Professor Nutt To Give Evidence To HASC Drugs Inquiry

    Professor David Nutt

    Next Tuesday, 19th June 2012 at 11.00 am, Professor David Nutt has been called to give evidence.  Professor Nutt is the chair of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD).  He is the former chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) until he was sacked by Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary in 2009.  He is also Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London.

    Dr Les King

     

    Appearing with him will be Dr Les King.  Dr King famously resigned from the ACMD as a consequence of Professor Nutt’s sacking.  He was also a member of the ISCD until he retired at the beginning of 2012.  Previously he was head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      Also called to give evidence in the same session are Professor Les Iversen, Professor Ray Hill and Annette Dale-Perera, all of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

    • Focusonpeace

      I hope the people in charge see sense!

    • ChristopherSawtell

      Good heavens. At last. The committee is going to hear the scientific truth of the matter.
      Judging by the previous sessions, I cannot help but wonder if the committee is going to understand what they are being told, and more importantly is the government itself going to be able to get, and act on, the message correctly?

      Committee and Government: Here is the message for you in simple language all of you will hopefully understand:

      Listen very carefully to what these guys have to say. In contrast to previous witnesses, they actually do know what they are talking about.

      If you do not understand something, for goodness sake ask questions until you do understand what you are being told.

      Put what you are told into law.

      Be bold. Be brave. 

    • Chris Mackenzie

      David Nut is the man for the job! Cant wait to hear the truth. If the panel do not pick up on the contradictions in evidence and ask further questions to clarify they should be held to account.