Substance Abuse
To: Alan Johnson
CC: Douglas Alexander
Subject: Professor David Nutt
Dear Mr Johnson,
Yesterday I learned that, in your capacity as Secretary of State for the Home Department, you had written to Professor David Nutt, formerly chair of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, in light of comments he made at a lecture at King’s College, London. In this letter, you wrote:
It is important that I can can be confident that the advice from the ACMD will be about matters of evidence.
Your recent comments have gone beyond such evidence and have been lobbying for a change of government policy. This goes against the requirements on general standards of public life required by your position. As chair of the ACMD you can avoid appearing to implicate the Council in your comments and thereby undermining its scientific independence.
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 of the Government’s advisory Council to comment or initiate public debate on the policy framework for drugs. Given this I was surprised and disappointed by your further comments to the press this week.
As Home Secretary, it is for me to make decisions, having received advice from the ACMD. It is vitally important that the public understand the Council’s role and also understand what the government is trying to achieve.
It is important that the government’s messages on drugs are clear and as an advisor you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them.
As my lead advisor on drugs harms I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities.
I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as Chair of the ACMD.
I would therefore ask you to step down from the Council with immediate effect.
You are, of course, correct in your assertion that a coherent message is a vital in order to maintain public understanding. You are also correct, in general terms, that it is not the role of the ACMD nor its Chair to engage in public debate on these issues. However, you are mistaken in your belief that doing so instigates some kind of schism which does not already exist.
As you are of course aware, the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs is a Home Office-funded council made up of highly-regarded experts in their respective fields. Their findings, released periodically, are a matter of public record and being independent in nature may not be entirely coherent with the government’s position at any given point. Indeed, if this were not the case, there would be serious questions raised with respect to the independence of the advice formulated.
Moreover, public debate with respect to the use, in various forms and contexts, of controlled substances has raged for at least as long as these substances have held their status. This public debate undoubtedly helps in shaping official policy, given the democratic nature of our society.
Thanks to the long-term existence of legislation controlling the sale, distribution and use of these substances, much of the debate is framed in terms of anecdotal evidence, opinion and an often well-meaning desire to curb the negative consequences of the misuse of controlled substances.
The one aspect of the debate which is often found to be lacking is informed, expert opinion and evidence-driven conclusions. This is surely vital both in terms of injecting reliable positions into the debate, and in shaping government policy.
The Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs aimed to fill this void, and has done so admirably over the course of the last few years. The advice, reports and conclusions that it has produced have largely been unparalleled in their depth and rigour.
Where you state “I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy”, please allow me to reassure you on one count, at least: there is very little public confusion with respect to the scientific advice surrounding these substances.
Where the public’s confusion does arise, however, is in terms of the marked contrast between expert advice and policy. The public’s expectation is principally that in an area of policy which centres upon the use of a given substance, the scientific advice is the primary guidance for the direction a policy is taken. As a former Secretary of State for Health who has been involved in shaping policies for tobacco, alcohol, and combatting obesity, you are undoubtedly aware of this.
This is not to say, however, that I am naïve enough to believe that policy is solely driven by independent scientific advice; I am well aware that there are other sources of interest which apply to any given debate of this kind. Unfortunately, the weight of evidence in virtually every respect falls against, rather than in favour of, current government policy on drugs. In your role of Home Secretary, I’m sure you will have reviewed this and so it need not be recounted here.
Suffice to say, the significant body of public confusion with respect to drugs policy has little to do Professor Nutt’s comments, and more relates to the fact that government policy is at odds with expert opinion not only in terms of health, but also in economic, social and criminal justice terms.
In other words, the public confusion arises primarily because the government’s current policy seeks to exacerbate, rather than abate, the problems caused by the illicit supply and consumption of controlled substances, and the moves made by your predecessor—the moves criticised by Profession Nutt—reinforced this.
While I recognise the fact that it was your predecessor who held responsibility for the reclassification of Cannabis to which Professor Nutt referred, and that by convention you cannot be held directly responsible for your predecessor’s actions—even if you both form part of the same government—it does not automatically follow that a poor decision made by your predecessor must be reinforced by an equally poor decision by her successor.
As I have long since lost any hope that this government might formulate a policy on drugs and drug-related activities which is based upon the available evidence, there seems to be little value in urging you and your office to review the government’s position in this area, but I shall do so in any case.
I do, however, find it absolutely necessary to express, in the strongest possible terms, my disbelief at the aforementioned letter that you sent to Professor Nutt. Indeed, I find it difficult to consider a demand of resignation of the Chair of an purportedly-independent advisory council because his public airing of honest and considered opinions differs from that of government policy to be anything short of an abhorrent and horrific abuse of the nature by which the ACMD is funded, and—by extension—the Home Office and your position as Home Secretary.
I must therefore request that your next correspondence with Professor Nutt is a letter expressing the government’s apologies and an invitation for him to resume his position of Chair of the ACMD. I appreciate your attention to this matter.
A copy of this letter has been sent to Mr Douglas Alexander MP, in his capacity as my Member of Parliament. You will note that Mr Alexander’s constituency is situated in Paisley, in the West of Scotland; an area by no means unfamiliar with the negative consequences of drug abuse and related criminal activities.
You might therefore, if taken without consideration of the available evidence, find my position which counters that of government policy to be somewhat surprising. I take some comfort in the fact that, as Home Secretary, you will have been appropriately apprised and therefore this will not be the case.
I have also taken the liberty of publishing a copy of this letter on my website, at the following address:
http://nevali.net/post/228853506/substance-abuse
This link should be permanent—as such, you may find it more convenient to circulate it rather than the full text of this letter to your colleagues.
Yours sincerely,
Mo McRoberts.
