Pubdate: Thu, 12 Nov 2015
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2015 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Denise Balkissoon
Page: A13

TIME FOR A CLEAR-EYED LOOK AT DRUG POLICY

My personal drug guru is an avuncular Briton named David Nutt, a 
neuropsychopharmacologist and a professor at Imperial College in 
London. His 2012 book Drugs Without the Hot Air is the most rational 
and comprehensive approach to public health and drug use I have come 
across. A cheat sheet: Drug abuse can be a problem, but it is never a 
crime. Marijuana may as well be sold in cafes; heroin and cocaine are 
extremely harmful; LSD and ecstasy have untapped medical potential, 
if only researchers could study them.

Lest you assume that Dr. Nutt is a doctor in the Timothy Leary 
fashion, he puts his own drug consumption at the occasional glass of 
wine. He has won a slew of awards, and has the appearance of a cuddly 
grandpa. As Canada dives into the intricacies of the Liberal promise 
to legalize marijuana, I recommend that policy-makers, skeptics and 
alarmists make some time to browse his extensive body of work.

Yes, he has good arguments that the negative health consequences of 
marijuana are usually overblown and that it is helpful in treating a 
number of health conditions. But the depth of his thinking goes 
beyond arguing that bud is not all that bad.

He has developed what he calls a "rational," 16-point measure of the 
potential impact of drugs on public health, which includes direct 
personal consequences, effects on other people, addiction, crime and 
so on. In calculating which drug causes the most sweeping destruction 
to individuals and communities, time and again, he and other 
researchers land on the demon alcohol.

It is a pretty easy argument to make. The Canadian Centre for 
Substance Abuse estimates the public cost of alcohol-related harm in 
this country to be just less than $15-billion a year, including 
$3-billion or so in law enforcement costs. One-third or more of 
inmates in Canadian prisons for murder, assault or sexual assault say 
they drank the day they committed their crime (compared with 3 per 
cent of sexual-assault offenders who say they used illicit drugs). As 
well, alcohol is a known carcinogen.

I would be a boozy hypocrite if I argued, as Dr. Nutt does, that 
alcohol should be more expensive and/or sold only at licensed 
establishments with reduced hours. (He is developing a substitute 
that has a "relaxing" effect on the nervous system but will not cause 
extreme intoxication). I am a big fan of liquor, and wine, and beer, 
and I have been known to enjoy all three in succession. I think 
Ontario's move toward increased wine and beer access is fair for 
retailers, and will make it much less stressful to attend dinner 
parties. It might be better for society, but I would selfishly resist 
any attempt at reducing my adult right to drink.

What I take from Dr. Nutt's research, and what I wish policymakers 
would pay attention to, is the complicated matrix of intoxicant use, 
abuse and sales (legal or otherwise), as well as short- and long-term 
health, and the criminal justice system.

Addiction is an issue of mental health, and treating it as such would 
help break its often generational cycle. The legal classification of 
individual inebriates is rarely equal to how much harm they cause, 
and the enforcement of drug laws is unfairly targeted toward 
low-income, racialized communities while privileged offenders too 
often escape justice.

Most users of most drugs enjoy themselves without harm, most of the 
time. That does not mean the government should sell vaporizers packed 
with pot from vending machines, as some alarmists are suggesting 
might happen, but it does require a more honest assessment of what 
drug policy is really about.

Dr. Nutt was an adviser to the British government until 2009, when he 
was sacked for publicly disagreeing with its official stand on a 
number of drugs. Marijuana was being reclassified as the most serious 
of drugs, which he basically said was stupid; he also wrote an 
opinion piece arguing that taking ecstasy was about as dangerous as 
riding a horse. He argues, regularly, that our reluctance to deal 
with the social ills caused by alcohol is because it is big business, 
which is why multinational booze companies take the time to refute him.

It is somewhat amusing to hear these things from an amiable fellow 
who has never rolled a joint. But his message is clear, and serious: 
Drugs, and the politics around them, affect people. Crime and 
morality and big bucks are involved, but let's first aim to do no harm.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom