Join Together
Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

U.K. Drug Czar Fired for Saying Illegal Drugs Less Harmful Than Alcohol, Cigarettes
November 4, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has fired the nation's 'drug czar' after David Nutt said that LSD and ecstasy are less dangerous drugs than alcohol or tobacco, the Daily Mail reported Oct. 31.

The decision was subjected to withering criticism by Nutt and others in the U.K. research community. Previously, Nutt, head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), had criticized the Brown government for its decision to reclassify marijuana as a Class B drug, contrary to the advice of its own scientific board.

"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," Nutt said. "And then it did it again with ecstasy and I have to say it's not about (me) overstepping the line, it's about the government overstepping the line. They are making scientific decisions before they've even consulted with their experts."

Home Secretary Alan Johnson fired Nutt, saying he had 'no confidence' in him after Nutt made his comments about the relative dangers of illegal and legal drugs. Johnson said the remarks "damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs."

Nutt has called for all drugs, regardless of legal status, to be ranked according to a 'harm index' that would rank alcohol only behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone. He has harshly criticized Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for their decisions on regulating drugs like marijuana and ecstasy.

This is the first time that an ACMD chair has been fired. 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."

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by maxwood on 04 Nov 09 07:00 PM EST
"Clear messages about the dangers of drugs" or protection for genocide $igarette industry?

Posted by rcount on 05 Nov 09 09:16 AM EST
maybe he should have said equally dangerous, so he didn't offend everyone. I guess the truth hurt someone.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 05 Nov 09 10:51 AM EST
In the US, cigarettes kill 400,000 people annually, alcohol kills about 125,000, but very few if any deaths are attributable to LSD or esctasy use. While nicotine is highly addictive, alcohol is addictive to many (and excessively consumed by many others), LSD and ecstasy are not addictive, and are used infrequently by the vast majority of users. So David Nutt got sacked for telling the truth about an important public health issue because it conflicted with (and exposed inconsistencies) in governmental policies and public ignorance.

Posted by Ryan Haller on 05 Nov 09 11:37 AM EST
this article reminds me of an excellent definition of addiciton: "Certain individual use certain substances in certain ways thought at certain times to be unacceptable by certain other individuals for reasons both certain and uncertain.” Burglass and Shaffer (1984) Hey Policy makers, when will you listen to reason and the scientific evidence?

Posted by J. C. on 05 Nov 09 01:15 PM EST
David Nutt is correct. It's unfortunate that political uncorrectness (speaking the truth) has trumped scientific and medical evidence. I'm sure the UK's alcohol and tobacco lobbies are quite pleased at the moment.

Posted by rachelrachel on 05 Nov 09 08:53 PM EST
This is why, of all the US Drug Czars, nobody has never appointed anybody with a background in science or in health care, that is, an expert in the field for which he's supposed to be giving advice.

Posted by Diane on 06 Nov 09 04:19 PM EST
It is amazing to see that a person who is in charge of protecting public safety gets fired for trying to do his job by saying what science and practioners know to be the truth. I hope that Mr. Nutt continues to speak the truth and disseminate about the dangers of our legal drugs.

Posted by Brinna Nanda on 06 Nov 09 11:53 PM EST
It's delightful to see the absolute non-appearance of the usual drug warrior comments here. The shameful behavior of politicians who simply ignore science to further their own careers is unfortunately not just Britain's problem -- it is, in actuality, the Achilles heel on the body of those who persistently resist regulation of (currently) illicit drugs.

Posted by rethomas on 09 Nov 09 03:21 PM EST
I concur with some of the comments above. It is troubling when science is set aside for the furtherance of a set of cultural beliefs. Tobacco and alcohol producers are very happy with this decision. I am wondering how long it will take the FDA to begin dismantling the protections the tobacco industry currently has?

Posted by Sharon Green on 09 Nov 09 03:21 PM EST
Sometimes truth is hard to swallow.

Posted by Robert on 09 Nov 09 05:53 PM EST
Relative comparisons regarding the supposed harm presented by legal versus illegal drugs are grossly misleading because of the difference in usage rates. Alcohol and tobacco cause more harm than illegal drugs because vastly more people use them, and more people use them precisely because they are legal. In the USA a large majority of the public regularly consumes alcohol, and somewhere between 30-40% of adults are regular smokers. Regular illegal drug users, including marijuana, amount to less than 10% of the population. If usage rates are many times greater, of COURSE you get many times the harm, even if the individual harm is far less on a one-to-one basis. The medical research is clear - ounce for ounce smoked, marijuana is far more harmful to the body than tobacco; what is more, alcohol is intoxicating whereas tobacco is not. Similar statements can be made for other illegal drugs versus alcohol. Alcohol is tolerated by the body at thousands of times higher concentrations than any illegal drug, and so requires far greater consumption to produce similar toxic and impairing effect, yet alcohol causes far more harm to the public simply because of it's vastly greater use.

Posted by Brinna Nanda on 14 Nov 09 09:19 PM EST
Oh, Robert, you spoiled a perfect score! Also, you have your facts wrong. Ounce for ounce, smoked, Marijuana REDUCES the occurrence of neck, throat and head squamous cell cancer in chronic long term smokers, to LOWER than that of those who don't smoke at all (Brown University Study, 2009). Marijuana smoke was shown NOT to cause cancer, and seemed to be protective against it (NIDA study, 2006, Tashkin). On the other hand, even a few drinks of alcohol a week raises cancer rates. As to your 'rate of use' theory, even a little bit of poison gas does a whole lot more damage than a huge amount of fresh air. The nature of the substance is the issue. Frankly, I think we should immediately legalize cannabis, (restrict advertising to keep the corporations out of it), and encourage everyone to switch from tobacco and alcohol use to cannabis. Think of the lives we would save.

Posted by Keith on 30 Nov 09 02:05 PM EST
I'm afraid most people here are missing the point. Prof Nutt was not sacked 'for telling the truth' but for giving out misleading and contrary messages about drugs. 'Professor David Nutt also said the risk of taking ecstasy was no worse than riding a horse - and blasted the decision to upgrade cannabis to a class B drug. He called for all drugs to be ranked by a "harm" index - with cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone the only ones more harmful than alcohol.' I would ask him if would be happier with his daughter riding a horse or taking drugs. He is meant to giving advice not making policy and his comments are most unhelpful and only look at the 'immediate' harm and not the consequent or long-term harm caused by drugs. People die on our roads as a consequence of others taking drugs like Ecstacy whereas very few people die from riding horses on our roads (I know that some do). Legalising hallucegenic drugs could cause untold problems on our roads, in our schools and on the streets. Professor Nutt has exacerbated the problem and all UK poliical parties are for once in agreement about something - he should be sacked.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Submissions are held for review and approval.
Please read the guidelines before posting.

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

Guidelines for comments