New Study Claims UK Drug Policy 'Not Fit For Purpose'

[gick]

This might be better off in politics. Whatever, I'll let a mod decide.

Scientists want new drug rankings

The drug classification system in the UK is not "fit for purpose" and should be scrapped, scientists have said.
They have drawn up an alternative system which they argue more accurately reflects the harm that drugs do.

The new ranking system places alcohol and tobacco in the upper half of the league table, ahead of cannabis and several Class A drugs such as ecstasy.

The study, published in The Lancet, has been welcomed by a team reviewing drug research for the government.

The Academy of Medical Sciences group plans to put its recommendations to ministers in the autumn.


Suggested rating of drugs according to harm done
A new commission is also due to undertake a three-year review of general government drug policy.

The new system has been developed by a team led by Professor David Nutt, from the University of Bristol, and Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.

It assesses drugs on the harm they do to the individual, to society and whether or not they induce dependence.

A panel of experts were asked to rate 20 different drugs on nine individual categories, which were combined to produce an overall estimate of harm.

In order to provide familiar benchmarks, five legal drugs, including tobacco and alcohol were included in the assessment. Alcohol was rated the fifth most dangerous substance, and tobacco ninth.

Heroin was rated as the most dangerous drug, followed by cocaine and barbiturates. Ecstasy, however, rated only 18th, while cannabis was 11th.

Arbitrary ranking
The researchers said the current ABC system was too arbitrary, and failed to give specific information about the relative risks of each drug.

It also gave too much importance to unusual reactions, which would only affect a tiny number of users.

Professor Nutt said people were not deterred by scare messages, which simply served to undermine trust in warnings about the danger of drugs.

He said: "The current system is not fit for purpose. Let's treat people as adults. We should have a much more considered debate how we deal with dangerous drugs."

He highlighted the fact that one person a week in the UK dies from alcohol poisoning, while less than 10 deaths a year are linked to ecstasy use.

Professor Blakemore said it was clear that current drugs' policies were not working.

"We face a huge problem. Illegal substances have never been more easily available, or more widely abused."

He said the beauty of the new system, unlike the current version, was that it could easily be updated to reflect new research.

Professor Leslie Iversen, a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences group considering drug policy, said the new system was a "landmark paper".

He said: "It is a real step towards evidence-based classification of drugs."

Professor Iversen said the fact that 500,000 young people routinely took ecstasy every weekend proved that current drug policy was in need of reform.

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said: "We have no intention of reviewing the drug classification system.

"Our priority is harm reduction and to achieve this we focus on enforcement, education and treatment."

He said there had been "unparalleled investment" of ?7.5 billion since 1998, which had contributed to a 21% reduction in overall drug misuse in the last nine years and a fall of 20% in drug related crime since 2004.

But he added: "The government is not complacent and will continue to work with all of our partners to build on this progress."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm#drugs

Its about time we had an honest, fact based debate on drugs in this country. Still, while the study is a step in the right direction, I can't help but feel that Daily Mail reading chuckle****s will be up in arms about this.

Opinions?

 

[lePobz]

As long as they don't ban alcohol.

 

[Ennui]

WONDERFUL. I hadn't heard of this before you posted and I'm quite glad I've seen it now. I'll leave the thread in OT unless it becomes a drug debate thread, in which case I'll toss in it Politics.

I hope some federal types Stateside get wind of this and choose to actually pay attention to it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

How about a system that rates drugs on how AWESOME they are?

Seriously though, I'm not sure how to feel about this. I don't really see how a new system of classification is going to help cut down on drug use, although it may educate and help make people more aware. But then I really can't see any government supporting a system that basically points out that some legal drugs are more dangerous than illegal ones, even if it is scientifically proven.

 

[NeptuneUK]

How about a system that rates drugs on how AWESOME they are?

It's foolproof!

 

[lePobz]

Drugs are like cars. The best ones cost the most, and kill you the quickest. I devise a new system, based on cost and availability.

 

[Laivasse]

I read about this earlier today. While it's good that they're cutting through the bullshit and assessing drugs on how much harm they actually do, I have a couple of reservations about it.

1) They may be underestimating the potential harmfulness of certain illegal drugs, and vice versa for legal drugs, due to the respective availability of each. While it may be relatively easy to get hold of ecstacy, it is piss easy to procure alcohol and nicotine, and you haven't got a bunch of adventurous 13 year olds screwing up the stats for class A drugs in the same way you have for alcohol and nicotine.
2) The only action I can see the government taking over this is to either ignore it completely, or take a more serious look at tightening legislation on already legal substances. Considering the nanny-state attitude of this government, there is no way in hell they are going to relax the legislation on more serious drugs.

 

[Dekstar]

A lot of problems associated with currently illegal drugs (such as ones that cause death) can also be put down to how the drug is made. As they are not created in a controlled environment with quality testing *, that should be a factor.
Glad to see something like this is occuring. Clever people having educated ideas, and possibly even being listened to.

*(most awesome job ever)

 

[gick]

1) They may be underestimating the potential harmfulness of certain illegal drugs, and vice versa for legal drugs, due to the respective availability of each. While it may be relatively easy to get hold of ecstacy, it is piss easy to procure alcohol and nicotine, and you haven't got a bunch of adventurous 13 year olds screwing up the stats for class A drugs in the same way you have for alcohol and nicotine.
2) The only action I can see the government taking over this is to either ignore it completely, or take a more serious look at tightening legislation on already legal substances. Considering the nanny-state attitude of this government, there is no way in hell they are going to relax the legislation on more serious drugs.

Good points - I agree on both. Simply legalising drugs isnt enough, there would need to be a huge shift in people's attitudes and perceptions towards them. People would need to be educated and respectful of what they're putting into their bodies in a way that brits are blatently not when it comes to alcohol.

The more people who hear about this study and learn the facts about how certain drugs can affect/harm you, the more likely it'll be that we get a sensible drug policy. Unfortunately, the people most likely to kick up a fuss about liberalisation of drug laws (eg Daily Mail/Express/Sun readers) are the least likely to hear about the study. I couldnt find a single article on this report on any of those newspaper's websites.

 

[Solaris]

We need to legalize most of them, except the really bad ones.

 

[Steven]

I've always found it interesting how alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't, I mean you can get alcohol posining or accidently kill yourself due to lack of fear or just carelessness. What the hell's ganna happened when your stoned? And it's not like the long term effects of abuse are that diffren't in terms of danger value.

 

[CyberPitz]

This part was retarded, imo.

Professor Iversen said the fact that 500,000 young people routinely took ecstasy every weekend proved that current drug policy was in need of reform.

So the more people that do it, the more legal it becomes?

EVERYBODY DRIVE DRUNK! We're getting it legal.

 

[Nid Banikeri]

This part was retarded, imo.

So the more people that do it, the more legal it becomes?

EVERYBODY DRIVE DRUNK! We're getting it legal.

He's just saying how the current method clearly isn't working...which it isn't. They don't need to legalise all drugs, but defintly need to reform the system, its doing more harm than good imo.

 

[tehsolace]

Drugs are like cars. The best ones cost the most, and kill you the quickest. I devise a new system, based on cost and availability.

Well that makes no sense. Because the cost and availability is directly proportional to the severity of the laws banning the drug in the first place.

 

[gick]

This part was retarded, imo.

So the more people that do it, the more legal it becomes?

EVERYBODY DRIVE DRUNK! We're getting it legal.

He is also refering to the fact that E is a class A drug here (which means you can face prison/heavy fines for possession of a a few tablets) whereas Alcohol is comparatively more deadly, yet still legal.

Furthermore, the majority of people who die after taking ecstasy die from other side effects such as water intoxication, rather than the drug itself. And the number of people killed by the actual drug itself would be even lower if it was legalised, allowing the government to regulate and monitor its manufacture like they do with other drugs and medicines.

 

[Pauly]

about time.. rofl.. US needs this next.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

about time.. rofl.. US needs this next.

Amen to that, I hate our policy on drugs. The illegal drug trade has ruined so many low income communities, not to mention the millions we spend on the DEA and going OUT of our country to take down poppy fields and such.

:| yet we seem to have had no problem arming drug lords in the past for our own international benefit. In short: our drug policies are simply, in my opinion, a mechanism to keep our rigid class system and play international big brother with countries who's biggest cash export is.. you know.. coke or poppies.

 

[Kester^]

Furthermore, the majority of people who die after taking ecstasy die from other side effects such as water intoxication, rather than the drug itself. And the number of people killed by the actual drug itself would be even lower if it was legalised, allowing the government to regulate and monitor its manufacture like they do with other drugs and medicines.

QFT, also education of what the drug actually does would be easier to get hold of. Making more people aware of what they should and shouldn't do.

Almost all of the Ecstasy related deaths in the past 10 years in the UK have been from people drinking too much water, something which the government currently advises you to drink plenty of. Most people have no idea that drinking too much water whilst on pills can kill you due to the fact your brain swells up with all the water and essentially gets crushed by your skull.

 

[gick]

QFT, also education of what the drug actually does would be easier to get hold of. Making more people aware of what they should and shouldn't do.

Almost all of the Ecstasy related deaths in the past 10 years in the UK have been from people drinking too much water, something which the government currently advises you to drink plenty of. Most people have no idea that drinking too much water whilst on pills can kill you due to the fact your brain swells up with all the water and essentially gets crushed by your skull.

Spot on. The way drug policy is in this country, the drugs are more likely to kill you, because there is no control on quality, and there is no education on how to use the drug safely - which is what gets people killed.

I think it has a lot of parallels with the debate about abstinence-based sex ed in the US. If you just tell people not to have sex/take drugs, then when they eventually do (and they will), they have no idea how to do it safely and responsibly and end up getting hurt. If, on the other hand, you are honest and teach people about how to have sex/take drugs with the appropriate precautions, then they will know what to do, and how to do it while minimizing the risk to themselves and others.

Also, I'd like to know how they handle education in countries with more liberal drugs policies (eg Holland). Anybody know how it goes over there?

 

[Doppelgofer]

ban paracetemol NOW