Saturday, October 31, 2009
Nutt again
Nutt revealed some of his children – he has two sons and two daughters, aged 18 to 26 – had perhaps taken ‘soft drugs’ before - he didn't seem sure - and that he was more concerned about drinking habits. He told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I’m sure my children have tried drugs. In fact, some have told me they have. But I’m not as concerned about this as I am about alcohol. I’ve always told them about the dangers of drugs, but teenagers are at greater risk from alcohol, because it is so cheap, readily available and accepted.'
IMO: I'm fairly appalled by this. For a start Nutt has admitted to not knowing what his own kids are doing, secondly he does not seem to realise that even drugs like cocaine appear readily available and often enough cheaper then lager. Also there are often 'free trial offers' of narcotics, anyone must know this. AFAIK crystal meth may be becoming a current problem, particularly among the gay community, and crystal meth is even relatively easily made at home. I think the problem that the highfalutin profs who seem to support Nutt have to note is that they have to face the facts of soft sciences like those of ethics and social culture if they want to front against the Government in the way Nutt tried to do, and apparently Nutt at any rate cannot do this. Some say Nutt has done good work in related fields to his previous advisory Govt role, but now he sadly seems to have gone astray. Lets hope the scientific community think a little more before supporting him. I certainly agree that alcohol is another problem, but in the UK alcohol is firmly entrenched, unlike other countries like India which hopefully may still reduce alcohol consumption without undue social repercussions. I am more appalled than Nutt claims to be (after his having had to converse with the drunken louts styled as MPs, Lords and Ladies) when I notice even relatively reputable firms like Waitrose (where the drunken old harridan Mrs. Margaret Thatcher seems to have bought a lot of the booze which caused her downfall) still sells alcoholic goods, but surely other drugs were also his remit which he appears to have handled badly. I certainly would not allow the traditional 'teachers and nurses' Guardian newspaper, whose grossly overpaid staff have little real knowledge of current science, to sway my views. At their salaries they can afford to take recreational drugs, and dountless most do so. I think the crux of the matter is less the question of whether cannabis is B or C , as whether the scientific panel are capable to judge morals in the way they seem to try to do.
IMO: Oh, the rift is not between scientists and politicians, but crudely and roughly, between high-functioning Asperger's cases and overpaid drunks. And if I had to chose, in this case I would choose the overpaid drunks as being right.
Dr Les King, a respected chemist and former head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service, said that anger over the "disgraceful" decision by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to remove Professor David Nutt could lead to a meltdown in the 40-year-old organisation. He claimed that as many as six of its scientists will resign from the independent organisation, putting further pressure on the Government over its handling of the affair. Dr King cautioned that the Government's whole drugs programme could be at risk.
IMO: Deplorable, as are a lot of things in the UK. To the anger of scientists, Mr Johnson accused Professor Nutt of "lobbying for a change in policy". But, what else can Johnson say to that loony bunch of 'mad scientists'. People say about expenses, MPs "do not get the message". But those loonytune scientists "do not get the message" in this case, but MPs of both parties hopefully DO "get the message". I agree with Johnson on known facts, which could take an extremely unpleasant turn. Joe McCarthy must be turning in his grave, and for once I would not blame him.
IMO: I'm fairly appalled by this. For a start Nutt has admitted to not knowing what his own kids are doing, secondly he does not seem to realise that even drugs like cocaine appear readily available and often enough cheaper then lager. Also there are often 'free trial offers' of narcotics, anyone must know this. AFAIK crystal meth may be becoming a current problem, particularly among the gay community, and crystal meth is even relatively easily made at home. I think the problem that the highfalutin profs who seem to support Nutt have to note is that they have to face the facts of soft sciences like those of ethics and social culture if they want to front against the Government in the way Nutt tried to do, and apparently Nutt at any rate cannot do this. Some say Nutt has done good work in related fields to his previous advisory Govt role, but now he sadly seems to have gone astray. Lets hope the scientific community think a little more before supporting him. I certainly agree that alcohol is another problem, but in the UK alcohol is firmly entrenched, unlike other countries like India which hopefully may still reduce alcohol consumption without undue social repercussions. I am more appalled than Nutt claims to be (after his having had to converse with the drunken louts styled as MPs, Lords and Ladies) when I notice even relatively reputable firms like Waitrose (where the drunken old harridan Mrs. Margaret Thatcher seems to have bought a lot of the booze which caused her downfall) still sells alcoholic goods, but surely other drugs were also his remit which he appears to have handled badly. I certainly would not allow the traditional 'teachers and nurses' Guardian newspaper, whose grossly overpaid staff have little real knowledge of current science, to sway my views. At their salaries they can afford to take recreational drugs, and dountless most do so. I think the crux of the matter is less the question of whether cannabis is B or C , as whether the scientific panel are capable to judge morals in the way they seem to try to do.
IMO: Oh, the rift is not between scientists and politicians, but crudely and roughly, between high-functioning Asperger's cases and overpaid drunks. And if I had to chose, in this case I would choose the overpaid drunks as being right.
Dr Les King, a respected chemist and former head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service, said that anger over the "disgraceful" decision by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to remove Professor David Nutt could lead to a meltdown in the 40-year-old organisation. He claimed that as many as six of its scientists will resign from the independent organisation, putting further pressure on the Government over its handling of the affair. Dr King cautioned that the Government's whole drugs programme could be at risk.
IMO: Deplorable, as are a lot of things in the UK. To the anger of scientists, Mr Johnson accused Professor Nutt of "lobbying for a change in policy". But, what else can Johnson say to that loony bunch of 'mad scientists'. People say about expenses, MPs "do not get the message". But those loonytune scientists "do not get the message" in this case, but MPs of both parties hopefully DO "get the message". I agree with Johnson on known facts, which could take an extremely unpleasant turn. Joe McCarthy must be turning in his grave, and for once I would not blame him.
# posted by uv : 9:18 PM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
