LIKE DRUNKS IN DENIAL, MPS BLOW OFF TRUTH ABOUT DRUGS

A good friend of mine, an almost lifelong heroin user who, more
recently, has diversified into crack cocaine and therefore requires a
quick blast from an oxygen cylinder before going for a walk, rang me
not so long ago with a warning: "Rod, I'm worried about your
drinking," he said. "You've really got to look after yourself." I
couldn't speak for a few moments, out of incredulity and indignation;
I consume on average half a bottle of wine per day, which is too much,
sure - but to be lectured by a crack-addled skaghead with half a lung
and the facial complexion of that character in Munch's The Scream
seemed, to me, pushing it.

He explained further: "In my profession [he's a rock singer], the
drunks check out in their forties and fifties. We smackheads usually
hold things together for another 20 years more." Colloquially - and
with a few famous exceptions - he was right.

I was reminded of this when reading about the fate of the
unfortunately named Professor Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs, who has just been sacked by the government for
similarly telling the truth. Alan Johnson and the prime minister do
not wish to have an advisory council which actually advises, which
provides objective information that may run counter to what they
believe they can get away with politically. In the drugs debate, the
truth should not be allowed to intervene too often; the truth is
required to mind its Ps and Qs, keep quiet and wait in the hallway
while policy is being decided.

David Nutt had made a few headline-grabbing quotes in an attempt to
re-educate the public and the government about the comparative dangers
of drugs. The first was that ecstasy is less dangerous than
horse-riding, and no more addictive. Regarding the word "addiction" in
its strictly clinical context he is, of course, correct - although
"dependency" is a different issue. But he is also right - so far as I
can work out - on the statistics.

On average 40 people die as a consequence of ecstasy every year; a low
estimate would suggest that 1m tablets are consumed every week. An
estimated 100 people die as a consequence of horse-riding every year;
a very high estimate, based on government figures, suggests that there
are about 600,000 horse rides every week. So horse-riding is easily
the more dangerous leisure option. But, of course, this comparison
produced apoplexy in the right-wing press. One particularly idiotic
columnist in the Daily Mail, dismissing the statistics with an airy
wave of the hand, remarked that nonetheless horse-riding was not
"inherently" dangerous. I think she meant that people who ride horses
tend to speak nicely and have labradors. I can't think what else she
meant by "inherently". Incidentally, taking ecstasy while riding a
horse is exponentially more dangerous, not least for the horse.

Nutt also pointed out the simple fact that cannabis is less dangerous
than tobacco or alcohol, pretty much regardless of the strength of the
dope; nobody disputes this, and nobody disputed it three years ago
when Nutt first made the comparison. But at that point the government
was busy trying to push through its bill to ban the smoking of tobacco
in public places and what is now an unfortunate truth was then a
useful propaganda tool.

I have my own prejudices: I don't like illegal drugs and, except for
my friend mentioned above, I don't like druggies. I have a particular
dislike for the drug of my own milieu, cocaine. I often wonder to what
extent the jabbering, self-obsessed, narcissistic bilge you read in
your daily newspapers is a consequence of several grams of Bolivian
marching powder rammed up the left nostril, and how much because the
writers are simply chemically unenhanced jabbering, self-obsessed
narcissists: a bit of both, I would guess.

But advisers should advise, surely, and be especially commended for doing so
when their advice runs counter to public opinion and gets up the nose, to
use an inapt metaphor, of critics. We have a serious drug problem and the
sacking of Nutt suggests that there is not the remotest political will to
address it.