Prof. Nutt: Death by a bar chart

its a dual reality

4 months, 1 week ago by john mcsharry on Wordpress

@ukliberty

“As far as I know, except for Tranform’s there has not been any research into the costs (not just economic but social costs) of prohibition of particular drugs in the UK.”

And building up the full evidence base around all the aspects of legalisation can only be a good thing. I agree with that.

“And again, what about the costs associated with illegalisation?”

I can only agree. These should be taken into account.

“I’m sorry, I don’t understand this question. I already said I understood harms to be the main consideration”

I thought you were suggesting they weren’t. If you look at the classification system, cocaine and heroin are ranked as more harmful than cannabis and speed which are ranked more highly than tranquilisers. Suggestive of harms being the key factor in the classification system.

The bar chart at the top of this article places cannabis on the threshold of classes B and C. So placing it in B rather than C would not appear to be the science-ignoring position even in a completely harms based system. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 1 week ago by Sevillista on Wordpress

@Thomas

You are conflating “addict” with “moderate use”.

I can point to lots of evidence that drug addicts struggle to hold down jobs. Look at the employment rates of heroin or crack addicts for example.

And if I was looking for a poster boy

for “Addiction has no harms” I’d probably try and come up with a better one than Harold Shipman.

@ukliberty

“Inconceivable that drugs could bring the same benefits?”

No it’s not inconceivable. Hence I would want to look at the evidence and make a decision on that basis. I have an open mind about it. I don’t think the evidence is there yet though and an independent review looking at the various benefits and harms of legalisation would be extremely valuable.

Though I’m not sure even evidence of extensive harms could convince you that legalisation is not a good thing, as you believe “there is no trade off” and the innate human right to enjoy your (responsible and informed) drug use has infinite benefits that society must adapt to (eg if the cost is all children becoming addicts than so be it).

“the claim is that “the primary objective of the classification system is to categorise drugs according to the comparative harm associated with their misuse”, and another week it’s based on policing priorities, public perception, sending a message, the precautionary principle, unknowns in science… delete depending on what is politically expedient on the day.”

Is it too difficult to believe that, as the Government states, all these factors are important?

Can’t you see a correlation between harms and classification, suggesting that this is an important consideration? ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 1 week ago by Sevillista on Wordpress

“Not many addicts appear to have the ability to hold down paid work.”

Please can you expand on this?

It seems on face value to be a very dubious statement. So this would be an opportune moment to provide some of the evidence you vaunt.

Tim’s example is very illustrative.

4 months, 1 week ago by thomas on Wordpress

“That the innate problem drug addicts face (difficulty earning money by holding down a job due to being high combined with a need for a lot of money to finance their addiction) will magically be solved on legalisation? It seems far-fetched.”

Not far fetched at all.

I’ll agree that a mass murderer might not be the very best example for my point but Harold Shipman was a heroin (diamorphine, which is just the pharmaceutically pure form) addict for decades. Held down one of the more denamnding jobs in the country, that of GP. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 1 week ago by Tim Worstall on Wordpress

@152 “That the innate problem drug addicts face (difficulty earning money by holding down a job due to being high combined with a need for a lot of money to finance their addiction) ”

Is it? What do you base this assertion on? What do you think would be the likely effects of the legalisation of, say, heroin (cannabis is an easy one, let’s aim higher)?

4 months, 1 week ago by Goedel on Wordpress

I don’t think so.

Automatically consigning people to the scrapheap because they’ve taken drugs, or too many for another section of society’s liking is preemptive and doesn’t bear any relation to the real state of the individual.

On the issue of criminalisation you’ve reversed my argument. Once an individual has broken the law in the first instance then it is a progressive step to say ‘having broken one law, what difference is it to go the whole hog’.

Hundreds of thousands of people finance petty drug habits without resorting to prositution, theft, burglary, robbery or fraud – however, artificially escalating the seriousness of the problem is in nobody’s interests. They do so because even though they may not be fulfilling the potential you seem to feel it is their duty to reach.

I accept that drug use may be an individual limiter, but government legislation is equally as much, if not more so. If we want a meritocratic society is it right that people like Marlon King are essentially blacklisted from their chosen profession for having paid a debt to society? Instead by judging individual behaviour in the way that you have suggested is to moralise, while also creating and normalising social exclusion based on that self-selecting morality.

It comes down to a view whether drug-taking is in itself ‘fun’, or whether it is escapism from a world which isn’t actually as ‘fun’ as some political leaders project it must be.

If you hold that it is the former then I suggest that you have already accepted the conditioned expectations of the current establishment that many people will not and cannot achieve personal satisfaction and are doomed to live lives of petty frustration.

If you hold that it is the latter then you recognise the former is simple snobbery which encourages disassociation in all its’ forms – and which does so because that is a means of asserting power over you against your real interests.

There is a simple fact that numerous people derive a sense of self-worth from competitive consumption (not only drugs).

This is a wider social problem which has been encouraged by politicians to cover for their failings to manage the economy in the interests of all. The mixed message that self esteem is to be measured by comparison while offering only rejection to those who fail to live up to the mark will inevitably only drive scoiety’s ‘losers’ into spirals of dejection and greater destructivity.

So it’s not a question of whether drugs are ok or not ok, and whether drug use should be encouraged or discouraged, but because the prohibitive and punitive attitude has consistently failed we should instead be asking what is actually the most effective way of minimising general harm levels and breaking the vicious circle.

The current law is a sham and counterproductive. Government should not attempt to control behaviour, it should ensure that any behaviour choices individuals make can be conducted constructively in a safe environment and that we all have sufficient access to the requisite information to do so. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by thomas on Wordpress

@sevillista

isn’t it time we started to distinguish between the physically dependent addicts who live perfectly ordinary lives without letting their condition overly affect them or their relationships because they have the income to sustain their situation and those that don’t, can’t and turn to violence and property crime in various forms as a result because they are conditioned by the context of their situation to be criminalised?

Are the Keith Richards and Will Selfs of this world such abominations that they set examples of absolutely no worth? Should we strike down Queen Victoria from memory because of her laudanum habit?

Or are you prepared to admit you have a middling class-based prejudice? Why is the intended target of the law the general populace and the control of our behaviour, and why is a completely separate standard used to apply to those of independent means?

If it is the social context of the behaviour which is the determining factor in the level of harm in your calculations rather than the behaviour in itself, doesn’t this set an unhealthy precedent whereby the coherence of the law is undermined – and that this creates social disorder where more people are likely to ignore the laws of the land? ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by thomas on Wordpress

@ukliberty

“Sevillista, why are you satisfied that “alcohol being part of our culture” outweighs the 8.6k young people who have alcohol problems and the 1 in 1000 people a year who die because they drink? Or do you think alcohol should be made illegal?”

I think the evidence suggests that the benefits outweigh the harms for alcohol. It’s as simple as that.

“As for what the Government says, “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” springs to mind”

I don’t understand your point. They would say what?

I thought you were saying the Government were lying and saying the decision to reclassify the evidence was solely based on harms and contradicting the science by doing so? When what they have clearly stated on the record they agree with the scientists on the harms but have reclassified on the precautionary principle due to unknowns in the science and because the classification system is based on other factors too. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Sevillista on Wordpress

Sevillista, why are you satisfied that “alcohol being part of our culture” outweighs the 8.6k young people who have alcohol problems and the 1 in 1000 people a year who die because they drink? Or do you think alcohol should be made illegal?

As for what the Government says, “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” springs to mind. Science and Technology Committee:

We acknowledge that in this sensitive policy area scientific advice is just one input to decision making. The Home Office should be more transparent about the various factors influencing its decisions.

If the Government wishes to take into account public opinion in making its decisions about classification it should adopt a more empirical approach to assessing it. The Government’s current approach is opaque and leaves itself open to the interpretation that reviews are being launched as knee-jerk responses to media storms.

We have found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin the Government’s policy on classification. In view of the importance of drugs policy and the amount spent on enforcing the penalties associated with the classification system, it is highly unsatisfactory that there is so little knowledge about the system’s effectiveness.

The Government’s desire to use the Class of a particular drug to send out a signal to potential users or dealers does not sit comfortably with the claim that the primary objective of the classification system is to categorise drugs according to the comparative harm associated with their misuse. It is also incompatible with the Government’s stated commitment to evidence based policy making since it has never undertaken research to establish the relationship between the Class of a drug and the signal sent out and there is, therefore, no evidence base on which to draw in making these policy decisions.

A more scientifically based scale of harm than the current system would undoubtedly be a valuable tool to inform policy making and education.

It is vital that the Government’s approach to drugs education is evidence based. A more scientifically based scale of harm would have greater credibility than the current system where the placing of drugs in particular categories is ultimately a political decision.

In our view, it would be unfeasible to expect a penalty-linked classification system to include tobacco and alcohol but there would be merit in including them in a more scientific scale, decoupled from penalties, to give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

Let me address your points.

1)unless you can identify what the precise nature of the ‘other factors’ taken into account in the classification policy are it is presumptive to reach a conclusion whether it was correct to sack Prof Nutt.

2)unless you can determine the precise identity of the ‘certain people’ for whom restraint of their behaviour can be justified according to a ‘Millian paternalistic rationale’ then you are giving carte blanche to the forces of government to intervene.

3)you speak of a trade-off between the costs and benefits to different groups of a change in the law, yet here you recognise that the political decision is dependant only on ‘harms’ (and only indirect ones at that).

4)you say you wish for a more detailed study to be undertaken into the potential legalisation of drugs before it can be considered – I say a more detailed study should have been undertaken into the potential criminalisation of drugs before it occurred (and it would be enlightening to read any that were).

My general criticism of your position is that you are only looking at half the argument and are doing so inconsistently. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by thomas on Wordpress

@thomas

“Clearly hit a nerve there”

Your last post was “you are bleating…You are playing to the gallery, not dealing with reality…you are confused…you have jumped to a conclusion”. Worth responding to.

“Is the problem necessarily one where the interests of different groups get traded off against each other, or is there another way round the problem?”

It’s possible that there is. Which is why I’m interested in a decent study of what the impacts of legalisation would be in the UK, rather than assertions based on a 1970s study by a US economist.

I am completely in favour of an evidence-informed policy. This is no moral position I am taking – just a concern that the benefits to certain people are outweighed by the costs to others. I don’t see how that is so difficult to understand.

What I disagree with is that there is an innate human right to “liberty to consume drugs” that has an infinite benefit outweighing all possible indirect harms. Which is what ukliberty was arguing I think (though I’m sure he will probably correct me again!).

“Frankly I can’t believe you are supporting the status quo”

Again, where did I say this?

I’ve made 4 points.

1. The Government was correct to sack Mr Nutt – it is quite right that factors other than scientific research on harms are taken account of, and politicians to take different views on the impact of uncertainties and on the evidence base where this is contested than the scientists who directly advise them

2. There is a Millian paternalistic rationale to intervene to prevent certain people from use of drugs or guide their use of drugs

3. The indirect harms of legalisation are relevant to the decision as to whether this is a good idea or not; and there is a justifiable political decision to be made

4. I am not convinced by the arguments for legalisation that have been presented – and think a full study should be done on this to provide better evidence

Note how there is nothing that says “the status quo in drug policy is the correct one”. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by sevillista on Wordpress

@thomas

“you are bleating unsubstantiated and exaggerated fears which create a distorted sense of the real risks involved.”

Er, no. I’m clarifying that ukliberty sees indirect harms as irrelevant to the infinite benefits of liberty. This is somewhat given away by the phrase “I’m not saying that will happen by the way”.

“You are playing to the gallery, not dealing with reality.”

There’s no gallery. Following this discussion are Tim W, ukliberty and yourself.

“You have confused the comparison between dufferent types of drugs and different places where different regimes are in place in an attempt to undermine the validity of any lessons to be learnt.”

No. I have said there is a need for an empirical study of the impacts of legalisation that is applicable to the UK, as there are valid reasons to believe that the impact of legalisation here would be very different to the impact of decriminalisation in the Netherlands.

“You have jumped to a conclusion about the consequences of change in the law, without supplying any supporting evidence, yet where evidence is supplied contradicting your interpretation you characterise the people who supply it as arguing that the evidence is meaningless”

I haven’t “jumped to a conclusion”. Legalisation would decrease the effective costs of drug use (improved quality, no risk of police action against suppliers reducing their cost, not breaking the law), and reduce perceptions of the risk of consumption (increasing demand for drugs). That is fairly solid ground for assuming consumption will rise.

I would welcome a study that looks at the likely impact in the UK and we’ve got some evidence to discuss.

“Whether you are doing this deliberately or merely subconsciously I cannot say, but the logic of your argument is highly suspect.”

My argument:

1. There are some people who are not in “the maturity of their faculties” and should be “protected from themselves”.

2. If drugs were legalised, consumption will rise among these groups and there will be more drug addicts. Legalisation would be good for some people (non-addicts who responsibly use drugs), bad for these vulnerable groups.

3. As a result, legalisation is a trade-off between the interests of different groups.

Entirely logical. I don’t see how you could disagree with it – except through trying to argue that the impacts of legalisation on the consumption of children/addicts will be nil.

I would make the further step that, as legalisation is a trade-off between the interests of different groups, it is a political decision and should look at the costs/benefits of legalisation.

This is where ukliberty (and yourself?) would disagree is that you would argue liberty is an innate human right with an infinite benefit (provided direct harms to others are compensated), and indirect harms are necessary evils for society to pay for (and pay to try to prevent) to protect this human right.

On this logic, even if every child became a drug addict as a result of legalisation (i.e. government regulation and education completely fail), legalisation would still be the right thing to do. Please tell me how I’m misinterpreting what you are trying to say.

“you wish to defend the principle that there are situations where the state is better placed to make decisions for individuals and that this principle can only be defended by lying to the public”

No. You are (deliberately?) framing my argument to a false way and making things up to help you argue against it.

My view is that legalisation will have pros (drug users can more easily access their drug and not be told they are criminals by society) and cons (more children unable to make good decisions will become drug addicts). I believe that a decision on legalisation is therefore a political decision, based on the relative sizes of these costs and benefits and their distribution between different groups of society.

The State is better placed than to make decisions than SOME individuals.

And please find where I said that “this principle can only be defended by lying to the public”. You’re making that up. I said that empirical evidence on the impact of legalisation should be gathered, which is surely the opposite.

“Don’t you think that the public is prevented from making the best possible decisions by the inability to access the full facts and that the dishonest behaviour of those who wish to restrict the freedom of accurate information undermines their authority among the target audience which discourages us from following their advice?”

I would if that was the case. But it’s not.

Please tell me how the Government is preventing people accessing accurate information. Are they banning Mr Nutt publishing his research now? Preventing him speaking in public are they? Do they make educational materials up in what they teach children or provide a balanced summary of evidence on harms? Are they going to arrest you for suggesting drugs aren’t harmful?

No. They are following their policy where the classification of drugs represents evidence on scientific harms together with other factors. Mr Nutt is unable to operate within the current policy framework and his position is untenable. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by sevillista on Wordpress

Erm, you seem not to realise that Portugal is not like Spain or France etc. Over-indulgence is quite common here and not just amongst the ex-pats like myself.

Anyway, time for some Mill:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Tim Worstall on Wordpress

Sevillista @114, come on now, don’t get silly, it’s not about “prices worth paying” to “ease drug supplies” at all, that’s a pretty poor characterisation of my argument. And weighing up the lives of childr- good god, children you say? How many?!

Well, careful about going down the “prices worth paying road”. You suggested earlier that something being an “established part of our culture for millenia” outweighs the risks, costs and harms associated with it. So what about the 8.6k young people who have problems with alcohol?

But it’s irrelevant because, yes, nothing trumps my right to liberty so long as I harm no-one else. If people choose – to try an activity, where there is a risk (e.g. injury, disease, addiction), including using legal or illegal drugs, or riding horses, that’s up to them – or their parents, carers or whoever, as we’re also talking about children and other vulnerable people.

Indeed, my freedom to ride horses shouldn’t be infringed merely because there is a serious accident every 350 hours, or the risk of spinal injury, or because one person in 240,00 will die in a horse-riding-related fatality (less dangerous than booze by the way).

Separately, in fact I did say empirical evidence is a valid concern (just that it doesn’t trump my freedom in this context). And on that note, it is all very well you claiming that legalisation will increase the number of addicts without any evidence to support that, but you also said you didn’t think my examples of Holland and Portugal (where I understand liberal policies have appeared to work in terms of reducing the problems we’ve discussed) were “good comparators to the Brits”. Well, I’ll try to think of a country you might approve of… ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

Sevillista,

But I’m glad we’ve advanced from the simplistic “government has no right to intervene” argument we were having earlier in the thread to one that acknowledges that the impact of legalisation on vulnerable groups who cannot make good choices and should be protected and political trade-offs between the interests of different groups are valid concerns even within a Millian framework even if you still strongly disagree with my view.

Hang on, “valid concerns” to who? I don’t want my liberty traded between different groups.

I suggested the issue of legalisation is a practical concern for parties that want to form the next government. But that shouldn’t trump my freedom to do as I please (so long as I harm no-one else) – nor evidence-based policy.

And I don’t recall anyone saying the “government has no right to intervene”. What was actually asserted was that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

It is simple, but not simplistic.

With regard to addicts, I’m half inclined to let them be interfered with for the purposes of treatment. But you are talking about interfering with people before they become addicts.

And yes of course children should be protected. But firstly prohibition interferes with the freedom of the rest of the population. Secondly prohibition does not mean the prohibited activity is made unavailable. Thirdly the prohibition may increase risk and social harms as described in multiple comments (i.e. crime, serious organised crime, terrorism etc). Fourthly the prohibited activity may be just as risky as other activities but ‘we’ approve of the latter so they are OK, even though this position logically and morally inconsistent.

Lastly I don’t believe anyone is simply suggesting that all drugs should be made legal and we wash our hands of it. I said earlier on that I would like to see much more comprehensive (and clear) information about risks and harms than is on the Talk to Frank site, for example – and I have no concerns about public money being spent on this if that’s what the public want (there’s something for political parties to trade in).

I’m glad we’ve moved on from “society can interfere with me as much as it wants” though. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

I believe legalisation will lead to increased consumption and more children – particularly from deprived backgrounds – becoming addicted or making poor choices to eg. spend their whole lives stoned and not fulfil their potential.

I understand what you are saying but, ultimately, sentences like the above show conclusively that you just don’t get the concept of liberty.

In your view, someone who makes the (in your view) “poor” choice to spend their lives stoned needs to be protected from their own perceived weakness (by criminalising their behaviour). I might agree with you that they are making a poor choice but the difference bteween us is that I would absolutely uphold their right to make it. We have not, in fact, advanced from the simple argument that the government has no right to intervene.

You argue that an addict is not free to make his own choices by the fact of his addiction and that is your justification for criminalising drug use. So let’s look at the addict.

Prohibition pushes the addict into poverty- into the hands of criminal dealers, adulterated substances, dangerous behaviour and probably criminal activity to pay for his habit. The consequences of prohibition punish the addict for his addiction and that punishment is likely to reinforce and exacerbate a negative self worth. Prohibition also provides a powerful motivator for the drug dealer to recruit more people to become addicts.

Legalisation would allow the addict to live a more normal life free from the pressures of obtaining his drug on the black market and he could be given help to break the addiction if that was what he wanted to do. However there would usually be no reason why the addict would not be able to lead lead a fulfilled and productive life if his drug were legalised.

I believe Barrak Obama is a smoker. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by pagar on Wordpress

“It’s an empirical question which I don’t think there is sufficient information to answer”

An attempt was made by Gary Becker some decades ago. Legalisation will lead to lower consumption. He may be right, he may be wrong, but up to you now to find empirical studies which argue the opposite.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Tim Worstall on Wordpress

“at least on my interpretation of “maturity of faculties””

The part you’re still not addressing is that illegality dpoes not protect, rather it harms, those addicts who you say do not have the maturity of their faculties.

Now, if prohibition meant that no drugs were available your point would at least be arguable. But as we can see, in the absence of a complete and totalitarian police state (of the sort that Mill would never have approved of of course) prohibition does not mean the absence of available drugs. It just means that those drugs which are available are shitty, grossly expensive and grossly adulterated. Leading to more damage being done to those addicted than a free market would. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Tim Worstall on Wordpress

@sevillista

I agree absolutely that the question of drug control is a purely political calculation trading off the self-affirming concerns of middle-class voters in marginal constituencies against the interests of the disenfranchised and apathetic underclasses and people living in foreign countries.

With government playing to the very narrow perceptions of as few as 100,000 swing voters against the very real impact our laws have on millions of people in this country alone that trade-off is clearly imbalanced and one any caring humanitarian should resist making a judgement on the distorted terms you propose.

Whose side are you on?

One direct example of how the law plays out is the War in Afghanistan.

There would be no war if poppy cultivation was normalised and put to productive purposes (there’s a global shortage of medicinal morphine products we are ignoring here), which would have the result of giving farmers reliable income levels by eliminating the conflict over the control of production. This would also neutralise the taleban forces by cutting off the vast proportion of their income streams and remove the financial motivation for violent conflict.

Our boys are dying to protect the suffering caused by an criminalised industry because a minute section of surburbanites have got their heads stuck up their backsides.

The war on terror and the war on drugs are wars against our own stupidity and ignorance. They will only be won when we wise up. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by thomas on Wordpress

@sevillista, you’re repeatedly conflating drug users with drug addicts. Accepted, in the case of crack cocaine or nicotine, there probably isn’t a significant difference between the two groups – but in the case of alcohol or MDMA, the number of users outstrips the number of addicts by around two orders of magnitude.

Even accepting that drug addicts don’t count as “in the maturity of faculties” in a Millian sense, it’s profoundly illiberal to deny freedom to 99 individuals as a heavy-handed way of protecting 1 individual (even if criminalisation worked as a way of protecting addicts, which it doesn’t). Rather, legalise the drug and provide better treatment for addicts… ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by john b on Wordpress

And , leftoutside, to make clear, I worry not just about existing addicts but new addicts I think legalisation would create.

But again, maybe the virtues of liberty trump this concern.

It’s still a decision weighing up the interests of different groups valid for politiabs to make (depending on the exact impact legalisation has on consumption)

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Sevillista on Wordpress

But drugs being illegal doesn’t make them that much harder to get.

I could definitely buy ecstasy or pot or ketamine by this time tomorrow, if I really wanted. It would be awkward but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t take me too long to get some heroin. Making drugs illegal isn’t the best way to protect addicts, surely you can understand that argument too?

Once their addicted, and not “in the maturity of their faculties,” a drug being illegal merely turns them into a criminal. I’d rather prescribe them the drug and offer them counselling and so on until they were ready to stop.

It would suck, and some people would die while we waited, but its a trade off between addicts who want to get clean and those who don’t. It’s a political decision trading off the welfare of two different groups. Moreover, it doesn’t criminalise either of them. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Left Outside on Wordpress

Sevillista @124, thanks.

I agree that a government in a representative democracy must consider public opinion if it wants to remain in government. But that is a practical matter for that government, not a valid objection to science and liberalism. Call me an idealist but I do wish that our elected representatives were a bit more supportive of the science and less cowardly in the face of tabloid faux outrage. Evidence-based policy – not policy-based evidence – is something each of our representatives should be proud to support. And not interfering with us as per Mill.

That is not to say each and every decision must be taken according to scientific advice. I’m sure there are decisions which are purely political in nature. But where you have a classification system that ostensibly ranks substances by harm but where sufficient outrage can trump it… well, I think the government ought to make clear on the label what weights it applies to science and outrage.

I agree that Nutt appears to find it impossible to work within that framework – so would I. I took exception to the way I understood you to be characterising his behaviour (my apologies if I misunderstood). My reading of his lecture and other articles, and his appearance in video clips etc, led me to believe he was honest and reasonable (despite being illiberal) and that he did not deliberately ridicule the government but constructively criticised how we all think about this and how drug policy is developed.

More I believe that there is a clear rationale for government to be involved in a paternalistic way (not just to fight harms to others, but to intervene in some people’s personal choices) and that to do this is not illiberal. I hope you can see where I’m coming from.

I honestly can’t see where you’re coming from there – it seems to me profoundly illiberal to interfere with people’s personal choices (where they cause no harm to others). You may have decided that it is better to be paternalist than opt for non-interference in such contexts but that is not liberal.

No wonder the public are confused about drug policy if possession, despite being a crime, isn’t punished (btw Talk to Frank disagrees with you, which makes it even more confusing, but I’m inclined to believe you). And if they aren’t punished for this crime, why on earth is it on the statute book? I disagree with legislation being used to send a signal. Legislation should only be used to say what we may not do and we shouldn’t faff about like that. I’m happy for websites and pamphlets to be used to send a signal.

Talk to Frank provides lots of information but there are no statistics about risk. I’m sure natural frequencies would be a helpful addition. For example, for each drug:

X in 1000 users of alcohol die each year from an alcohol related cause

X in 1000 moderate to heavy users of alcohol will develop cirrhosis of the liver (link to how horrible that is, etc)

X in 1000 users of Ecstasy will develop memory problems /aggression/mood/depression problems etc

and so on.

I’d find that pretty shocking, I think. I don’t find this shocking: “There’ve been over 200 ecstasy-related deaths in the UK since 1996.”

That’s nothing! (Not meaning to play down the tragedy there, but statistically speaking.)

It is quite difficult to find out hard data on this.

I’m still considering your question about addicts but I’m glad you’ve agreed to stop interfering with me! ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

there is a clear rationale for government to be involved in a paternalistic way (not just to fight harms to others, but to intervene in some people’s personal choices) and that to do this is not illiberal.

Sorry Sev.

The state intervening in the personal choices of its citizens (where those choices cause no harm to others) is an excellent definition of the term “illiberal” . ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by pagar on Wordpress

If drug addicts don’t have free will, then pretty much nobody does. Which I’m fine with, as I’m not entirely clear as to what the term is really supposed to mean… We are all subject to all sorts of drives and compulsions which we have little or no conscious control over. When I see those who would argue that drug addicts have no free will (and therefore must be protected from themselves) applying the same logic to people who are in love, I’ll maybe start paying attention. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Dunc on Wordpress

Correct decision, good riddance!

This is the age of the “expert” no matter how arrogant or out of touch with reality they are.

UK Governments have never supported science and engineering but this doesnt mean they made a wrong call in this. The media pick up on these reports and create a fuss where none should exist. I’m an astrophysicist and sorely remember Prof Liam Donaldson (”Trust me I’m a really clever Expert Medical Advisor”) advising people not to watch the total solar eclipse in Cornwall in 1999 but see the reruns on TV !!” Hundred of thousands of people watch eclipses every day without harm but government “Experts” feels it incumbent to express their opinion. Advisor advise, but politicians ( and I suggest members of the public) should make the decisions. Experts frequently get it wrong. Just look at the history of science. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ken on Wordpress

(Likewise, where is the vociferous media-led campaign against the horrors and evils of alcohol?)

Err, see: the tabloids every day (BOOZE BRITAIN!!!), the perpetual gibbering nonsense about 21-units-a-week, etc…

Fair point, but have the tabloids called for it to be made illegal?

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

Sevillista, thank you for re-engaging and clarifying your position, and thank you for reading my blog.

Question: “If the argument is that it is to prevent harm to myself, firstly what right does society have to do that? Secondly, if a particular activity carries a risk and it is for that reason that society says I may not act in that way, why do we not ban other activities that carry similar risks or worse? If the argument is about the economic and social costs, why do we not ban activities that cost us similar amounts or more?”

Answer: On your first point, within Mill’s conception of liberty, free will is assumed. When free will breaks down – children, those with learning difficulty, those with mental illness and- I would argue – drug addicts, the Government has a role. The government also has a role in informing you to help you take the best decisions.

The Mill quote earlier in the thread did not include two sentences that seem relevant to this discussion:

“He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. ”

So it seems to me there is no problem from Mill in relation to education about risks of using such substances – or riding horses or any other risky activity.

Mill supplied a qualification in relation to mental faculties and I’m inclined to agree with it:

“It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. … Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.”

(William Humboldt said something similar about children and “idiots”…)

I believe I made clear that I don’t disagree with the government’s facilitation of education and treatment programmes. I agree to that extent about the role that the government has in “informing you to help you take the best decisions” and helping addicts.

I do not however agree that this role extends to making it an imprisonable offence to possess particular substances. I do not believe the possible sentence for possession of a Class A substance (up to seven years) informs me to help me take the best decision about using that Class A substance.

Ultimately it should be my decision whether or not to risk the harms associated with the use of drugs (whatever they may be) – I am not a child, or an idiot (you may disagree) or an addict.

Although I do like a pint on a Friday after work.

On your second point, what did you have in mind? I’m assuming alcohol (after reading your blog – I really hope I don’t offend you by assuming things). The simple answer is that alcohol use had been an established part of our culture for millenia.

You are correct that I had the consumption of alcohol in mind (among other substances and activities).

The post to which I believe you refer supplies some figures relating to the (mis)use of alcohol in the UK that come from National Statistics and the Home Office . The intention is to show that we are inconsistent about what activities should be banned and why. As you rightly say, alcohol use is an established part of our culture.

Indeed it is established and legal despite the (shocking, to me anyway) risks and costs associated with it.

Now, assuming ’society’ is aware of the risks and costs associated with alcohol, that it is an established part of our culture appears to outweigh those risks and costs.

Well I find it interesting, anyway.

And now I must get some sleep. Good night. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

It was aimed at 106, I edited the comment and it deleted my first part

And yes, *sensible* people that want legalisation don’t wish to see the current drugs market simply legalised and left to it with taxes added. The biggest problem with drugs aside from addiction is quality and safety, wouldn’t you agree?

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Lee Griffin on Wordpress

Very few are saying that governments shouldn’t hold our hands, that they shouldn’t intervene where necessary. It is clear as day that most people that want the legalisation of cannabis don’t wish for it to be done so without regulation, the whole argument of regulation in its effects of reducing the unknown risks of drug use is simultaneous with a legalisation argument.

Again , you bring things down to far too simplistic a level. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Lee Griffin on Wordpress

There’s no shifting – follow my discussion with Tim W and my liberal case for paternalism in drugs policy.

I am not attributing things to you, merely stating that to take the position that the government has no business getting involved in drugs policy beyond the extent needed to minimise harms to others is to assume that drug addicts have free will.

Maybe I’m wrong and they do. But it is an assumption that you must make to make the statement that government has no business in paternalistic interventions.

Why do you claim I am not responding to your points. Maybe I should spell it out?

Question: “If the argument is that it is to prevent harm to myself, firstly what right does society have to do that? Secondly, if a particular activity carries a risk and it is for that reason that society says I may not act in that way, why do we not ban other activities that carry similar risks or worse? If the argument is about the economic and social costs, why do we not ban activities that cost us similar amounts or more?”

Answer: On your first point, within Mill’s conception of liberty, free will is assumed. When free will breaks down – children, those with learning difficulty, those with mental illness and- I would argue – drug addicts, the Government has a role. The government also has a role in informing you to help you take the best decisions. On your second point, what did you have in mind? I’m assuming alcohol (after reading your blog – I really hope I don’t offend you by assuming things). The simple answer is that alcohol use had been an established part of our culture for millenia. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Sevillista on Wordpress

102. You’re misrepresenting. He has under no circumstances claimed cannabis use is less dangerous than a “quiet pint”. Thankfully Nutt is looking at things under the many complexities, and not trying to whittle it down to overly simplistic irrelevancies like you in order to make your own (factually incorrect) point.

On a similar point I have to say that the attitude you have is so similar to those like the anti-cannabis mother that is all over the news with this claiming that Nutt is sending out the wrong message (she on the other hand is completely on message for Labour). It’s also terrible, because it is effectively saying that you should always tell your kids to not do anything, never to take risks, never to live. Of course unless it’s to go sky diving, or perhaps climb a mountain…or hell, learn to drive a car.

The message you seem keen to promote is that a kid dying from ecstasy going wrong, or even a kid just “screwing up their life” (what does that even mean anyway, who determines what is screwed up or not?) over cannabis is worse than the kid that dies because they were inexperienced behind the wheel, or gets swiped off their motorbike/scooter they think they’re cool for owning.

Life is a risk, why exactly you believe we should be free to make some choices about what we do and not others is astounding. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Lee Griffin on Wordpress

Sevillista, as far as I can see Nutt has not claimed that cannabis and Ecstasy do little harm. You have not supplied any evidence that he has – on the other hand I have quoted from two of his articles where he makes clear that they are harmful and, at least in the case of cannabis, that public consumption should be reduced.

You were asking me who said the government should not discourage drugs. My answer was “you did” – legalisation will encourage consumption.

Again, that does not appear to be the experience of Holland and Portugal. But to me it is irrelevant because I think people should be allowed to do what they want to themselves. Indeed society appears to think so about many activities. It is just some activities That Must Be Stopped.

I don’t have a problem with the government punishing harm to others (who would?) nor facilitating the provision of treatment for addiction and health problems.

Re why public opinion is relevant – we have a democratically elected system of government. I know putting ukliberty in charge and to hell with what society thinks is obviously preferable, but until you launch a coup government will have to respond to public opinion.

Perhaps I did not make my point clear. I should have said, “why does the public have a right to say what I may not do so long as I do not harm anyone else?” What is the basis for it? Why does the public assume it?

I do not believe I have any right to interfere with others unless they do (non-consensual) harm to others.

If the argument is that it is to prevent harm to myself, firstly what right does society have to do that? Secondly, if a particular activity carries a risk and it is for that reason that society says I may not act in that way, why do we not ban other activities that carry similar risks or worse?

If the argument is about the economic and social costs, why do we not ban activities that cost us similar amounts or more?

You have yet to substantively address these points.

I thought you libertarians were all in favour of policy by referenda?

In the last few posts you have suggested things about people that aren’t true and going off-topic to boot. I don’t recall claiming to be libertarian. I recall expressing only qualified support for referenda in particular, limited circumstances (e.g. manifesto commitments on a certain Treaty), otherwise supporting representative democracy (as the least bad system of government). I believe I made it clear early in the thread what I thought of public opinion in the context of this discussion.

Earlier you seemed capable of engaging in reasonable discussion and I was grateful this thread hadn’t been subjected to ad hominems and baseless assertions. Why are you now arguing with things that I haven’t said?

I don’t expect or require an answer to that but I’d be grateful if the previously reasonable service can be resumed. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Article:: Prof. Nutt: Death by a bar chart http://bit.ly/3EZeVm…

4 months, 2 weeks ago by uberVU - social comments on Wordpress

@94 ukliberty

It wasn’t just Nutt’s lecture. He hit the airwaves to criticise the Government’s policy making framework for taking account of more than the science and lobby for a change in policy.

You were asking me who said the government should not discourage drugs. My answer was “you did” – legalisation will encourage consumption.

Re why public opinion is relevant – we have a democratically elected system of government. I know putting ukliberty in charge and to hell with what society thinks is obviously preferable, but until you launch a coup government will have to respond to public opinion. I thought you libertarians were all in favour of policy by referenda?

@96 Thomas

Tim Ws argument is about all drugs, not just cannabis. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Sevillista on Wordpress

@sevillista

we’re talking about the classification of cannabis, not the legalisation of heroin. Please stay on the same subject and avoid confusing the issue by conflating two related, but dissimilar issues.

I’d also like to mention the inconsistency of current prosecution and sentencing guidelines around the country which makes a mockery of attempts to create coherence through a class-based policy-making format.

And why is there yet to be any serious discussion of the failure of government to reduce the criminal trade in illegal drugs? Their efforts to destory the market only has the effect of increasing profit margins for dealers and making it a more attractive business proposition to unscrupulous and violent exploiters of vulnerable people, while denying society the tools to minimise the negative effects of the trade.

We also need to ask why people want to take get high in the first place.

The state currently demonises and criminalises millions of ordinary people who have become disenchanted with the failure of successive governments to engage with them and provide the productive outlets for creative impulses – with job insecurity, housing problems and cultural activites devalued the government is driving the underclass into escapism through any means that can be found.

It seems to be tough on drugs, who cares about the causes of drugs? ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by thomas on Wordpress

Sevillista,

Isn’t the point of this whole debate that Mr Nutt was contending that cannabis and ecstasy do little harm,

I wonder, did you read what he wrote?

I quote from his lecture:

“Cannabis is a harmful drug and there are concerns about the widespread use of cannabis amongst young people.

“A concerted public health response is required to drastically reduce its use.”

It’s less harmful than riding a horse, apparently.

Jebus. The point about horse-riding is that we get very excited about people taking ecstasy but not about people who like horse-riding – which is odd because it is a comparably risky pastime.

(Likewise, where is the vociferous media-led campaign against the horrors and evils of alcohol?)

From Nutt’s lecture:

“there’s a peculiar imbalance in terms of reporting that is clearly inappropriate in relation to the relative harms of ecstasy compared with other drugs (Nutt et al. 2009). The reporting gives the impression that ecstasy is a much more dangerous drug than it is. This is one of the reasons I wrote the article about horse riding that caused such extreme media reactions earlier this year (Nutt, 2009).”

From his ‘equasy’ article:

“society does not adequately balance the relative risks of drugs against their harms”

“Making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms (e.g. 10 deaths and more than 100 road traffic accidents a year) and would be, in practice, very easy to do. This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates – indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use.”

You seem to be interpreting that as “why not take drugs, they aren’t as risky as horse-riding” but that isn’t what he means at all. He’s saying we should consider relative harms to inform the debate about what to do, how far we should go.

Suppose the risks of taking ecstasy and horse-riding are equivalent – I don’t know if they are, but suppose it for the sake of argument. Ecstasy is a Class A drug – possession of class A drugs risks up to seven years in prison. Why is that? If it is to prevent harm – which is the claim – why do activities that carry similar risks not come with similar penalties? I suspect it’s because certain sections of the public are morally panicked / outraged about ecstasy but not horse-riding.

You seem reluctant to tell me what you think the impact of legalising drugs will be – do you think a) consumption will rise; or b) consumption will fall?

I have no idea (although I hear good things from Holland and Portugal) and I don’t particularly care for the same reason as Tim @ 86. Again, what business is it of yours what I put in my body?

Cjcjc @87 makes a good point about crime too, and I recall some senior police officers (among others) who agree.

…drugs should be classified according to scientific evidence on harm and other concerns are irrelevant?

What other concerns are relevant? You seem reluctant to spell out these. Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson appear to believe public opinion is relevant to what I put in my body. Forgive me but they and public opinion can eff off.

I would say the risks associated with prohibition are relevant to drug policy. That’s about it. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

“the impact of people in response to being told its “less risky than riding a horse””

If Prince Edward is to be believed, telling young people cannabis is less risky than riding a horse might lead to a spike in the number of young people riding horses, and a drop in the number of young people taking cannabis.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by tim f on Wordpress

Consumption might rise if cannabis was legalised. But no mainstream political party is talking about that, and Nutt didn’t suggest it either.

Does anyone seriously think that consumption would rise if it was re-classified as a Class C drug?

4 months, 2 weeks ago by tim f on Wordpress

@timworstall

The point was aimed at ukliberty who seems to believe that legalising drugs is not encouraging their use.

That aside, I don’t think we are going to agree on this subject are we?

We agree that any drugs policy should operate to minimise harms to society.

We disagree about whether those who are heavy users of drugs have “free will” – you contend drug addicts have “free will” while under the influence; I contend they do not.

Both of our positions could be liberal, depending on your interpretation of free will. Can you see that?

You think a junkie chasing his next fix, living in squalor through spending all his money purchasing heroin, and engaging in risky behaviour like sharing needles is doing so out of free will and the government has no business sticking its beak in unless there are harms to others (children, crime, public services). I would argue that he is following his addiction and and cannot be considered to have “free will”.

The implications of the position on whether addicts possess free will in pursuing their addiction for what government policy should be are quite strong.

Besides, it is still irrelevant to the fact we live in a democracy, and that government needs to reflect the will of the people (hence its decision to take account of more factors than the science in determining drugs policy) – you criticise this government enough for straying too far from what people want (a free-market, socially conservative, europhobic Cameron-led government that rightly pins the blame for the recession on the employment of too many nurses and police officers) to acknowledge this point surely? ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by sevillista on Wordpress

“You seem reluctant to tell me what you think the impact of legalising drugs will be – do you think a) consumption will rise; or b) consumption will fall?”

I don’t actually care. I think that liberty will rise which, being a liberal, is the thing which interests me.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Tim Worstall on Wordpress

Sevillista,

Who proposed that the government should say drugs “do no harm”?

Who proposed that the government should stop “discouraging the use of these drugs”?

4 months, 2 weeks ago by ukliberty on Wordpress

In other words, young people can spot the bullshit being fed to them by our Majesty’s expenses-gobbling ex-potheads

Even though individual scientists sometimes get it wrong, the process of science is the best mechanism humans have ever come up with for sorting true claims from false claims. Politics, on the other hand, is essentially purified essence of bullshit.

Therefore anyone who is sane and rational will give more credence to scientific evidence than to politicians. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Philip Hunt on Wordpress

@sevillista “I disagree. Cannabis is addictive”

I think the giveaway is on the Talk to Frank website where they warn of the dangers of becoming addicted to the tobacco you might mix the cannabis with…….

4 months, 2 weeks ago by pagar on Wordpress

haha, did you see Johno’s interview – he should take a pill!

4 months, 2 weeks ago by thomas on Wordpress

@sevillista “I disagree. Cannabis is addictive”

In that case you’re simply, factually wrong. It isn’t.

“and being permanently stoned and making decisions when permanently stoned is not “free will” in action”

That’s not your call to make. If X likes being permanently stoned, and makes decisions while permanently stoned, and is able to remain permanently stoned thanks to the generosity of others and whatever work he does manage (rather than turning to crime or needing benefits), then you’ve no right to say his choice is any less free than your choice to be a puritan on internet messageboards. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by john b on Wordpress