eBook - ePub
Drugs without the hot air
Making sense of legal and illegal drugs
David Nutt
This is a test
Partager le livre
- 448 pages
- English
- ePUB (adapté aux mobiles)
- Disponible sur iOS et Android
eBook - ePub
Drugs without the hot air
Making sense of legal and illegal drugs
David Nutt
DĂ©tails du livre
Aperçu du livre
Table des matiĂšres
Citations
Ă propos de ce livre
The dangers of illegal drugs are well known and rarely disputed, but how harmful are alcohol and tobacco by comparison? What are we missing by banning medical research into magic mushrooms, LSD and cannabis? Can they be sources of valuable treatments? The second edition of Drugs without the hot air looks at the science to allow anyone to make rational decisions based on objective evidence, asking: *What is addiction? Is there an addictive personality? *What is the role of cannabis in treating epilepsy? *How harmful is vaping? *How can psychedelics treat depression? *Where is the opioid crisis taking us?
Foire aux questions
Comment puis-je résilier mon abonnement ?
Il vous suffit de vous rendre dans la section compte dans paramĂštres et de cliquer sur « RĂ©silier lâabonnement ». Câest aussi simple que cela ! Une fois que vous aurez rĂ©siliĂ© votre abonnement, il restera actif pour le reste de la pĂ©riode pour laquelle vous avez payĂ©. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Puis-je / comment puis-je télécharger des livres ?
Pour le moment, tous nos livres en format ePub adaptĂ©s aux mobiles peuvent ĂȘtre tĂ©lĂ©chargĂ©s via lâapplication. La plupart de nos PDF sont Ă©galement disponibles en tĂ©lĂ©chargement et les autres seront tĂ©lĂ©chargeables trĂšs prochainement. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Quelle est la différence entre les formules tarifaires ?
Les deux abonnements vous donnent un accĂšs complet Ă la bibliothĂšque et Ă toutes les fonctionnalitĂ©s de Perlego. Les seules diffĂ©rences sont les tarifs ainsi que la pĂ©riode dâabonnement : avec lâabonnement annuel, vous Ă©conomiserez environ 30 % par rapport Ă 12 mois dâabonnement mensuel.
Quâest-ce que Perlego ?
Nous sommes un service dâabonnement Ă des ouvrages universitaires en ligne, oĂč vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă toute une bibliothĂšque pour un prix infĂ©rieur Ă celui dâun seul livre par mois. Avec plus dâun million de livres sur plus de 1 000 sujets, nous avons ce quâil vous faut ! DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Prenez-vous en charge la synthÚse vocale ?
Recherchez le symbole Ăcouter sur votre prochain livre pour voir si vous pouvez lâĂ©couter. Lâoutil Ăcouter lit le texte Ă haute voix pour vous, en surlignant le passage qui est en cours de lecture. Vous pouvez le mettre sur pause, lâaccĂ©lĂ©rer ou le ralentir. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Est-ce que Drugs without the hot air est un PDF/ePUB en ligne ?
Oui, vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă Drugs without the hot air par David Nutt en format PDF et/ou ePUB ainsi quâĂ dâautres livres populaires dans Ciencias biolĂłgicas et Neurociencia. Nous disposons de plus dâun million dâouvrages Ă dĂ©couvrir dans notre catalogue.
Informations
Sujet
Ciencias biolĂłgicasSous-sujet
NeurocienciaChapter 1. Why I had to write this book
â Tom Brake Member of UK Parliament: âDoes the Prime Minister believe that once a healthier relationship is established between politicians and the media, it will be easier for Governments to adopt evidence-based policy in relation to, for instance, tackling drugs?â
David Cameron (the then prime minister): âThat is a lovely ideaâ
I have included this political interchange at the start of this book to emphasize an issue that will come up in almost every chapter: the role of politicians and the media in overruling scientific evidence in the making of drugs policy. The above exchange occurred in 2011, and if anything, the situation in both the UK and US has deteriorated since then. The UK introduced the Psychoactive Substances Act in 2016, which makes all substances that affect the brain illegal â unless they are alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. In the US there were more than 60,000 deaths from opioids in 2017, a total greater than all the American deaths in the Vietnam war. Drugs are a perennial and growing problem in our societies.
However, challenging current policies is fraught with problems as my own case illustrates. Many British people who donât recognize my name or know anything about my work will nonetheless remember me as âthe government scientist who got sackedâ. In many ways my departure from the UK governmentâs Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) was my reason for writing this book, so it makes sense to start the story there. Fewer US citizens will have heard of me, though I did work in the US from 1986â1988, where I was head of the clinical research ward at the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism on the vast NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. It was my deep knowledge of the harms of alcohol that eventually got me sacked by the UK government.
In October 2009, â a lecture Iâd given a few months before was released as a pamphlet on the internet. For some reason â perhaps it was a slow news day â this got picked up by the media and I was interviewed on BBC Radio 4. This generated more interest and several more interviews. A few days later I received an email from the then Home Secretary Alan Johnson asking me to resign from my position as chair of the ACMD. When I refused he released a statement saying that I had been sacked.
The lecture that sparked off this chain of events had covered a number of topics, but all the media wanted to talk about were my views on cannabis. The decision to downgrade cannabis to Class C was taken in 2004 and implemented in 2005, but in January 2009 it was re-upgraded to Class B, indicating increased harmfulness; the change was made against the recommendation of the ACMD. Jacqui Smith, who was Home Secretary at the time, justified ignoring the recommendations of our report because, she said, her â âdecision takes into account issues such as public perception and the needs and consequences for policing priorities. ⊠Where there is ⊠doubt about the potential harm that will be caused, we must err on the side of caution and protect the public.â In the lecture, I discussed whether this was a rational approach, and particularly whether putting a drug in a higher legal Class in order to âerr on the side of cautionâ would actually protect the public and reduce harm. And why did she not act on a drug where there was proof of harms â alcohol?
Iâd entitled my lecture Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business? because I knew from experience that talking about the harm done by drugs in relative terms was considered politically sensitive. This had been made very clear to me when a scientific editorial Iâd written the year before, comparing the harms of ecstasy with those of horse riding, provoked questions in Parliament and an unhappy personal call from Jacqui Smith. (You can read more about this episode on page 22.)
There had been a similar reaction to a â paper I co-wrote in 2007, which tried to rank 20 drugs in order of harmfulness, taking into account 9 different sorts of harm, including physical, psychological and social factors. What was remarkable about this paper was our finding that alcohol was the 4th most harmful drug in the UK â below heroin and crack cocaine but above tobacco, cannabis and psychedelics. Since alcohol was legal this challenged the logic underpinning the drug regulations which were supposed to be based on harms.
Politicians didnât like the idea of some drugs being openly acknowledged as âless harmfulâ than others (or even worse, less harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol), because it might be seen as encouraging more people to use them, or make the politicians seem less âtoughâ in the eyes of the tabloid newspapers. This is despite the fact that the purpose of having different Classes of drugs built into the Misuse of Drugs Act â or the US controlled drug regulations â is to communicate to the public a degree of relative harm â (Table 1.1). Class B drugs should be less harmful than Class As, and Class C drugs less harmful than Class Bs. Incidentally, many drugs that have medical uses are both covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act, and regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Medicines Act (Figure 1.1). In the US the situation is similar but the classification system uses Schedules rather than Classes and has more of them. Confusingly the US Schedules donât always match with those in the UN Conventions, and in the US penalties are specific to each drug rather than determined by the drugâs Schedule.
Class | Includes | Possession | Dealing |
A | Ecstasy, LSD, heroin, cocaine, crack, magic mushrooms, amphetamines (injected) | 7 years | Life |
B | Amphetamines, cannabis, Ritalin, Ketamine | 5 years | 14 years |
C | Tranquillizers, some painkillers, GHB | 2 years | 14 years |
Which brings us back to cannabis â the only drug in the history of the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ever to be downgraded, following recommendations made by the â Runciman report in the year 2000. After the downgrading of cannabis, however, the media, along with some politicians and medical professionals, became concerned that stronger forms of the drug (known as âskunkâ) were causing serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.
There was certainly a legitimate question as to whether new breeds of cannabis were more harmful than the sort that had been considered by Runciman and the ACMD in the past. As the governmentâs advisory council, this is exactly the sort of issue that our research was supposed to address, and we undertook a very thorough study â one of the most comprehensive ever. Our conclusion was that, although there probably was a causal link between smoking cannabis and some cases of schizophrenia, this link was weak and didnât justify moving the drug up to the next Class. Yes, there was a risk of developing a serious mental illness after using the drug, but it was smaller than the risks posed by other Class Bs such as amphetamines, which can also cause psychosis. This was the message that we wanted to send to the public by keeping cannabis in Class C.
Certainly, nobody was calling cannabis safe. However, as my 2007 Lancet report had shown (and as confirmed by our â 2010 Lancet paper) across a range of different sorts of harm, cannabis was by no means as damaging as many other drugs, particularly alcohol. This was a point I made in my lecture, and which got picked up in the radio interview: âsurely you canât be saying alcohol is more harmful than cannabis?â I replied yes, thatâs exactly what Iâm saying, itâs there in my 2007 Lancet paper, which at the time was reported on the front page of two of the leading UK newspapers â the Independent and the Guardian â so it was hardly a secret. But this question was repeated in the other interviews that week â everybody wanted the quote that alcohol was more harmful than cannabis. It was an entirely defensible thing to say, as it was based on my own scientific work, and backed up by a similar study from Holland which had agreed that alcohol deserved to be ranked among the most harmful of drugs. In these interviews I also observed that the government had asked the ACMD to determine which Class cannabis belonged in, but then hadnât followed our advice.
â In a letter to the Guardian a few days after he sacked me, the UK governmentâs Home Secretary Alan Johnson explained that I âwas asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy.â â I responded in The Times that I didnât understand what he meant when he said I had crossed the line from scie...