Put down your gin and tonic. Put out that cigarette.
Grab some ecstasy or a joint, instead.
If a new, reportedly "landmark" study out of Britain - conducted by Professor David Nutt of Bristol University and other colleagues - is correct, the dangers posed to the user and to the society, at large, by alcohol and tobacco are greater than the dangers posed by MDMA, or the street drug ecstasy, and marijuana.
According to the original report on the study by The Associated Press, the current legal frameworks surrounding the classification of drugs do not reflect the harms that these substances actually cause to society. Ecstasy and cannabis were singled out as less harmful substances to society, while substances like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine were ruled to be more harmful.
Alcohol was reported as the fifth most-harmful substance, while tobacco ranked ninth. Meanwhile, cannabis ranked 11th, and ecstasy ranked near the bottom.
According to the AP, the study cited frightening statistics about tobacco, like that it causes "40 percent of all hospital illnesses."
Meanwhile, alcohol has all sorts of harmful effects on society, according to anyone who has ever been to a bar.
The study considered three factors in its analysis of harms posed by the respective substances. The scoring of the substances was based on the substances' risk of addiction, harm to the user and harm to society.
Nutt, who published his study in Britain's Lancet magazine, wrote that current systems of drug classifications are "arbitrary" and "ill-thought out." For instance, alcohol and tobacco are legal in the U.S. and Britain, and ecstasy and cannabis are prohibited.
Nutt's solution to increase regulations on tobacco and alcohol, however, is troubling, as it follows the same prohibitionist fallacies that got us into this mess with arbitrary drug classifications to begin with. By that, I mean our reliance on everything other than rational deliberation and objective scientific research.
Public hysteria, the politics of fear, taxpayer-funded propaganda, racist attitudes and fraudulent government studies have combined in a perfect storm for prohibition.
In this sense, though, Nutt's study is refreshing. It is yet another well-respected, independent study that calls into question many of our irrational, reactionary views regarding U.S. drug policy. A real market of information, not simply government-controlled studies, in which integrity is often in question, should drive the debate surrounding our drug laws.
Hopefully, this study will serve as a rallying call for increased funding for objective scientific research surrounding the harms of particular substances.
This study ought to remind all of us that some of our most deeply held assumptions are often incorrect. Many of our beliefs surrounding drug policy are not the creatures of accurate information and calm discussion. There are cultural interests, religious interests and economic interests all at stake.
These interests, irrational or self-interested, make bad public policy. They lead to theocracy and corporate welfare - you know, those things the GOP didn't use to support.
I don't intend to make the point that all drugs ought to be legal and that all adults ought to be able to decide what they put in their own bodies. It would be a good point, but I'm not making it here.
Instead, let's make a deal. Let's agree that before we vote, before we discuss our drug laws and before we even form judgments on these issues to make a legitimate attempt to gain the best information that we can.
And while we're at it, we could even agree to talk about the issues like civil, intelligent adults.
Reach the reporter at: macy.hanson@asuchoice.com.
