There is an adage in the legal profession that you should never ask a question in court unless you already know the answer.
Professor David Nutt, who headed the government's Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse, did not give the desired answers in his report and was sacked as a consequence (your report, 31 October). Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said Prof Nutt "made the m
istake of straying into politics", but he did not; he was invited to give his expert advice by the very people who now reject his findings because they made the simple error of asking a scientist about scientific matters.
The evidence suggests cannabis and ecstasy are safer than tobacco and alcohol, in that many more people die from smoking and drinking than from taking the proscribed drugs, but the issue is one of public perception; tobacco and alcohol are known and accepted while cannabis and ecstasy generally are not. It would therefore be political suicide for the government to accept the findings of its committee and declassify or even legalise these drugs.
As more members of the committee resign in support of Prof Nutt, the government has shown that the practice of appointing an advisory committee of experts is merely an expensive charade designed to rubber-stamp a predetermined position.
WALTER J ALLAN
Colinton Mains Drive
Edinburgh 