Time to review the UN Conventions to limit their harms to research

David Nutt, David Badcock

For a decade, scientists from across the globe have argued that the UN Conventions designed to reduce the use and harms of recreational drugs have actually had a perversely harmful effect on research and clinical treatment. Professor Nutt goes further, claiming that they are the worst censorship in the history of science – exceeding those of the Catholic Church’s ban on astronomy and the Bush ban on stem cell research.

Before LSD was banned there were 6 trials in alcoholism that showed an efficacy greater than any treatment we have today. In the 50 years since the ban, Prof Nutt estimates that as a result of this treatment no longer being available, 10 million lives may have been prematurely shortened by an average of 15 years.

The reasons for the lack of research is that many drugs that have a proven therapeutic utility have nonetheless been placed in Schedule 1 of the UN Conventions. This is because they are deemed to be very harmful and to have no medical value [despite the fact that they were once effective medicines, and in the case of cannabis have been resurrected in some countries as medicines].

Once a drug is locked in Schedule 1 it becomes almost impossible to research because of the intense regulations that this Schedule attracts. More importantly, because governments do not wish to support research for fear of being seen as being ‘soft’ on drugs, funding is denied. Without funding, research is impossible.

In this session, Prof David Nutt will explore this issue from the perspective of the proven efficacy of current Schedule 1 drugs and illustrate how a more rational approach would facilitate both research and clinical treatments without impacting recreational use at all.