Clearly this would be unjust. With any drug, we need research to produce as accurate a picture of the risks as we can get, but only once we are very sure that the risks of the drug are worse than the risks of criminalising it can a serious case be made for prohibition.

In general, while the risks of a particular drug should not be underestimated, it is also important that they not be overstated – because no government should be in the business of arresting its citizens on spurious, exaggerated health scare grounds.

Also, if Professor Nutt has, as Professor Murray claims, “played fast & loose with the statistics”, can we have a presentation and analysis of said statistics please?

Kenneth Eckersley: I would be very careful about describing yourself as the CEO of Addiction Recovery Training Services within the same sentence as your complaint about vested interests. I’m sure I don’t need to spell out the irony.

You are right, of course that a drugs advisory body should deal with all drugs, currently scheduled or otherwise (I would add ‘addictive or otherwise as well – why would we want to ignore non-addictive but potentially harmful drugs, as you seem to suggest?). Isn’t this exactly what Nutt has tried to do?

You don’t need to ask how Nutt classifies benzodiazepines; just read his Lancet paper from which this whole kerfuffle ultimately stems. They are ranked 7th on the scale of harm, between ketamine and amphetamine. I am not a scientist; I cannot say with any evidence whether I think he is right, but if anyone contends he is wrong, they should produce scientific evidence to demonstrate this.
However, you seem to suggest that Nutt has a vested interest in ignoring the problems of ‘thousands of little old ladies’ who are dependent on benzodiazepines. Can you back up this implication with anything concrete? More importantly, if Nutt has somehow damaged their interests, how do _you_ propose to help said benzodiazepine-dependent patients?

In general, like David Raynes, if you support the status quo as regards prohibition, all you need to do is provide compelling evidence that prohibition is an effective and humane way of reducing drug-related harms. That’s all I ask, and if it’s true, it isn’t much to ask; if it’s not, then you should not stand in the way of those who seek a more rational, pragmatic drug policy.

As CEO of Addiction Recovery Training Services, every day dealing with people who are seeking recovery from all forms of addiction, I find it not helpful that professors with vested interests interfere with drugs policy in order to obscure and divert attention away from the excesses of their psychiatric and pharmaceutical colleagues.

Any truly scientific drugs advisory body should deal – not just with those addictive substances currently defined as illegal, but also with licensed and prescribed drugs.

How does Nutt for instance classify the benzodiazepine range of hypnotic and addictive drugs, and how does he help the thousands of little old ladies who have been on such prescription drugs and suffering their side effects for decades.

They are all valuable consumers of his sorts of pharmaceutical products and so must be maintained as customers, conveniently paid for by the taxpayer.

Alan Johnson was not a coward, quite the reverse.

Lastly I met Nutt yesterday, he is not going anywhere, he is going to start his own advisory body so that the press have somewhere to find credible info on drugs.

David Raynes is guilty of persecuting peaceful users of drugs who are subject to criminalisation whilst not even commenting on the outrage that the two most harmful drugs are not even scheduled yet. under the MDA. It’s right to say that the govt discriminate and avoid their duty by failing to distinguish between peaceful users and misusers or all drugs – the likes a few seemingly biased scientists (who always make the same remarks about certain controlled drugs despite there being great evidence of their relative safety)are seized upon by Raynes are also appologists for the killing and destruction of lives by their insidious views. All we want is equality and yet we get scape-goating – are you calling for prohibtion of alcohol and tobacco for the sake of equality David? Surely if all drugs were on a level playing field the result would be an end to the pointless crusade against the users of some drugs and an amerioration of the harms caused by the criminal market and individuals being able to mix and control their drug choices to avoid the harm of over-use of any drug. see drugequality.org

That our drug policy should be so strongly influenced by a handful of newspapers is very wrong.

For an exploration of how the UN drug control systems can be brought into line with the modern world see the appendix in Transform’s new book ‘After the war on drugs; blueprint for regulation’ (available in pdf form from http://bit.ly/167NmF) which also proposes models of legal regulation for currently illicit drug production and availability. Such reforms will be fraught with difficulty and take time, but are inevitable given the long term systemic failings of absolutist international prohibitions.

Regads David;s comments – he is right, most drug possession offenses in the UK are commonly dealt with in ways not dissimilar to the so-called decriminalisation states (although arrest and caution can still lead to a criminal record with serious consequences), arguably making the moral posturing and tough talking bluster of mainstream politicians even more ridiculous. The real world and the world of politics often seem like parallel universes – never more so than with drugs policy.

David, You refer to two experts whose views differ from those of Nutt/the ACMD – but apparently fit with your own. Naturally there are a range of views on any scientific question – but what the committee have done in all their harm evaluations is to consider a range of views and come to a conclusion on the balance of the evidence, as they are tasked to. Citing some that dissent from this view does not render the systematic reviews they undertook , nor Nutt’s personal statements ‘unscientific’. The fact that the committee do not consider the policy impacts of translating their classifications into a hierarchy of penalties is a major failing, (a scientific crime of omission far more important than tweaks to rankings) but not sadly the issue that this debacle hinged on.

David – both of your experts were keen to highlight the mental health risks of cannabis, which is absolutely fine, but something that the ACMD have never shied away from in their reports. Nor has Nutt ever claimed it was safe in anything other that relative terms, nor does a classification of C suggest so. The classifiation system, for all its manifest failings, is about relative harms, and besides, there is no evidence to suggest changes in classification effect levels of use either way, nor specifically that classification system is an effective way of educating about risk or deterring use. If you have any please let us know what it is.

I understood that Murray infact did not call for a move back to B, but rightly said it was irrelevant – choosing to focus on the risks as he saw them. I do not recall whether Appleby made such a call, but do recall that the spokesperson for MIND said that cannabis was dangerous but that classification was a side issue and distraction.

Murray has on occasion himself rather misrepresented the ACMD, and arguably the evidence base, in some of his public statements, as explored here: http://bit.ly/tvgcr

If you are going to accuse Nutt or the committee of being ‘unscientific’ you need to provide a proper critique of their reports, and then produce something better. You have never done this, or anything approaching it – only make unfounded accusations that fit around your world view, backed up with cherry picked evidence. That is the very essence of being unscientific. If you think ranking should be based on something other than a review of all the scientific evidence then make that case. But you don’t do that either.

As for the committee not being unanimous, well, they are a committee of 30 – overwhelming majority has to do sometimes, and some difference of opinion is inevitable and probably a good thing. It should be noted that there are also individuals on the committee who represent organisations like ACPO who vote as they are instructed by the organisation (in this case back to B). Those instructions are not neccassarily based on the science and political considerations weigh heavily. Many of these organisations serve and are funded by the Government and subject to pressure (if you want your conspiracy David maybe your looking in the wrong place). ACPO’s risible presentation to the committee in the most recent evaluation demonstrated this with alarming clarity.

Once again you’ve completely missed the point.

That out of the way, there is not much else in this article that is accurate. Firstly it is very difficult indeed to get sent to prison for personal use quantities of ANY drug in the UK.

On the history of Professor Nutt and the ACMD. Since his dismmissal Nutt has misrepresented, unscientifically I say, the debate about cannabis classification.

Importantly the ACMD was not unanimous, secondly otheres of equal eminence argued for cannabis to be reclassified to B in under the UK system (where it had mostly been under our very loosley defined groupings). The most important such person was Professor Appleby our National Director of Mental Health. A real expert on cannabis psychosis Professor Robin Murry has said that Nutt “played fast & loose with the statistics”, that is strong stuff.

Government was getting conflicting advice and had to err on the side of caution, in so doing it was admitting that downgrading four years earlier was an error. Governments do not often do that.

The pressure for reclassification was driven by the education and health portfolios in government, not primarily by the tabloids.