'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works..

[edgarshade]

'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Galileo': Scientists call for drugs to be legalised to allow proper study of their properties

Independent

Charlie Cooper
Wednesday 12 June 2013

With reader comments

The outlawing of drugs such as cannabis, MDMA and LSD amounts to the “the worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Copernicus and Galileo”, the former Government drugs advisor Professor David Nutt has claimed. Professor Nutt, who was dismissed from the Home Office’s advisory council on drugs in 2009 after clashing with ministers, said that UN conventions on drugs in the 1960s and 1970s have delayed the development of “innovative treatments” for PTSD and depression by 30 years and also set back research into areas of neuroscience such as consciousness. In a paper published today with two other scientists in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience, he said that drugs policy is being driven by “politics, not science”.

More...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...proper-study-of-their-properties-8654514.html

 

[RobotRipping]

'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Galileo' sounds a bit dramatic. David Nutt just loves controversy probably; we know drug policy is driven by politics.

 

[paranoid android]

'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Galileo' sounds a bit dramatic. David Nutt just loves controversy probably; we know drug policy is driven by politics.

Yeah he is being abit overly dramatic there to say the least. The banning of condoms and birth control by the Catholic church did more harm especially in Africa with the AIDS epidemic then drug prohibition has done in my opinion atleast. Drug policy like everything else is driven by economics and the politics that come with it. There is just too much money and power for both the forces of the state and the drug cartels to give up if drugs become legal. Once people obtain power they rarely if ever give it up willingly.

 

[23536]

Prohibition is far worse than the banning of heliocentrism. Really, how many people did that harm?

History will probably judge this present global chemical regime very harshly.

 

[paranoid android]

Prohibition is far worse than the banning of heliocentrism. Really, how many people did that harm?

I think the point he was making was that it was the worst case of scientific censorship since the banning of helicentrism not so much the damage either did.

 

[edgarshade]

Here is the original article.

Medical breakthroughs missed because of pointless drug bans

The Conversation
12 June 2013, 6.46am BST
Prof David Nutt

With reader comments

In 1632 the Catholic Church convened a case against Galileo on the grounds that his work using the telescope to explore the nature of the heavens contradicted the church’s teaching – the culmination of a long fight that had lasted 16 years.

Galileo was put under house arrest and his research stopped. Some of his inquisitors refused even to look down a telescope, believing it to be the work of the devil. With his life under threat, Galileo retracted his claims that the earth moved around the sun and was not the centre of the universe. A ban by the papal Congregation of the Index on all books advocating the Copernican system of planetary motion – which we use today – was not revoked until 1758.

Three centuries later we have an equivalent case of scientific censorship. In the 1960s and the 1970s the UN effectively banned a whole range of drugs from cannabis, opioids and cocaine through to psychedelics – LSD and “magic mushrooms”. They did this in a futile attempt to reduce the use and harms of these drugs, but both consumption and harms have increased ten-fold since then, and many of the negative effects of these laws include the rise of AIDS and the collapse of law and order in Mexico.

However, another major impact of these laws – restriction of research – has hardly been discussed. Yet this is arguably as significant a problem and must change.

More...
http://theconversation.com/medical-breakthroughs-missed-because-of-pointless-drug-bans-15072

 

[RobotRipping]

research is still being carried out worldwide though, even in the US. Sure it has been slowed to a crawl but how can David Nutt say that we missed out on medical breakthroughs when for all we know, psychedelics aren't anything special? Their current medical uses are pretty limited in comparison to cannabis and opiates.

Well i guess cannabis could be considered a psychedelic but there has been much research on it, even with other cannabinoids and the possibility of fighting tumors. I don't think science has really been censored though, it's out there, maybe it's distorted and convoluted due to politics but there's no one to blame except the people themselves for allowing drug prohibition to continue, alcohol prohibition didn't last very long.

I always get caught by the headlines David Nutt articles have then i read that the article or study has been conducted by David Nutt and i'm like fuck, there goes all credibility, not that he's wrong but his ideas will not be generally accepted by most people. If he wants to make legitimate change he has to do so in a way that it is accessible for people and not make gigantic claims like, 'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Galileo.' His political influence is minimal IMO, i'd like to be wrong about that but the whole MDMA and horses thing and this and all the other stuff, is kind of laughable even if it is 100% true.

 

[caseface99]

Progress, not perfection.

It's happening, slowly but surely. MAPS is a wonderful organization, and regardless of this Nutt's love of controversy he's putting media exposure on the topic, which helps.

 

[slimvictor]

Don't know why people are disparaging Nutt here. I am very, very pleased by what he has done.
The banning of condoms etc. wasn't specifically scientific censorship, though it did harm millions of people, no doubt.
The banning of drugs is preventing scientific research that could help millions of people.

how can David Nutt say that we missed out on medical breakthroughs when for all we know, psychedelics aren't anything special? Their current medical uses are pretty limited in comparison to cannabis and opiates.

Maybe you don't know about it, but psychedelics are incredibly special.
There is solid research that shows that they can help people psychologically/emotionally prepare for death, and recover from PTSD, and deal with childhood trauma. If that is not special, I don't know what is.

 

[RobotRipping]

yeah i agree but aside from that they aren't going to cure cancer likely or aids or improve patients quality of life in a way that cannabis and opiates do.

not that research shouldn't continue, as treating those illnesses, issues are of great importance. I don't want to disparage Nutt, i just think most people will think of him as a nut and not take him seriously.

i dont disagree with Nutt at all, i completely agree, just think he's getting the wrong kind of attention and that perhaps the medical community does not appreciate such things. The prohibition of psychedelics has definitely slowed progress on things like treating cluster headaches, migraines, PTSD, depression, anxiety, i can't deny that. But all things considered that's a small list compared to the conditions cannabis and opiates treat or other drugs like antibiotics.Timothy Leary brought tons of media attention to psychs, that didn't work out too well though.