President Blair? Non. Gordon Brown’s government interfering politically in science? Oui

This week we have had the farce of Tony Blair first of all being spun as the favourite for the post of European President (without the man in question having even made clear that he wanted to stand), then the possibility of this prize being denied him first of all by the inexperienced David Milliband.  Now at last it appears that the leaders of France and Germany have quietly but firmly let it be known that their answer is Non, Nein.  actuary21c is pleased to see that on this occasion at least, there are going to be no EU rewards for failure:  Tony Blair presided over an illusory economic boom based largely on artificially low credit, and took us into a catastrophic war in Iraq based on information that he ought to have known at the time was very suspect (and indeed turned out to be false).

Now we have the news that the UK government has sacked its chief scientific advisor on drugs, on the grounds that they claim that by saying earlier this week that “smoking cannabis created only a ‘relatively small risk’ of psychotic illness and it was actually less harmful than nicotine or alcohol”, he stepped over the line and made a political statement.  On the contrary, according to this BBC article, Gordon Brown seems to have been ignoring scientific advice and making statements that are not supported by the scientific evidence: (the quotes are from Prof. David Nutt, the adviser just sacked)

“Gordon Brown comes into office and soon after that he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal… it has to be a Class B drug. He has made his mind up.

“We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, ‘No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it’s still a Class C drug.’

“He said, ‘Tough, it’s going to be Class B.’”

Prof Nutt said drug laws should not be influenced “petty party politics” and compared them to interest rates, which are set by the Bank of England not the government.

In the same way, he said, an independent committee should be set up to rule on drug classifications.

“There’s no point in having drug laws that are meaningless and arbitrary just because politicians find it useful and expedient occasionally to come down hard on drugs.

“That’s undermining the whole purpose of the drugs laws.”

Alcohol yes, but having no direct experience of using cannabis or nicotine, actuary21c is not qualified to comment as to whether cannabis is indeed less harmful than nicotine or alcohol, but is far more prepared to believe a scientific committee rather than any politician.