Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
Ok Matt ,you managed to find surveys that aren't biased well done you ,i didn't say it was impossible i said that it was hard
and i was correct because the study you linked to was inaccurate at first so it was redone moving alchohol to a class A drug and being the most harmful ,i don't dispute that ,but is the study realy suggesting that drinkers should be punished or put on the same level as crack users ?,what punishment is suitable for the most harmful drug ?
Surveys like that may be useful to number crunchers but ultimately society will decide what they want ,and at the moment a large part of society seems to want to take drugs maybe even the majority
|
Survey? You make it sound like a YouGov panel...
I've linked to and quoted from these studies repeatedly in past drug threads over the last few years... including in direct replies to you which you have then replied back to.
They're not talking about "punishing drinkers" the same as crack users (nor saying it should just be a free for all with no classification system at all, as some critics of Nutt and co claim they're saying), nor is the study just something for the "number crunchers".
The current classification system is BS and should be re-thought. It should actually take into account levels of harm, e.g. why are some people severely punished for choosing to use something that is far less socially harmful and physically harmful than other drugs in the same Class and even other drugs that are actually legal?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guardian story on the second study
Nutt told the Guardian the drug classification system needed radical change. "The Misuse of Drugs Act is past its sell-by date and needs to be redone," he said. "We need to rethink how we deal with drugs in the light of these new findings."
(snip)
The authors write: "Our findings lend support to previous work in the UK and the Netherlands, confirming that the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm. They also accord with the conclusions of previous expert reports that aggressively targeting alcohol harm is a valid and necessary public health strategy."
(snip)
He was not suggesting classification was unnecessary: "We do need a classification system – we do need to regulate the ones that are very harmful to individuals like heroin and crack cocaine." But he thought the UK could learn from the Portuguese and Dutch: "They have innovative policies which could reduce criminalisation."
(snip)
Nutt called for far more effort to be put into reducing harm caused by alcohol, pointing out that its economic costs, as well as the costs to society of addiction and broken families, are very high. Taxation on alcohol is "completely inappropriate", he said – with strong cider, for instance, taxed at a fifth of the rate of wine – and action should particularly target the low cost and promotion of alcohol such as Bacardi breezers to young people.
(snip)
|