‘Miserable Sods’: Ex Govt Drugs Advisor Slams New ‘Psychoactives’ Ban


A former chief advisor to the British government has called David Cameron’s new cabinet a bunch of “miserable sods” after announcing a new ban on psychoactive drugs.

Professor David Nutt, who was chief drugs policy advisor under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has hit out at the government for aiming to ban ‘legal highs’ such as poppers and nitrous oxide (laughing gas). He told NME magazine that the move was ‘pathetic’.

He said:

“Outlawing nitrous oxide truly is pathetic. Some of the greatest minds in the history of Britain, the people that made British science, used nitrous oxide. Wordsworth and the Romantic poets used nitrous oxide. The guy who popularised the use of nitrous oxide, Humphry Davy, was friends with Wordsworth and Coleridge. Nitrous oxide has been around as a medicine and a way of people understanding a different way of feeling for 200 years. Banning it now is pathetic. They’ll be putting yellow stars on drug takers’ foreheads soon. It is a peculiar attack on being anything other than a member of the Bullingdon Club – but they did drugs, didn’t they? I think this is just about young people enjoying themselves, and they hate that because they’re miserable sods.”

Strangely, Prof Nutt blamed the initiative on the Policy Exchange think-tank, calling them “very right wing” and stating that “They’re basically an outpost of right wing US Republican thinking”.

Most people familiar with Policy Exchange will know the group’s liberal credentials. It’s Chairman is the anti-Tea Party American commentator David Frum. Its founding director is the left-wing Tory MP Nicholas Boles.

But these facts didn’t help spare Policy Exchange and the government from Prof Nutt’s ire. He also hinted that the alcohol lobby may have something to do with the introduction of the bill, though made clear he had “no evidence” for his claim.

UKIP sources have told Breitbart London that the party intends to come out against the ban, calling it “an attack on freedom, and contrary to the principles of Common Law”.