A though about Drugs.

You know, there’s a heck of a lot around about drugs, at the moment, isn’t there?

Isn’t there?

Well, maybe not quite in that way, before you say anything!

But I can’t help wanting to voice an opinion or two, now that the sacking of Dr David Nutt as Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs means I can give them an airing.

Ah HEM!

Says Annoyed, From Brentwood!

But seriously, I can’t help but look at the news of his sacking, and the resignation of two fellow members as being …

Well …

Hmmm …

You know, I’m not actually sure …

‘Par for the course’ is one phrase that springs to mind, although I’m not sure it’s the right one to use.

But I’m pretty convinced that I’m looking at something of a culture clash, here.

After all, science — and scientists — are there to test a hypotheses, and then then revise this, based on the experiments and evidence shows. Several times over, as needed; which can take some time.

After all, how long’s CERN been where it is?

Quite a while, I’m sure of that; 30-mile-wide Large Hadron Colliders don’t built or test themselves.

Politicians, on the other hand, don’t necessarily have to look at evidence.

No.

I’m thinking they have to make a sale to the punters.

They’re much more exposed to opinion, rather than fact, I think.

So to me, Dr Nutt turning around and saying that he thinks horse-riding’s more dangerous than Ecstasy may well stick in my teeth, but I’m sure that he has both reasons and evidence to back up what he says; regardless of whether I or Home Secretary Alan Johnson like it.

There’s no doubt Alan Johnson didn’t …

What got my attention was Dr Nutt’s view that Ecstasy and Cannabis were less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco …

And can honestly say “I don’t know” on that front.

There is little doubt, in my mind that most illegal drugs are illegal for good reason.

Don’t forget that Heroin was marketed by its original manufacturers as “Completely Non-Addictive”; and been shown, over the years, not to live up to that piece of hype.

Now, can I tell you I’ve … lived … a bit.

I’ve been round the block; plenty of times.

And probably taken one or two puffs of one or two things that, looking back, I shouldn’t have.

But, in the course of my life, I’ve also met people who’ve suffered because they smoked those things; usually they’ve ended up inflaming or triggering serious mental health conditions and mild to extreme physical ones.

But I’m also very aware that ‘drugs’, as a term, can also include the two most popular recreational substances on the planet; tobacco and alcohol.

I should know; I’ve sold them for a living, now, for about fourteen or so years.

And I’ve smoked tobacco for a long time.

And am more acquainted with alcohol problems than you might think.

I’m thinking, here, that we forget that both alcohol and tobacco are both drugs, and as equally as addictive as any of the illegal ones.

•••••

But, finally, here’s the real point I’m trying to make.

I’m thinking that Dr Nutt and Mister Johnson are going to disagree about this, for a very long time*

Because one’s looking at evidence.

And the other’s looking at at opinion. And public opinion, at that.

How more fickle do you want?

* I think I can illustrate this by recommending you read Killing For Companyº, the Brian Masters book about serial killer, Dennis Nilsen. In the parts about the actual trial, Masters emphasises the point the psychologists — defence and prosecution — couldn’t agree on whether Nilsen was mad, or just bad. And that neither could give the frustrated a definitive answer.

º And please bear in mind that it’s a little while since I’ve read this, so … !