Hard Nutt to crack: do we want an evidence-based drugs policy?

When David Nutt was sacked as the government’s chief drugs tsar for questioning its policies on drug classification, it seemed like another case of expertise being sacrificed by cowardly politicians. Alan Johnson’s decision to remove Nutt for ‘campaigning against government policy’ led two other advisers to resign in protest, and nearly caused a mass rebellion of scientists. For some, Nutt has been punished for merely confirming what many already suspect: that illegal drugs are not as harmful as their legal counterparts such as alcohol and nicotine, and that drug policy is underpinned by moral concerns and tabloid appeal rather than scientific evidence.

Some commentators argue, however, that in a democracy it’s politicians who are elected to made decisions and not their scientific advisors. Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with politicians basing judgement on morality. Meanwhile, Nutt’s supporters point out the government is only happy to use scientific evidence when it suits them.

What lies behind the rise of evidence-based policy-making? Is it a more mature, scientific and reasoned approach to important questions, which transcends petty party politics and personal opinion? Or does this represent a dangerous retreat from politics as a contest of ideas and an attempt by politicians to outsource responsibility? And what would a progressive 21st century drugs policy look like?