This is Nutt's

So now two members of the ACMD have resigned in the wake of Prof. Nutt's dismissal by the Home Secretary and it appears that more may follow. A meeting is slated for the 10th November, where remaining members will consider their position, with noises emerging that some of the council at least are aiming to bring this forward. Mark Easton's excellent BBC blog on the topic is as good a starting point as any for anyone wanting to catch up on the issues at hand. Should we expect more resignations? If Alan Johnson continues to regale the nation with his intelligence and sagacity it seems likely.

This may just be a storm in a teacup - not wishing to bring caffeine into the debate on drug harms - or it may be the final straw for some scientists. The UK government's recent history is replete with examples of expert advice being ignored or the issue being pre-judged before the advice even comes in; BSE, Ecstasy, Cannabis, WMD even the recent Cambridge Primary Review on primary education in England. That review was largely rejected out of hand by the government in October but didn't make nearly the headlines we are seeing this weekend. Of course primary school education hardly makes for such juicy column inches as the drug debate.

I don't suppose many would argue the point that Prof. Nutt seems quite comfortable in the limelight but has he strayed into the realm of policy making? Certainly not in as clear cut a way as the Home Secretary would have us believe. The 'sacking letter' is in the public domain and makes for quite interesting reading.

A couple of the points made in the letter are particularly noteworthy. "Your recent comments have gone beyond such evidence and have been lobbying for a change of government policy". This is blatantly inaccurate and begs the question whether Mr Johnson understands the debate or is simply lying. Let's be charitable and assume he is lying, since he is a politician and that is after all in the job description - at least in the public perception and that is one of the primary concerns in this whole issue.

"When you wrote previously around the relative harms of drugs comparing ecstasy with the risks of horse riding my predecessor made clear that it is not the job of the Chair.. to comment or initiate a public debate on the policy framework for drugs." I think most are familiar with the ecstasy / horse riding comparison - certainly the media seize on this quote in every article written on the subject to the point of tedium. It's certainly an emotive statement but how else is a scientist to get any media attention in this sensationalist age? However it is in no way related to the policy framework for drugs. Another lie?

Then a series of wonderful statements about the public understanding of the council's role, the government's clear message on drugs and avoiding public confusion between scientific advice and policy.

The general public understanding of the council's role, certainly in the wake of this fiasco, would seem to be that it is there to provide legitimacy to the government's position and not undermine it with inconveniences like scientific evidence. The government's message on drugs is so clear that they have taken cannabis through two classification changes within a few years, the second running against the weight of scientific evidence and advice. It's certainly clear that alcohol and tobacco are left out of the debate on drug harms and equally clear that the goverment depends on a massive income from taxation on these drugs. It's understandable that some confusion could arise in the public's mind between scientific advice and government policy given the goverment tendency to ignore such expert advice without any explanation or justification, let alone a rational one.

That isn't the only letter Mr Johnson has written on the issue though, he also sent one to the Guardian in which he made the following bewildering statement: "As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point. There are not many kids in my constituency in danger of falling off a horse – there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction."

I'm not even sure where to start with this one. Prof. Nutt's point in question is undoubtedly emotionally charged and may even be politically motivated but to say it is not scientific smacks of foolishness. I'm quite sure there is evidence to back up his assertions and equally confident he could quote the relevant statistics. After deriding the point as non-scientific Mr Johnson then goes on to make the most unscientific and irrelevant statement I have seen in this whole debate. "Not many" is hardly a relevant scientific sample and "thousands" is little better. As for the phrase "at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction" I can only admire the poetry and wordplay. Clearly Mr Johnson is not the fool this statement may otherwise make him appear, or perhaps his leaning is heavily to the arts rather than the sciences. In any case Prof. Nutt is roundly outdone for emotional and political manipulation with this statement.

I actually laughed when I read it. No doubt many will nod their heads and fret over drug-crazed fiends up and down the nation destroying their own lives and those of others. Never mind that there is no evidence to suggest ecstasy, or indeed cannabis, is addictive. We also shouldn't get caught up on the fact that there is no real evidence to support the concept of a 'gateway drug' or be distracted by the demonstrably low relative risk of ecstasy or cannabis. To do so would only detract from the government's clear message on drugs. If this story and the background behind it have taught us anything, it is that such scientific evidence has no place in government policy making or in the public debate the government would like to foster on such issues.