Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

Jacqui Smith: Experts are there for me to ignore if they don’t say what I want

Clever old Jacqui Smith. In trouble for using a sneaky little shortcut to land yourself a great big stack of cash? Then simply shout some nonsense about drugs to placate the tabloids, and hey presto, it's all melted away like those last few flakes of winter snow.

You have to admire Smith's bloodymindedness and the sheer brio of the woman for saying to herself: "Well, here's an expert who knows a lot about drugs. Instead of listening to what he says to say and wondering whether he might be right or not, given that he's an expert and I'm just a career politician, I think I should just completely ignore what he says because it isn't what I want to hear."

Professor David Nutt, let's remember, said that taking ecstasy was about as dangerous as riding a horse, in terms of the number of people it killed. Was it really such a stupid analogy to make? After all, horseriding is certainly something that has the potential to be dangerous; people know that no matter what precautions they take, they run the risk of being thrown or falling off, or just plain bad luck leaving them injured or worse. Is it a million million miles away from the truth to consider that people who take ecstasy know that there's the possibility of a bad reaction, even a fatal one, no matter which precautions they take? In both cases, surely, the thrill and enjoyment of the activity - which harms no-one and nothing else (unless you happen to be wearing a red coat and chasing a fox across fields to its death while you're riding) - is considered to be worth the (relatively low) risk by those who do it.

Smith again:

She said she had told him he had gone beyond his role as head of the Advisory Council on Drugs Misuse.

By, er, advising about the misuse of drugs? If he's not allowed to do that, then what on earth can he do? Isn't that kind of the point of the advisory council, to give advice? No...?

Speaking during Home Office questions in the House of Commons, Ms Smith said: "I've spoken to him this morning about his comments. I've told him that I was surprised and profoundly disappointed by the article reported."

Why disappointed? Because he didn't say what she wanted him to say? If he'd gone against the evidence and the sum total of his experience and expertise in the field, and said something he didn't agree with at all, yet which she agreed with, I take it she would have been happier...?

"For me that makes light of a serious problem, trivialises the dangers of drugs, shows insensitivity to the families of victims of ecstasy and sends the wrong message to young people about the dangers of drugs."

Hang on though. See what Jacqui's done there - attempted to link ecstasy with all other drugs - including the genuinely dangerous ones like heroin, which kills about 1,000 people a year. Prof Nutt never said all drugs were OK. He was saying that ecstasy was different from other drugs and like other activities - perhaps trying to attempt a mature approach to the idea of drugs, a context-based approach, an approach that doesn't blindly scream "EVIL!" and run away into a corner for fear of the poor little babies who are slaughtered by such filth.

But then one fears that such an approach would be a little too sophisticated for the tabloids (and even grown-up papers), and for politicians like Smith. Yes, some people do die taking ecstasy. Many, many more do not. The vast majority do not. It might be an inconvenient fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. Sure, Jacqui can try and make it seem more dangerous than it actually is, but it isn't. And experts are there to attempt to advise and inform, not just back you up in your moral crusades when you're under a bit of heat for a few grand you've just trousered from Team Taxpayer.

No related posts.