Another resignation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

This time Eric Carlin, who in his resignation letter writes:

"We need to review our entire approach to drugs, dumping the idea that legally sanctioned punishments for drug users should constitute a main part of the armoury in helping to solve our country's drug problems. We need to stop harming people who need help and support."

This is a very valid point.

But Carlin also criticises ministers for having (he alleges) pledged to ban mephedrone so as to appear "acting tough" in the run-up to the election. The charge of “playing up to the electorate” is slightly concerning. It’s echoed by Professor David Nutt, sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson in October 2009, who also says that the Government decision to ban mephedrone is for “political reasons” rather than scientific or health ones.

So what are “political reasons”? Presumably the allegation is that this ban aims to boost Labour’s chances at the election. In other words, Labour has made a decision that they think the majority of people in the UK will support. Maybe Labour are out of touch. If they are, the public can get rid of them in a month’s time.

The ACMD was established to advise ministers on drug classification. Simon Jenkins in the Guardian laments that “since [ACMD’s] advice is purely advisory and can be overruled, its work is polluted.” Polluted by what? The charge - made by people such as Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne - is that the Government is “pandering to tabloid newspaper editors”. The implication of this of course is that the public – minus of course the cool-headed, never prejudiced and never ideologically motivated experts - can be whipped up into hysteria at the whim of a journalist. If this is true, why even entrust people with a vote in the first place? Nutt bemoans the fact that “reactions to my suggestion that some form of regulated supply of mephedrone, ecstasy and cannabis is worth considering shows just how difficult it is to have a rational, science-based debate.” His complaint may be true, but the answer is not to follow the path of least resistance - bypassing politics and democracy, it is about changing the terms of debate, convincing the public of the merits of one view over another.

Science is a crucial element of drugs policy, but should it be at its heart as Huhne suggests? If it was, how long before alcohol was made illegal? Or perhaps it wouldn’t be. If so, this would be contrary to scientific or health reasons. It would be for social reasons, perhaps media hysteria, or perhaps acknowledging the fact that the most people don’t want alcohol to be made illegal despite its dangers. And this is key. Drugs - and the taking of them - is not just a health and scientific issue. It is an issue of choice, freedom, and morality, as well as the social impact and all the knock-on effects. Some people like danger and this needs to be debated by society as a whole, not outsourced to an exclusive group of advisers.

And for all that is wrong with them, at least politicians - unlike the experts - are directly accountable to that society, and we have some recourse over their stewardship of the national debate if we do not like what they say.