Mephedrone

There have been up to 25 deaths reported in the past few months, among young people using the so called 'legal high' drug mephedrone. That's 25 unnecessary and needless lives lost as a result of taking something which is sold and marketed as 'plant food'.


It doesn't take a scientist to know that this is a bad thing! Well, you would think it would be obvious, wouldn't you. Not quite so amongst our friends in the 'Drugs Advisory Body' which was set up to advise the government on the evolution of harmful drugs in our society, and what should be done about them. Professor David Nutt resigned a few months ago, because the government acted on the deaths of several young people, before the 'advisory' body got a chance to report. It has happened again. This week another member of this committee, Eric Carlin, resigned because the government were reacting to public alarm and not as a result of their deliberations.


I saw an interview with David Nutt tonight where he criticised the government for acting to ban the substance 'before the scientific results could be completed'. After all he said, there may have been other reasons for the causes of death in these drug users, and we 'would not wish to make criminals of them' unnecessarily. No mention was made of the impact of the deaths of the young people on their families, just a protective statement to look after their own reputation. It was science before humanity!


The government take a lot of blame for things, and in most cases it can be justified, but acting quickly to ban a drug, sold as plant food, and easily bought legally on the internet, is so obviously the right thing to do. Does it really matter that some people will be 'criminalised' in the process? Not if it saves only one young life, who otherwise will believe the lies of the drug makers and distributors. 


No wonder we have a drug problem, when we have experts like David Nutt and his colleagues around. Nutt by name and Nutt by nature, as my Mum would have said!! Science should be used for the service of the people, and not as its master.


Are these the kind of scientists we should believe in the emotive 'Creation versus Evolution' debate? Science is conducted by scientists (people) so by definition is therefore flawed. We shouldn't always hold up science as ultimately right. All the results aren't in yet, and I mean ALL the results! (Bet you wondered how I was going to work that in, now, didn't you? :-).