What they are saying about the sacking of Prof Nutt

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has fired Professor David Nutt, the country’s top drug adviser, after the scientist claimed that cannabis and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol, and said that the Government's decision to upgrade cannabis to a Class B drug was wrong. Since then, both Dr Les King and Marion Walker have quit the 31-strong drugs advisory panel chaired by Nutt, and others are expected to quit too, possibly en masse.

Prof Nutt says: "It seems unlikely that any 'true' scientist - one who can only speak the truth - will be able to work for this, or future, Home Secretaries." The Home Secretary says Nutt "crossed the line" and cannot be expected to advise the government and campaign against it at the same time.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING
Jackie Ashley, the Guardian: "The trouble is that independent experts tend to be, well, independent. They have minds of their own. They are accustomed to being outspoken in their areas of expertise. They also expect, when giving advice, that the advice will be taken. Now, however, they find they are entering a minefield criss-crossed by machine gun fire…Result? The minister finds that, far from buying in some outside authority, he has landed himself with a Frankenstein monster who needs to be put down. And the brought-in expert discovers that far from being listened to, he keeps being shouted at for mysterious 'mistakes'."

Bruce Anderson, the Independent: "Until the 1960s, our legal system was overshadowed by pre-libertarian theories of the state, which criminalised breaches of Christian morality and started from the assumption that governments were entitled to regulate the private behaviour of adults. As that has all gone over the past few decades, what theory of the state now permits governments to prohibit adults from taking drugs? There is only one intellectually respectable answer to that question: none."

Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail: "As the Home Secretary said yesterday, it is for an adviser to advise and a minister to decide. An adviser cannot then step into the public field and campaign against government decisions. Just suppose the chief adviser on education, say, were to campaign against tuition fees; or the adviser on climate change were to attack the government for reducing carbon emissions because the effects of global warming had been exaggerated. They would be out on their ear - and the commentators now screaming about 'freedom of speech' would be the first to applaud."

Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph: "Government ministers believe that the public will not accept anything that looks like they are being soft on a particular drug, especially the most widely used variety. This is simply not true. A YouGov poll, one of the largest surveys conducted in this country on drugs policy… showed that most people would be happy to see the personal use of cannabis decriminalised or penalties for its possession lowered to the status of a parking fine." ·