Drug Tsars - 2 simple truths

Much has been said about the sacking of Professor Nutt from his role as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I want simply to make two observations.

Firstly, that it is not the government's role to tell an individual how to use their spare time. We own our bodies (surely?) and so should be allowed to do what we want with them.

If I want to cause myself harm I should be allowed to.

I completely accept that causing myself harm on a regular basis is a poor life choice. It is a poor life choice that I should be at liberty to indulge.

J. S. Mill's harm principle seems pertinent:
'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign... The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. '

Drug taking is like drinking alcohol or telling lies to friends: not ideal, particularly in excess, but none of the state's business.

Secondly, a debate must centre on the facts so as to provide a coherent policy. I've yet to hear a politician from the Labour or Conservative parties provide a coherent facts-based argument as to why certain drugs should be prohibited.

I've never heard one argue why alcohol and tobacco should be treated differently to other drugs, when the science says they are more dangerous than illegal drugs like ecstasy and LSD.

I've heard an awful lot of emotive language about drugs wrecking lives and communities, but never seen a study to support this. It's a big claim. One that is almost certainly wrong. Drugs may act as an accelerant to social decay but it is never the cause.

Evidence-based policy is necessary.