How Should Recreational Drugs Be Classified?

A number of countries have recently looked at the systems used for classifying drugs. A recent UK report stated that they found "The system for classifying drugs is inconsistent, irrational and "not fit for purpose".

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?

Should People Drink Water From The Tap Or The Bottle?

For many years there have been many studies that have concluded that for countries that have well developed water treatment, bottled water is often no healthier or safer to drink than tap water.

Organisations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature have for many years argued that bottled water is not only environmentally unfriendly but also a waste of money.

However, despite high quality and availability of tap water, the research findings and the high cost of bottled water the developed world continues to consume bottled water at an alarming rate.

The city of New York launched an advertising campaign to try and persuade people to give up bottled drinks and consume tap water instead to help protect the environment. New York's city officials have said that they hope that their campaign will save people money and reduce waste.

Environmental groups claim that four out of five plastic water bottles end up on landfill sites and the production process and distribution process, sometimes involving shipping water halfway around the world, causes global warming.

The Bottled Water Association have been reported to say that they think it unfair to single out an industry that is promoting recycling and introducing biodegradable packaging.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based environmental group, Food and Water Watch, Americans drank 37 billion bottles' worth in 2005.

Nearly 40 percent of bottled water is in fact bottled treated tap water and the federal government requires far more vigorous testing of municipal water than bottled water.

Is New York city correct to try and promote tap water?

Do you currently prefer to drink tap or bottled water and which do you think is better for you?

Intelligent Design or Evolution?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent Design is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. Although given a new name the theory is centuries old and in an attempt to explain the premise in layman terms the English theologian William Paley put forward a famous watchmaker analogy:- If we find a pocket watch in a field, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect. Likewise, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. This argument found favour until Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species in 1859.

Darwin argued that evolution by natural selection better explained life's complexity and diversity. Darwins theory of evolution gradually overtook the Intelligent Design theory and for many years became the accepted thought and the one that was taught in science.

Fast forward 150 years and the debate is back out of the box. In the US supporters of Intelligent Design are not only arguing that it should be recognised but that it should also be taught in science.

Do you think that Darwin's theory of evolution explains everything, can Intelligent Design be a valid alternative, and is there room in science for two such opposing theories?

British Museum - Saint or Sinner?

The "Elgin Marbles" are the most prized collection of the British Museum, the most important objects being the frieze and other architectural sculptures rescued by Lord Elgin from the ruins of the Parthenon, with the approval of the appropriate authorities, at the beginning of the 19th century. The entire collection was purchased from him by the British Government in 1816 and entrusted to the British Museum "to be preserved and kept together."

In fulfilment of this responsibility the Museum is open seven days a week, free of charge, and attracts more than 6 million visitors a year from all parts of the world.

Critics however say that Elgin did not purchase the items from the appropriate authorities but instead bribed local officials with luxurious presents.

Is it now time for the British Museum to accept that they are guilty of receiving stolen goods and to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece or do Elgin and the British Museum deserve credit for both recognising and preserving priceless artifacts that would otherwise have been destroyed?

What do you think?