Morning:
14°c
Gordon Brown today hit back in the drugs row, insisting he was right to overrule scientists on cannabis.
In an exclusive interview with the Standard, he said the public backed him against calls for softer sentences related to drug abuse and he warned against the danger of giving “mixed
messages” to young people targeted by dealers.
“We'll get tougher on drugs,” declared the Prime Minister, defying threats of resignations by supporters of the sacked former chief drugs
adviser Professor David Nutt.
“A tough policy on drugs is essential and it is what the public want,” Mr Brown said. “I've seen the damage that drugs can do and people can see it in estates in London. I think I share the public concern about the effect that drugs have.”
Mr Brown spoke out as a row between Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Professor Nutt threatened to turn into a political crisis. Professor Nutt was sacked after claiming that LSD, ecstasy and cannabis were safer than alcohol.
Leaked emails today revealed that Science Minister Lord Drayson reacted furiously to the news that the drugs adviser had been sacked for “campaigning” against drug laws.
Today's Sun revealed that Lord Drayson fired a volley of protest emails to No 10. He said: “Alan [Johnson] did this without letting me know and giving me a chance to persuade him it's a big mistake. Is Gordon able to get Alan to
undo this? As science champion in Government' I can't just stand aside on this one.”
Mr Brown backed Mr Johnson's decision and defended the right of elected ministers to reject the advice of scientists at times. He said: “On climate change, or health, for example, we take the best scientific advise possible. But in an area like drugs we have to look at it in the round.
"We have got to look not just at what medics and scientists are saying to us — and we take that very seriously — but also what impact different
decisions can have on young, vulnerable people.”
At the heart of the dispute is Mr Brown's decision last year to reverse the reclassification of cannabis from a C to B, a move that flew in the face of Professor Nutt's claims that the drug was safer than alcohol or tobacco.
But Mr Brown told the Standard he had no regrets in sending a message to young people that “neither soft nor hard drugs are acceptable”.
“It was right to reclassify cannabis. It is right to reject any attempts to reclassify ecstasy. It's right also to say that drugs can cause such damage, particularly when dealers are pushing drugs on young people and making them
victims of a cruel trade ... I think everybody knows lives that have been ruined because of drugs.
“It's very important that we say yes, we take scientific advice seriously and will never ignore it, but yes, also, it is right that the people who make the final decisions and are accountable to Parliament for them are the Home
Secretary in this case or in other cases the Health Secretary or myself.”
Mr Brown said he had attempted to give a clear lead to youngsters through tougher drugs policies, including deporting foreign dealers, making welfare claimants go into rehab or risk losing benefits, and giving police powers to close crack houses.
“We have got a very tough line on drugs and you cannot send mixed messages,” he added.
He rejected the argument that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.
“We've seen brands of cannabis that are distorted by other products and ingredients. That's one of the reasons why it's important to send a message that drug abuse is not acceptable
and a criminal offence.”
Gordon's pledges: MPs, banks and Afghanistan
Expenses
A clean-up of MPs expenses will not be delayed. Mr Brown said the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was being set up “in shadow
form” so that it would not delay work on implementing new curbs. “It is in a position to start work almost immediately,” said the Prime
Minister.
That will be seen by MPs as a hint that final decisions will be rushed out before the election. In a message to MPs protesting at
proposed cuts in their claims, he said: “It is important we have a fair system but it is also important we put the old discredited system behind us.”
Asked if new expenses rules should give extra help to working mothers who become MPs, he said: “I want more women in the House of Commons. There has got to be proper provision.”
Banks
Taxpayers will get every penny back of the fortunes handed out to prop up the banks, the Prime Minister said. “I believe at the end of the day the Government will recoup all its money
from the banks — and possibly make a profit from what it has done,” he said.
He would not be drawn on the timescale of the payback, saying it “depends on how quickly the recession is over” and other factors. “We never acted to help bankers, we acted to help the people who depend on banks — the savers, the mortgage holders, the small businesses looking for funds.”
Afghanistan
Hamid Karzai must clean up corruption in Afghanistan if he is to keep Western support, Mr Brown warned, “The important thing is to see action,” he said. “If you want to train up the police force, you have got to have the people there to train.
Equally we want them to take action against corruption.” He said Mr Karzai's presidential victory should help hasten the return home for British troops by making it possible to train 10,000 Afghan soldiers to carry on the fight against the Taliban without help.
Economy
A fierce attack on David Cameron and George Osborne for painting the economy as “broken” was launched by Mr Brown. “This whole idea that Britain is inevitably subject to an age of austerity with a broken economy, which is the Tory propaganda, is completely wrong, negative and selfdefeating,” he said.
“I think British people know we have a great deal to be optimistic about because we have great industries, great services, great talent, great inventive genius. You only need to look around London to see the talent, energy and enterprise in this great city, ready to export to the world, and ready to lead the world.”
Copenhagen
Mr Brown claimed he is hopeful of a deal on climate change at the Copenhagen talks, despite other major world leaders staying away. “Just as we did at the G20 on the financial crisis, we have the chance to show the world can act together.”
Reader views (41)
Gorden Brown; you are blatantly helping to increase robberies and assaults on innocent people. --The high prices of drugs caused by prohibition force many drug addicts to turn to robbery in order to pay for their drugs. Legalised regulation would drop drug prices. Drug users would no longer need to rob/assault innocent people in order to support their drug habit. This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legally regulated.
Gorden Brown; you have helped clog our prisons and jails with nonviolent people. --Nearly 50% of all people in prison and jail are serving time for nonviolent drug charges. To house just one prisoner for one year costs the taxpayer thousands! The result of these harsh penalties? Drug use has increased!
Gorden Brown; you obviously support organised crime, terrorists and drug cartels. --criminal organisations thrive off the enormous profits caused by drug prohibition. These organisations are responsible for thousands of murders! Many of the people killed or hurt are innocent people who "get in the way" These violent organisations will never be put out of business unless drugs are legally regulated.
- Malcolm Kyle, Swansea, Wales
So Gordon..you obviously DON"T have the support of 98% of the commentators on this article, you DON"T have the support of scientists and you DON'T have a clue. Stop posturing, do some research.
- Mr Gibbon, London, UK
This whole thing is worrying... what public opinion? Everyday I see good families worried about being torn apart, not because of the effect of a drug (like in the case of alcoholics) but because of the effect of drug laws. Good hard working people, sent to prison and stripped of their homes and children because they decided to stick with the science and make a rational decision. Whats it called when they penalise groups of individuals based on sweeping generalisations and incorrect prejudice again?? oh yeah, discrimination. Bring on the Martin Luther King of the drug community!
- Gary F, Leics, UK
If you legalise cannabis and ectasy, you break the link with the dealers,who WILL offer stronger, much more dangerous drugs to users. If you bought some in Boots, this wouldn't happen.
- Alan., Wimbledon
It is quite clear to whom is mixing the messages here.
Not dicussing the true findings of drugs is driving the issue further underground and distancing the law makers further away from the youngsters.
The youngsters of today will have to rely on educating themselves as they have, for a very long time yet, leaving us all to mop up the ills that will surface.
- Max, Wimbledon, London
“On climate change, or _health_, for example, we take the best scientific advise possible."
This is the one problem, the government doesn't see drug use as a matter of health heath problem but one of criminal justice!
Prohibition fails disgustingly, people are lead to believe that illegal drugs are 'controlled substances' but there is no control in a black market... no minimum age of purchase, no quality-control (e.g. gritweed, Es cut with speed/DXM etc.), no warning labels or tax-control.
Meanwhile more people are turning to grey market products like research chemicals which are even more dangerous because they haven't been tested in any way.
Ignorance and international pressures (and maybe the fear of a load of policemen sitting around having nothing to do) are the reasons drug policy is such a mess. The government needs to grow some balls, do an impact assessment on the 'war on drugs' actually LISTEN to the result of that assessment and clean up drug policy accordingly.
We all know that sort of pragmatism won't happen with the current major parties. Green party seem to be the only ones willing to cut the rubbish and unfortunately they aren't very popular.
- Adam Cecils, Plymouth, UK
The National Statistics 2007 report has listed the number of drug related deaths recorded in coroners reports for England and Wales.
Tobacco 86,500
Alcohol 6,627
Heroin 842
PARACETAMOL 446
All anti-depressants 401
Methadone 223
Cocaine (including crack) 176
Amphetamine 103
MDMA/Ecstasy 58
ASPIRIN 14...nd, wait for it....
Cannabis 0
(but, it was recorded that in 19 of the deaths that were related to alcohol or heroin the person had taken cannabis too.)
Obviously, when reclassifying cannabis as a B class controlled substance, next January, the Home Secretary needs to consider classifying paracetamol and aspirin as well!
- Frank, Bristol UK
Uncle Brown will look after us.Ahhhhh
- Harry, London
What I find so curious about all this is how your government is emulating the US's own purblind policy on illicit drugs, even to the methodology of ignoring scientific facts in favor of ideology. The US Federal government's deliberate ignoring of the results of its' own 1999 Institute of Medicine study on cannabis was a perfect example.
The Cold War was supposedly fought by the West in part to prevent such abominations as Lyseko-ism (the deliberate distortion and suppression of science to serve political aims) from taking root in our societies. Mr. Brown makes me think that such a struggle may have been in vain, for he's certainly donned the mantle of Lysenko-ism with his wrong-headed insistence upon refusing to the consider evidence that is contrary to his political position.
We have enough of that here in The States, with government obstructing opportunities in researching the very promising aspects of cannabis-based medications (which were shown to have anti-cancer properties in a University of Virginia study conducted back in 1974 and later in Spain and Italy in the early 2000's) and it should serve as a warning to other nations how not to allow politics to govern science, but it seems that Mr. Brown and his ilk have succumbed to the 'American Strain' of Lysenko-ism. Whether British science - and society! - can survive the infection remains to be seen.
- Karl, Reston, Virginia, USA
Does anybody know anyone out there who wants cannabis banned. Ive been asking people over the last couple of days (business people not hippies etc) and no one has agreed with the government on this I REPEAT NO ONE AGREED WITH THE GOVERNMENT . I have never seen these poor sods who are supposed to be addicted. Perhaps old Gordy is getting his drugs mixed up and he means to ban Christal meth or paracetamol or something. I think the poor dear could do with a holiday (a 5 year holiday would be about right
- Adrian Barratt, n wales
I do like how our dear Mr Brown keeps referring to having the public's support on this matter.
Really Gordon?? I cannot recall ever being asked my opinion let alone being able to vote on any decision - much like when you made yourself the leader of my country- I don't remember being asked my opinion or to vote then either
- Matt,, Cambridge, UK
Well Mr Brown, I don't know anybody who's life has been ruined by drugs so you are wrong on that one, but I know lots of people who have had their lives ruined by alcohol. Thats not on your agenda though because you are probably a user of that particular drug yourself.
- Brian, Warwick
Whenever the words concencus and Gordon Brown come together we are talking Dictatorship!
- Tojo, Hythe Kent
Much credence is given to the idea that cannabis and ecstacy are "gateway" drugs leading to harder things. Surely if we give these softer drugs the same classification as harder drugs, then they will indeed prove to be a gateway - the government is saying ecstasy is as bad as heroin, so anyone trying ecstasy will think it is a comparable experience. They are not.
- Beacon Schuler, London
Brown is sending false messages about drugs, this is the cause of harm. He hasn't recognised that alcohol and tobacco are drugs which cause more harm than any, this is maladministration of law. He says in an area like drugs we have to look at it in the round, this is a euphemism for saying we will do what we like. It is widely but incorrectly assumed that the final choice, ie the decision-making process is a matter of unfettered governmental discretion; however the govt must administer the law in accordance with its stated purpose, and in line with human rights considerations and common law principles of reasonableness /fairness /legality. The Misuse of Drugs Act requires that drugs that may cause harm to society are appropriately regulated. The fact that a majority enjoy a certain drug is irrelevant to the object of the law, if that situation causes the mischief to which the law is directed at curtailing.
There are two discriminations or inequalities of treatment at the heart of this; firstly the refusal of the government to schedule alcohol and tobacco as drugs under the law, and secondly for failing to distinguish between peaceful use of controlled drugs and the misuse of them. This situation probably remains because government have failed to understand the purpose of the law and tied themselves into international treaties that have no standing in UK law.
Regulation under the law does not equate to prohibition.
- Darryl Bickler, Leeds, West Yorkshire
I believe this is known as PEBM, or "Policy Based Evidence making", which is much loved by politicians.
Note also that "consensus" is a political word, NOT a scientific one. "Scientific consensus" is a contradiction in terms.
- Mark B, France, France
There are two issues: whether it's OK for a politician to ignore scientific advice, and whether it's right to fire a scientist for telling it as he sees it.
There may well sometimes be reasons not to take the advice - there may be overriding social concerns, for example. In any case, it's a scientist's role to establish objective truth, and to advise. It's a politician's role to make law and to govern.
On the other hand, it's utterly indefensible to sack a scientist for making it clear, in public, what is the current state of scientific knowledge. It's the sign of a government that's both weak and arrogant, that it wants a bunch of yes-men calling themselves scientists to give its decisions a veneer or scientific respectability, rather than objective scientific advice.
Real scientists have a great regard for objectively established and verified truth, and little regard for what politicians think. The moment a scientist tells the "truth" that his paymasters want, he has betrayed science, and has become a professional liar for money.
- Nigel, London
I think its mr Brown who is sending the mixed message. The scientists message is out there weather anybody likes their findings or not. If you then wanna go against it for moral or other reasons that's fine with me but don't ever say a scientist is plain wrong without any scientific argumentation.
- Wout, norwich UK
No Mr. Brown I do not back you. I back the truth and the facts not a political agenda. The 'war on drugs' isn't working and any idiot that thinks it is has not stopped to look at the hard facts. We might not like it but the violence, death and criminality that exists is because the drugs are illegal. It is the trade in drugs that is the problem. Drugs use and addiction is a public health problem and should be addressed as such.
Do not be fooled it suits the governments to be able to wage war on drugs. There is no real desire to solve the problem and illeviate the suffering of those affected.
- Mikki, London
Gordon is right on this one. Whatever your view on the safety of psychotropic drugs, their legal classification is a political decision which must be taken by politically accountable elected politicians, and not by scientists.
- Bloke, Lambeth
Wouldn't it be great if the government listened to advisors and legalised Cannabis and Ecstacy. Then they could be produced by major pharmeutical companies (Glaxo, et al) with improved quality control and then the government could tax it and make the same money out of harmless drugs as they do out of tabacco and alcohol.
- Graham, Reading, England
Of course the Government can overule any adviser they like, what they can't do is ignore them. If they do choose to ignore scientific evidence then fair enough but they should at least have the bottle to admit it and not castigate someone who is simply pointing out the FACTS. What next, sack advisers on climate change because they have evidence that global warming isn't man-made and it doesn't fit into their own distorted view of the world
- Mike, Wirral
Well, at least he's honest that the policy is informed by the loudest Gallah and not science. I suppose we're going to get old plastic face Cameron will back him in the hunt for scientists to back the position, a lot like they did in German in the 1930s...
- Hrothgir Ó Dómhnaill, Cheshire, UK
The issue is not about who decides.
The issue is about the minister sacking the scientific adviser for publicising the scientific evidence.
As far as Gordon Brown saying he is doing what the public wants, his responsibility is first to publicise the evidence so that the public can form an opinion based on facts rather than prejudice.
- David Evershed, Buckinghamshire
The audacity of these hypocrites (sorry, politicians) to lecture the nation against the proven historical use of drugs. Ecstasy alone 1,000,000/WEEK! deaths, 50/YEAR! (generally accepted figures)
Tell me Mr Brown: why can't go into a chemist, obtain clinical advice and then buy one of the proven (weed, e' 'speed' etc) unadulterated and taxed drugs?
- Rob, pembs
"It's what the public want" intones McDoom, as if that justifies all. The public also wants a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and a general election
- Michael St George, SW France/Winchester
Gordon's always right, even when he's utterly wrong which is most of the time. His sense of his own superiority is on a par with the hubris of many of the great Greek idiots, from Oedipus onwards. It's time to legalise drugs and educate people away from them with science and powerful information on the downsides, not try to punish the weak-willed while creating the conditions for the drug barons to make billions.
- Paul Freeman, London, England
I have never taken any illegal drugs and never will but Gordon is very wrong on this issue he has chosen to take a political stance on this rather than a scientific view. I know that Governments have to make tough decisions however they need to take them on the facts of the case whenever possible.
OOPs sorry I forgot the Iraq war that wasn’t based on fact either was it.
- Mike M, Bedford England
what a load of rubbish, shows how OUT OF TOUCH gordon (nobody voted for me) Brown is with public opinion, more to the point, when the only choice we have is labour conservative and liberal we have no choice, the whole system is corrupt! and broken!
from the top to the bottom! NO LONGER IN MY NAME,
we should all claim back our sovereign selves,
nothing will get reformed.......ever!!
unless we the people reform it! how? I don't know but at least step out of line, stand up and be counted, question everything! who replaced great britain with the, united as long as you do what we tell you Kingdom CORPORATION
- T-Om, yes
All he needs is a telescope and he could be Lord Nelson, he sees no ships!
- Bob, Cheam
Yes, he has the right to overrule drug advisers. His decision should reflect a number of factors.
What he shouldn't be doing is sacking the drugs adviser as a result.
This article seems to have allowed Brown to focus the discussion on the policy decision, as opposed to the sacking. I don't agree with the government's policy decision, but I can live with it. I believe the sacking was wrong.
- M Just, Edinburgh, UK
Politicians making decisions based on popular opinion and not science. Remember it was prohibition which gave rise to the Mafia and organised crime. I wonder what the illegal drugs trade is giving rise to now,
Can’t they see that by denial we loose control and fund an ever growing under world, people are more at risk with drug taking when the quality is controlled by the criminals. Let’s all put our head in the sand, may be it will just go away.
- Robert Wallace, staffordshire
A typical reactionary comment from a reactionary politician. It just shows how out of touch mainstream politicians are. Declaring yourself as having a "tough stance against drugs" in the face of empirical, objective, scientific evidence proves, yet again, that politics has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with fear and popularism.
- Michael, Bristol
Yet more abject spin and waffle from clueless Gormless Brown.
Joe Public have stopped listening to the paranoid moron.
- Reuben Camara, Plot 1, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR
I don't take cannabis, have tried it and its not for me. I do think that it is more a gateway drug because of its illegalised nature, its also far more profitable to sell and supply. Those researchers have spent time and effort looking at the dangers of drugs and its hypocritical to have tobacco and alcohol legal, despite evidence of the harm they do.
Gordon Brown is clearly trying to win votes from people he believes are against drugs. I was happy with him as chancellor, but as a Prime Minister, I am quite frankly seeing how shallow his thinking can be.
Its this kind of arrogance over drugs (and previously Iraq), that makes me lose faith in the labour party and the Prime Ministers they elect. Absolute power and all that.
- Mike Smith, England
Out of touch as usual
- Disgusted, london uk
keep taking the painkillers gordon
- Ivor Windscale, sellafield, cumbria
A government that ignores scientists is pretty daft, they may as well declare the earth is still flat. This government also ignores economic advisors, the police, ofsted, the military, nurses etc. Essentially, the cabinet has lost it's humility & ability to listen - most people are in favour of softening up the stance on cannabis, and the police have better things to do.
- Christos, London
A very poor defence of a dreadful, cowardly act.
It's high time drug policy was meaningfully reformed.
- Roger Tyler, London
Obviously Crash is an expert on everything .... except common sense.
- Marianne, SW France/London
Hahaha, this from a man who claimed cannabis was lethal! I challenge you Gordon to find me just one example that anybody has died from cannabis alone. Except for that poor guy who had a bail of hash dropped on his head from a drug smugglers plane fleeing from the authorities. It's OK for you to enjoy your choice of psychoactive chemical without fear of persecution, namely ethanol, why can't I do the same with mine?
- Chris P, London, UK
