Wrongful sacking of chief drugs adviser?

This morning (November 1) The Times reported that two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs resigned yesterday in protest over home secretary Alan Johnson’s dismissal of the UK's chief drugs adviser David Nutt on Friday.

The firing occurred shortly after Nutt claimed that cannabis (or hemp) was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, and criticized the decision to upgrade the drug from a class C to class B. Nutt also commented that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.

The UK’s Guardian received a letter from Johnson saying that Nutt was asked to resign "because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy."

Les King, a former head of drug intelligence at the Forensic Science Service, shortly followed by Marion Walker, head of the substance misuse service at Berkshire NHS foundation trust, resigned in response to Nutt’s firing. King said that Nutt had been denied his "freedom of expression."

Was Johnson’s behavior a violation of freedom of speech, and thus, unethical? Should Nutt have been penalized for disagreeing with Johnson’s viewpoint?

-Victoria Stern, Editoria Intern, The Scientist

Alan Johnson's dismissal of David Nutt effectively granted Nutt greater freedom of speech than he was expected to exercise as a member of the advisory body; hence the opening up of the debate on two fronts.

1). Do Ministers of the Crown have the right to ignore sound scientific advice and impose their own subjective judgements?
(I'd say "Yes but it is extremely inadvisable." - witness the present public questioning of politicians' judgment, not only on this issue.)

2). Does an unpaid Government advisor have the right to freely express his opinion on issues on which he advises?
(Again, I'd say "Yes but it is extremely inadvisable." for similar reasons to those stated above.)

A third issue is, apparently, being glossed over - as it was at the time cannabis was reclassified.

3). Does any minister, elected or otherwise, have the authority to arbitrarily modify Statute or Criminal Law without submitting the issue to both houses for debate?

I shall leave you to cogitate on these three points and form your own opinions.

I'll never forget sitting in on Congressional testimony by then US "drug czar" Barry McCaffrey, a drug warrior without peer, when he made the same admission, that pot is less adictive and dangerous that alcohol or nicotine. It was barely reported in the press.

Bob Roehr

Its regrettable that he had to be sacked for telling the truth. The fact is that canabis is less abused than either alcohol or nicotine, all which are legal. The illegality of Canabis on the other hand makes it hard for users to over-indulge in it. About which one is more addictive/and or harmful than the other is best left to scientific proof and not politics.
Handa C

NIDA has funded huge volumes of the addictive traits of virtually all substances, and McCaffrey was drawing upon that research when he stated that nicotine is far and away the most addictive of the drugs. Alcohol is much lower and cannabis is lower still.

As to the "illegality" of cannabit limiting the availability -- HA HA HA. For teens, all three are not legally available but they have no problem getting access to any of them, to excess. It's just that cannabit has been demonstrated to be about the safest possible thing on the planet that one can consume. Yes, like consuming water it too can be "abused," but it is VERY VERY difficult to overdose on either.

Agriculture is huge in California and cannabis is estimated to be its largest cash crop. While one may be inconvenienced in accessing it in many jurisdictions, it isn't much different from the difficulty of accessing alcohol in states where there are limitations on outlets and hours of operation.

Bob Roehr

So Johnson believes that the government should only receive advice from people willing to agree with everything the government wants to do anyway.

That alone makes him a moron unfit for office.

The witch hunt continues. Social momentum will continue, reason and sense will not be applied. Religion, judgment, punishment, and corruption will prevail. Taxes will not be paid, prisons will be funded, people will lose jobs, and those who speak out will be among them. The future will continue to look like the past. Why do we let this happen? Wine is a sacrament and herbs are from Satan. And if people are not drunk they might see this in another light.