News and Politics | February 26, 2009 | 2 comments

Peanuts vs Ecstasy: Drugs drive politicians out of their minds

source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126953.300-editorial-drugs-drive-politicians-out-of-...

Image
abbym0308
Politicians aren't driven mad because they're taking drugs. It's because of the lack of rational debate about drugs policy that's making them nuts. Consider this thought experiment:

"Imagine you are seated at a table with two bowls in front of you. One contains peanuts, the other tablets of the illegal recreational drug MDMA (ecstasy). A stranger joins you, and you have to decide whether to give them a peanut or a pill. Which is safest?

Ecstasy, of course. You should give them ecstasy, of course. A much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA."

This is an interesting editorial from the New Scientist that suggests that Western governments continually ignore its own rules and recommendations of experts in making drug policies. It says that while they should be based on rational evidence of harmfulness to individuals and to society, they're more often based on irrational speculation and face-saving tactics.

What do you think?
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Health,   Drugs,   Britain
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Health,  Marijuana,  Drugs,  6 more
  3.     
    |

2 comments // Peanuts vs Ecstasy: Drugs drive politicians out of their minds

  • Juergen_Rarey
    • 0
      Juergen_Rarey  

    • Please note, that this example does not actually constitute the contents of the article but is just a teaser to read further.
      The article discusses the rejection of the UK Home Office of recommendation of its independent scientific advisory board to downgrade MDMA to Class B.
      (February 2009)
      The recommendation is based on a multitude of research about the medical, psychological and social impact of the drug. Naturely, the scientific community is not very pleased in cases where politics acts in strong contradiction to agreed upon scientific facts and recommendations.
      Strongly controlling a drug with low harm potential both criminalizes users (strong damage on personal life) and distracts judical and executive resources from controlling other substances of much greater concern (e.g. Heroin).

    • 2 years ago
  • ClareW
    • 0
      ClareW  

    • whilst that is an interesting way to look at it, that is purely a riddle and isn't really a practical approach for policy makers.

    • 3 years ago
more from News and Politics:
from the community

top videos