Comments:Political fallout from the sacking of Professor David Nutt gathers momentum

The government claims that they overruled scientific advice to avoid sending mixed messages to people regarding drug abuse.

This means that, in our government's view, the ends justify the means, that it's OK to lie to people in order to force them do what the government thinks is best for them and that people cannot be trusted to make the right choices for themselves, but must be scared into it.

This is both morally wrong and insulting to the public.

Exactly the same mentality was displayed by Blair when he took this country to war on false premises, contrary to the experts' advice.

Leaving aside the particular issue of cannabis and drug advisers, there are fundamental, generally applicable, principles at stake here regarding freedom of information, openness, ministerial accountability and the basis on which government policies are made. These must be properly re-asserted or established.

Adalbert, Southampton, 5/11/2009


 * You are right to note the serious issues relating to governmental process here, and they are largely why I initiated this article. A number of people are beginning to ask serious questions on the net about the propriety of the government's sacking of Professor Nutt and the possibility that a process of centralised government with its roots in static 19th century voting technology i.e. the ballot box, is not in fact the way we should be continuing in the light of the developments and advances in technology and citizen enfranchisement in recent years. Sjc (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism 128.210.124.120 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)