BACKING FOR DRUG EXPERT'S REVOLT

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis and Ecstasy -
this was the controversial view that cost the Government's chief drug
adviser Professor David Nutt his job. Here Darren Devine asks whether
Professor Nutt is a dangerous radical trivialising harmful substances
or an expert who has paid a high price for highlighting the hypocrisy
at the heart of Government drugs policy.

WHEN professor David Nutt said horse riding or "equasy" was as
dangerous as taking the class-A drug Ecstasy it put him on an
inevitable collision course with his political masters.

The scientist and then chair of the Government's Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) said he was trying to question why society
tolerates some potentially harmful behaviours but not others, such as
drug use.

He argued "equasy" could be blamed for 10 deaths a year and more than
100 traffic accidents.

His article in a scientific journal produced a backlash from drugs
hard-liners opposed to any reform, with then Home Secretary Jacqui
Smith ordering him to apologise.

And when he continued to campaign for the Government's drugs
classification system to be replaced with an index of harm current
Home Secretary Alan Johnson decided enough was enough.

Within his index of harm the professor, who has four children aged 18
to 26 - more than one of whom has confessed to taking drugs - wanted
alcohol and tobacco ranked higher than cannabis and Ecstasy.

Amidst the threat of mass resignations from ACMD and the announcement
of a review of its functions Mr Johnson decided the scientist could
not continue being both a "government adviser and a campaigner against
government policy".

But within Wales there is sympathy for the professor's position.

Chief executive of South Wales drugs charity Kaleidoscope Martin
Blakebrough said Professor Nutt was right to suggest alcohol and
tobacco are more harmful than cannabis and Ecstasy.

Despite concerns over the binge-drinking culture Mr Blakebrough said
the Government has liberalised the country's alcohol laws with 24-hour
licensing.

The 47-year-old believes this is because the industry is estimated to
be worth ?28bn to the British economy and makes a hefty contribution
to the Treasury's annual tax take.

Mr Blakebrough, who served on the ACMD with Professor Nutt for nine
years between 1998 and 2007, said: "We need to have tougher laws in
relation to alcohol because this Government has seen a reduction in
the price of alcohol and has extended the licensing hours. It's done
everything to facilitate the alcohol industry in every way it could.

"And they've always got away with pretending they're tough on drugs
and the causes of crime while practically being in league with the
alcohol industry.

"On a Friday night in Newport what's the biggest problem - people
shooting heroin up their arms, or getting drunk and urinating in the
streets and shouting and attacking people?

"I think most people would say alcohol is our biggest problem."

But Mr Blakebrough said Professor Nutt has "wanted to be a martyr"
through his protests against Government policy and should have
resigned before he was sacked.

He believes as chair of ACMD he had a duty to look beyond his own
professional perspective and take "collective responsibility" for the
committee's position.

He added: "He has continued to make the point that it was a stupid
decision by the Government (to reclassify cannabis as a class B
instead of a class C drug) but remained as their chief adviser.

"And that is inconsistent. He can argue he's a scientist, but he was
head of a committee that included people from the police and drugs
services and he had a responsibility to look beyond his own
professional discipline."

But Clive Wolfendale, chief executive of Welsh drug and alcohol agency
CAIS, suggested if the Government was going to appoint scientific
advisers it had a duty to listen to them.

The 51-year-old former deputy chief constable of North Wales said:
"The whole issue is ripe for an independent Royal Commission to look
at the science, look at the risks, examine the issues of legality and
point a way forward for the next 30 years.

"It's about 40 years now since the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act and it's
probably run its course in terms of setting a platform for setting a
sensible way forward."

Mr Wolfendale, who during his 34 years as a policeman spent much of
his time investigating drug-related gang warfare in Manchester, said
there is little doubt that alcohol and tobacco are "very damaging
drugs of misuse".

"If it wasn't for the fact they've been around for centuries then
they'd be categorised in the way narcotics are now."

Mr Wolfendale said though he would be against a "free for all" by
legalising all drugs, ways of taking the supply of narcotics out of
the hands of "evil" dealers must be looked at.

"Because of the way the thing's set up there's a huge incentive for
very evil people to make huge amounts of money out of peddling other
people's misery.

"So what we end up with is a small number of very evil, very rich drug
dealers and thousands and thousands of victims.

"While I'm not in favour of a free-for-all on drugs policy we need to
look at other ways of controlling the supply rather than handing the
entire business over to evil criminals."

One Ecstasy and cannabis user from Newport, who did not wish to be
named, believes Professor Nutt lost his job for daring to tell the
truth about drugs.

The 25-year-old man, who has been a user for seven years, said: "I've
had friends who have had major accidents through the use of alcohol,
and tobacco-related illness is a well documented fact.

"The only death you can have from cannabis is if it falls on you from
a great height, but I understand there's an inherent health risk for
people who smoke tobacco with cannabis."