|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Margo MacDonald: Mind-bending attack on expert drug advice Margo MacDonald Edinburgh Evening News Wednesday 04 Nov 2009 But the current fall-out over the role of the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs having the temerity to say what he knew to be true – because he genuinely believed that the Home Secretary is about to make a wrong call on cannabis – is an example of when the Government, for political reasons, ignores scientific findings based on research. Should independent experts and academics, contracted by government as members of an advisory board, have the freedom to voice their opinions, concerns and fears in advance of a change in government policy? Of course. If they are genuinely independent. Professor David Nutt chaired the body that advises on the misuse of drugs and he and Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, have locked horns on how constrained by his unpaid, independent chairmanship of the ACMD he should be. At least, that's the impression given by the Home Secretary. His emergency statement to MPs on Monday was a defence of his action in sacking Prof Nutt. He told the Commons that the professor had crossed the line between stating his opinion and campaigning against government policy on the classification of drugs. It's at this point that I jump firmly into Prof Nutt's camp. His so-called "campaign against government policy" amounted to an article on the effects of Ecstasy and cannabis compared to the effects of alcohol and tobacco and a lecture at Imperial College. He only broke out of this academic enclave after he had been sacked by the Home Secretary, and the dispute had been rehearsed in front of a wider audience. The professor stated a known fact: the damage done to users of cannabis and Ecstasy, and their adverse effects on the wider community are less harmful than the damage done by the legal drugs, tobacco and alcohol. His reason for saying so was the Government's intention to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug, in the category above its present rating. It'll therefore carry heavier sentencing for possession, and supply. Since the professor's research has been into the "comparative" effects of drugs, he differentiates between the traditional forms of cannabis, and the newer Liquid, spray-and-smoke variety that is legally sold over the counter, and is a milder mood-enhancing drug producing much the same effect as a mellow glass of red wine. He also differentiates between spice and skunk, the stronger form of cannabis. David Nutt points to the lower number of cannabis users developing schizophrenia than was feared when skunk first came on the scene, and, in an unfortunate attempt to communicate his point, he said that, annually, fewer people die after using Ecstasy than die from horse-riding accidents. The learned, but quite possibly naive, academic also has his opponents amongst his peers, some of whom query his figures on schizophrenia, some of whom say positively there's an increase in sufferers amongst the general population. It seems reasonable, methodical and safer that the Home Secretary should investigate the matter further before he moves to reclassify cannabis. Maybe there's a case for having spice left alone, cannabis remaining a Class C drug, and skunk being treated as a Class B or maybe even Class A. But if we don't hear the various points of view, backed by scientifically-approved analysis and conclusion, how will we define the law, and the public policy that promotes it, the sentencing policies for breaching it, and the public respect necessary for the law to be observed? And what about the changing fashions in what drugs are being used and misused? Fewer people are thought (note, "thought") to be using Ecstasy, but everyone in and around the social scene believes cocaine to be replacing Es for quite a high percentage of clubbers. There are party drugs around that hadn't been heard of a decade ago . . . methadrone, like spice, is legally sold in outlets in Edinburgh, yet there are moves to outlaw it while much more dangerous tobacco and alcohol will retain their legal, therefore quality-controlled, status. Professor Nutt's argument is that the Government should compare the effects of these softer, "recreational" substances before getting into a classification guddle that will only be made more complicated by the attempts to control binge-drinking and the behaviour associated with it. Alan Johnson has passed up the chance to use Prof Nutt's research and analysis, together with the input of other independent experts, to bring the public up to date on the issue, and to redesign the policy on how different drugs will be judged differently. http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/comment/Margo-MacDonald-Mindbending-attack-on.5792830.jp
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!