PHDS SHOULD RUN FOR OFFICE TO PUSH POLICY

Stick To Research Or Get Into Politics -- But Not Both

Prince Charles, who visits Vancouver later this week, may have had his
shortcomings as a husband. But it's obvious he tried to be a good
father to son Harry over the so-called wild child's substance-abuse
problems.

When Harry admitted smoking pot and boozing as a teenager, Charles
sent him for a short, sharp visit to a London rehabilitation clinic to
learn about the dangers of drug addiction.

If Harry had been over here, of course, a quick trip to Main and
Hastings would have sufficed. For sheer shock value, the drug bazaar
there always gets high ratings from overseas visitors.

In Britain, as in Canada meanwhile, the public debate continues to
rage over the proliferation and politicization of drugs. Indeed, the
parallels are striking.

The latest U.K. controversy surrounds top government drug adviser
David Nutt who, amongst other things, said British ministers ignored
scientific evidence when taking a tougher stand against marijuana.
Nutt claimed smoking pot created only a "relatively small risk" of
psychotic illness and accused the minister who reclassified the drug
of "distorting and devaluing" scientific research.

He suggested all drugs, legal and illegal, be ranked on a harm index,
with alcohol coming fifth, behind heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and
methadone. Tobacco would rank ninth, ahead of marijuana, LSD and ecstasy.

"No one is suggesting that drugs are not harmful," the high-profile
medical professor said. "The critical question is one of scale and
degree."

Nutt repeated his quirky claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no
worse than riding a horse. He also attacked the "artificial"
separation of alcohol and tobacco from other currently illegal drugs.

However, his outspoken sentiments sat ill with Britain's Labour
government, in tough against the resurgent Tories. And he was fired
late last week as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs.

Nutt's words, though, will be music to Metro Vancouver's
drug-legalization advocates, who argue the issue should be taken out
of the hands of politicians and put into those of scientists.

I disagree. Scientists nowadays appear no less biased than
politicians. And "peer review" in scientific papers is often little
more than an ideological rubber stamp.

For example, any scientist brave enough to seriously question his
peers about the notion of human-induced global warming would be as
welcome at B.C.'s politically correct universities as a skunk at a
wedding. His funding sources would soon dry up.

Besides, who should you believe, politician Al Gore or scientist David
Suzuki? In my view, neither. Both are simply over-housed,
globe-trotting propagandists.

That doesn't mean scientists like Nutt shouldn't speak out about drugs
. . . or the environment. It just means they should decide what they
want to be, scientists or political activists.

It also means we shouldn't leave essentially political decisions in
the hands of cocksure academics who've never had to run for public
office.

As for Prince Charles, I hope he gets to see the Downtown Eastside
while he's here. If so, it's a pity he won't be bringing Harry.