This week the British Government fired a scientific advisor because they felt that his advice was far too scientific.
They feel that although the man is an "expert" (a vacuous and awe-sapping title) in his particular field of psycho-pharmacology (nutters+drugs+blender=), his ranking of uppers and downers that we can legally or otherwise partake is just plain wrong. Well, not "wrong" per se, just not the answer they foresaw in their crystal ball (not to be confused with crystal meth...)
The chain of events has probably gone a little something like this: the government, in the grips of an epiphany regarding a "perceived social issue," (a sort of hunchey-thingey about people and stuff; the origins of which can probably be traced back to a doodle on a cocktail napkin somewhere) decided that they needed to do something to tackle the issue. So they decided to: construct a policy, pass some legislation, gather some evidence to support it and have a smoke (in the only room in which it is legal to do so within the borders of the United Kingdom, which just so happens to be situated inside the Houses of Parliament... enchanté). At some point in the political machinations the evidence is gathered: a "committee" is formed, complete with a set of large rubber stamps, whose job it is to analyse existing data or undertake "studies" relating to their given subject and report back their findings to the government by way of a sixties style rubber stamp collage. It's all very official. Only this time the government stupidly decided to send the rubber stamps First Class (First in, last out) with the Royal Mail instead of the "guaranteed next millennium" Special Delivery. The reason for this massive oversight probably being that the Home Secretary realised he wouldn't be able to claim back for the postage, or the stamps...
Without the rubber stamps the committee is forced to do the only logical thing, construct a report based on the actual findings. Now the head of the advisory committee (being a Professor I'll have you know) has realised that with the Royal Mail striking the only way that he can get his message to the government is through the media, hoping that they will pass it directly to the government (in the public sphere) in a graceful and non-shit-sturring manner, (which they duly f%&ed up) he had mused about Twittering it but his acute fear of things avian wouldn't let him.... they asked for his opinion, he gave it, and they gave him a boot up the arse (shoe, not the back end of a car, yikes)
It was not as if he was asking the government for anything (a hit from the proverbial bong maybe?), merely doing his job, as a scientist, assessing the current social and psychological effects of drugs in Blighty, in a scientific way, and reporting this scientific view point. If you are not going to base your policy on scientific evidence then don't bother asking a bunch of scientists to advise you, and then fire one of them because his advice was too scientific. If you hire a comedian to comment on people looking at themselves in the back of spoons and give their opinion as to whether their face looks proportional (or attractive), surely you are not going to fire him for stating what is plain for all the world to see? Some people need to chill out.....
I am not questioning the government's drug policy as I don't have the time and they don't have the sense. I am questioning the need to fire somebody for doing their job, which is always going to be a redundant waste of tax payer's money if your policy is based on the Sun's astrology section... This "opinion" is not one man standing up and saying that he wants to open a "Coffee House" in Trafalgar Square, this is a viewpoint carried by the majority of the "experts" on the soon-to-be-made-redundant committee.
It's time for us all to grow up a little and if it's a spoon, call it a bloody spoon....
