Keith Vaz: Videogames Should Have Health Warnings

It’s been a hectic week in the world of videogames. With the most anticipated game of the year Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 hitting the shelves to the joy of thousands of gamers, (and retailers) world wide. The game looks set to break all records as the fastest selling game in history and looks like its going to break the previous record that Grand Theft Auto 4 set a year ago.


Modern Warfare 2 had the biggest launch day sales of a videogame ever in the UK generating £64.7 Million, beating GTA 4 which in 2008 made a paltry in comparison £39.9 million.


So in these times of economic strife a product being so successful and loved by millions should bring a bit of cheer? Unfortunately not all see Modern Warfare 2’s success as a good thing. MP Keith Vaz was one of the first to lash out at the game for a level that appears early on called “No Russian”. In it you assume the role of an undercover CIA agent who has infiltrated a Russian terrorist cell who then massacre an airport full of civilians. The player is given the choice to play the level and can skip at any time however the level does play an integral part to the games plot as becomes evident later.


The scene is shocking, but should it not be seen in context? Terrorists are not known for being merciful when targeting those they feel deserve their wrath and this game reflects that. However it has reignited the controversies that have dogged the videogame industry for years.


Keith Vaz spoke in the Daily Mail of his displeasure: "I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks." Mr Vaz later raised the matter in Parliament to which he was given rather short thrift by his colleagues Tom Watson and Sion Simon.

Sion Simon the minister for Culture, Media and Sport has this to say in response to Vaz’s concerns. "The clearest recommendation of the Byron Review is that content suitable for adults should be labelled as such and sold as such, that it should be an offence to sell such content to children,"


"That's the case under current law, it will be the case with the law when it changes under the Digital Economy Bill. This game the honourable gentleman refers to is a certificate 18 game, it should not be sold to children and the government's job is to make sure that adults, clearly labelled, can get what adults should be able to, and that children are not in danger of being subjected to adult content. "

Tom Watson, a former government minster also took offence at Keith Vaz and the daily mails attack on videogames and formed the group Gamers Voice. The group has grown enormously since its inception and now stands at over 14500 members on Facebook


Keith Vaz when questioned on our latest edition said videogames should carry health warnings in a similar fashion to cigarettes. Here is the full quote here: If you look to the packaging of an 18-rated videogame, it's [the size of] a tiny 10p coin. What it should be is the same as cigarettes - it should be splashed across the front: 'This has the potential to damage your health' - and that is not happening.

But is a game really that damaging to your health? Vaz insisted he was not anti videogames and that his crusade was to protect children from harmful games but in the same instance he was also unsure what videogames his own 14 year old son played. Vaz also mentioned that parents also have a responsibility for what their children view or play but does that then mean if it is found the child has an unsuitable game should the parents be punished? Would Keith Vaz be punished under such a system depending on what his son has been playing?


There is always the argument why should adults be forced to loose out when an 18 rated game is played by a child who by law should have never have been able to get hold of the game. It doesn’t look any time soon that violent games are going to be banned but the risk of a whole medium being tarred is there.

It would certainly seem that the videogame industry has an image problem though Richard Wilson CEO of TIGA doesn’t seem to think so. But when a game such as Modern Warfare 2 is met with such a hail of controversy when many violent films are praised as art in some cases, is there a case of double standards?



For every Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 there is a Portal, for every Manhunt there is a Shadow of the Colossus. It is easy to forget that videogames are a social medium that involves family, friends and people from around the world. But is that message lost in the hysteria?

Scientists versus Politicans

The problem with being interested in politics and current affairs is this nasty habit it has of never stopping. It might be a slow news day but you can bet that somewhere in the world there is something of interest going on.

Which is why I am still up at quarter to one on a Tuesday morning after doing research into the Professor Nutt sacking debacle. It's caused some amount of disquiet and it looks like its going to get uglier as the week goes on. Two other members of the ACMD, (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) have resigned in protest and more may follow. It's scientists on one side and politicians on the other.

For those who might not have been following the case here is a bit of background. Professor David Nutt, (who works both at the University of Bristol and Imperial College, London) last week gave a lecture at Imperial College stating both alcohol and tobacco were more deadly than many illegal drugs. You can also read his paper on the subject here.

Days later Professor Nutt was rather unceremoniously sacked by an email from Home Secretary Alan Johnson. Ouch.

Alan Johnson's decision sparked off fighting both within the government as well as out as Lord Drayson: the science and innovation minister who has overall responsibility for all scientific advice given to the government went nuclear at being left out and initially sided with Professor Nutt. One email message read "Alan did this without letting me know and giving me a chance to persuade him it's a big mistake. Is Gordon able to get Alan to undo this? As 'science champion in Government', I can't just stand aside on this one."

Unfortunately for David Nutt this stance didn't last long and Lord Drayson sided with the Government after Prime Minister Gordon Brown stepped into the fray stating that he had received reassurances from Alan Johnson and that his earlier response had been an initial reaction.

But is there any truth to what Professor Nutt says? Well lets look at some statistics for deaths in Scotland and see what it looks like.

In Scotland there were 574 drug-related deaths in 2008, but we need to be careful as these figures also include alcohol as a drug but strangely not tobacco, cannabis or LSD.

Breaking that figure down makes it appear like this:

Heroin/Morphine-336
Methadone- 181
Total of all Benzodiazepine related deaths- 364
Diazapam- 317
Temazapam- 12
Cocaine- 79
Ecstasy- 7
Amphetamines- 12
Alcohol- 273

Unfortunately as far as I can find there are no similar figures regarding tobacco related deaths for 2008 so we have to make do with 2004.

In 2004, there were almost 13,500 smoking-related deaths in Scotland - over 1 in 5 of all deaths.

That would make it appear however that David Nutt is vindicated and that deaths related to Alcohol and Tobacco vastly outweigh deaths due to drugs. With that in mind and the fact that and advice given to a government is never free lets take a look at how much the ACMD has cost for advice that was ultimately ignored. Here is a parliamentary question from last year regarding the committee's finances.

Home Department
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs: Finance

James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department spent to support the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in each of the last five years. [223151]

Mr. Coaker [holding answer 10 September 2008]: The Home Office allocated the following sums of money in each of the last five years to support the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs:

Sum allocated to the ACMD (£)

2003-04 £80,000

2004-05 £135,000

2005-06 £165,000

2006-07 £152,000

2007-08 £152,800

In addition the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs secretariat staff and other civil servant costs have not been allocated as such costs are subsumed within normal salaried remuneration and within existing budgets.

29 Sep 2008 : Column 2314W

So in total the ACMD has cost the taxpayer well over half a million pounds over 5 years if my rather poor maths skills are right. That's a lot of money for a group of advisors whose advice and recommendations you are going to ignore...



Perhaps after being very public in his outburst Professor David Nutt should have expected a very public response that might have been as embarrassing to him as his recommendations were to the government. Rest assured we will be working to have him on the show and ask him personally over the next couple of weeks.

Upcoming guests

Here is the list or our upcoming guests over the next wee while so you can get your questions and comments in. Please note a date for airing for all the interviews have not yet been confirmed.


Jim Murphy- Secretary of State for Scotland
Iain Gray- Scottish Labour Leader
Annabel Goldie- Scottish Conservative Leader
Tavish Scott- Scottish Liberal Democrats Leader
Shami Chakrabarti- Director of Liberty
Vince Cable- Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

Keep your comments coming in!