Steve Connor: Arbitrary classification has little to do with science

Analysis

Saturday, 31 October 2009

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
Print
Email

The current system of placing illegal drugs into one of three classes – A, B or C – depending on their legal status, has long been criticised by medical authorities concerned that it is based on arbitrary considerations rather than evidence-based science.

Class A includes the highly addictive drugs heroin and cocaine, but it also includes ecstasy and LSD which many experts believe are far less harmful. Indeed, a study published in The Lancet in March 2007 found that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, based on a range of measures such as physical harm to the user, the level of induced dependency and the wider effect of the drug on families and society as a whole.

The study, led by Professor David Nutt, then at Bristol University, and Professor Colin Blakemore, former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, developed a new system of ranking drugs according to their effects on users and those around them.

They studied 20 drugs in total, including legal as well as illegal substances, and two independent panels of experts ranked them according to harm. Heroin and cocaine came out first and second respectively, but alcohol was fifth and tobacco came ninth, ahead of cannabis (11th), LSD (14th) and ecstasy (18th).

All drugs were marked on the physical harm caused to the user, their tendency to cause dependence and their social harm – such as crime and NHS costs. Each was given an overall harm score by two groups of experts.

The message was clear: the scientific evidence places certain legal drugs, namely alcohol and tobacco, ahead of many illegal drugs in terms of harm to users and society at large.

Comments

( Leave a comment )

Discriminatory drug laws are more dangerous than drugs itself

sergio_montes wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 04:04 am (UTC)

This effectively results in a form of discrimination on the basis of the majority's drug preferences. We call this "drug discrimination" � drugs which evidence suggests are less harmful are more tightly-controlled than drugs which evidence suggests are more harmful, ignoring science in favour of "historical and cultural precedents".

This is contrary to the policy of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which seeks to use education, health and police power measures to prevent, minimise or eliminate risks that might result from activities with dangerous or otherwise harmful "drugs which are being or appear [...] likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears [...] capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem".

The current legal situation is a clear case of majoritarian interests subjugating minority interests and bears striking similarities to other forms of discrimination which in the past were (and in some cases still are) enforced by law and largely accepted by society, such as discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.

Additionally, the misclassification of various substances sends out incorrect signals about their relative harm, for example "magic mushrooms" for which there are virtually no recorded deaths are in the same Class as heroin and users are subject to the same criminal sanctions regardless of evidence suggesting that they are not even remotely equally harmful. Will the young person who has tried magic mushrooms with no adverse effects trust the Government's warnings on heroin?

Link | Reply | Thread

An Abuse of Reality

frebastulous wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 07:22 am (UTC)

The Misuse of Drugs Act as it is currently constituted is an abuse of reality. The major study published in The Lancet ranked alcohol the fifth most harmful drug and cannabis the eleventh. This accords with the experience of virtually any intelligent person who has been exposed to both substances. Alcohol is much more dangerous than cannabis to the user and to society. The government is turning the truth on its head. When Gordon Brown announced that skunk is "lethal", he was telling an outright lie because cannabis in various strengths has been used since antiquity and nobody has ever died from it. Yet alcohol can certainly be lethal because, unlike cannabis, it is a physically addictive drug and thousands of people in the UK every year die from medical complications caused by overuse of it . Brown did not mention that. Alcohol also has horrific social consequences in terms of violence, crime and disorder, which cannabis certainly does not. As the scientific experts agree, cannabis should not have been raised to class B by this government. Professor Nutt was certainly right to speak out about this absurd imbalance. Firing him for telling the truth heaps further shame on this rotten government.

Link | Reply | Thread

Aaargh!

alexupstart wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:11 am (UTC)

I truly despair - not just because the government has done something unjustifiable and stupid, governments do that all the time, but because the opposition has failed utterly to oppose it. Ok, the Tories were never going to adopt 'free the weed' as a campaign slogan. Even so, they surely could get Labour to face up to the mismatch between reality and policy - if only because if they don't, they will end up spiked on the same problem themselves.
It is the majority imposing its tastes, preferences and addictions on the minority once again - a depressing pattern, and a clear sign of a sick democracy.

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Aaargh!

kieran_w wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:24 am (UTC)

I can assure you there are some Tories who support radical reform of the drug laws to take account of the scientific evidence outlined in this article. As to whether there are enough of us, we'll see.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Legislation, government and uneducated politicians

rwthplb wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 09:25 am (UTC)

It is an indictment of our education system.

argely innumerate, scientifically illiterate - Smith and Johnson for one reason or another did not get the education, but rather than using a set of informed advisors (and learning something along the way - do either of them read anything technical or relating to good but 'easy' science (from New Scientist for example) they push on with their 'political instincts'.

I am sure that many people remember Louise Casey (then 'yob czar') - "There is an obsession with evidence-based policy ... If No 10 says bloody 'evidence-based policy' to me once more I'll deck them one and probably get unemployed." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/07/ukcrime.whitehall - but neither she nor government ever understood what evidence might mean. Stupid czar, stupid ministers.

But will an incoming government do any better - probably not.

Link | Reply | Thread

The last place you'll find 'wisdom' is in drug policy

angrypancho wrote:

Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 07:02 pm (UTC)

I think alcohol is pretty typical. Some people just can't handle it. For others it's no more 'dangerous' than a bowl of ice cream. The same goes for almost all the other drugs you list. So the real question is, should the majority be denied their delights because of the few? We don't prohibit guns and cars and they're in the same boat. Why is the 'ruling class' so much more afraid of drugs? I'm guessing it's because their own grasp on reality is pretty tenuous already and they think everyone else's is too.

Link | Reply | Thread