Vote!

comments from readers

Roger Smith
02 November 2009

yes

Typical stuff from New Labour. Ignoring the message and then shoooting the messenger. If 9 states in the USA can legitimate medical use of cannabis, why on earth cannot the same be true here, although if you can afford a private Harley Street GP, who knows what might be availabe? As a sufferer from a chronic pain syndrome for the past 20 years, I can vouch for the pain relief cannabis provides, yet I am criminalised for this "crime" of seeking an alternative to the opiate-based NHS painkillers, which create an intolerable level of state-sponsored dependency. It's a funny old world when many of these politicians who were youthful users have stopped the rest of us from seeking the preferred model of pain relief!

Smeghead
02 November 2009

yes

So Alan Johnson thinks he know better science than the head of his own science-based advisory board?
Shame on him.

I suppose next he'll be denying evidence about global warming?

rtlondon09
03 November 2009

yes

Yes of course they were, but then new Labour much like the Bush regime have never really trusted scientists and have portrayed the image of ' the cultivation of a healthy dispisal of scientists and their opinions'. This is what the Communists under Mao were like!

The sad and tragic case of David Kelly a few years back is a painful reminder and highlights this fact even more. It is arrogance on the part of the government on an epic scale to hire a scientist (who is qualified in their field, and who does know what they're talking about - unlike Politicians when it comes to science), listen to what they say, then ignore them when their reasoned arguments don't 'fit in' with the politicians pre-formed decisions, and then to finally fire them when the scientist chooses to go public. Who do they think they are? This is just extreme manipulation of people and figures (numbers) and bullying by the government. Why hire scientists for their expert knowledge if the government have no intention of listening to them and using their knowledge to decide policies and change laws. Gordon Brown and his government have lost the trust and respect from scientists. The message is simple. New Labour need to repair the trust that they've broken with Science and scientists. A new government (and party) may provide some temporary respite but will the Tories be any better in the long run?

showboater29@aol.com
03 November 2009

no

What a total joke. Every adult human being with half a brain knows that alcohol and cigarrettes kill more people than any illegal drug. The powers that be do not want to legalise drugs because they might then be faced with a more open minded public that can see through their charade of managing this country and the planet.

guydenning
03 November 2009

yes

It was a stupid move. It's obvious that if the government had accepted his advice the same media maulers would have jumped down their throats for being lax on drugs. Rather than sack they should have made that point clear on the box etc.

Personally I think they should follow the advice of their experts - but then what do I know? Best call an expert.

www.guydenning.org

explodingbadger
04 November 2009

yes

Its time the government start listening to science and stop playing political games with drugs policy.

William
04 November 2009

no

With the Lisbon Treaty being ratified by all 27 Member States, this Government is now legally a Law unto itself.

Frank Amies
04 November 2009

yes

only a bigoted, blind, stupid bunch like the current cabinet could behave so badly. It also shows just how far out of touch with the Country, this lot are.

jonmarkpullman
05 November 2009

yes

It is to be hoped that this weak government decision is the catalyst for a full-blown revolt among the scientific community against what, in this example of state control over knowledge, appears to be a mild form of totalitarianism.

Shirley Curran
05 November 2009

yes

Yet again, they have shot themselves in the foot by antagonising such an erudite and fluent expert who clearly knows what he is talking about.

denis.briggs
05 November 2009

no

Advisors advise,(in silence) ministers implement policy in line with the wishes of the general population,or thats rhe theory. Nutt is wrong'

Ian Overseas
06 November 2009

yes

A corrupt mix of cowardice, ignorance, fear mongering and deceit informs this bullying decision by a government scratching at the cliff face as it falls. I will cheer to very heaven when this government goes then plunge into hellish despair when I remember what has taken its place.

Jenna
06 November 2009

yes

Of course - simple demonstration of unrelenting narrow mindedness for the sake of an arbitrary law.

kperkins
06 November 2009

no

The government was right. If you are asked for advice from your company and the company disagrees, so then you go campaigning to the press using privileged information, then you would be deservedly fired for a breach of trust and responsibility. Why can people not see this situation here? If Nutt wants to campaign on the issues then he should resign first to avoid conflicts of interests, and campaign afterwards. Academics often seem to think they are above the need to act with integrity. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary had to remind Prof. Nutt of this responsibilities and ask for his resignation.

07 November 2009

no

How dare anyone have a different opinion to New Labour (and Gordon), of course he should bge sacked!!
Alan briggs
Cambridge

papigosh
07 November 2009

yes

Government appears to prefer individuals who would do their bidding!

No wonder board rooms across the country is filled with yes men and women. Are we then surprised why we as a country went burst?

Culverin
07 November 2009

yes

It's frankly unbelievable, the government cannot seek to control the truth by sacking advisers. Where did the government get this authoritarian approach?

suell
08 November 2009

yes

Wholly wrong, and the Gov. scored an own goal on this one., A public debte with DN which would force the Gov. to reveal it's thinking more openly would have gained it much more respect. On the plus side, it has now opened the way to better guidelines on scientific and advisory independence. Let's hope these are fair.

Sue Lloiyd