Johnson right to sack Nutt, even if he’s wrong on cannabis policy
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, is under pressure after sacking a top drugs adviser. The advisor, Professor David Nutt, accused Mr Johnson of playing politics with cannabis classification because he chose to go against expert advice that the drug should be classified as a Class C drug, not the more serious Class B.
Mr Johnson sacked Professor Nutt, and now some of Nutt’s colleagues advising the government on drugs policy have resigned or are threatening to do so.
A lot of people are criticising the Home Secretary, and obviously I don’t normally pass up the opportunity where I think it’s merited. But on this occasion I think Mr Johnson is perfectly within his rights, and that Professor Nutt overstepped his remit and deserved to go.
This isn’t an issue of cannabis classification, but one of the role of advisers versus the role of government ministers. Lots of people think that cannabis should be a Class C drug, or even that it should be legalised. The scientific view (of Professor Nutt and his colleagues, but not of all scientists, not even of all drug expert ones) is that a Class B classification is too harsh, given the relative harm that the drug does compared to others. But in the end, the classification of drugs is the role of ministers, not anyone else, including expert scientists.
Whether it is right or wrong for this to be the case is not the argument. For now, rightly or wrongly, the roles of ministers and advisers is clear. Advisers advise, and ministers decide.
Professor Nutt is right to accuse Alan Johnson of politicising cannabis. It is a political issue, and Mr Johnson is a politician who must balance the science of cannabis with wider policy aims. Despite scientific fact and the opinions of many, there are lots and lots of people who want cannabis classified at Class B. If that classification, and the wider social policy it is part of, doesn’t work, then come election time we can vote on it. Unelected advisers, whether they be scientists, criminologists or anyone else, are simply there to give advice. There is nothing to compel ministers to take that advice. If Professor Nutt wants his advice acted on each and every time, then he should stand for election and win. If he thinks he has the power to change broad policy just because he’s an expert in a particular field, he dangerously blurs roles.
I don’t think that the criticism of Mr Johnson is motivated by a respect for science. I think it’s motivated by a dislike for the government.
Sometimes the government has taken on board scientific advice and got pilloried for it. For instance, over environmental issues, where the government has been criticised for taxing fuel and flying, and for acting to ban traditional lightbulbs. There is a compelling scientific need for action to change behaviour to halt climate change, yet there is criticism that trying to change behaviour is government interference or nannying. Sometimes governments are pressed to act despite expert evidence pointing out that they’re right not to. On prisons policy, for instance. Here, governments have been consistently lobbied to increase prison sentencing for minor offences, despite a large body of evidence showing that they don’t work. The government is not beyond criticism for either of these two policy areas – their environmental policy is missing the public transport improvements necessary to make fuel tax fairer, and the criminal justice system is still a revolving door. I am just using those two areas as examples of how expert evidence, government policy and public opinion sometimes conflict, and that that conflict happens in different directions each time.
I am a Liberal Democrat, and I think that the government’s approach to drugs is wrong. On this occasion though, I think that it is Professor Nutt who has overstepped the mark, not Mr Johnson. Ministers set policy, so that we can vote them in or out for doing so. The day that unelected advisers think that they set policy, no matter how informed their advice, is not a good day.
Rick
9 Comments
have your say
I don’t buy your argument against professor Nutt.
He should be able to speak on the subject independantly of the government - they ask him to provide expertise and he does (for free), that shouldn’t prevent him from speaking on the subject : he’s a professor and it’s a relevent topic.
He *should* be talking about these subjects, and if that subject touches politics and he doesn’t claim to be speaking on behalf of the DMAC then that’s dandy.
No, I don’t buy your argument, sorry.
If an expert is hired as a government adviser (at considerable benefit to his career prospects, the likelihood of his being ennobled etc), he is automatically prevented from speaking independently. His job has become to advise the government.
You can’t advise the government and publicly oppose the government at the same time on the same thing.
If he wants to be an independent expert, he should stay independent. It’s unrealistic to expect someone to give advice as an appointed adviser, then give an opinion as someone independent, then give some more advice as an appointed adviser again.
Funny though - whilst the Home Secretary appoints members, the ACMD is an “independent advisory body” under the Act.
It is also charged under the act not merely with responding when the Home Office or some other government body wants advice on something specific but with a more general role of continually monitoring the effectiveness of the operation of the Act.
Personally, I think there is in fact a case the other way around. If the Act felt that ministers were insufficiently expert to make decisions without independent experts then it is questionable that decisions taken contrary to their own independent advisers’ recommendations are within the spirit of the Act.
Richard,
Gordon Brown is on record as saying this: “It is the message you send out. Why I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about is that we don’t want to send out a message, just like with alcohol, to teenagers that we accept these things.” He is also on record as saying that cannabis is “lethal”.
On the first comment… is the Government cracking down on, or banning alchohol? Or did the Government introduce 24 hour licensing? And if the Government (or Brown) want to make cannabis a drug we should “worry about” more, then they should tell us what it is about cannabis that we should be worrying about. The personal opinions of anybody (whoever they might be), do not constitute acceptable reasons for legislation. Public opinion and solid facts are.
It is not true to say that, come an election, we can vote either for or against. Unless you know of a mainstream political party, which is likely to form a Government, which takes a different position on this issue.
On the second comment… the Government has a Scientific Advisory Panel, to advise on Cannabis, and its’ effects. I am not aware of a single scientist, anywhere in the world, who has even come close to suggesting that cannabis is “lethal”. (Unless of course, you are collecting it from a plant growing halfway up a cliff.) There are some known scientific facts about cannabis - such as how effective it is as a pain-killer. Apart from a few half-baked theories, I am not aware of any scientific reports which authoritatively suggest that cannabis is any more dangerous than alcohol. Do you?
Professor Nutt “went public” after being sacked - not before. And to suggest that anybody is on an advisory panel simply because they might be ennobled is simply wrong, and is quite frankly, offensive.
More importantly, what is the point of a crack (’scuse the pun) team of scientists advising the Government, when the Government then ignores the scientific advice?
When does policy become dogma?
David Blunkett downgraded cannabis to Class C some years ago. Since then, according to official Government figures, cannabis usage has gone down. I think that upgrading it to Class B will not stop cannabis usage, but it will make it more expensive, and difficult to obtain. And who benefits from that? The drug dealers, bless ‘em.
It seems that the Government is hell-bent on making a substance which, according to most scientific research, is less harmful that than both alcohol and cigarettes, a commodity to be marketed in seedy back alleys, for no clear or logical reason.
In my humble opinion, cannabis should not only be left at Class C, it should be totally legalised. After all, it is always within the power of Government to make it illegal again - although I doubt that, if they do legalise cannabis, anybody will notice any difference whatsoever. I fear that this totally blinkered approach to a completely invented problem is a classic example of the nanny state in action.
It’s legal in Amsterdam - and there ain’t been no problems there!!
Simples!
Jock - I don’t think so. I would think that unless explicitly stated otherwise, it’s implicit in any act of parliament that parliament itself is empowered to make decisions related to that act.
Spurs Man - my post wasn’t about the merits, contradictions or otherwise of the government’s policy on drugs and alcohol. That may be for another day. It was about the fact that an issue of ministerial responsibility was wrongly being smudged into an issue of the merits of drug policy.
I wasn’t suggesting that Professor Nutt was advising to get a Peerage. However, the first comment on this post, from Liberal Provocateur, said that he was doing it for free, and I was pointing out that there may well be other rewards on offer for some government advisers.
Richard,
Whilst you are right to say that your comments are not about the merits of cannibis legalisation (specifically), it is about the art and practice of good government. Are you seriously suggesting that this whole row is anything more than a situation where experts in the field, when asked for their professional opinion, say things that the Government would prefer not to hear? This is a blatant example of dogma overriding the facts.
You do say that it is about “ministerial responsibility”. Are ministers not responsible for listening to, and acting upon, the professional advice they request, or at least giving a comprehensive and coherent explanation of why not?
In your original comment, you state ” advisers advise, and ministers decide”. Quite right - Professor Nutt has outlined the basis of his advice, but Alan Johnson has yet to outline the basis of his decision.
And by the way, a bunch of scientists sitting in a room, being ignored by the Government who put them there, won’t get “enobled” - they’ll just get fed up, and walk away.
Experts in the field have given their view, yes. That’s fine.
Ministers have listened, but decided not to take on board the expert recommendations. It is not true to say that Alan Johnson hasn’t explained his decision. He has said that he thinks Cannabis is a harmful drug which could lead to serious illness, and which is part of a wider and much more harmful culture of other drugs. Whether you or I agree with that is another matter.
Professor Nutt appears to think that his views should automatically become law, and has got fed up when this hasn’t happened. He’s misunderstood his role and overestimated his influence.
Question: If the Government legislates only on what it “thinks” are the pertinent facts, what is the point of the advisory panel?
Government based on opinions rather than sound advice, especially when the Government itself appoints the body advising, is not good Government.
Question: Is it not good that an advisory panel, put there by Government, is demonstrably NOT a puppet of Government?
When an independent body gives its’ advice, it should be free to speak about what its’ conclusions are. Otherwise, the word “independent” has no meaning.
Question: When does policy become dogma?
Answer:
I think the government legislates on all the pertinent facts, but chooses to give more weight to some than others when they conflict. For instance here, where the fact of cannabis’ harmlessness relative to alcohol is weighed against the fact that people using cannabis is more harmful than them not using it. The point of the advisory panel is to give advise in their area of expertise i.e. the scientific evidence of cannabis’ harm. There may well be another advisory panel, made up say of criminologists, who give advice that is completely different to the scientists’ advice. What to do then?
Government is based on sound advice AND opinion. There are few certainties and even fewer easy answers when making policy. Seeking advice and then choosing what to do with it is exactly what good democratic government is.
Answer:
The fact that the advisory panel gives the government advice it clearly doesn’t like shows that it is NOT a puppet.
An independent body should be free to speak about its conclusions. Nobody has denied Professor Nutt this freedom of speech. However, as a government advisor he is NOT independent of government. His advice might be impartially reached, but he cannot independently advise government and also criticise government at the same time. He is clearly no longer impartial.
If Professor Nutt wants to speak his mind on drugs, he can. As he is now doing, independently of any role in the government. If he wanted to remain advising the government, he should have kept his opposition private, and voiced it as loudly as he wanted in the meetings he had with the Home Secretary.
Answer:
Dogma is a belief system held by an organisation, based on evidence that that organisation believes.
So I suppose all policy is dogma!
If you don’t believe it, vote for someone else. That’s democracy.