In an article that was ingeniously entitled, “Government Drug Adviser David Nutt Sacked,” The Guardian added a humorous twist to an otherwise grim tale about an honest drug adviser, Professor David Nutt.
Nutt went against the grain, risking his reputation and career, to try and educate people about an unpopular truth: that illegal drugs like ecstasy and LSD are, in fact, less dangerous than alcohol.
Professor David Nutt psychedelics view was known to go against the established norms in our culture. He went out of his way to ensure that people had access to valid information about safety. Realistically, this is the only trait that a drug adviser should be required to have: a desire to provide authentic information about substances of abuse.
Unfortunately, very few drug advisers take this stance.
Most prefer to regurgitate the information fed to them by organizations like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), even if that information is outdated or just downright untrue. David Nutt refused to do this, insisting instead that the truth be made accessible to everyone.
And for this, he was fired. To understand a bit more about how and why his honesty led to his downfall, you may need to know a bit more about the corrupt view on drugs that is instilled in the general population across the world.
Western Society Has a Distorted View of Drugs and Alcohol
For the most part, people assume that “legal” means “safe,” and allow the government and media to do all their critical thinking for them.
If one were to actually put their own time and effort into researching the safety profile of drugs and alcohol (or anything else that we assume to be true), they would realize quite quickly that the status quo, the general opinion, is far from accurate.
Nay, most of what we believe as a society has little basis in fact. Some of the safest drugs (like LSD) are among the most illegal, whereas some of the most dangerous (like alcohol and prescription opiates) are legal.
What we cite as “facts” are generally false statistics, misinformation or straight-up indoctrination that is fed through media outlets, affiliated websites, or corporations. All of these disparate entities have one thing in common: they’re trying to push their own agenda.
A few years ago, discussions like this would have sounded like the ramblings of a conspiracy theory. Sadly (and much to the relief of those wearing tinfoil hats), mountains of evidence have been unearthed and shared to prove that these corporations – especially those involved in the sale, advertising, prohibition, or acquisition of drugs or alcohol – push false ideas into the public mind.
The goal is not to provide the general public with accurate information regarding how these drugs work, or how safe they are. The goal is to ensure that the majority population looks at drugs and/or alcohol through the lens dictated to them by the companies selling the drugs, and/or the organizations dishing out criminal charges to people in possession of them.
In other words, the education that we receive about drugs encourages us to disregard and avoid clandestine drugs, but to approve of drugs that are available for purchase through government outlets. Drug policy is enacted by politicians, which often ignore or refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence regarding the safety of drugs.
The result of this can be observed quite easily.
Ask the average, non-drug-using person what they know about crystal meth, for example. They’ll probably tell you that it kills you, it rots your teeth out, and it causes your face to scab over.
Ask them about LSD and they’ll likely tell you that it produces extreme hallucinations, that you’ll never be able to fly a plane again because acid flashbacks might strike at any moment and leave you in a state similar to schizophrenia that might be permanent.
These are pretty hefty assurances despite the fact that they’ve never used drugs whatsoever, and yet these are the beliefs of the general public. Ask these same people about a legal drug like alcohol, however, and you’ll find responses across the board.
Some people detest alcohol but it’s unlikely that someone would be willing to completely eject you from their lives if they found you drinking, whereas for someone smoking meth this is an all-too-common experience.
These same people are often flabbergasted or enter a state of denial when you point out that alcohol is, in fact, a drug – and a dangerous one, at that. In fact, alcohol and some of its metabolites are extremely toxic, even in the short term.
Metabolites are chemicals or compounds that are produced when your body digests, or metabolizes, a certain substance. Sometimes they can be more dangerous than the original chemical. For example, take a look at just one of alcohol’s metabolites: acetyldehyde.
You are likely already aware of two fairly common, highly toxic chemicals called formaldehyde and acetone. Even small doses of these chemicals can kill a person or cause serious damage. One would be wise to avoid a compound composed with a similar structure of both of these molecules like acetyldehyde.
Unfortunately, people who drinking alcohol are poisoning themselves with acetyldehyde every time they have a few. Acetyldehyde is now thought to be largely responsible for many of the feelings of a hangover – not dehydration, as people prefer to think.
And alcohol’s extremely toxic nature is one of the things that David Nutt wanted people teo acknowledge and understand. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s safe. He wanted people to recognize that the legality of a drug doesn’t have anything to do with its safety profile.
Who Was David Nutt & Why Did He Get Fired?
David Nutt is a prolific person in the world of drug safety and harm reduction.
He is the founder of Drug Science, a nonprofit dedicated to proviidng evidence-based information surrounding drugs. He was the head of the Psychopharmacology Unit at the University of Bristol and performed the first ever brain scan of a patient under the influence of LSD.
Nutt knows what he’s talking about, in other words. Among his work, the Professor David Nutt LSD study and psilocybin study outline the truth about these substances.
David Nutt got sacked because the war on drugs is a lie and the public opinion of drugs is based on political agenda rather than scientific evidence. Drugs can certainly be dangerous and need to be approached with caution.
Part of what means, however, involves is proper education, which is exactly what David Nutt was trying to provide. Only with proper education can you truly understand how to minimize the risks and dangers of drug use. When you give people the wrong information, this can actually create more problems than it solves.
The War on Drugs actually does very little to reduce drug related harm and crime. In fact, if the war on drugs wasn’t a thing, drug related crime would be far less common because our law enforcement agencies would not be targeting recreational drug users which make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population.
Nutt broke convention by providing people with information that conflicted with what was available from mainstream authorities. These mainstream authorities’ methodology is questionable at best.
A commonly-cited paper published at King’s College in London rated alcohol as the fifth-most dangerous drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, and methadone. Tobacoo was rated ninth. Cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy were rated lower, at 11, 14, and 18, respectively.
And yet psychedelic drugs like LSD and mushrooms are often demonized and described as some of the most dangerous substances on the planet. Realistically, psychedelics are generally quite safe.
They cause very little risk of physical harm, they are not addictive, and of all drugs, they are most likely to produce profound, therapeutic changes that remain with the user for weeks, months, or even years after their experiences. Despite this, most anti-drug authorities will lump drugs like LSD in a similar vein as something like heroin.
David wanted to correct this gross inaccuracy by telling people the truth. One such truth, and the one that he got fired for, was publicly announcing that MDMA and LSD are less dangerous than alcohol.
Comparing LSD, MDMA, and Alcohol
LSD really is far less dangerous than alcohol. On a case-to-case basis, alcohol causes far more violent acts, way more injuries, and significantly more criminal activities than LSD. LSD might cause users to have a bad trip once in a while. Even then, however, users are very unlikely to get in a fight or vandalize property.
In terms of physical toxicity, alcohol is simply far more dangerous. Alcohol is actually toxic to the body, while LSD is not. Any organ or tissue exposed to alcohol for a prolonged period will experience damage.
MDMA, the drug most commonly found in pills labeled as ecstasy, is somewhat toxic. However, it affects the brain in an entirely different way than alcohol, making for an experience that is far less risky.
MDMA is an empathogenic stimulant. The first term literally means that the substance produces feelings of empathy in the user. This is probably about as close to the polar opposite of dangerous as you could possibly get.
Alcohol, on the other hand, is a depressant, and an intoxicant. It works mostly by affecting the brain’s GABA system. By causing a flood of this neurotransmitter, alcohol can completely reduce a person’s inhibitions. This can cause them to make rash and unpredictable choices.
MDMA can also significantly reduce inhibitions. The most common issue associated with MDMA-related inhibition loss is engagement in dangerous or risky sexual situations. Because MDMA produces such powerful feelings of love, many people find themselves getting into sexual situations that they would otherwise avoid.
While this is by no means an ideal situation, in terms of comparison, alcohol can cause the same issue. However, alcohol-related sexual issues are usually caused by the loss of inhibition and the lack of self-awareness produced by drunkenness.
Drunk people are unlikely to get into risky situations because they’re overwhelmed with feelings of love, but rather because they’re feeling turned on and willing to become violent or aggressive in their pursuit of sex.
So, overall, alcohol is a far more dangerous substance than either MDMA or LSD.
It is more physically toxic to the body. It causes blackouts during which people may be acting erratically or dangerously. It causes people to become violent and aggressive and long-term use can cause serious damage to the brain and all other organs of the body.
MDMA may cause some toxicity when used to excess over a long period. However, it does not cause any of the other dangers associated with alcohol.
LSD is not toxic and does not cause blackouts or aggressive behavior. However, it can cause mental health disorders to emerge in people who have a family history of issues like schizophrenia or psychosis.
Final Thoughts on David Nutt’s Forced Resignation
Nutt summarized his own removal from his position as advisor quite humbly. He acknowledged that the decision was political in nature and that drug policy is not currently based on science. He continues to acknowledge that this is a significant danger and that any policy related to drugs should be based only on empirical evidence.
Nevertheless, hopefully this situation has opened some peoples’ eyes to the reality of drug policy in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. Policymakers should adhere to the rules of science rather than personal opinion, and drug advisers should value honesty and proper education above all else.
