Leading article: A welcome injection of science

Tuesday 02 November 2010 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

No wonder they got rid of Professor David Nutt. The man who was the Government's chief adviser on narcotics – until he was sacked by the previous Home Secretary – has produced a new guide to the relative harmfulness of drugs and it runs almost entirely counter to the official classification. Dr Nutt and others have formed a breakaway Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs which has produced the new study. Published by The Lancet, it suggests that alcohol is a more dangerous drug – when the ill-effects to both the user and wider society are added together – than heroin, crack or crystal meth.

This is an important contribution to the debate. The results suggest that, as a society, our efforts are in the wrong areas. What is needed is exactly what Dr Nutt has set out to provide: independent thinking based on scientific criteria. That suggests, he says, that alcohol is three times more harmful than cocaine or tobacco, and that ecstasy causes a mere one-eighth the harm of alcohol.

Dr Nutt's conclusions are open to challenge. Critics will dispute the differential weighting he has given to the impact on morbidity, the NHS, crime, the family, the environment, the economy etc. Balancing those requires political as well as neuropharmacological judgement, as does balancing avoiding harm to individuals and damage to the social fabric. Nor does it make political sense to say that if alcohol had just been discovered it would be considered so dangerous it would be banned. It hasn't just been discovered and is a relatively harmless pleasure for most people.

But Dr Nutt has rendered an important service by suggesting the drugs debate should be reorientated to focus on scientific evaluations rather than social preconceptions and political prejudice. Controls on alcohol exist, both on age and hours of sale. More may be needed, particularly in taxation (strong cider is taxed at only a fifth of the rate of wine). Supermarket loss leaders, the targeting of alcopops at the young, the link between cheap prices and higher consumption are all areas in need of review. Culture can be changed by law, and Britain's drinking culture is one on which politicians would do well to place greater focus.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in