, which doesn’t get much space online (Surprise!)

The Billionaire media & the Free our Drugs element gave the impression you seem to have imho..

“I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD.”

‘In a statement to MPs, Mr Johnson said the reason for sacking Prof Nutt was not “the work of the council but because of his failure to recognise that… his role is to advise rather than criticise”.

‘He added that he had “lost confidence in the professor’s ability to be my principal adviser on drugs”.
Mr Johnson said Prof Nutt had “acted in a way that undermined the government rather than supporting its work.” ‘

The comparisons between ecstasy and horseriding, and cannabis and tobacco were clearly undermining HMG’s wise opposition to abuse of illegal drugs, deliberately courting media attention. Those listening on each occasion could have written the headlines.

Why do the Lib Dems feel impelled to make dishonest toe rags of themselves when presented with any opportunity?

Competing with Chameleon I guess.

I saw a protest opposite Downing Street yesterday lunchtime.

They held placards reading “We want a drugs policy based on evidence not prejudice” and – amusingly – ’seemed’ to be chanting “We’d rather be a Nutt than a cashew”.

I heard an old lady near me saying “Don’t they know cashews are nuts?”

I suspect they’d been making use of the very drugs they’d like to see legalised.

@Quietzapple

Not entirely sure whether your quotes support or disprove my contention. It’s a little opaque, though that might be me.

Anyway, I can’t think it was a triumph for the Department or Johnson himself.

And it obviously wasn’t one for Nutt.

@ Libranos:

Johnson was right, he had to try and stop further public decay of HMG’s position on illegal and dangerous drugs.

Doesn’t mean it was a winning position, just no sensible choice imho.

@Quietzapple:

Nutt was right to try to point out the completely irrational treatment of cannabis compared to alcohol and tobacco.

Doesn’t mean it was a winning position, just an honest one backed up by the facts.

Nutt was quite wrong and muddle headed to make statements which are still being used by teenagers to justify abuse of illegal drugs, which may well threaten others more than they do the users on occasion.

But pardon those of us who think that making things worse, and increasing the propensity of people to break the law and cause accidents should be avoided by the sane and unselfish.

For the selfish see:

http://drevanharrismp.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/nutt-sacking-johnson-responds-and-is-still-wrong/

How wrong headed is it to insist that process should be regarded as more important than dangerous practice.

And how self indulgent are druggies intent on becoming?

Paul:

There is nothing whatsoever decent and logical to encourage the use of dangerous drugs of any kind with no medical ground for their use.

Yet Nutt did that, knowingly, to try and make points which amounted to propaganda.

Best rid.