• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Professor David Nutt was just doing his job

Written by Cameron Wolf
Thursday, 05 November 2009 00:00

Home Secretary Alan Johnson's decision to sack Professor David Nutt, the chairman of Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), for attacking the Goverment's policy on drugs has caused no end of controversy over the past few days - splitting the UK's political and science communities.

While Johnson's decision has received the full support of both the Labour and Conservative parties, members of the scientific community, including Professor John Beddington, the Government's chief scientist, have been quick to come to the defence of Professor Nutt -  and justifiably so.
If you pay a man to do a job, and then fire him for doing exactly that, something is not right. And all Professor Nutt was doing was what he was being paid to do - making statements based on scientific evidence.

During his time as the chairman of ACMD, Nutt upset politicians with claims that the harm caused by illegal drugs was no worse than that caused by equasy, a term coined to describe "equine addiction syndrome". Translated: people who suffer injuries as a result of riding horses. This claim, made in January 2009, was attacked by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and widely criticised by prominent politicians, but the decision was made that Nutt should continue in his role.

Despite this the attacks he faced earlier on in the year, over the summer Nutt presented findings that insinuated that alcohol and tobacco are worse for the public than cannabis, ecstasy and LSD - also criticising Jacqui Smith's decision not to downgrade cannabis. It was this that caused Alan Johnson to write to Nutt and ask him to leave his position.

It's not even up for debate that some people will find Professor Nutt's claims that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD are less harmful for you than alcohol (he said tobacco as well, but this didn't cause such a rift), but perhaps this is because for too long alcohol has been widely available in our society while ecstasy and LSD have been depicted as dangerous drugs. For the Government to change its stance now, would raise concern among the public, would it not?

There's no doubt that any substance that alters your perception of reality is bad for you, as both LSD and ecstasy are, but if you look at the national statistics, more people die each year from alcohol-related deaths each year (8,999 in 2008) than those who meet their demise because of taking ecstasy or LSD (1,999 deaths in 2008 as a result of all drug types). In 2006, 6,627 people in England and Wales died from alcohol-related deaths compared with just 17 who died from a cannabis-related deaths. And just as you thought it couldn't get much worse,  research carried out by Alcohol Concern claims that around 90,800 people will die from drinking too much in the next 10 years. So what exactly was Nutt doing wrong when he inferred that alcohol is worse than cannabis? Even the national statistics back up the legitimacy of his statement.

From a personal perspective, of all the drugs out there, alcohol has been the one that has ruined my life the most. It ruined the relationship I had with a girl I was involved with (not that she knows that i was sneaking off to off-licenses at 2am in the morning to buy copious amounts of beer which adversely affected my behaviour and temperament during our time together), it resulted in the loss of friends because of arguments after a few too many beers, it left me feeling short-tempered, lethargic and uninspired - resulting in the deterioration of my creative output, and I messed up arguably the biggest opportunity put in front of me during my lifetime - something that haunts me on daily basis. But alcohol is OK, right?

As a result of these personal experiences, along with hearing a number of booze-related horror stories down the years, I have long held the belief that alcohol is as bad for you, if not worse than any other drug you can get hold of in the UK. But as it is key to the sustained success of the British economy, it is in the Government's best interests to ensure that no such criticism is leveled at the alcohol industry.

I also believe that as well as being a victim of poor decision making on Alan Johnson's behalf, Mr Nutt has been the victim of the fear caused by the worst-ever recession to befall the UK. After all, the last thing the goverment want their health advisers saying, is that two of the UK's most lucrative industries are worse for you than the drugs they've spent years demonising.

Based on this evidence, I believe that Alan Johnson should offer Professor Nutt a full apology and compensation for his dismissal. Mr Nutt was employed to do a job, which he did to the best of his abilities, and like any other employment dispute, these kind of facts should be taken into consideration - along with bringing to an end the demonisation of Nutt by the UK Government. After all, he was just doing his job.