Was home secretary Alan Johnson justified in sacking his drugs adviser David Nutt? (Poll Closed)

Dr Nutt's comments were unscientific and inaccurate. He was not comparing like with like. If ecstasy was being used as widely in society as alcohol the damage would be considerably more. The same applies to cannabis.

I dispute the previous comment by Mr Cox. They are all substances people use for the effect they produce, but some are legal and others not. Cannabis and ecstasy do not kill people, the way that alcohol and tobacco do. And alcohol is involved in many more violent or lethal incidents than is cannabis.

I think this whole issue is summed up by the articulate and dignified way that Prof Nutt expressed his position and the clear opposition that this Government has in relation to views which do not fit with their moral position. Evidence base when it suits. Shoot the messenger when it doesn't.

If I was Johnson, I would have sacked the Nutter long back. How can he say alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, heist be a nut

Praveen, you are showing your prejudice. Professor Nutt has looked at the evidence, and it is not really that surprising that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. Have you worked in A&E? When was the last time you saw someone in A&E who got in a fight or fell over because they had smoked too much cannabis? And plenty do smoke cannabis.

There is so much propaganda surrounding the drugs issue, and that is why the young don't trust most authority figures - because they usually lie or are hypocrits. Bill Clinton and David Cameron smoked cannabis, and my gosh its amazing they didn't end up as heroin addicts hey? Have you considered that alcohol consumption is generally found in christian countries? If the bible didn't say that Jesus turned water into wine it may be that alcohol would historically have been banned in many countries too. Let go of prejudice and look at the evidence. I think the sacking of Nutt rather than silencing him has raised the profile of this issue even more, so lets have a grown up debate.

One can only comment from the few bits of information that have been divulged in the meda. However, based on that, it seems to me that the government were considering many more issues than scientific evidence as to the danger of death or of health impairment when they re-classified the drug. I think this IS appropriate in the context of government, but is probably a technical misuse of the classification. I think the importance of the wider social impacts of cannabis and the fact that it is now, with E and other drugs, being taken in a milieu of increasing substance abuse, and particularly in the young is a highly significant social factor that can not be ignored. Neither can we ignore the impact of it as regards childrens' learning, which has a much longer term and wider social impact that may well not show when simply using medical and scientific criteria. It is sad that Professor Nutt seems to have no appreciation of this and taken such a decision as a personal insult. I also think it is worth pointing out that just because alcohol and tobacco are extremely deleterious, it doesn't mean we should be less vigorous in trying to reduce the use of others that are trying to match their level of usage. I find Professor Nutt's insistence on repeatedly telling everyone they are 'scientifically more dangerous' unhelpful and narrow-sighted in the broader context

If we have to go by the statistics of people who fill the hospital beds to prevent accidental death as a result of alcohol withdrawal symptoms which can be dangerous and life threatening, I will go with Professor Nutts but if we examine the long term effect of other illicit substances especially the class A Drugs then he is wrong

What a missed opportunity - cannabis could have been legalised and taxed thus solving much of the economic problem as well as rationalising the use of this drug in a similar way to alcohol. I agree with Dr Nutt - all are harmful but there should not be criminalisation of one and free use of another.

All this debate about the relative harm of cannabis as compared to alcohol, or vice versa, is beside the issue. The core issue is that one should not be fired from his/her job because they expressed their opinion, especially when that opinion is supported by objective evidence.

Sometimes common sense and the general good of the society overwhelms scientific data. I wonder how Prof Nutt will feel if his family member would opt for cannabis rather that alcohol because daddy says so.