An investigation by the RSA says illicit substances can be "harmless", while drinking and smoking can cause as many problems.

It says the law has been "driven by moral panic", and suggests policy-making should be left to drug teams and local authorities.

This would extend the definition of drugs to include alcohol and tobacco - as well as illegal substances, which the report says have been "demonised".

The report, entitled Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy, also calls for so-called "shooting galleries" to be introduced where users can inject drugs as well as wider access to prescription heroin.

It says policy should be about reducing harm and pursuing the criminal gangs behind the drugs trade rather than the level of crime.

If drug taking does not harm anyone, then criminal sanctions should not be applied, the report continues.

'Harmless use'

The report says: "The evidence suggests that a majority of people who use drugs are able to use them without harming themselves or others.

"The harmless use of illegal drugs is thus possible, indeed common."

It says drugs education is "inconsistent, irrelevant, disorganised", and its main focus should shift from secondary to primary schools.

The Home Office has estimated that the social cost of drug abuse alone to Britain is between £10bn and £17bn a year.

It said its strategy has led to a 16% fall in drugs crime and more people able to access treatment.

Martin Barnes from the charity Drugscope said drug use needed to be addressed as a wider social problem.

He added: "There's really far too great an emphasis on it being a problem solely associated with crime.

"It's about public health, it's about poor mental health, it's about homelessness."

'Worryingly complacent'

Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said the report was "worryingly complacent".

He added: "The RSA has also failed to do its homework by not surveying the views of drug addicts - who want recovery and drug-free lives - not managed dependency on methadone."

Former home secretary David Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he wanted to see "a much more sensible debate" and that he supported a "substantial" expansion of the prescribing of heroin.

But James Griffith-Edwards, emeritus professor of addiction behaviour at the University of London, told BBC Radio Five Live that he was sceptical about the report.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6429239.stm

Published: 2007/03/08 10:17:21 GMT

© BBC MMVII

MARCH 23 2007

We must be grateful for The Independent and its health editor for bringing us this 'report' from so called 'drugs specialists'.
On a full reading it seems Professor Colin Blakemore and his pals are NOT proposing we make alcohol or cigarettes illegal, or legalising LSD and Ecstasy. Yet from the headline and their comments that is exactly what we should do if anything they said made sense.

Of course they don't make sense. Blakemore and his ilk are typical representatives of our culture, lost in the woods, seeking a way out of the mess we are in because, having got themselves promoted to the top of the heap, they have been told to come up with a plan, to get us out of the hole. My advice, stop digging.

As I have made clear in previous entries, here and elsewhere, alcoholic drinks are by tradition a product of art and craft, of acriculture and careful fermentation, brewing and distilling, of exquisite flavour. Their consumption should be a pleasure. Abuse of alcohol leads to problems, as does the continual eating of carrots or too many potatoes or spices. But drinking alcohol to get drunk is just stupid, and stupid people are certain to meet with a bad end by one means or another. The danger is in the individual, not in the drink.

LSD, on the other hand, is a mind-altering drug. It might be useful as a medicament in some cases of 'mental blockage', but since it can have completely different effects on different people, and has caused many to commit suicide and others to go definitively bonkers, it is not yet ready for approval for administration by medics.

As for tobacco, those who develop a tolerance for it in the amount they regularly use can often live a long time but risk emphysema or cancer in their final years. Smoking is not now a recommended activity.

But one thing is very certain: the headline below is an untruth that is Orwellian in nature. We have a problem with people. With the products of nature we have none save that caused by abuse. Since Professor Blakemore is not, he repeats on the radio today, advocating laws against alcohol, the only effect his pronoincements can have is to give the impression that the Medical Research Council considers the use of mind-altering drugs as acceptable as the use of alcohol.. We should in future expect table places to be laid, along with beautiful wine glasses, with the disgusting apparatus for sniffing powder, injecting chemicals and, instead of being offered a cigar on special occasions, something to smoke so stupid conversation can appear intelligent to doped brains.

Now you can read the article below, get a copy of the Lancet for the full report and form your own opinion.

Tobacco and alcohol 'are more dangerous than LSD'

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Published: 23 March 2007

Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs including the hallucinogen LSD and the dance drug ecstasy, according to a new scale for assessing the dangers posed by recreational substances.

Drug specialists say the current system for ranking drugs - class A for the most dangerous to class C for the least dangerous, as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act - is irrational, arbitrary and "lacking in transparency".

Scientific evidence shows that heroin and cocaine are correctly ranked as class A drugs as they do cause the most harm. But LSD and ecstasy come close to bottom of the league in terms of harm caused, yet they are also labelled as class A.

Alcohol is legal and widely used but comes fifth in the "harm" table, ahead of amphetamines and cannabis, which are ranked as class B and class C respectively. Tobacco is also ranked as more harmful than cannabis.

The league table of 20 drugs drawn up by drugs specialists is intended to provide a scientifically based model for policy makers of the harm they cause. It shows that the dangers they pose bear little relationship to the official classification, on which the penalties for drug use are based. The eight drugs ranked as most dangerous include two that are unclassified while the eight judged least dangerous include two class A drugs.

The report comes a fortnight after an independent commission called for a radical overhaul of Britain's drug laws which it said were driven by a "moral panic". The commission, set up by the Royal Society of Arts, said the aim of public policy should be to reduce the harm drugs cause, not send people to jail. It proposed reclassifying drugs - legal and illegal - according to the harm they do.

Professor David Nutt, who works in addiction psychiatry at the University of Bristol and who led the latest research, said: "The current drug classification system is arbitrary in the way it assesses harms. It is not fit for purpose. We have tried to come up with a better system by looking at the factors that contribute to drug use and the harms they cause. We should review the penalties for drug use in the light of the harms they cause and have a more proportionate response."

Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council and co-author of the study, said: "The object was to bring a dispassionate approach to a very passionate issue. Some conclusions might appear to be liberal in stance, but that was not our starting position. We intended to reach conclusions that were evidence-based."

"Alcohol and tobacco are way up there in the league table, not far behind heroin and cocaine and street methadone. Society has not only come to terms with alcohol and tobacco but is well aware of the harms associated with them so we felt it was useful to include them as calibration points for other drugs."

All drugs were marked on the physical harm they caused to the individual user, their tendency to cause dependence and their social harm, including their effect on families, communities and society [such as crime and NHS costs]. Each was given an overall harm score by two separate groups of experts which yielded roughly similar results.

There was little evidence that ecstasy caused extensive harm, despite its widespread use by young people in clubs and pubs at weekends. Cannabis has been cited as a cause of schizophrenia but the authors said a causal relationship had not been established. If it were, evidence showed no more than 7 per cent of cases could be attributed to use of the drug.

Professor Leslie Iversen, of the University of Oxford, said there was a widespread myth that skunk, from the tips of the cannabis plant, was 20 to 30 times more powerful than that available 30 years ago. "It is simply not true," he said. "The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looked at this carefully. Cannabis resin [hash] has changed little and is about 5 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Skunk has 10-15 per cent THC. That makes it two to three times more powerful, not 20 to 30 times."

The study, which took five years to complete, is published today in The Lancet. Professor Blakemore said: "We hope that policy makers will take note of the fact that the resulting ranking of drugs differs substantially from their classification in the Misuse of Drugs Act and that alcohol and tobacco are judged more harmful than many illegal substances."

OCTOBER 11th 2007
While I have until now opposed the legalisation of all dangerous drugs, the position taken by Richard Brunstrom (below) must be taken very seriously.

He by-passes all the arguments summarised in my entries here from March 8th 2007 and goes straight to a killer point: the current war against drug abuse is unwinnable.

By this he means that it is also unmanageable, as we all know the fight against crime is unwinnable but we aim to manage it and thereby survive as a society that lives by the rule of law. What Brunstrom is saying is that the drug laws are unenforcable and therefore undermining the rule of law itself. This is not new reasoning. At the risk of offending readers by repeating this in every file on this web site, "the social contract is only valid if enforced by the sovereign power" (Hobbes).

So this is, as I have said, an argument that commands respect. If we cannot or will not use our detention regime to rehabilitate addicts and through punishment deter dealers, then we do have to change the whole strategy. That means separating the addicts from the criminal dealers. It is a huge step to take, but asking our police to do the impossible is, we have to accept, not a sensible strategy.

I do not accept the equivalence claimed by Brunstrom for alcohol and tobacco with the other drugs discussed here. Smoking tobacco has never adversly affected the behaviour, even if bad for the health. Moderate drinking of fine wines and other alcohol is beneficial and even approved by NICE http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7039249.stm. Nor do I endorse his term 'moralistic dogma' as a description of rules of decent behaviour. Dogma is indeed what is to be avoided, but morals are the basis of law - though there has long been a confusion of ethical morality with particular sexual customs and traditions. But that does not invalidate the rest of Brunstrom's case.

Legalise all drugs - police chief

Press Assoc.

Controversial police chief Richard Brunstrom has called for the legalisation and regulation of all drugs in a new report.

Mr Brunstrom, the chief constable of North Wales, described the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as "not fit for purpose" and "immoral" and urged its repeal.

Mr Brunstrom, in a report to North Wales police authority, described the current UK drugs strategy as "unwinnable".

He said: "The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 should be repealed and replaced by a new Substance Misuse Act based upon the legalisation and careful regulation of all substances of abuse in one consistent manner."

Mr Brunstrom urged his authority to support the stance in its response to the Government's Drugs: Our Community, Your Say consultation paper.

In a 30-page document - Drugs Policy, A Radical Look Ahead - Mr Brunstrom said: "UK drugs policy for the last several decades has been based upon prohibition with a list of banned substances placed into three classes - the ABC system - and draconian criminal penalties for the possession or supply of controlled drugs.

"This system has not worked well. Illegal drugs are now in plentiful supply, and have become consistently cheaper in real terms over the years.

"The number of users has increased dramatically. Drug crime has soared equally dramatically as a direct consequence of the illegality of some drugs and the huge profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organised criminality.

"Most importantly, the current system illogically excludes both alcohol and tobacco.

"A new classification system, a 'hierarchy of harm' encompassing all substances of abuse and based upon identified social harms, should, in my opinion, be at the centre of a new substance misuse regime - one based upon evidence, not moralistic dogma."

One of the obvious flaws in Brunstrom's logic emerges when he starts to argue his case saying tobacco and alcohol kill many times the number of people than all dangerous drugs. That is because millions of people smoke and drink every day - only some smokers die significantly earlier than they would have done and some drinkers due to obvious abusive drinking. His comparison is meaningless. What does have to be dealt with however is the failure to apply a meaningful drugs law.

FEBRUARY 7th 2009
Professor David Nutt, incoming head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has advised that it is less dangerous than Heroin or Cocaine and should therefore be removed from the class A category. He is correct in his assessment of the danger inherent in the drug itself, but wrong in his assessment of its danger to the public. Once again we are brought face to face with problem of classification of the chemical danger and the degree to which deterrence is required.

His remark that Ecstasy is no more dangerous than horse riding betrays a level of stupidity which perhaps explains the simplistic logic which some scientists use to power them through to positions of authority others would hesitate to take. Horse riding is very dangerous, but it is also very healthy, cannot be taken up on a whim, is not an indulgence that anyone can start without training and does not create a harmful or damaging dependence. There is nothing that can achieved by the regular use of Ecstasy that would not be better achieved without it. That is not to say there is no medicinal or temporary demonstrational role for E under supervision, but self-medication by those who do not understand the basics, let alone the subtleties of the effect of such drugs on humans is NOT to be recommended.

So even though the professor is technically right, his words are foolish and his advice will not be be taken as a result.

In all these matters, be it knives, drugs, words, guns, we are faced with a growing number of people who do not know how to behave, who are not disciplined when they are young and are not educated when they are older. Our reaction is to ban weapons, substances, words and even thoughts because we cannot seem to educate and inform. In truth we cannot inform because we fail to educate sufficiently. Professor Nutt is educated in his subject but seems sadly adrift in his judgment on how to use his knowledge other than to show off.

MARCH 30th 2010
Prof Nutt has now revealed himself as a nut, I am relieved to find, as I did go out on a limb earlier. He has advocated the supply of Methodrone to clubs on the day the government has announced that this drug and others in the same chemical class which have not yet been produced will be banned and classified.

NOVEMBER 1st 2010

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

Prof Nutt will simply not lie down. He is back on his drugs hobby-horse claiming alcohol is more socially harmful than all the banned drugs. While I have dealt with this at the start of this file, it is time to work out what drives Nutt in his mistaken belief that if all those who at present regularly enjoy alcoholic drinks were instead to smoke cannabis, they could even remain in employment. While he claims he understands this and is being misunderstood, the plain truth is that by treating alcoholic drinks as drugs he harms the argument against drugs and reinforces the misperception of the ill-informed that the purpose of alcoholic drinks is mental anaesthesia.

I am thinking as I write of the personnel at RAF Brize Norton, a team of quite extraordinary proficiency, skills and efficiency whose company I enjoyed in the Sergeants and Officers messes a week ago, whose routine day would equal what most people would consider a continual emergency on the ground and in the air 24/7/365 as they deal with everything from supplying and relieving the forces in Afghanistan to in-flight refuelling over the North Sea. There is no doubt that adjusting to a tobacco-free environment has been beneficial. Intelligent minds have even healthier brains in which to excel and react swiftly to the ever-changing and sometimes unexpected demands of the job. An alcohol free life on the station would make as much sense as asking them to do their job without aircraft, such would be the resultant social disaster. The use of any 'drugs' to replace the beer, wines and spirits would be revolting, pointless and dangerous.

I can only conclude that Nutt brings up his bogus arithmetical case against alcohol in order promote his personal wish to be able to use other drugs whenever he wants to. Alcohol is an inevitable part of the human diet in any society that has fruit and vegetables and the inevitable fermentation process arises. Mastery of that process to produce excellent beverages, to be enjoyed in excellent company, is as progressive as mastery of the arts and of the air.

It is Nutt's defence of the use of drugs for other than prescribed medicinal purposes that is to be deplored. His comments on alcohol, the abuse of which is known to be a social scourge, should not be used to justify his pro-drug stance. That is an abuse of science and mathematics. Let me put it very simply. Alcohol in beverages does MUCH more harm to society than cannabis does, but if the taking of alcoholic drinks were to be replaced by the use of cannabis or any of the other drugs Prof Nutt finds less of a risk, society would be not just damaged, it would decline into chaos and the stuff of nightmares. To the extent that Nutt relatively condones the use of these other drugs in his comparison, using a valid scientific method which is not publicly appreciated, he is a bloody nuisance. Alcohol's only fauilt lies with human over-indulgence.

To avoid a heart attack, give up sex and cocaine says the sort of science Nutt uses - but see http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/worried-about-a-heart-attack-avoid-these-2223986.html where the fallacy in this use of statistics is explained.

MARCH 15th 2011
Good grief! Nutt is still banging on, this time with Jon Humphrys in On The Ropes.
Cannabis cause a very few cases of schizophrenia is his line at the moment.
Nutt is obsessed with classification on various bases which he chooses and will twist the evidence any way he can to prove science is the only discipline and he is master of it. The fact is Nutt is a poor scientist and a dishonest man. And a Nutt - that came over quite clearly in the interview.
Again he calls alcohol a drug, ignoring the fact that it arises naturally in any stored sugar or starch in the presence of yeast and was therefore bound to be part of the human diet unless climatic conditions and customs actually prevented it.

JUNE 1st 2011
It is blindingly obvious that the war on drugs has failed, the question remains how to deal with it. The answer is: whichever route you take, you have to CHOOSE and DO IT!

A route we haven't the guts or the will or the means to enforce will by definition fail. We can legalise and manage according to the law, or retain criminalisation of producers, shippers and dealers provided you DEAL WITH THEM. The same applies to PIRATES. People are driven to piracy and drug dealing because they want MONEY and are either unable or unwilling to get a legal job. There is a difference between unable and unwilling, and then there are those who need money to fund their own drug habit - how screwed can you get?

Of course the innocent will suffer along with the guilty in continued criminalisation. With legalisation, even well run, the probability is a nightmare economy of abuse and meaningless lifestyle beckons. This is what LIFE is for, at this stage on this planet at least - to find out how to deal with and avoid each of these by learning wisdom and how to behave, We can choose our future, individually and collectively! Didn't you know?

The global war on drugs has "failed"
according to a new report by group of politicians and former world leaders.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.

The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.

The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided.

The Global Commission's 24-page report argues that anti-drug policy has failed by fuelling organised crime, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and causing thousands of deaths.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

nnnn