Drug Laws Have No Relation to Science

[luchog]

A study done a short time ago, and recently published in The Lancet, demonstrates just how out of touch with reality drug prohibition laws are in the US and UK.

Study Finds Alcohol and Tobacco More Harmful than Marijuana, LSD, or Ecstasy (Revisited)

Excerpt:
Still, drug classification has hitherto been less than scientific, and the recent ACMD study highlights just how out of whack some of the classifications are. In order to evaluate the current classification scheme, the ACMD had various addiction experts evaluate the danger of different drugs using nine parameters (acute harm, chronic harm, IV harm, intensity of pleasure, psychological dependence, physical dependence, intoxication, other social harms, and healthcare costs). The values from each parameter were combined, giving each drug a single rating. The results are pretty surprising:

The Class of a drug appears to have little to no relation to its actual danger. Although heroin and cocaine, both Class A drugs, received the highest harm ratings, other Class A drugs (ecstasy, LSD, and 4-MTA (an amphetamine derivative)) were rated as being less harmful than alcohol or even tobacco. In fact, of the twenty substances surveyed, alcohol was (it pains me to say) ranked the fifth most harmful.

Nothing really new here to anyone who has made a serious study of the issue over the years; but it's nice to see it codified in such detail, in one clear study.

Whether this will have any effect on laws and regulations remains to be seen. I'm too pessimistic to expect there to be any chance, considering that so many of these decisions are based on prejudice rather than scientific fact (as evidenced by so many even here on this board); but it's clear and obvious that our current drug laws, particularly in the US, need drastic restructuring. Especially when you consider that a huge percentage of offenders in already overcrowded American jails are non-violent drug offenders, and that said offenders are one of the main reasons that the prisons are a significant growth industry.

 

[fuelair]

Uh, were you under the impression they were before this came out? US drug laws (those re: drugs currently illegal, that is) have never, to the best of my knowledge been based on anything but socio-religious concerns and economics (hemp vs. cotton/alcohol(wheat farmers) vs. marijuana/upper class vs. lower class (laudanum and wine vs. cheap liquor and cockaigne)

 

[CFLarsen]

A study done a short time ago, and recently published in The Lancet, demonstrates just how out of touch with reality drug prohibition laws are in the US and UK.

Are you saying that we should only legislate based on scientific evidence?

 

[The Atheist]

Nothing really new here to anyone who has made a serious study of the issue over the years; but it's nice to see it codified in such detail, in one clear study.

I'll try not to be too amused by both previous posts omitting to read that rather important piece of text which answers their questions.

You're right - it's only by hammering the subject home that people will accept the facts and change the laws. Small steps.

 

[strathmeyer]

Are you saying that we should only legislate based on scientific evidence?

You're right, anecdotal is much better.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're right, anecdotal is much better.

Please point to the scientific evidence that determines what a crime is.

 

[athon]

Please point to the scientific evidence that determines what a crime is.

What a ridiculous statement. Claus, you really are going a little loopy in your old age.

A crime is that which contravenes a law. To determine if somebody has committed a crime, evidence is required (as in science), but I don't think this is what you're meaning.

Determining 'what a crime is' relies on somebody merely saying so. Laws are constructed as a result of members of a society deciding that they don't want individuals comitting certain behaviours. Of course, the decision making process is hardly scientific, which is what is being proposed here.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

What a ridiculous statement. Claus, you really are going a little loopy in your old age.

A crime is that which contravenes a law. To determine if somebody has committed a crime, evidence is required (as in science), but I don't think this is what you're meaning.

Determining 'what a crime is' relies on somebody merely saying so. Laws are constructed as a result of members of a society deciding that they don't want individuals comitting certain behaviours. Of course, the decision making process is hardly scientific, which is what is being proposed here.

Precisely.

Laws are not based on science, but on what people think should be legal and illegal.

Can we use science to help us with those decisions? Sure. Tobacco causes cancer, no doubt about it. But we cannot let science determine what should be legal and illegal. We decide if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, not from a scientific point of view, but what we think is reasonable.

Ultimately, that will be a political decision, and not a scientific one.

 

[athon]

Precisely.

Laws are not based on science, but on what people think should be legal and illegal.

Can we use science to help us with those decisions? Sure. Tobacco causes cancer, no doubt about it. But we cannot let science determine what should be legal and illegal. We decide if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, not from a scientific point of view, but what we think is reasonable.

Ultimately, that will be a political decision, and not a scientific one.

Yes. So? As you said, we use science to demonstrate the truths on which we make our decisions. Political processes tend to be performed under the intention of making a difference. To do this, you need to make a prediction that performing an action will actually create that difference. While politics might occur with much rhetoric and chest beating, the basic idea is that laws should actually do something productive.

Laws against drug use are there because of the idea that drug use causes problems. The claim above is suggesting that science should validate or dismiss these foundational ideas behind drug use.

So, feel free to argue that. But to suggest that science should remain distinct from the political process is ludicrous.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. So? As you said, we use science to demonstrate the truths on which we make our decisions. Political processes tend to be performed under the intention of making a difference. To do this, you need to make a prediction that performing an action will actually create that difference. While politics might occur with much rhetoric and chest beating, the basic idea is that laws should actually do something productive.

Laws against drug use are there because of the idea that drug use causes problems. The claim above is suggesting that science should validate or dismiss these foundational ideas behind drug use.

So, feel free to argue that. But to suggest that science should remain distinct from the political process is ludicrous.

Athon

I didn't say that science should remain distinct from the political process.

 

[athon]

Fair enough. I admit I am totally lost as to your point, then. I get the feeling that sometimes you just argue for the sake of saying something.

Over and out.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Fair enough. I admit I am totally lost as to your point, then. I get the feeling that sometimes you just argue for the sake of saying something.

Not at all. I'm just wary of something I see occasionally: That science is used to determine not only the scientific reality, but also political issues.

If we let only science determine, without taking politics/morality into consideration, then we are one step away from eugenics. What is the scientific evidence that children with Down's should survive? None - from a strictly scientific, evolutionary point of view, they shouldn't be allowed to live. They will weaken our species and cost society money. Yet, we don't summarily kill them, because we feel that they also have a right to live. Of course they do. Not only can they live wonderful lives, they can also contribute to society - if we let them.

Science tells us what the world is like. Politics/morals is what we want to make of it. It's too simple to say "Well, science tells us that X is more harmful than Y, so if X is legal, then Y should be, too".

It's not a good idea to drive while drunk, but you can drive after just one drink. Not as safe as if you hadn't drunk at all, but we have chosen to draw the line at a certain limit. Not all countries have the same limit, but that's a political choice.

But it sounds like a very bad idea to drive while hallucinating.

 

[Nancarrow]

Not at all. I'm just wary of something I see occasionally: That science is used to determine not only the scientific reality, but also political issues.

But did you see that in this thread?

Nobody was suggesting that scientific truth should be the be-all and end-all of political policy. Nobody, except you when you were putting words into other peoples mouths:

Are you saying that we should only legislate based on scientific evidence?

No, Luchog was NOT, anymore than anyone else here was. The only suggestion being made was that scientific truths are included in, rather than excluded from, the decision making process.

I agree with Athon's point about you:

I get the feeling that sometimes you just argue for the sake of saying something.

Please mull over it at least a bit before hitting 'reply'.

Science tells us what the world is like. Politics/morals is what we want to make of it. It's too simple to say "Well, science tells us that X is more harmful than Y, so if X is legal, then Y should be, too".

It's not a good idea to drive while drunk, but you can drive after just one drink. Not as safe as if you hadn't drunk at all, but we have chosen to draw the line at a certain limit. Not all countries have the same limit, but that's a political choice.

But it sounds like a very bad idea to drive while hallucinating.

Now this is most interesting. You argue that science alone cannot inform our drug policy. Then you give an example.

YOUR EXAMPLE IS INFORMED BY SCIENCE.

Why is it a very bad idea to drive while hallucinating? The answer is to be found in the use of inductive and deductive processes of thought... not politics and morality.

And 'one step away from eugenics'? Slippery slope fallacy. Fallacies are bad, mkay?

 

[CFLarsen]

But did you see that in this thread?

Nobody was suggesting that scientific truth should be the be-all and end-all of political policy. Nobody, except you when you were putting words into other peoples mouths:

Asking a question about what people meant is not putting words into other peoples mouths. It is asking if that is what people meant.

If you don't agree, then please give an example of how to ask for clarification in a way so it isn't "putting words into other peoples mouths".

No, Luchog was NOT, anymore than anyone else here was. The only suggestion being made was that scientific truths are included in, rather than excluded from, the decision making process.

I have not argued otherwise.

Please mull over it at least a bit before hitting 'reply'.

I did. Hence, my lengthy reply.

Now this is most interesting. You argue that science alone cannot inform our drug policy. Then you give an example.

YOUR EXAMPLE IS INFORMED BY SCIENCE.

Yeah. But I don't use that exclusively to make up my mind.

Why is it a very bad idea to drive while hallucinating? The answer is to be found in the use of inductive and deductive processes of thought... not politics and morality.

Hmmm....no. If you drive when you hallucinate, why should I trust you not to kill someone while driving?

And 'one step away from eugenics'? Slippery slope fallacy. Fallacies are bad, mkay?

No, it is not a slippery slope fallacy. What is the scientific reasons to keep children with Down's syndrome alive?