The ongoing controversy here in the UK over drugs policy amid the sacking of Prof. David Nutt - chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and since Friday the resignation of other members highlights the tension between the SCIENCES and POLITICS.
As a father, mental health nurse (and light imbiber of real ale and wine) all I know is that the government has been lobbied for decades by concerned groups over the risks of excessive alcohol consumption. With changes in alcohol licensing opening hours and pricing/tax it seems the government has the local town centres and community legislation it deserves.
Given the current spat you might think that within Hodges' model the SCIENCES and POLITICAL domains would be diametrically opposed? But no! There they are bosom buddies on the mechanistic side of the model.
Although the clue is in the title - advisory - as to the extent to which the government is bound to follow advice, the government's policy, advisory groups and policy should be in accord as far as the media and public are concerned.
Otherwise what price for evidence-based politics?
For individuals and communities alike we need order between the SCIENCES and POLITICS otherwise chaos reigns. Order does not just fall out of the tree. The issues here include at risk youngster's for whom exposure to cannabis might precipitate a psychotic episode; the granularity of a classification of drugs for legal purposes and that for clinical and social care. The debate is complex and takes work and energy on many levels. There are many dimensions to appreciate in this situation:
While very unfortunate, this is timely as I read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science.
There are other sources of heat already on the boil with many spillages to follow. These will arise from the friction of SCIENCE, climate change and policy. Ah bliss to live in interesting times. ...