The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is an independent expert body that advises government on drug related issues in the UK. It was established under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Its terms of reference, set out in section 1 of the Act, are “to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to them capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem, and to give to any one or more of the Ministers…advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) which in the opinion of the Council…ought to be taken”.

Blog ‘Drug classification’, posted on 23 February, asked why ministers ignore the Council’s major recommendations. The ACMD had recommended that “after a most careful scrutiny of the totality of the available evidence… cannabis should remain a Class C substance.” The government dismissed this advice and reclassified cannabis as a Class B drug. The Council recommended that “in reviewing the evidence of the harmfulness of MDMA (ecstasy) to individuals and society, the Council’s collective view is that the balance of harms most closely equates to that of other substances in Class B.” The then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith vetoed the proposed downgrading.

The simmering discontent engendered by this cavalier treatment of scientific evidence and advice has now erupted with Alan Johnson’s summary sacking of the chairman of the Council, David Nutt. Professor Nutt’s crime was to write a paper for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, based on a lecture he had delivered in July, in which he repeated his argument that the relative harms of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are greater than those of a number of illegal drugs, including cannabis, LSD and ecstasy. Professor Nutt proposes a ‘drug harm ranking’, which compares the harms caused by legal as well as illegal drugs. Alan Johnson took exception to this, and, in a letter to the ‘Guardian’, said that “Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with…He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy”. Writing in ‘The Observer’ after his sacking, Professor Nutt said that “having the temerity to challenge government decisions on drug classification was more than this government could bear”.

In 2002 cannabis was downgraded to class C by Home Secretary David Blunkett on the recommendation of the Council. Gordon Brown let it be known when he became Prime Minister in 2007 that he intended to return the classification of cannabis to the position before 2002. After the ACMD pointed out that he was in breach of the Act by not consulting them he was forced to call for another review, promptly rejecting their findings when the Council reported. This is more than a political spat. Penalties for class B drug offences are draconian. As Professor Nutt says “possession of a single joint can now lead to five years imprisonment, a wholly disproportionate penalty for a drug…which is significantly less harmful than alcohol”. All this at a time when, to quote a ‘Guardian’ editorial, “half the government, as well as the Conservative leader and three US presidents in a row have used drugs in their own youth”.

This story will run, with the possible mass resignation of the remaining members of the Council, following the two members who have already resigned. The government has already announced a review, to be carried out by Sir David Omand, of the effectiveness of the ACMD.

The full text of Professor Nutt’s paper, appropriately entitled “Estimating drug harms: a risky business?”, can be found at:

http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf