… but the RISK, which is a subjective, perceptual concept is probably not greater – and it makes him look a bit misinformed to say that.

First, I should admit that I haven’t read Nutt’s article. But I think you’ve completely misunderstood his intention in comparing horse riding and ecstasy: viz, to highlight the different ways we think about the risks of different activities. As I understood it, his thesis was that there are certain biases in the way we think about drug-taking, compared to other risky activities, which prevent us from having an honest public debate. In other words, the purpose of the article was to contrast risk and probability, as you define them.

I’m not wholly pleased with myself as I decided to do it in a hissy fit, but I feel I need to follow it through now.
It’s at http://quantsuff.wordpress.com/. I’d be very grateful if you’d have a look and make any comments for me.
Sorry to hijack Ben’s blog for what amounts to self-promotion, but I have mention Bad Science on there to salve my conscience.

The same argument could be made against the law about forcing us to wear seat belts.

by the way @skysteve – you can eat cannabis too! (and possibly even stick it up your bum!), so tobacco consumption is not necessarily involved.

Telling us that “horse-riding is more risky than taking cannabis” is not helpful. It is possible that the probability of death or serious disability is greater (I’m not quite sure which he was referring to), or the average reduction in DALYs for habitual horse-riders versus habitual cannabis users is greater, but the RISK, which is a subjective, perceptual concept is probably not greater – and it makes him look a bit misinformed to say that.

I’m a fan of John Stuart Mill when it comes to the proper limits of the exercise of power over others. ‘Society’ isn’t, ‘it’ thinks it is appropriate and right to interfere with our freedoms – well, I think it’s wrong but that’s where we are! But surely, if we are to interfere, then any interference should be based on evidence, a weighing up of the pros and cons, a cost-benefit analysis? Apparently there has been no such weighing up. You say the risks of prohibition have been “well aired”, but have they been well researched, and debated in Parliament?

(Incidentally I think it’s pretty difficult for a non-technical person to find out the risks associated with consuming illegal drugs. Talk to Frank for example isn’t particularly clear.)

Nick Davies on heroin may be worth your time. I’m not saying every single claim is correct but I think he raises some good points.

On prohibition, when I was younger I went to school in the US for a short spell. (No, this wasn’t in the 1930s – I’m talking about the legal drinking age!). It was difficult for teenagers to get hold of alcohol, in stark contrast to the UK. The result was that cannabis was far more widely used than in the UK – virtually every teenager smoked weed. (The other result was that people became very good at forging driving licences). Young people need their escapes and vices, so perhaps the question for public policy is which poison you’d prefer our young people to be enjoying.

@Terry Hamblin, to most of us the clear harm done by tobacco doesn’t mean it should be illegal. This is a fundamental point of liberal principle. I believe the same about alcohol, which may be responsible for many of the things you describe, but is also responsible for a huge amount of pleasure and enjoyment. Should those who enjoy alcohol in moderation and behave responsibly be punished for the actions of a minority of morons? But the “harder” that drugs become, the more difficult this question becomes.

Thanks for that! Though I wish I hadn’t asked now. Painful reading. Ouch.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/joanna-blythman/scientists-must-not-dictate-on-public-health-matters-1.931188

Those arguing for a change in status for other drugs must demonstrate that things would be better if they were freely available. I just don’t think that the evidence is at hand. It’s not enough to argue that it would be beneficial to take them out of the hands of criminals, though I agree that would be a benefit.

Look how long it took to establish the harm caused by tobacco and look how long it took before most people accepted the fact. We are decades away from having that sort of information on cannabis or ecstasy, let alone the newer formulations.

… more aggressively nannyist …

Yes but I thought nannies were better at “tough love” than parents – see this week’s report !!

Cannabis is something of a rite of passage for many young people – taken sociably, in relative moderation. Most of these social, moderate users revert gradually to alcohol as their preferred drug – and not just because of legality, but because they enjoy alcohol more. It’s only a fairly small minority who use cannabis very regularly, and continue for many years – and most people believe that those who do will ultimately do damage to their brains. Ask any student, and they’ll give you an anecdote about someone who’s fried their brains through overuse, and have suffered psychological problems. Therefore many students and ex-students will believe, quite consistently, that the classification of cannabis is over the top (because it was fundamentally harmless for them), but at the same time that it can be dangerous in excess.

In other words, the folk wisdom is probably that both Professor Nutt and his critics (who’ve pointed to risks of schizophrenia etc.) are correct in some respect. You can argue, therefore, that public policy can not rest purely on the science, but will ultimately depend on how much you want to infringe the rights of the majority by protecting the minority from themselves. Or, to put it another way, how nannyist you want to be. Yes, the same argument can be applied to alcohol – but the dividing line is different there because alcohol is so culturally ubiquitous that any prohibition would be more aggressively nannyist.

There appears to be very little research on the risks associated with prohibition.

Here is something that may be of interest from Transform.

One could, of course, adopt the libertarian view that what someone does to their own body is his/her own affair, but while we have the NHS everybody has to pay for that indulgence.

I agree that externalities ought to be paid for – it is worth nothing that taxes on alcohol and tobacco more than cover the economic and social costs associated with these two legal drugs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224858/Yes-scientists-good-But-country-run-arrogant-gods-certainty-truly-hell-earth.html

On the 3rd November, there was actually a photo of Hitler in the article, though it seems to have been removed now

Could Nutt, in theory, argue succesfully that his “belief” in science means that he was discriminated against?

Obviously no-one really wants this, for the simple reason that science is not religion and should not be treated like religion – but here are two people whose cases kind of drive home the point that the protected status of religion is kind of a problem in a democracy.

A lot of people in Britain are firm believers in allmighty Argos, for whom there is a lot more evidence than any other contemprorary deities. You say your prayer to one of the priests or priestesses in the holy temple, make a small offering of a size appropriate to the size of your prayer and lo, you will be heeded. I myself once succesfully prayed for a bean bag, and two weeks later – there it was, delivered to my door. His earthly appointed wore blue and cursed my stairs.

Can I argue that as a member of Church of Argos, I have to get special time off to observe the holy deliveries?

I am torn though, because Church of Tesco delivers food as well, but tends to demand larger offerings. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

Kind Regards,
Jessica