RSS
 

Showing posts tagged science

New paper shows drugs classifications are wrong

Following on from the work of David Nutt and others - originally for the government’s own advisory panel - is another paper trying to compare the harms of different drugs. As with previous papers, and available at the British Medical Journal, this one’s not good news for our current classification system or the distinction between legal and illegal drugs.

One of the strengths of this study is the large number of experts involved. Two hundred and ninety-two addiction multidisciplinary experts across Scotland were involved making it the largest national panel to be involved in this type of study.  [Addiction community psychiatric nurses were the largest group, making up 46% of the experts]

[…]

The main result is that heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth, alcohol and cocaine were in the top five places for all [9] categories of harm, with LSD, ecstasy, methylphenidate, magic mushrooms and cannabis in the bottom five places for all categories of harm.  The hierarchy of harm when judged by the experts did not correlate with the hierarchy used currently by the Misuse of Drugs Act.

[…]

This study demonstrates, similar to both of Nutt’s studies, that the legality of a substance does not reflect its potential for harm.

The burgeoning evidence of the harm caused by tobacco and alcohol would also suggest that from a scientific perspective these drugs are currently misclassified and that a new method for ranking drug harm, which could guide policies and public health strategies, is required, with many in the scientific and medical community feeling that this should be separated from the criminal justice system and associated penalties.

Any new system would also have to address the issue of personal choice and responsibility in using substances and examine the context in which they are being used. Increasing public awareness of the potential for harm of all the drugs examined whether legal or illegal and finding ways of reducing the demand for psychoactive substances should be the focus rather than imposing harsh penalties for their use.

These methods of comparing harms aren’t perfect. One issue with this paper is that there’s no distinction between harms intrinsic to the drug and additional harm caused by prohibition. Whatever you think of legalisation, a regulated market certainly wouldn’t see heroin contaminated with anthrax, for example.

But these methods are certainly better than the politics and misinformed hysteria that have created the UK’s classification system.

Hopefully this and further improvements will help lead to a more sensible system, but it’s clear that there are also individual reclassifications that could help. The ACMD might next year recommend that Ketamine should be moved up to Class B. Based on this paper, that might be reasonable. But it may also be an opportunity to change - or at least discuss - other classifications, especially those of ecstasy and cannabis (in both cases Labour ignored ACMD advice), as well as LSD and magic mushrooms.

This is not entirely academic. Assuming some people listen to advice from the Home Office, information not based in fact promotes poor decisions and is a danger to people’s health. Think of the children…

 
2 notes

Posted at 5:14pm • Permalink  • Tags: drugs prohibition science

 


Posted at 9:05pm • Permalink  • Tags: deepseachallenge biology science

 


1 note

Posted at 3:28pm • Permalink  • Tags: deepseachallenge biology science space oceans

 


4 notes

Posted at 12:11pm • Permalink  • Tags: science global warming climate change

 


Posted at 4:36pm • Permalink  • Tags: open access science

 


An enduring concern about democracies is that citizens conform too readily to the policy views of elites in their own parties, even to the point of ignoring other information about the policies in question. This article presents two experiments that undermine this concern, at least under one important condition. People rarely possess even a modicum of information about policies; but when they do, their attitudes seem to be affected at least as much by that information as by cues from party elites. The experiments also measure the extent to which people think about policy. Contrary to many accounts, they suggest that party cues do not inhibit such thinking. This is not cause for unbridled optimism about citizens’ ability to make good decisions, but it is reason to be more sanguine about their ability to use information about policy when they have it.

John Bullock, Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate, un-gated PDF for people into that sort of thing. (via ilyagerner)


What kind of abstract is that?!
I’ve read the abstract and the conclusion and still have no idea what the actual experiments were. Is that normal for “political science”? As the paper is 18 pages long, I’m afraid I will have to remain ill-informed!


From what I’ve read, though, I’m led to wonder:

  1. Whether “party cues” are such a bad thing. Is it not essentially trusting someone else’s judgement - based on experience and on (perceived) shared values - on matters that one doesn’t have the time to explore?
  2. Giving people at least “a modicum of information about policies” is super-important, but does the paper suggest (as if the suggestion were needed) that ostensibly non-partisan sources of information - such as the media and think tanks - can have substantial power over public opinion?


And here are some bits of the paper that caught my eye:

A burgeoning body of research suggests that the strength of party cues in other countries depends on the extent to which those countries’ party systems are well-developed. For example, Brader and Tucker (2009a) conducted party-cue experiments in Great Britain, Poland, and Hungary. They find that party cues change policy attitudes most in Great Britain and least in Poland, with Hungary in between—exactly what we would expect if the strength of party cues depends on the extent to which parties have developed clear reputations.

The role of partisanship is most striking: In both experiments, Democrats were far more affected by policy than by party cues, but Republicans were almost equally affected by these factors in Experiment 1 and slightly more affected by party cues in Experiment 2.

[…] More research is required to determine whether these results reflect basic differences between members of different parties. And in general, the possibility of basic partisan differences in political cognition deserves much more attention than it has received.

50 notes

Posted at 10:48pm • Permalink  • Tags: Political Science Politics science media
Reblogged (Quote reblogged from ilyagerner)

 


“TV Tricks of the Trade - Cutaways and Quotes”

1 note

Posted at 9:16am • Permalink  • Tags: tv media science general

 


 


Aww yeah!

Scientists have much better pickup lines.

1 note

Posted at 11:19am • Permalink  • Tags: sbmc comics science meme

 


Posted at 9:28pm • Permalink  • Tags: open access science