(New Scientist) IF THERE is one thing that politicians can and should do to limit the damage caused by illegal drugs, it is to take careful note of the evidence and develop a rational drug policy. Some politicians find it easier to ignore the evidence, and pander to public prejudice instead.

I can trace the beginning of the end of my role as chairman of the UK’s official advisory body on drugs to the moment I quoted a New Scientist editorial (14 February, p 5). Entitled, fittingly enough, “Drugs drive politicians out of their minds”, the editorial asked the reader to imagine being seated at a table with two bowls, one containing peanuts, the other the illegal drug MDMA (ecstasy). Which is safer to give to a stranger? Why, the ecstasy of course.

I quoted these words in the Eve Saville lecture at King’s College London in July. This example plus other comments I have made – such as horse riding is more harmful than ecstasy – prompted Alan Johnson, the home secretary, to say that I had crossed the line from science to policy. This, he said, is why I had to go.

But simple, accurate and understandable statements of scientific fact are precisely what the advisory council is supposed to provide. Why would any scientist take up some future offer of a government advisory post when their advice can be treated with such disdain?

The results of a government inventing its own reality and acting on it can be seen in the appalling consequences the George W. Bush presidency had for world peace, the environment and human rights. The message for the British government is a simple one: don’t exclude rational argument in order to exploit a visceral public response. Politicians have to win the hearts and minds of their electorate. If your policy is informed by an underlying moral imperative, be open about what that is, and don’t try to disguise it with a veneer of pseudo-science. We ignore scientific evidence at our peril.

David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, was chairman of the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until he was dismissed last week by the UK home secretary

It’s a message President Obama needs to hear as well.  He promised to return us from the George W. Bush presidency’s disdain for rational thought and scientific evidence.  Obama promised to base our policies on sound science with respect to global climate change and other issues.  But stubbornly, this administration’s drug czar is still out parroting the completely unscientific falsehood that “the raw cannabis plant is certainly not medicine”.  Obama himself is laughing off the notion of marijuana legalization as having any economic benefit to cash-strapped states, despite the rational analysis by many prominent economists.  And despite the evidence of reduced social farms in the Netherlands, Portugal, and other countries that have experimented with drug decriminalization and tolerance, Obama continues to push a federal policy that relies heavily on interdiction and incarceration.

For over a century now, every time hard scientists, social scientists, economists, and policy experts gather to take a rational and scientific look at marijuana policy, they recommend decriminalization and tolerance or they recognize medical usage of cannabis, from the 1894 British East India survey to the 1942 Laguardia Commission to the 1972 Shaffer Commission to the 1999 Institute of Medicine study.  Cannabis can no longer be the exception to the “we believe in science” rule!

Ted Kindos, of Gator Ted’s Tap and Grill, has filed a federal court application asking that people permitted by Ottawa to use marijuana for health reasons remain subject to provincial laws. He wants the court to declare he doesn’t have to serve such users when doing so would violate the Ontario Liquor Licence Act, putting him at risk of losing his business. The act says he can’t serve anyone possessing a banned substance.

“You can’t put somebody above the liquor licence act – that’s ridiculous,” Kindos said yesterday of an Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling against him last year, saying a disabled person has a right to be served even if doing so breaks provincial laws.

Last month, Ontario Government Services Minister Ted McMeekin sought to clarify rules on prescribed marijuana use, asking federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq for a meeting on the issue. Four years ago, customer Steve Gibson was smoking a joint outside Gator Ted’s when Kindos asked him to move from the doorway.

Gibson, who smokes to control pain, complained to the rights commission that Kindos discriminated against him as a disabled person.

The commission said Kindos must pay Gibson $2,000, and post signs in Gator Ted’s and on his website saying, “We accommodate authorized marijuana users.” He was set to comply when he learned of the liquor act prohibitions.

Once again, Kindos just doesn’t like marijuana and is looking for any way to avoid compliance with the Human Rights Commission’s order.  Medical marijuana is not a “banned substance” for the Health Canada-approved user, so I don’t even see how the provincial liquor law makes any difference at all, even ignoring the fact that Canadian federal law supersedes Ontario provincial law.

TheStar.com | GTA | Eatery won’t fight pot smoker
A Burlington businessman brought to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal after he told a medical marijuana user not to light up in front of his family restaurant has given up fighting the complaint because he couldn’t afford the legal fees.

“The financial burden, the burden on me and on my family was too much,” Ted Kindos, owner of Gator Ted’s Tap and Grill, said yesterday after reaching a settlement.

Kindos said his lawyer told him it could cost up to $60,000 to continue fighting the complaint; it was scheduled for eight days of hearings at the Human Rights Tribunal beginning yesterday. Kindos said he has already spent $20,000.

Steve Gibson, a long-time customer, complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2005 after Kindos told him to leave the premises for smoking marijuana in the doorway of the restaurant at Burlington Heights Plaza.

“The principle I was fighting for was to be able to have quality of life and to be able to go out without being stuck at home because I need my medical marijuana,” said Gibson, adding he was pleased with the settlement.

Although the commission’s lawyers do not represent the complainants, their positions are often similar, said commission spokesperson Jeff Poirier.

“For the commission, this case is about being treated the same as the other smokers. This is a smoker with a disability who uses medicinal marijuana that’s legally prescribed to him so he’s seeking access to the designated smoking area,” said Poirier.

Kindos said he originally refused to allow Gibson to smoke marijuana in the smoking room of the restaurant. Gibson then began smoking in front of the restaurant and patrons complained of the smell, said Kindos.

These cases are gaining ground in Canada and the twelve US medical marijuana states.  If marijuana is to be treated the same as other medicines, then we have to address the question of how patients are to use their medicine outside of their home.

In many states, smoking anything in or near a public building is absolutely forbidden.  But in this case, the restaurant made an allowance for tobacco smokers to be able to smoke in a designated area.  So if patrons have a right to smoke tobacco for no medical purpose – indeed, to the detriment of their own health, and the health of others through secondhand smoke – then it is hard to understand banning a medical cannabis smoker in the same area.

The only consideration would be a moral judgment that smoking cannabis is wrong, which seemed to be the situation here.  Kindos alleged that the patrons of his restaurant didn’t want their children exposed to the smell of cannabis.  There is no health risk associated with children smelling marijuana, but there is the risk that witnessing a harmless man smoking marijuana without any negative consequences will open the minds of those children and make them harder to fool with drug war reefer madness.