Chris

Which probably means you share the scientists' attitude to the issue.

There are a number of ways of looking at this, and to be fair, David Nutt and all of the various Labour politicians who have been wheeled out to address the issue over the weekend have acknowledged it in some form or other.

Nutt has made a scientific point, that in his considered opinion, based on his evaluation of the evidence, the illegal drugs he mentioned are less dangerous than some legal ones. Government policy, on the other hand, makes a political point, which by necessity takes in a broader view of the issue than cold hard scientific data about the relative toxicity of cannabis and tobacco, or ecstasy and alcohol.

The only thing that really makes me cross about this is our current administration's craven terror of honest, open discussion. Nutt should be free to have his say, regardless of what unpaid work he may do on behalf of the Government. It's not as if they've even bought his silence (which actually begs the question, can they really 'sack' him anyway, or can they merely decide not to ask his opinion any more?). The Government has made policy after weighing scientific evidence against the attitudes of society towards drugs. If that's what they want to do - and I believe that is the right thing for them to do - then they need to be honest about it.

Johnson could have handled this in a far more grown up manner. He could have acknowledged Nutt's views and then gone on to state that he believes there's a place in the debate for notions of shared community morality that sit alongside data about what is more or less harmful for an individual to ingest. But he didn't - instead he decided to play power politics, tried to slap his opponent down and in the process simply made himself and his Government colleagues look like they're somehow afraid of the truth.