I thought David Nutt (the professor who got sacked by the British government as chairman of its Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs after arguing the upgrading of cannabis to Class B was politically rather than scientifically motivated) was rather impressive in this video:
It did get me thinking - why do we (i.e. society/our politicians) regard dangerous activities like drug-taking as more worthy of legal sanction than dangerous activities like horse-riding?
You can avoid the word verification above by joining the openDemocracy community - if you have already registered, log in here
openAwakening in conjunction with the University of East London is organizing a three-part event series on ‘The Tahrir Square Meme’ to be held at UEL's Dockland Campus.
Our first event is Rap and the Arab Spring.
The Long and the Quick of revolution Anthony Barnett
We live in revolutionary times... but what does this mean? Anthony Barnett
The precariat: why it needs deliberative democracy Guy Standing
The Long Revolution Raymond Williams
Jim Gabour Sunday Comics
James Warner Standing Perpendicular, as books do
Markha Valenta Inter Alia: religion, politics, culture
Paul Rogers on Global security
Li Datong on China from the inside
Mary Kaldor on Human security
Daniele Archibugi on Cosmopolitan democracy
From what I remember, Eric Shlosser's 'Reefer Madness' goes into some of the historical reasons that drug use has been frowned-upon.
Beyond that, I think it's just an example of a vicious circle: certain drugs are - for whatever reason - banned, the public's knowledge about them is limited, scare stories take hold more easily, and the calls to keep them banned grow louder.
I speak as someone who's never touched anything stronger than an Expresso. But I have various friends who have taken (and continue to take - though less frequently) numerous illegal substances - all of whom manage to lead otherwise normal (and in some cases, fairly successful) lives.
Thanks Matt, I must look 'Reefer Madness' up (it was also the name of a scare film, right?). There's another example of a vicious circle obviously: drugs are illegal, so illegal activity grows up around them, so politicans conclude we have to keep them illegal (where if anything the opposite conclusion would be supported!)
You can just imagine the ugly underculture that'd surround eventing if it were banned...
Imagine drugs were legal and taxed! Are you aware that this is the kind of market every neo-liberal dreams of? Completely unregulated and no taxation.
I don’t think it makes much sense to compare the dangers of using illegal drugs with horse-riding. I’d rather compare them to alcohol, where our societies obviously can put up with a lot of addiction. The legal drug alcohol causes far less drug-related crime, though. I’d be very much in favour of a cautious legalisation—that reason alone is worth it.
But why is a (recreational)-substance-to-sport comparison so much less appropriate than a substance-to-substance comparison? I agree that since any two addictive recreational substances will have more in common with one another than either has with a sport they make for a better comparison, but what I was getting at is the question of what difference between drugs and horse-riding makes the comparison seem so inappropriate to the presenter and others like her. After all, when considering paternalistic legislation we seem happy to compare horse-riding and, say, not wearing seatbelts on buses.
I think we are all missing the point. There are two issues here, one which is covered by David Nutt extremely well in the video above, and that is the personal (physical and mental) risk associated with taking any sort of drugs, illegal or not. David Nutt simply used a legal and highly respected activity to compare drug related risk to something else. He could have used cycling, mountaineering, flying, crossing the road. As it is, event horse riding is more dangerous than any of the drugs investigated.
The second issue is the effect on society. Several drugs result in criminal or illegal behaviour, violence etc (excluding the illegal activity of the sale and purchase of illegal drugs) ie alcohol.
Some drugs result in excessive healthcare costs to society, for example tobacco.
Others are highly addictive and an addict will resort to crime to obtain supplies of that drug. Heroin is in this category. Making the drug legal would have a major effect on this - and also at the same time reduce overdose and other health risks.
I understand that the Drug Advisory Committee took all these issues into account.
Morals should not come into this at all. Morals should be taught. Some people believe it is immoral to sleep with someone outside of marriage. However, I would hope our government would never make that activity illegal.
There may be a case for the supply or taking of a particular drug to be illegal, but the case should be based on its danger to the user and wider society if it were legal. I think that in most cases we would find that currently illegal drugs would be legalised.
The difference is that horse riding doesn't have the potential to make you a danger to society and drug (and alcohol) use does
Fair point Pete, but I don't think cannabis results in "illegal behaviour, violence, etc" - at least not independently of its being illegal. I'm not really aware of the healthcare costs, but the only one I've heard of (that is likely to occur with any regularity - this excludes the costs of treating the occasional psychological reaction I suspect) is lung cancer, which only puts it on a par with smoking.
That leaves addictivity (is that a word? my spellchecker hasn't heard of it, but it sounds familiar). I doubt this would drive many people to theft if drug prices weren't so high, and their cost is almost entirely a function of their illegality. So we seem to just be left with paternalistic concern for the harm done to the addict, and it's still unclear to me why this warrants greater interference than do activities which have a significantly greater risk of physical harm instead.
oops sorry I missed Pete's post.
Usually I'd say that I think drugs should be legal but the thought of how they would be marketed gives me pause.
Thomas, there are only differences, the only parallel there is is “risk”. Everything has risks, though.
My daughter wants riding lessons, and I think that’s a good idea. My son is hanging out with some guys who I suspect might take drugs, and I am worried. Let’s see if I am irrational.
All sports have risks, but doing no sport is the highest risk for your health. Riding becomes less dangerous the more accomplished you are. There are riding hats and these ugly vests that protect the backbone to reduce the risk. Caring for an animal is a good way to learn about responsibility.
Now on drugs: All drugs have risks, but taking no drug … no way, Thomas. And compare the risk of occasionally taking drugs to an “accomplished” user. What about minimising the risks? Doubtful. Desirable effects? None.
The only reason why I am relatively relaxed about my son’s behaviour: I’ve always encouraged him to try activities with certain risks. Children who can climb a tree and ride a horse are less likely to try out risky behaviour by taking drugs when they grow up.
There are more interesting questions than Nutt’s comparison: Why is alcohol legal, and cannabis is not? Can people simply decide on their own if they want to take drugs? If not, are our laws efficiently protecting them against getting at drugs? And, most important in my opinion is Pete’s question: what are the effects on society?
Post new comment