The full editorial itself is reasonably neutral and well stated. They may be overstating their ability to "build pragmatic and rational policy".
For your assertion however, I can only yell "NO". I can't emphasise that strongly enough. Just gives supremely high chance of poor opinions heavily biased by the over confidence effect.
This is probably controversial, so bear with me, while I try and explain as it'll probably take some space. I'll apologise for length and poor explanation before I even start!
Let's look at a different neurotransmitter a moment - dopamine. Amphetamines markedly affect dopamine receptors. If most people take recreational doses they'll be stimulated, motivated, and sociable. If I take it I get no effect on motivation, and chill out. I'll probably sit and binge watch TV, work or read a book for eight hours straight. I won't be bothered to be sociable as I'd be delighting in the chilled calm. You may not be surprised to learn I have ADHD.
I fought for years with doctors "knowing" drugs and how they act on the brain in trying to get diagnosed with ADHD. Took years to not be dismissed out of hand. I don't find most doctors any more aware than the general public much of the time. That's not a function of where I live - time hanging around the assorted ADHD forums that have come and gone show all countries have had similar issues and hundreds of people struggling to get a diagnosis or referral because of horribly poor doctor, psychiatric or specialist awareness. Often those doctors are responding as though the patient is a normal brain merely seeking recreational drugs (which of course happens too), but it's entirely opinion. It's not uncommon to get misdiagnosed something else, perhaps with lasting and damaging consequences. (You don't typically ever get "undiagnosed" of mental disorders).
For many only when learning the field extensively themselves is real progress made. It's quite sobering to realise just how many have had to start studying and reading research themselves prior to being able to get diagnosis.
Minds are more difficult as we tend not to be able to diagnose anything like as easily as a broken bone, germ or viral illness. There's a need to rely solely on self reporting as we can't, yet, throw someone in a scanner and identify them as having depression, ADHD, Asperger's or LSD addiction. In the case of recreational drugs and use there's going to be little in the way of studies of their effects on healthy minds. I seem to remember quite recently LSD had the first study in 50 years. Anti depressants often seem to have suicide and suicidal ideation as side effects - the same medicine can have dramatically different mental effects in ways not often seen with say paracetamol.
The main difference then is a doctor is more likely to be believed and have opinions acted upon without any real understanding. They may have better understanding, if and only if the correct studies are there. For the most part they won't be. Yet.
Doctors are well placed to advise on studies and contraints as health impacts arise from legalisation however.
For your assertion however, I can only yell "NO". I can't emphasise that strongly enough. Just gives supremely high chance of poor opinions heavily biased by the over confidence effect.
This is probably controversial, so bear with me, while I try and explain as it'll probably take some space. I'll apologise for length and poor explanation before I even start!
Let's look at a different neurotransmitter a moment - dopamine. Amphetamines markedly affect dopamine receptors. If most people take recreational doses they'll be stimulated, motivated, and sociable. If I take it I get no effect on motivation, and chill out. I'll probably sit and binge watch TV, work or read a book for eight hours straight. I won't be bothered to be sociable as I'd be delighting in the chilled calm. You may not be surprised to learn I have ADHD.
I fought for years with doctors "knowing" drugs and how they act on the brain in trying to get diagnosed with ADHD. Took years to not be dismissed out of hand. I don't find most doctors any more aware than the general public much of the time. That's not a function of where I live - time hanging around the assorted ADHD forums that have come and gone show all countries have had similar issues and hundreds of people struggling to get a diagnosis or referral because of horribly poor doctor, psychiatric or specialist awareness. Often those doctors are responding as though the patient is a normal brain merely seeking recreational drugs (which of course happens too), but it's entirely opinion. It's not uncommon to get misdiagnosed something else, perhaps with lasting and damaging consequences. (You don't typically ever get "undiagnosed" of mental disorders).
For many only when learning the field extensively themselves is real progress made. It's quite sobering to realise just how many have had to start studying and reading research themselves prior to being able to get diagnosis.
Minds are more difficult as we tend not to be able to diagnose anything like as easily as a broken bone, germ or viral illness. There's a need to rely solely on self reporting as we can't, yet, throw someone in a scanner and identify them as having depression, ADHD, Asperger's or LSD addiction. In the case of recreational drugs and use there's going to be little in the way of studies of their effects on healthy minds. I seem to remember quite recently LSD had the first study in 50 years. Anti depressants often seem to have suicide and suicidal ideation as side effects - the same medicine can have dramatically different mental effects in ways not often seen with say paracetamol.
The main difference then is a doctor is more likely to be believed and have opinions acted upon without any real understanding. They may have better understanding, if and only if the correct studies are there. For the most part they won't be. Yet.
Doctors are well placed to advise on studies and contraints as health impacts arise from legalisation however.