Was Johnson's drug gaffe actually a calculated move?

"Even Alan Johnson must know that his sacking of David Nutt was a mistake," says Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. If he wanted to look tough, he should have ignored Professor Nutt and "not pretended that an academic lecture on drug classification constituted a 'public campaign' against him".

A wise minister would have "raised an eyebrow" at the results of research that show that ecstasy was no more dangerous than horse riding and that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and done no more, agrees The Independent. But this is not a wise government and instead Johnson has "made a martyr of the man".

That he has, says Richard Ford in The Times. So far, two members of Professor Nutt's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have resigned over the sacking of their chairman and the 28 remaining members may follow suit. The affair has also led scientists to question the government's wider commitment to the independence of external scientific advisers. Scientists now "want assurances that they will remain free to set their agenda and speak freely about their research and findings".

Subscribe to MoneyWeek

Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Get 6 issues free

Sign up to Money Morning

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Sign up

You can't blame them, says The Times. The fact is that Professor Nutt was sacked not for one speech that crossed the line into politics, but for the repeated refusal of the government's advisers to "fall into line with its political position". The government keeps asking its advisers whether it might be a good idea to reclassify cannabis as a more harmful drug. To its annoyance, those advisers keep saying no.

So why not just ignore them? asks Dominic Lawson in The Independent. It wouldn't be the first time the government hasn't taken the advice of its scientific advisers. It is "the right of politicians to be political" and consider the electorate's views when deciding policy, "just as doctors need to be medical".

Johnson now "looks ridiculous", but maybe he wanted the scrap all along. By sacking Professor Nutt he guaranteed a "monumental row" and thus created the impression that the government is 'tough on drugs'; "one of the three headlines that New Labour has craved above all".