David Nutt is a British public health expert who made his name by arguing that alcohol is pretty harmful even in comparison to heroin, cocaine or other illegal drugs.
In 2009 he was sacked as a government advisor, more-or-less because he wasn’t willing to rubber-stamp their drug policy. Then he made headlines again in 2010, with a paper that ranked all the drugs and found alcohol to be the worst of the worst.

I’d read the newspapers and nodded along. Respected scientists gather the evidence and find that some legal drugs are worse than illegal ones — fine, I can believe that.
But then I took a look at the underlying study. It is…not good.
The methodology isn’t quite “I asked my mates, and they agreed with me”, but it’s not not that either.
Nutt, after being sacked, went off and set up his own think tank. He called it the “Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs” — though its impartiality wasn’t obvious to everyone. He told the media that he planned to “put together an assessment of drug harms which will challenge some of the aberrations [of UK government drug policy]”.
The Lancet paper is that assessment. The methodology was to assemble the members of the new committee (plus 2 outsiders), and ask them to rank how harmful they thought the drugs were, according to different categories.
So it wasn’t entirely freeform, there was some kind of structure to assemble a consensus view and weight different elements.
But when you come down to it, it’s just aggregating the views of a group of people who likely wouldn’t be in the room if they didn’t share a particular perspective on drugs.


