Drugs tsar sacked for claiming Ecstasy, cannabis and LSD are less harmful than alcohols says more advisors will quit



Controversy: Professor David Nutt criticised the decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug



The UK's chief drugs tsar sacked over his controversial views today launched an extraordinary attack on Gordon Brown and warned the Government's whole advisory board could quit.

Professor David Nutt, fired last night for claiming cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD are less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, turned both barrels on the Prime Minister.

He declared that the Government had gone too far by defying his and other experts' advise on cannabis and Ecstasy and claimed ministers were acting before they had even consulted their own advisors.

'He [Gordon Brown] 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,' he said.

'And then it did it again with ecstasy and I have to say it's not about (me) over-stepping the line, it's about the Government over-stepping the line.

'They are making scientific decisions before they've even consulted with their experts.'

He added: '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. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them stepped down. Maybe all of them will.'

Home Secretary Alan Johnson sensationally fired Professor Nutt last night after deciding he had 'no confidence' in him.

The move followed a series of controversial remarks about the effect of drugs, which included a claim that Ecstasy was no more dangerous than 'riding a horse'.

It is the first time a chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been fired in its 38-year history.

Home Office officials said Mr Johnson had been 'surprised and disappointed' by Professor Nutt's comments.

Mr Johnson said they 'damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs'.



Prof Nutt was sacked for claiming cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said today: 'We wholeheartedly defend academic freedom and the need for scientists to present findings based on sound research.



'It is crucial that UK policy is based on evidence and that scientists are able to offer unfettered advice without the fear of reprisal. This principle should be the backbone of scientific engagement with government.'

Neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore added that Professor Nutt's sacking appeared to suggest a 'worrying retreat' by Labour and said he had only been trying to 'inform debate' with his remarks.



'If ministers decide to go against the recommendations of their own experts, I really think the public is entitled to know why,' he said.

He compared the Government's stance now to when it first came into power, saying: 'I think all scientists who have given their time to advise the government were very encouraged by the attitude of Labour when it came into power in 1997 and its stated commitment to evidence-based policy.'

Labour's victory came after ministers used 'their own interpretation' of scientific evidence in the BSE crisis, he said, and it had vowed never to let that happen again.



'There seems to be a worrying retreat from that important commitment,' Professor Blakemore said.



Professor Nutt has long courted controversy. Under his stewardship, the ACMD resisted the reclassification of cannabis and also called for Ecstasy to be downgraded to a Class B substance. On both occasions he was overruled by ministers.

But it was a paper he authored for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London, that proved the final straw.

He accused former home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified cannabis, of 'distorting and devaluing' scientific research, and said smoking the drug created a 'relatively small risk' of psychotic illness.

He also claimed those who wanted to move Ecstasy into Class B from Class A - including himself - had 'won the intellectual argument'.

Most controversially, Professor Nutt said all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be ranked by a 'harm' index - with drinking coming fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone.

Tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy, he added.

Last night, Professor Nutt appeared to blame his sacking on 'political' considerations.

'It's unusual political times, I suppose, elections and all that,' he said. 'It's disappointing.



'But politics is politics and science is science and there's a bit of a tension between them sometimes.'



He also attacked politicians for 'misleading' the public, accusing Gordon Brown of making 'completely irrational statements about cannabis being "lethal", which it is not.

THE SERIAL OFFENDER

This is not the first time Professor Nutt has made headlines.

Earlier this year, he was reprimanded by ex-home secretary Jacqui Smith for suggesting taking ecstasy was 'no worse than riding a horse'.

She accused the scientist of 'trivialising' the dangers and health concerns of drugs and showing 'insensitivity to the families of victims' of ecstasy.

Professor Nutt was forced to apologise but within days his recommendation that ecstasy be downgraded to Class B was rejected outright.

A second proposal to give out purity testing kits was also thrown out.

Professor Nutt maintained scientists 'won the intellectual argument' and described the media's reaction to his remarks as 'extreme'.

'If you want to reduce the harm to society from drugs, alcohol is the drug to target and all parents should be very aware of that,' he said.

Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling said: 'This was an inevitable decision after his latest ill-judged contribution to the debate.'

However, CCJS boss Richard Garside, who published this week's paper, said: 'I'm shocked and dismayed the Home Secretary appears to believe political calculation trumps scientific opinion. His action is a bad day for science.'

A Home Office spokesman said: 'The role of the chair of the ACMD is to provide independent scientific advice, not to lobby for changes in policy.'





