Scientists in several disciplines related to policy are likely to ensure this does not go away.

On tuesday the other twenty eight members of the Drugs Advisory will be meeting. They have not determined if they will be resigning en masse. It is viewed by many as a reasonable response to political interference.

The report on polydrug addiction (where people are addicted to multiple drugs and so response needs to be to all drugs and not one at a time) seems as though it may be shelved for lack of scientists.

To quote: "If your policy is informed by an underlying moral imperative, be open about what that is, and do not try to disguise it with veneer of pseudo-science."
Professor Nutt (New Scientist 7 Nov 2009)

Scientists not only help to form drug policy in relation to "illegal" drugs but also in relation to commercial drugs. Without scrutiny from scientists, drug policy will become a mixture of commercial and political considerations. While this might suit a range of activists, it will likely result in vitamins (as contained in food) being classified as drugs. Many health food shops will be affected as a result.

While a sensible drug policy is probably something that lots of people can campaign for, supporting scientists is not so popular. Without scientists being persuaded of progressive and radical ideas the future of the planet is a little more bleak.

The Drug Equality Alliance (DEA) is a UK based not for profit organisation whose purpose is to transform the "War on some people who use some Drugs" from its subjective historical and cultural roots into a rational and objective legal regulatory framework that secures equal rights and equal protection to all those who are concerned with dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs.

Spread the meme of drug equality for it lies at the heart of Government's failure to implement drug law via "a balanced strategy focused on outcomes, based on evidence and delivered through partnership". Drug discrimination is the implementation of drug law based on a false distinction between familiar drugs property, used, traded and preferred by the electoral majority, and unfamiliar drugs property, used, traded and preferred by minorities, rather than distinguishing the objective risk potential presented by different drugs when consumed by humans and regulating accordingly. That is drug equality!

 http://www.freecasey.org

The trouble for the tidy-minded who want a "rational" policy is that the law is heavily shaped by historical and cultural factors; we cannot start from scratch.

If we were starting from scratch and someone brought back a leaf that the American indians were smoking that would kill a large proportion of its users (tobacco) it is highly unlikely it would ever be made legal. However as tobacco has been in general use for several centuries only the most draconian would suggest banning it. Similar with alcohol.

Once a drug becomes generally accepted and very widely used it becomes impossible to prohibit, even if it is dangerous. That is the danger of legalising presently illegal drugs - once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back in even if you realise you've made a mistake.

I definitely agree with this action!

To supplement the movement for reinstating Prof. Nutt there's a petition calling for fundamental reform of the advisory council, so that the Home Secretary is unable to sack the head of the ACMD on a whim (calling for full independence for the advisory council).

Linky here:
 http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Reform-ACMD/