Drug body 'fatally flawed', says sacked chairman

Click to follow
Indy Politics

The Government's drug advisory body is "fatally flawed" and should be rebuilt from scratch along the lines of the Bank of England, Professor David Nutt declared today.

Scientists advising politicians on the dangers of drugs should be as independent as the Bank of England officials who decide interest rates, he said.



The scientist at the centre of the drug advice row added that he was taking seriously an anonymous supporter's offer to fund an alternative expert group that would operate without any interference from ministers.



And he said many of his former colleagues on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) could resign en masse when they meet Health Secretary Alan Johnson for crisis talks next Tuesday.



Professor Nutt, who was sacked by Mr Johnson from his job as chairman of the ACMD over controversial remarks about cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD, said when asked about the advisory body's future: "I think it's frankly fatally flawed.



"I think it should be re-formed with a new structure with a much clearer demarcation of the reporting lines. I don't think it should report to a single minister, but to parliament or a panel of ministers.



"We should have a remodelled ACMD along the lines of the Bank of England, which has responsibility for making these decisions outside of government, just as happened with interest rates."



Speaking to an audience of science and medical journalists in London, Professor Nutt stood by the comments that got him into trouble.



He added: "You've got to tell the truth. Of course I have regrets about the way the government has treated me."



Professor Nutt was sacked after views he expressed in a lecture were published in a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London.



He argued that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, and criticised the government's decision to upgrade the legal classification of cannabis from C to B.



One of his most controversial statements was that taking Ecstasy was no more risky than horse riding.

Comments