Source: The Guardian
October 31 2009
by David Batty
The government’s former chief drug adviser today accused the prime
minister, Gordon Brown, of tightening the law on cannabis for political reasons. Professor David Nutt warned that other experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
(ACMD) could resign in protest at his sacking by the home secretary,
Alan Johnson, yesterday.
Nutt was forced to quit after he accused ministers of “devaluing and
distorting” the scientific evidence over illicit drugs when they decided last year to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD.
Nutt told the BBC today that Brown had “made up his mind” to
reclassify cannabis despite evidence to the contrary.
“Gordon Brown comes into office and, soon after that, he starts
saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal… it has to be a class B
drug. He has made his mind up.
“We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, ‘No, no, there is
no extra evidence of harm, it’s still a class C drug.’ He said,
‘Tough, it’s going to be class B’.”
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Nutt said: “He is the
first prime minister, this is the first government, that has ever in
the history of the Misuse of Drugs Act gone against the advice of its
scientific panel.
“And then it did it again with ecstasy and I have to say it’s not
about overstepping the line, it’s about the government
overstepping the line. They are making scientific decisions before
they’ve even consulted with their experts.
“I know that my committee was very, very upset by the attitude the
prime minister took over cannabis. We actually formally wrote to him
to complain about it,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of
them stepped down. Maybe all of them will.”
Nutt’s sacking is likely to raise concerns among scientists over the
independence of advice to the government and may trigger further
resignations. The Home Office describes the ACMD as an independent
expert body that advises on drug-related issues, including
recommendations on classification under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act.
It is not thought that the home secretary spoke directly to Nutt
before requesting his resignation in writing.
Johnson accused the professor of going beyond his remit as an
evidence-based scientist and accused him of “lobbying for a change in
government policy” rather than giving impartial advice.
“It is important that the government’s messages on drugs are clear
and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding
of them,” Johnson wrote to Nutt.
“As my lead adviser on drugs harms I am afraid the manner in which
you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities.
“I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy
and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as
chair of the ACMD.”
The decision followed the publication of a paper by the Centre for
Crime and Justice at King’s College London, based on a lecture Nutt
delivered in July. He repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs
should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they
cause and pointed out that alcohol
and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
He accused the former home secretary, Jacqui Smith, of distorting and
devaluing scientific research when she reclassified cannabis, and
repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy were no worse than
riding a horse.
The charity DrugScope’s director of communications, Harry Shapiro,
said: “The home secretary’s decision to force the resignation of the
chair of an independent advisory body is an extremely serious and
concerning development and raises serious questions about the means by
which drug policy is informed and kept under review.”
Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice at
King’s College London, accused Johnson of undermining scientific
research.
He said: “I’m shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to
believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed
scientific opinion.”
GORDON BROWN SACKS DRUGS ADVISOR AFTER CRITICAL REMARKS
I have to say that I am appalled at the sacking of Professor David Nutt from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) by the Home Secretary Alan Johnson – and the support given to him by our un-elected Prime Minister Gordon Brown. David Cameron is no better for agreeing with their decision to ignore experts’ advice if it flies in the face of media-led public opinion.
Professor Nutt, head of the ACMD, is one of the foremost experts in the relative risks associated with drug-taking, and one of the Council’s remits is to recommend drug classification within the Misuse of Drugs Act, based upon danger.
Previously the ACMD, when asked to look at the classification most suitable for cannabis, has clearly stated that it should be in class C..
Under Blair, David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, took that advice and down-graded cannabis to class C, reducing the maximum sentence for possession from five to two years, although keeping the maximum sentence for supply to 14 years. Norwich North MP Charles Clarke, after public concerns about supposedly stronger forms of cannabis detrimentally effecting mental health in young people (who of course should not be getting drugs) asked for this to be reviewed whilst he was Home Secretary, and the ACMD confirmed their advice that it should remain in class C.
But then comes Gordon Brown, as our new and present unelected Prime Minister, who immediately starts making scare-mongering and ungrounded statements claiming the strong forms of cannabis are “lethal”! Doesn’t he know the meaning of words? Nobody has ever died from a “lethal” does of cannabis – the DEA-appointed Judge, Francis Young, in the US concluded after a two-year study that the lethal does is impossible to consume, and that cannabis is one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man. The only other time I’ve heard cannabis described as “lethal” was amongst tokers who meant it was exceptionally good!
Later, disgraced Jacqui Smith MP who was then Home Secretary, again asked the ACMD to review the classification of cannabis, and again they recommended class C.
For the first time since 1971, the Government acted against the advice of their council of drug experts and put cannabis back up to class B: the legal effect of that is that it only increases the maximum sentence for possession, putting it back to five years, for all forms of cannabis, weak or strong, clean or contaminated, for whatever use, medical, fun or religious..
In a recent lecture, Professor Nutt claimed cannabis is safer than alcohol, and dared criticise the Government for following a policy against the advice of its experts and contrary to scientific evidence.
So now Nutt is sacked, more experts are resigning, all the doctors, lawyers, scientists, police and other experts must be questioning the value of giving their time to th4se committees and councils for it seems that in so doing, they may not be heeded but moreover, they may risk being gagged against speaking against Government policy.
Alan Johnson has defended his decision to sack the Professor because, he said, experts should not speak out about Government policy – meaning presumably against Government policy for we have yet to see an expert who speaks publicly in favour of Government policy lose the job.
Of course public opinion and public support for policies is essential, but surely the way to achieve that is to tell the public the truth, not kowtow to panic and rumours spread by certain newspapers and authors?
If this refusal to accept evidence-based scientific advice and sacking of experts who speak against policy has been the basis of the Brown Government – well no wonder we are in such a mess; and, if the Tories agree, then we have a bleak future indeed: a country led not by expert advice, but by amateur opinion.
Alun Buffry