The same report was highly critical of the police, the Government and its advisers and called for the classification system to be put on a scientific basis, according to the harm a substance causes.
The committee that compiled the report took advice from a panel of drug experts and concluded that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis, based on a "rational" classification system that the committee strongly supported.
The committee took into account research conducted by the University of Bristol who assessed a list of 20 drugs, legal and illegal, in nine categories and weighed up the physical harm, tendency to induce dependence and the impact on families, communities and society.
Using a "rational" ranking method showed that some legal substances were much riskier than those deemed most dangerous, the current Class A drugs. Others that have been demonised, notably ecstasy, are near the bottom of the table of risk.
Even though it is legal alcohol was high up the new scale because it is involved in more than half of all visits to accident and emergency departments and orthopaedic admissions. Alcohol often leads to violence and is a frequent cause of car accidents.
Another legal drug tobacco is estimated to cause up to 40 per cent of all hospital illness and 60 per cent of drug-related fatalities.
By the experts' method, alcohol and tobacco would both be Class B drugs which in the UK currently includes Amphetamines, Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Pholcodine and carries a punishment for possession of up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine; Or both.
The committee want to see the classification of drugs routinely reassessed using a rational and court sentences for drug abuse stratified according to how far up the new scale a drug lies.
Do you think that the classification of drugs should be based on risk factors and not the present systems that tend to be inconsistent and the results of ad hoc judgments and historical accidents?
No comments:
Post a Comment