MINISTERS REJECT ANOTHER ACMD SOFTENING ON DRUGS

It was not surprising that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended this week that ecstasy should be lowered from a class A to B drug - but the speedy response of ministers in rejecting that recommendation was not so expected. Addiction Today applauds their wisdom.

A second proposal to give out kits enabling users to test tablets in advance for purity and strength of the illegal psychoactive drug was also thrown out by the Home Office.

So now the ACMD is devoting its efforts - and taxpayer money to the tune of about £200,000 a year in expenses - to getting LSD downgraded.

"LSD is very dangerous and unpredictable. We are talking about children's lives and futures," warned Mary Brett of Europe Against Drugs.

The Home Office also made it plain that it was opposed to downgrading LSD. So who benefits from the ACMD spending our taxes on the exercise?

Details are here.

Peter Hitchens gives his personal comments here.

Comments

[Frugal Dougal]

I enjoyed Peter Hitchen's response, but as a former drugs-worker it was sad to read him slamming narm-reduction in his blog.

Nutt's intervention was patently ideologically based, with obvious references to fox-hunting. I look forwrd to a return of the time when committees are headed by people who can do the job as opposed to political appointees.

[Steve Rolles]

The response of ministers was not in the least bit surprising given that they were on the record, before the review even began, saying that they would ignore any recommendation to downgrade ecstasy/MDMA. The Prime Minister similarly made it clear that he was planning to upgrade cannabis, before the ACMD had reported back to him on the review which on that occassion, he had actually requested.

As is their remit, the ACMD are keeping the classification of drugs under review - systematically working their way through the list covered by the MDA 1971. That LSD is next is not surprising as its anomalous placing, alongside heroin and cocaine in class A, has been flagged up by: The Police |foundation inquiry (2000), the Home Affairs Select Committee (2001), The science and technology select committee 2007, and the RSA 2007, amongst others.

Just to restate - putting a drug in class B does not in any way imply it is not dangerous, or unpredictable, merely that it is deemed, on review of the evidence, to be less so than drugs in class A, and more so than drugs in class C. Class B drug offences are still subject to serious criminal sanctions including (potentially) long prison sentences. It is a ranking of relative harms - and a move downwards does not imply safety in anyway, as the ACMD and Government, to give them credit where due, have made abundantly clear.

If you are arguing for rankings to be based on something other than an evidence based assessment of harms please tell us what you think that should be. Or, similarly, if you think that the ACMD should not keep drug classifications under review in light of new evidence, or that drugs can only be moved upwards or stay where they are, whatever such a review finds, I suggest that you make representations to parliament regards redrafting the Misuse of Drugs Act.

I am suprised that you reference two pieces in the Daily Mail in this post (It is hardly a scientific journal of record) but have not linked the ACMDs detailed report on ecstasy harms itself, nor the 400 page literature review that informed it. This literature review was undoubtedly the most thorough ever undertaken (and was commissioned and undertaken independently of the ACMD). It covered over 1000 seperate research papers (including, in reference to some of your previous posts - multiple studies undertaken by prof Parrot, who I should add, is extensively referenced in the ACMD report aswell). Whatever you may think of the ABC system and the ACMD (and their is certainly a lot to criticize) I have seen no engagement from you at all regards the science in these reports - for which reporting and opinion from a reactionary tabloid is hardly a substitute.

[Laurence McM]

Oh dear, Steve Rolles.
Are you deliberately missing the point?

[Steve Rolles]

er, What point am I missing?