Alcohol is the “gateway drug” that remains the greatest threat to society, and the Government’s failure to address the problem epitomises its disregard for scientific evidence, Professor David Nutt said yesterday.

Professor Nutt said that the comparison he made between the harm caused by alcohol and Ecstasy, which led to his dismissal as head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was incontrovertible. He questioned the Government’s arbitrary approach to the assessment and control of harmful substances, and how ministers might think that giving alcohol a harm ranking was a distraction.

“When I say alcohol is more dangerous than Ecstasy, cannabis and LSD, I mean it, and the council means it,” Professor Nutt said. “The Government has to wake up to this time bomb and the health risks of alcohol. Across the political spectrum everyone knows that alcohol is the biggest killer.”

Professor Nutt said he felt that alcohol prices could be raised to triple the price at which some drinks were sold, with taxation the most obvious way of achieving this.

Times Archive, 1977: Cannabis and the law: the narrow escape

Callaghan's reaction to the Wootton report was instantaneous and forthright

• Mr Callaghan's remarks on drugs an 'insult', 1969

Related Links

• Scientific advice must be respected...

• An uncertain scientist’s guide to risk

He compared the treatment of his expertise to that of the Chief Medical Officer’s report on alcohol abuse. Earlier this year Sir Liam Donaldson found his recommendations for a minimum price per unit of alcohol, based on several scientific studies, dismissed by Downing Street the day before it was published.

Professor Nutt added that his comments did not belittle issues surrounding drugs such as Ecstasy, LSD and cannabis, but offered essential context.

“You can’t have a debate about drugs in a vacuum,” he said. “It’s like medieval debates about angels on heads of pins.

“If alcohol was discovered tomorrow it would definitely be illegal. It’s a dangerous drug — there’s no doubt about that. There is an issue about understanding that it’s alcohol that will kill people’s kids, not Ecstasy.”

The pharmacologist said that the row over his advice and his dismissal threatened important research that it was carrying out on the club drug ketamine and “spice”, a herbal tobacco laced with potent psychoactive drugs that is becoming a serious problem. The council was also exploring the issue of “poly-drug use” and how combining one drug with another, such as alcohol, might heighten risks. “There’s a large body of research going on which will be jeopardised,” he said.

Professor Nutt, speaking at the Science Media Centre in London, said that scientists who advised politicians on the dangers of drugs should be as independent as the officials who set interest rates, and called for the council to be remodelled “along the lines of the Bank of England”, which had responsibility for making decisions outside of government.

When asked about the advisory council’s future, he said: “I think it is, frankly, fatally flawed. People want to know if scientists are saying what they want to say or whether it’s what the Government wants them to say. It should be reformed with a new structure with a much clearer demarcation of the reporting lines. I don’t think it should report to a single minister, but to Parliament or a panel of ministers.”

Professor Nutt said that he had been approached by philanthropists offering to support a breakaway alternative to the advisory council, should it collapse. One supporter had made a “pretty credible” offer to underwrite a project at a cost of £150,000 a year.

Asked whether he was serious, Professor Nutt said: “Of course, unless things are sorted. Someone’s got to give independent scientific advice.”

He was dismissed after views he expressed in a lecture were published in a paper last week by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London. He argued that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, and criticised the Government’s decision to upgrade the legal classification of cannabis from C to B. One of his most controversial statements was that taking Ecstasy was no more risky than horse-riding.

Professor Nutt stood by the comments that had got him into trouble. “You’ve got to tell the truth,” he said. “Of course I have regrets about the way the Government has treated me.”

He said that many of his former colleagues could resign when they met Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, for talks next Tuesday.

Professor Nutt also attacked the Conservatives’ drug policy. “The Tories have been making a lot of old-fashioned statements about ‘Get ’em off, lock ’em up and keep ’em clean’ approaches to drug abuse,” he said. “I think that could be very dangerous. There is evidence that, in a society where you have abstinence-based approaches, death rates go up. We need a balanced approach to drug treatments. You can’t say one size fits all.”

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads