Prof David Nutt: 'It's irrational to deny people access to LSD'

Outspoken UK drug expert David Nutt argues for regulated access to any drug less harmful than alcohol, including cannabis and Ecstasy.

He is a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and author of Drugs: Without The Hot Air (2012).

Professor David Nutt: 'Any drug which is less harmful than alcohol ... should be available as an alternative to alcohol.'Prof David Nutt Photo: Supplied "My view is that any drug that is less harmful to the person that uses it than alcohol should be available as an alternative to alcohol - in a form where the harms are minimised," he told Sunday Morning.

"That doesn't mean a free market, that doesn't mean opening up cannabis shops to compete with supermarkets selling beer.

"It means having access to cannabis, and ecstasy and other drugs perhaps, like as methadone and mushrooms - in pharmacies, possibly with electronic cards that allow you to have a certain amount per year."

Listen to the whole conversation with David Nutt duration 35′ :29″ Add to playlist Download Download as Ogg Download as MP3 Play Ogg in browser Play MP3 in browser Listen to the whole conversation with David Nutt Prof Nutt said in the UK the leading causes of drug deaths were tobacco, alcohol and heroin and opiates - all much higher than deaths from ecstasy (MDMA).

"Regulated access to drugs that are less harmful than alcohol will reduce the harms of alcohol, hopefully reduce the use of drugs more harmful than alcohol like crystal meth and P and heroin, and will actually overall reduce the societal damage from drugs."

Research on certain drugs and their potential therapeutic value was being denied, he said.

He has worked on a study of what happens in the brains of people under the influence of LSD and psilocybin (magic mushroom) using brain imaging scans.

They found "to our surprise" that the part of the brain that tends to drive depression was switched off by psilocybin, in a similar way to anti-depressants, and a follow up study suggested the effect could last for several weeks or months.

He argues psilocybin and similar drugs should be moved from Schedule one to Schedule two - still a class of controlled drugs alongside the likes of morphine - "so that your doctors can research them very easily and determine their therapeutic value in the New Zealand population".

There are huge national variations in the types of misused and dangerous drugs, but worldwide, the big problem was going to be the synthetic opioid fentanyl, he said, because the black market has now worked out it's much cheaper to make than heroin.

Some are 10,000 times more potent than heroin so the tiniest drop can cause an overdose.

"It's now become clear about a third of the opiate deaths in the United States are due to fentanyl. That is going to sweep the world"

Prof David NuttProf David Nutt Photo: Supplied Prof Nutt was chair of the UK government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs until 2009, when he was sacked for suggesting alcohol was more dangerous than many illegal drugs.

"If we care about the harms of drugs to the point where people are dying then you've got to do something about alcohol.

"This is why I feel passionately about the position of science in this debate."

Though alcohol was a leading cause of death under the age of 50 in the UK, politicians did not want to take on the alcohol industry, he said, so they make a show of being hard on drugs.

"I believe in Britain one of the reasons we have this massive problem of early death from alcohol is because we allow our kids to start drinking at the age of about 14.

"I frankly am not encouraging anyone under the age of 18 to use any drug - the longer you can wait before using any drug the less likely you are to interfere with your education or your long term health.

"Certainly under-age cannabis use would not be good, and I encourage people not to do it. But that doesn't mean we should ban it from people who are fit and over the age of 18."

Prof Nutt is giving a public lecture titled 'How an enlightened approach to drug policy could revolutionise medicine as well as reducing drug harms' at the University of Auckland on 26 February.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018633601/prof-david-nutt-it-s-irrational-to-deny-people-access-to-lsd


Comments


[64 Points] wise-advisor:

LSD helps me with my Alcoholism big time


[21 Points] _PrinterPam_:

Any drug which is less harmful than alcohol ... should be available as an alternative to alcohol

Therein lies the rub. Scheduling makes it highly difficult to conduct legitimate research (often requiring decades of studies) to determine any physiological repercussions. Then we have to decide how to define 'harmful.' Physical is one aspect. Societal is another and not easy to quantify.

Plus, I don't entirely agree with his linking of 'old enough' to the age of suffrage in many places (18). Parts of the brain, the frontal lobe in particular (responsible for aspects like judgement), aren't fully developed until around age 25. It's an involved subject. Interesting article, though.


[11 Points] Woodincrease:

Fuck these guys that think drug business should be nationalized. On such a market would be no competition and therefore worse prices, possible listings from the goverment of ANY drug user , only limited access to these substances trough strict regulations and overall no advantages. Are we in Venezuela or what ? Either you want a complete drug legalization, or you can fuck off !


[10 Points] happy-when-it-rains:

That headline seems a bit sensational and like it's trying to get attention, since what he's actually saying seems a bit more nuanced and like he is suggesting some degree of regulation. I am all for legalisation of all drugs, but statements like "it's irrational to deny people access to LSD" on their own look ridiculous. Psychedelics and weed have plenty of potential for harm that people love to dismiss.

If we're going to advocate for legalisation in the name of harm reduction, I think it's important we avoid being sensational and treating it as if it's a cure all for the opioid crisis or as if there's no potential problems. Wording is important and people (especially teens) can easily take certain statements from sources such as that article the wrong way.


[7 Points] crazynate386:

LSD saved my life from I.V. meth.

I firmly believe I'd be dead today with out LSD


[7 Points] mrfloridamolly99:

Its irrational to commit violence against someone when that individual is simply ingesting a chemical.


[3 Points] toomuchdamnicecream:

I didnt read this horseshit. I would deny L for soooo many people in my life. Some people just aren't meant to do it. Like people who can't even handle weed. My L has caused bad experiences in many people and now I make sure that I talk to people who wants to get some from me.


[2 Points] Hodl2Moon:

Just based on what it actually does chemically to our body/mind/, it's LD/50, and that lovely caveat of any medical use.

There is absolutely no way you can convince me or please show me peer reviewed medical evidence that proves there is 0 medical benefits. For the mere sake of therapeutic and mental health treatment that should be plenty of reason.

As with something of its kind, it should be readily available and regulated. Some 8 year old has no business dropping 200mics. It should have quality control standards and age limitation. If evidence unveils where microdosing is medically beneficial and not detrimental to a developing brain I would be open to case by case medical approval.

What was it the 80's until the Native American were legally allowed to use Peyote in their religious ceremonies?

It cracks me up how people think that a ceremony that has been passed down for generations is more dangerous in a controlled religious setting than snake handling and speaking in tongues.


[2 Points] journohack:

In case people don't know, David Nutt was on the government's drug advisory committee until he went against the government regarding weed classification and the tabloids went after him and he had to resign/was sacked.


[1 Points] finickybastard:

It's irrational to deny a person any drug ultimately.

Anyone remember when alcohol was prohibited?


[1 Points] cgi_bin_laden:

Won't take it anymore after a BAD reaction with my Wellbutrin. Man, that was ugly.


[1 Points] trinitytech:

I've only taken acid four times and they were four of the most interesting, hilarious, scariest and life changing moments of my life.

This substance, along with several other changes I've made in my life since this year started are turning me into a different, better person. Gone are the days of me being a closed up, antisocial, extreme introvert that hated everyone around me.

There wasn't a better time for this to happen either, because I'm finally turning 18 tomorrow. I fucking love life right now.


[1 Points] Bitmexxed:

I suffer with depression and psychosis from heavy drug abuse and currently on RRSIs and anti-psychotics for the past 3 years. LSD won't work on me. What can I do?


[1 Points] AlpraCream:

Not gonna lie, I love porn on acid at 300ugs, too bad tolerance builds so fast. Like most users love meth and porn, I have that feeling for acid. Nothing introspective at all for me. Competitive video games make me think and react in ways I never do on stimulants either, I get really creative with my techniques and outsmarting my opponents on it.


[1 Points] aguysomewhere:

Some people should not take LSD. Much like how some people should not drink.


[1 Points] smokeythebandit12:

I fully agree but shrooms are safer. You never really know what's in your lsd.


[1 Points] biaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch:

LSD saved me from cocaine. If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'


[1 Points] Fungi518:

Without LSD, I’d be lost! I ❤️ Lucy


[0 Points] heroiiiin:

The Nutt has spoken!