verfasst                         

Zitat:

---

Ursprünglich geschrieben von: alexosiris:
Biertisch Redner werden ernster genommen als Wissenschaftler. Das ist traurig.

---

solange wir von biertischrednern regiert werden wird das auch so bleiben

verfasst                      

Zitat:

---

Ursprünglich geschrieben von: sven.k.:
Ja gut, aber nun tuen wir mal nicht so, als ob es hoch wissenschaftlich waere reiten und e*stasy zu vergleichen.

---

Vielleicht erstmal das entsprechende Editorial (es handelt sich in dem Sinne gar nicht um einen wissenschaftlichen Artikel) lesen Es ging nicht um einen direkten Vergleich, sondern darum, ob auf verschiedene Risiken verhältnismäßig reagiert wird.

Auszug:

Zitat:

---

Equasy An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms

(...)
This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates –indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use. There are many risky activities such as base jumping, climbing, bungee jumping, hang-gliding, motorcycling which have harms and risks equal to or worse than many illicit drugs. Of course, some people engage in so called ‘extreme’ sports specifically because they are dangerous. Horse riding is not one of these and most of those who engage in it do it for simple pleasure rather than from thrill seeking, almost certainly in complete ignorance of the risks involved. Other similarly dangerous yet fun activities are rugby, quad-biking and boxing. With the exception of boxing, which is outlawed in some European countries, sports are not illegal despite their undoubted harms.
So why are harmful sporting activities allowed, whereas relatively less harmful drugs are not? I believe this reflects a societal approach which does not adequately balance the relative risks of drugs against their harms. It is also a failure to understand the motivations of, particularly younger people, who take drugs and their assessment of the perceived risks compared with other activities. The general public, especially the younger generation, are disillusioned with the lack of balanced political debate about drugs. This lack of rational debate can undermine the trust in government in relation to drug misuse and thereby undermining the government’s message in public information campaigns. The media in general seem to have an interest in scare stories about illicit drugs, though there are some exceptions (Horizon, 2008). A telling review of 10-year media reporting of drug deaths in Scotland illustrates the distorted media perspective very well (Forsyth, 2001). During this decade, the likelihood of a newspaper reporting a death from paracetamol was in per 250 deaths, for diazepam it was 1 in 50, whereas for amphetamine it was 1 in 3 and for ecstasy every associated death was reported.
Is there a lesson from these relative comparisons of harms and risk that regulatory authorities could use to make better drug harm assessments and thus better laws? The example of equasy when compared to the use of drugs highlights the diver- gence between the activities in terms of levels of risk and social and moral acceptability. Perhaps this illustrates the need to offer a new approach to considering what underlies society’s tolerance of potentially harmful activities and how this evolves over time (e.g. fox hunting, cigarette smoking). A debate on the wider issues of how harms are tolerated by society and policy makers can only help to generate a broad based and therefore more relevant harm assessment process that could cut through the current ill-informed debate about the drug harms? The use of rational evidence for the assessment of the harms of drugs will be one step forward to the development of a credible drugs strategy.

---

verfasst                      

Zitat:

---

Ursprünglich geschrieben von: guilty as charged:

Zitat:

---

Ursprünglich geschrieben von: sven.k.:
Ja gut, aber nun tuen wir mal nicht so, als ob es hoch wissenschaftlich waere reiten und e*stasy zu vergleichen.

---

Vielleicht erstmal das entsprechende Editorial (es handelt sich in dem Sinne gar nicht um einen wissenschaftlichen Artikel) lesen Es ging nicht um einen direkten Vergleich, sondern darum, ob auf verschiedene Risiken verhältnismäßig reagiert wird.

Auszug:

Zitat:

---

Equasy An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms

(...)
This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates –indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use. There are many risky activities such as base jumping, climbing, bungee jumping, hang-gliding, motorcycling which have harms and risks equal to or worse than many illicit drugs. Of course, some people engage in so called ‘extreme’ sports specifically because they are dangerous. Horse riding is not one of these and most of those who engage in it do it for simple pleasure rather than from thrill seeking, almost certainly in complete ignorance of the risks involved. Other similarly dangerous yet fun activities are rugby, quad-biking and boxing. With the exception of boxing, which is outlawed in some European countries, sports are not illegal despite their undoubted harms.
So why are harmful sporting activities allowed, whereas relatively less harmful drugs are not? I believe this reflects a societal approach which does not adequately balance the relative risks of drugs against their harms. It is also a failure to understand the motivations of, particularly younger people, who take drugs and their assessment of the perceived risks compared with other activities. The general public, especially the younger generation, are disillusioned with the lack of balanced political debate about drugs. This lack of rational debate can undermine the trust in government in relation to drug misuse and thereby undermining the government’s message in public information campaigns. The media in general seem to have an interest in scare stories about illicit drugs, though there are some exceptions (Horizon, 2008). A telling review of 10-year media reporting of drug deaths in Scotland illustrates the distorted media perspective very well (Forsyth, 2001). During this decade, the likelihood of a newspaper reporting a death from paracetamol was in per 250 deaths, for diazepam it was 1 in 50, whereas for amphetamine it was 1 in 3 and for ecstasy every associated death was reported.
Is there a lesson from these relative comparisons of harms and risk that regulatory authorities could use to make better drug harm assessments and thus better laws? The example of equasy when compared to the use of drugs highlights the diver- gence between the activities in terms of levels of risk and social and moral acceptability. Perhaps this illustrates the need to offer a new approach to considering what underlies society’s tolerance of potentially harmful activities and how this evolves over time (e.g. fox hunting, cigarette smoking). A debate on the wider issues of how harms are tolerated by society and policy makers can only help to generate a broad based and therefore more relevant harm assessment process that could cut through the current ill-informed debate about the drug harms? The use of rational evidence for the assessment of the harms of drugs will be one step forward to the development of a credible drugs strategy.

---

Im Wissenschaftsteil vom Guardian gab es die letzten Tage eine ganze Reihe von Beiträgen zu diesem Thema. Mindestens zwei Mitglieder des Gremiums, das diese Geschichte in der Form möglicherweise nicht überleben wird, sind schon zurückgetreten. Es ist auch keineswegs so, dass Nutt der Meinung ist bestimmte Drogen wären unschädlich - click.

---

Wozu nachlesen, wenn man sofort im Thread stammtischartig losholzen kann? Du hast vielleicht Vorstellungen...