tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post5681823091255893131..comments2023-09-20T11:15:28.673+01:00Comments on Transform Drug Policy Foundation Blog: Ecstasy: truth is the foremost casualty in the war on drugsjanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15263261726046054614noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-89699742732965068752009-02-11T14:18:00.000+00:002009-02-11T14:18:00.000+00:00Professor David Nutt must go further in his drug r...Professor David Nutt must go further in his drug re-classification demands.<BR/><BR/>The chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been lambasted for his view that ecstasy ought to be re-classified as a Class B drug, but why should it be Class A or B? Surely if it is as relatively safe as he suggests, it ought not be classified as a controlled drug at all. Indeed, one paradox costing so many lives from drug abuse of all kinds is the failure to offer equal protection of the law. Wherever a drug is ‘controlled’ by law and therefore supplied by criminal organisations, then it becomes more dangerous than it would otherwise be if it were legally regulated (due to misinformation, unknown strengths, contaminants and impurities). Drug activities such as smoking tobacco, are incorrectly, but understandably assumed by many to be relatively safer than those activities associated with controlled drugs.<BR/><BR/>Nutt is charged with the responsibility of guiding the administration of law. The law is supposed to be fairly applied to all drugs. If a drug-use activity is relatively safe, then there is no justification for it being declared illegal at all, for this would unduly infringe upon the rights of the individual. Such risks must be weighed up fairly, and take into consideration whether such risks only principally affect the user, or have wider social impacts and cause, or may cause harm to others. Alcohol is a drug that impacts hugely across all risk categories, yet it remains a non-controlled drug – there can be no legal justification for allowing such a dangerous drug to be treated so differently to ecstasy, cannabis and many other drugs.<BR/><BR/>Mountaineers, racing drivers and many others are famed for their non-aversion to risk-taking. Certainly many risky activities have a social-utility value, usually enjoyment. Why are drugs seen differently? Why, if tens of thousands can have a delightful weekend experience dancing the night away with ecstasy, is this less acceptable than other social activities? Perhaps this way of thinking is a hitherto unrecognised form of discrimination, and the sooner it is recognised and dealt with openly and honestly, the better.<BR/><BR/>www.drugequality.org<BR/>darryl@drugequality.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-91281430224993770392009-02-11T07:44:00.000+00:002009-02-11T07:44:00.000+00:00This was just on the bbc on breakfast and not surp...This was just on the bbc on breakfast and not surprisingly the only opinion they gave was that of a prohibitionist (which they've been doing a lot recently) saying that it should stay class A.<BR/><BR/>Not long later they started talking about tea as a "recession proof product" rather than a recession proof drug, someone emailed in saying that they couldn't have a day without it and that they went through 20 cups a day, one of the presenters said "what's wrong with that?"<BR/><BR/>These double standards are insane and the fact that they consider themselves impartial is laughable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com