By: Andy Thackwray
Andy Thackwray wonders why a highly respected former government adviser was sacked for simply stating the obvious
A big round of applause for Professor David Nutt, who until recently headed an organisation which advised the Government on the misuse of drugs within our society. Unfortunately, Professor Nutt was sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson for doing nothing more than telling some scientifically proven truths. Truth is a word I find extremely difficult to associate with today’s Government, so is it surprising he got the boot?
Basically, the Professor was sacked after using a lecture to say that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. He also said it had been upgraded from Class C to Class B (against his wishes) for political reasons. Earlier in the year the Professor also suggested that taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than horse riding. I totally agree with the Professor, as I’m sure do the majority of prisoners reading this article. However, after sacking Professor Nutt, the Home Secretary justified his decision by saying the Professor had ‘acted in a way that undermined the government rather than supporting its work’. In other words, he told the Government something it didn’t want to hear, despite its scientific validity.
Let’s just go over again what the Professor actually said, and claimed. First of all, he stated that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol. Of course it is. If alcohol was an invention of today it wouldn’t be long before it was classed a prohibited Class A drug, such is its detrimental effect on society. However, in reality, alcohol is a socially accepted drug, although its use is the root cause of various forms of socially unacceptable behaviour. Yet its availability is governed only by flimsily controlled and frequently breached under-age laws. Cannabis, I would argue, has a much less detrimental effect on society, yet its use and distribution methods are socially unacceptable though its use promotes peace and calm.
Perhaps before Alan Johnson sacked the Professor he should have asked himself the question – “who would I want living next door to me?” A house full of piss artists or a house full of pot heads? You can bet your next canteen that for a quiet life he’d choose the latter. As for the Professor’s claim that taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than horse riding; again, before sacking Professor Nutt, the Home Secretary should have asked himself another question – ‘what would I deem as the safest option, taking an ecstasy tablet or taking part in the Grand National’? He’d obviously opt for the safest option and pop an E. But again, just as with alcohol and cannabis, horse riding is socially acceptable, whilst taking ecstasy is not.
It doesn’t take a genius, or a drugs Professor for that matter, to work out that relaxing the laws on cannabis and ecstasy, thus making their distribution and use socially acceptable, whilst at the same time tightening and upgrading the laws governing alcohol, would benefit society enormously. By employing the above measures, would it not make for a more sober, less violent, more law abiding society? I would argue it most definitely would and I’m sure that’s what Professor Nutt was angling at. So when he did hint at initiating steps towards a more drug tolerant society with his comments, the Government started to panic and got rid of him, no doubt wondering what was around the corner. Maybe relaxing laws on soft drugs was just the start? Was the Professor and his drug advisory council’s overall objective to advocate the legalisation of drugs across the board and include the Class A heavyweights – Heroin and Cocaine? If this were the case then here lies the true reason for the Professor’s unceremonious dismissal, because wouldn’t legalising drugs, especially the Cat As, not only eradicate a large proportion of the criminal activity associated with them, but at the same time their legalisation would also create a new problem, that being mass unemployment amongst the middle and upper classes not to mention the aristocratic ruling elite: that would never do would it?
Think about it, how many prisoners are serving time as a consequence of being involved with drugs and alcohol? Whether they’re inside for importing drugs, dealing, using, thieving and fencing to buy drugs, drug/drink related violence, including sex crimes or drug related shootings and murders; I bet the majority of prisoners on the landings today are in for, directly or indirectly, drug or alcohol related offences. So imagine if drugs were made legal and tighter restrictions imposed on alcohol. Prisons would be virtually empty and their vast array of employees unemployed. Police forces greatly depleted; judges, barristers and law lords would become uncomfortable as they would no longer be able to justify their existence. I would go so far as to say that the Criminal Justice System and all its associates are underpinned by the illegal drugs trade and the easy availability of alcohol and without them it would become almost obsolete.
Another point I’d like to make which supports my argument of the government’s seemingly purposeful reluctance to tackle drugs and drug related crime is that the government has strategies in place within our prisons which maintain rather than combating drug addiction amongst inmates, freely feeds them equally addictive legal substitutes - with Methadone being the government’s ‘drug of choice.’ A practice accurately exposed in Aaron Bristow’s article ‘Feeding the Habit’ published in December’s issue of Inside Time.
I would argue that the aristocratic puppet masters responsible for pulling the strings of the prison service from up on high demand to make it all too easy for incarcerated addicts to merely tread water with regards to their addictions rather than address them and, as a result, still be in active addiction upon their release. This practice guarantees repeat custom for the well heeled criminal justice system and 100% occupancy rates for the country’s prisons, ensuring employment and safe futures for all concerned, except for those who need employment and a future the most – the addicts themselves.
So, with the above in mind, is it any wonder that when the head of an organisation employed by the Government starts to make even the slightest of noises in favour of drug legalisation then he is ousted from his post and his organisation’s future role put under intense scrutiny. Would any mainstream political party, who rely heavily on financial support from the ruling elite, be so stupid as to openly advocate the legalisation of drugs and by doing so slaughter the cash cow of their aristocratic sponsors? Would they really have any chance of holding onto power or indeed of winning the next general election? The answer is glaringly obvious.
* Andy Thackwray is currently resident at HMP Doncaster
No comments:
Post a Comment