Dear Gordon,

Dear Gordon Brown,

With interest and sadness i read over the weekend that you have seen fit to dismiss your chief drug advisor, Professor David Nutt.

Now, i can honestly say i don't have the first idea how to run this country, which puts you and me on a level pegging. I do know however, that the sacking of a government advisor for doing his job puts us into frightening territory.

I know Mr Nutt is not adverse to making headlines. I remember the time he declared that taking Ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse. He rightly pointed out there were 100 deaths a year from horseriding compared to 30 deaths a year from taking Ecstasy. Do you not see that Mr Nutt only meant this statistically, and didn't deserve the dressing down he got from your valued ex-Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, for that comment?
It's no different to when people come out with ' Flying by plane is the safest form of travel '.
It is.
Statistically.
But i've had 3 car crashes and walked out of every one. I think if i'd endured 3 plane crashes, i wouldn't be here now. This makes air travel very dangerous indeed. I'm sure you can figure it out. The papers tell me you're bright so i have faith that you can, but i applaud you for your ability at keeping your intelligence well hidden.

I feel the need to firstly say why it was wrong to sack Professor Nutt. He was employed by your government to advise you on drugs. It is then down to your government to decide whether or not to take that advice. He was not there to tell you to do this or that. Not too long ago he recommended cannabis should not be reclassified from Class C to Class B. Both yourself and Jacqui Smith ignored his advice on that, and you and your new-though-no-less-incompetent Home Secretary Alan Johnson could have done so with this too.

Scientists are there to carry out and provide the results of studies and experiments. Science is the quest for knowledge but rather than point out where they're right, most scientists try to prove themselves wrong and in doing so, gain the knowledge they desire.
What you were given by Nutt et al, was the result of a study. The study was based on three factors: the drug's addictive potential, it's possible damage to the user, and it's affect on society.
Sounds like an experiment an A level student could have come up with to me. The study showed various legal drugs were considered more harmful than some that are freely available now.

Up to this point, i see no sackable offence. I see an interesting piece of work that you and your associates could have read and learned from.
I know lots of people addicted to tobacco. I also know a few who, whether they know it or not, are addicted to alcohol. I have lots of friends that have taken LSD, Ecstasy and Amphetamines. I don't know anyone addicted to any of these drugs.

If history is correct, LSD was used by the CIA in thought experiments, and it was also tried as a truth serum. Due to it being colourless, odourless and relatively tasteless, it made it the drug of choice to 'spike' someone's drink with, and the CIA spent a few months spiking their own men to see if anyone could tell they'd been spiked before the drug kicked in.
They couldn't and for a while it showed promise as a theraputic agent. It was 5 times more successful than Alcoholics Anonymous for treating people addicted to alcohol. Only when the drug was 'abused' by the great unwashed did it become illegal to carry and use.
LSD addictions are extremely rare, the chances of an LSD user harming you while on a trip are next to none as any bad trips usually result in the user being more scared of their surroundings than showing aggression towards them, and since the drug is cheap, it's damage to society by potential addicts is minimal.

I don't feel i have to address other drugs in that manner, and point out how the same could not be said of tobacco and alcohol, as these two drugs alone put a bigger strain on the NHS than any LSD user could.

My opinion changes regularly on whether or not drugs should be legalised.
I am sure though, that a person's body is their own, to do with what they please. If they choose to fill it with drugs or poisons to achieve a desired effect it is their business to do so.
I'm assuming if they stroll to McDonald's and purchase and eat a takeaway, this does not upset Alan Johnson. Yet eating McDonald's everyday is bad for you. Some say fast food is addictive too. It is something addictive that is bad for you. Some scientists (those people that don't know what they're talking about) say we're in an obesity epidemic. Gluttony is making our citizens quite ill and also applying more pressure on the NHS. Perhaps this problem needs addressing too?
A drug's potential damage to the user is simply this: none of your damn business.

Ecstasy stimulates serotonin levels in the brain. It gets inside the receptor and vacuums out the stuff, giving the user an intense feeling of euphoria and well being. If someone strives for such a mindset, surely it is fine that they go out and seek it? In Britain under a Labour government there is precious little to be happy about. If one cannot find joy at home, joy can be forced upon people with MDMA. For only 3 pounds a pill, and an effect that lasts most of the night, i fail to see how this can be damaging to society. People walking around feeling 'loved up' can only be a good thing in some towns. Nutt wanted Ecstasy reclassified from a Class A drug to Class B. This was also turned down.

Heroin and Cocaine. People steal to feed addiction to these drugs. People die from overdosing on these drugs. Ask a Heroin user what their first thought is in the morning, and it's more than likely 'How the fuck am i going to make it through today?'. It is right that Prof. Nutt put these two drugs at the top of his 'Most Dangerous' list. If you agree with this also, perhaps you might entertain the idea that he was right with the rest of his findings too.

As i mentioned before, the idea that you sack someone for not 'fitting in' to your ideals puts us into frightening territory.
You're either with us or against us, right?
I have a word for that: totalitarian. Which according to a dictionary, means a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

From totalitarian it's only a hop skip and a back hander to communism, which is the frightening place i refer to.

Professor David Nutt produced a study you and your government didn't like the results of, so you did away with him and will fill his slippers with someone who will fit in with your line of thinking.

'The Home Secretary's action is a bad day for science and a bad day for the cause of evidence-informed policy making'. So says the director of the centre for crime and justice.
I couldn't have put it better myself, so i won't.

Yours in tired disbelief,

Steve Eaton
Aged 33 and a half