Not so long ago the Government appointed Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)reported that in their view, based on the evidence that they had collected, cannabis should be a class C drug. The Government, specifically Jacqui Smith,
disagreed and re-re-classified it as a class B drug. Now we have news that Ecstasy, which kills 10-17 people in the UK each year, is to remain as a class A drug even though the ACMD have
concluded that it should be downgraded to class B. Once again the voice of Jacqui Smith is leading the dissent and accusations against the panel appointed by the Government to conduct independent, scientific, research into the effects of substances that come under the of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The direction of the debate has been deflected away from the under-suspicion-for-fraudulently-claiming-expenses Home Secretary's decision and towards an example that Professor Nutt used to illustrate the ridiculousness of the classification system. He highlighted the fact that while Ecstasy use kills 10-17 people per year horse riding accounts for around 100 deaths to show the relative risk of different activities we engage in. This has been jumped on by the media and other commentators as a way of avoiding the real issue, which is that the Government is once again ignoring the evidence as it doesn't fit with their authoritarian policy.
Taking a peek at TheyWorkForYou.com I found
this record of the discussion on the subject of Professor Nutt. When asked by Lib Dem MP Evan Harris
The dangers associated with drug use are supposed to be reflected in the drug classification system. Is it the policy of the Home Secretary and the Government that that system should be based on evidence, or should it be based on something else?
the response from Jacqui came up with was
Yes, it is our view that the system should be based on evidence, but it should also be based on the considered view of those responsible for policy making, and should take into consideration the impact that changes in classification are likely to have on the use of, and harms caused by, drugs, and the impact that that has on the criminal justice system. That is why it will remain the case that our advisers will advise us, and we will decide.
So that told us then. We pay for scientists to research the effects of a substance, they report their findings and then Jacqui can ignore those findings because of her "considered view" on the subject. Not a factual view, not empirical evidence, not based in either reality or fact; her opinion. Which bears more weight and importance than any science ever could. Makes you want to cry (or reach for piano wire if you are that way inclined).