MYTHS AND HYSTERIA BAD BASIS FOR DRUG LAWS

Governments' Approach To Substance Abuse Is Informed More By
Superstition Than Science

On Aug. 11, 2005, the former federal Liberal government announced, to
much fanfare, that our current demon drug, methamphetamine, would be
upgraded to Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
which provides for the most severe penalties.

Three former ministers -- Ujjal Dosanjh, Irwin Cotler and Anne
McLellan -- felt the need to be associated with this momentous event.
And all made it clear that the change in meth's legal status was a
result of evidence as to the harm it causes.

As then-health minister Dosanjh put it, "there are significant health,
social and economic harms caused by methamphetamine." Dosanjh
neglected to mention the scientific studies that drew him to this
conclusion, but his oversight was ignored by the media.

That's not surprising, of course, since the meth hysteria that
captivated us then and seduces us still is entirely a product of media
myth-making. Science takes a back seat to headlines and deadlines,
which makes our communities the captives not of drug habits but of
drug hysteria.

That, in essence, is the message delivered by the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse, in a report released this week titled Comparing the
Perceived Seriousness and Actual Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada.

According to the centre, the "direct social and economic costs
associated with alcohol ($7.4 billion) were more than twice the costs
associated with illicit drugs (3.6 billion.)" Yet when surveyed, 45
per cent of Canadians identified illicit drug abuse as "very serious,"
while only 25 per cent thought the same about alcohol abuse.

That our approach to substance use is informed more by superstition
than science is also the message of a British study, already ignored
by the British government, published in the current issue of the
prestigious medical journal, The Lancet.

Led by Bristol University psychopharmacologist David Nutt and Medical
Research Council chief executive Colin Blakemore, the study provided a
ranking of the dangerousness of a number of the most commonly used
licit and illicit drugs.

The study asked independent experts to use three factors to assess the
harm caused by various substances: The physical harm associated with
use, the risk of developing dependence, and the harm to users'
families and the broader community.

The rankings of the experts, who generally agreed with each other and
with the scientific evidence, rated heroin as far and away the most
harmful substance, followed by cocaine and barbiturates. No surprises
there.

But there were a few surprises at the other end of the scale, as the
experts determined that "party" drugs like GHB and MDMA (ecstasy),
which of late has probably received more negative attention than any
drug except meth, were considered among the least harmful of the
assessed substances.

Even more surprising is that polite society's drug of choice, the much
loved alcohol, found itself smack dab between ultra-dangerous drugs
like heroin and amphetamine. College kids don't need scientists to
tell them this, but apparently politicians, policy-makers and the public do.

Similarly, tobacco, which remains legal despite significant hostility,
was ranked as just a little less harmful than amphetamine, but
significantly more dangerous than GHB and ecstasy.

Needless to say, some of these rankings conflict with the popular
perception of drugs, but the researchers did think it worth saying
that the rankings also conflict with the way the law treats these substances.

Under the British Misuse of Drugs Act, drugs are divided into three
classes, ostensibly based on the harm they cause. Drugs in Class A are
considered the most dangerous, and those who possess or trade in such
drugs face the most serious penalties, while Class B drugs are
considered less harmful, and Class C substances the least dangerous.

Yet many of the drugs considered least harmful, such as LSD and
ecstasy, remain in Class A, while more dangerous substances, such as
the party drug ketamine, are relegated to Class C. And this is to say
nothing of alcohol, which remains legal in Britain, and which reveals
that politics rather than science informs British drug policy.

The situation is similar in Canada, as is evidenced by the fact that
media hysteria drove the decision to upgrade methamphetamine to
Schedule I. Like its British counterpart, Canada's Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act classifies drugs (according to Schedules rather
than Classes) based on their presumed dangerousness, and prescribes
the strongest penalties for those drugs deemed most harmful.

Interestingly though, Canadian law, in contrast to British law,
frequently finds itself in accord with the judgment of the experts
consulted in the British study. Many of the most harmful drugs,
including heroin, cocaine, methadone and ketamine, are included in
Schedule I, while many of the least harmful drugs, including LSD, GHB
and ecstasy, are relegated to Schedule III.

Yet many anomalies still exist. Offences involving barbiturates and
benzodiazepines (Schedule IV), which, according to the experts, fall
in the most harmful end of the drug spectrum, are treated less
seriously than offences involving the aforementioned significantly
less harmful Schedule III substances.

And, of course, the highly harmful alcohol, a staple at dinners
involving Canadian dignitaries, is nowhere to be found in the
Schedules, nor is the less acceptable, but still harmful tobacco.

At the very least then, Canadian politicians, including members of the
current Conservative government, who pride themselves on their support
for the war on drugs -- and who just earmarked another $64 million to
deal with illegal drugs -- should be expected to justify the continued
prohibition of LSD, ecstasy and marijuana (Schedule II), perhaps over
a glass of vintage burgundy.

But don't hold your breath, particularly if you've already inhaled.
It's abundantly evident that the drug prohibition regimes of
"civilized" countries depend more on folk psychology, on societal
prejudices toward specific drugs, than on scientific evidence
concerning their dangers.

Aware of this, the authors of The Lancet study advised the British
government to adopt an evidence-based system for classifying drugs. I
wouldn't hold my breath for this one, either, since The Lancet study,
which was originally produced by the British government's Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs and included in a government report
released last summer, has been ignored by the British government, much
as the Canadian Senate's authoritative 2002 report on marijuana was
ignored by the feds.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for refusing to make the law
conform to experts' ratings of dangerous. Were we to do so, alcohol
would become a Schedule I drug, meaning that its possession would be
punishable by up to seven years in jail.

This is not unheard of, as our experiment with prohibition involved
jailing people for liquor offences, but that failed experiment also
taught us that prohibition, much like alcohol itself, often causes
more problems than it solves.

It's unfortunate that few politicians recognize -- or are willing to
admit publicly -- that the prohibition of other substances causes
similar damage, but a British report released shortly before The
Lancet study did call for a radical rethinking of British drug policy.

In the report, titled Drugs -- Facing Facts, the Royal Society for the
encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce argued that Britain
should develop an evidence-based index of the harms caused by drugs,
much like the one provided in The Lancet, and should then replace its
punitive Misuse of Drugs Act with a Misuse of Substances Act aimed at
reducing those harms.

Such an approach would include all substances, including alcohol,
tobacco, and prescription drugs, and would allow policy-makers to
focus their efforts, and our money, on the drugs that really cause
problems, rather than on the ones the media choose to demonize.

This certainly would be far better than our current approach. At the
very least, it couldn't be any worse.