Text full multimedia monochrome

First time here?

Find out more about how The Lecture List works.

Coronavirus situation update

Our lecture organisers may or may not have had time to update their events with cancellation notices. Clearly social gatherings are to be avoided and that includes lectures. STAY AT HOME FOLKS, PLEASE.

Help!

Find out what you can do to keep The Lecture List online

Hard Nutt to crack: do we want an evidence-based drugs policy?

Does this represent a dangerous retreat from politics as a contest of ideas and an attempt by politicians to outsource responsibility? And what would a progressive 21st century drugs policy look like?


Hard Nutt to crack: do we want an evidence-based drugs policy?

When David Nutt was sacked as the government’s chief drugs tsar for questioning its policies on drug classification, it seemed like another case of expertise being sacrificed by cowardly politicians. Alan Johnson’s decision to remove Nutt for ‘campaigning against government policy’ led two other advisers to resign in protest, and nearly caused a mass rebellion of scientists. For some, Nutt has been punished for merely confirming what many already suspect: that illegal drugs are not as harmful as their legal counterparts such as alcohol and nicotine, and that drug policy is underpinned by moral concerns and tabloid appeal rather than scientific evidence.

Some commentators argue, however, that in a democracy it's politicians who are elected to made decisions and not their scientific advisors. Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with politicians basing judgement on morality. Meanwhile, Nutt's supporters point out the government is only happy to use scientific evidence when it suits them.

What lies behind the rise of evidence-based policy-making? Is it a more mature, scientific and reasoned approach to important questions, which transcends petty party politics and personal opinion? Or does this represent a dangerous retreat from politics as a contest of ideas and an attempt by politicians to outsource responsibility? And what would a progressive 21st century drugs policy look like?

Speaker:

Tony Gilland, Science and Society Director, Institute of Ideas

Suggested readings:

This ‘revolt of the experts’ is revolting Brendan O’Neill spiked 2 November 2009 http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7661/

Drugs: Prejudice and political weakness have rejected scientific facts Observer 1 November 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/01/david-nutt-drugs-sacking

Don’t forget: cannabis comes from ruthless, violent men Tom Whipple The Times 31 October 2009 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6897378.ece

LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government’s drugs adviser The Times 29 October 2009 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6894710.ece

For the public good, set the science free Tom Addiscott Manifesto Club 2009 http://www.manifestoclub.com/thinkpieces


Speaker(s):

Mr Tony Gilland | talks | www

 

Date and Time:

12 November 2009 at 7:00 pm

Duration:

2 hours

 

Venue:

The Perseverance
63 Lambs Conduit Street
London
WC1N 3NB


Show map

Organised by:

Institute of Ideas
See other talks organised by Institute of Ideas...

 

Tickets:

Free

Available from:

RSVP by emailing: currentaffairs@instituteofideas.com

Additional Information:

http://www.currentaffairs.org.uk

Register to tell a friend about this lecture.

Comments

If you would like to comment about this lecture, please register here.



 

Any ad revenue is entirely reinvested into the Lecture List's operating fund