What drugscope tried not to say about its Mother’s Little Helper.

What would happen, do you think, if THE respected organisation in the country which advises the government on drugs policy were to warn that THE key aim of prohibition – reducing the availability of illegal drugs – was counter productive in that it caused a shift of drug use to more dangerous substances and resulted in more deaths?

It’s reasonable to expect there would be outrage in the media, especially if such a report had followed on the heels of another authoritative report which warned of similar “unintended consequences”.

Well, that is just what happened last week, but far from outrage what we got was reporting which deflected all eyes away from the issue and managed to bury the criticism. Worse, the report was twisted into another warning about “skunk” by this countries gutter press.

The “respected organisation” that dropped this week’s bombshell was Drugscope:

Drugscope’s website describes itself as:

DrugScope is the UK’s leading independent centre of expertise on drugs and the national membership organisation for the drug field. Our aim is to inform policy development and reduce drug-related harms – to individuals, families and communities. We provide quality drug information, promote effective responses to drug taking, undertake research, advise on policy-making, encourage informed debate – particularly in the media – and speak for our member organisations working on the ground.

Notice there their role of informing policy development and “promoting informed debate – particularly in the media”, they are a very respected organisation and any warnings they issue about the effect of policy should be taken very seriously indeed.

This years “Street Drug Trends Survey” (there’s a link to this at the end of the blog)  carried a serious warning that goes right to the heart of UK drugs policy, but you’d never have guessed it from the reports in the media. Let’s use as an example the most absurd take on the situation as provided by – of course – the Daily Mail, never a paper to allow facts to cloud a story, but bear in mind the Mail wasn’t the only guilty party.

Reporting on the Drugscope story, the Mail carried the screaming headline:

Cannabis users warned as high-strength skunk floods market

The report goes on to actually say:

Cannabis users are increasingly opting for high-strength skunk because weaker varieties of the drug have been frozen out of the market, campaigners warned today.

A report by charity DrugScope says that in some areas, skunk is so dominant it is almost impossible to obtain herbal cannabis or resin.

So, let’s de-Mailify this report a bit and get to the true story.

What it’s really reporting is that the policy of prohibition and crop eradication in the producer countries has proven so successful that the only forms of cannabis usually available in the UK now are the “skunk”varieties grown in this country – in large part by organised crime based here.

Also, the quality of “skunk” is so much higher than the imported cannabis products that do make it through – again due to the efforts of prohibition – that consumers are opting for the home made product in preference to the imported stuff even when it’s available. Now UKCIA has issues with this given the many reports we’re getting of contamination these days. but let it pass for now.

Let’s be clear about what’s happened to bring this change about. the situation we see out there has been created by the long running UN backed prohibition policy which our government subscribes to of course. This has resulted in a mass move of the commercial cannabis trade away from the traditional imported product which we are told was so much safer to the apparently stronger and allegedly more dangerous product grown hydroponically under lights.

This is an example of what the recent report from The UK Drug Policy Commission report “Tackling Drug Markets and Distribution Networks in the UK” terms “the unintended consequences” of prohibition (read UKCIA’s coments here).

This move from good old hippy hash to “killer skunk” hasn’t just happened for no reason, it’s been brought about by government policy distorting the economics of the trade. The Mail didn’t put it like that of course because to have done so would have undermined so much of the anti cannabis law reform campaign they have invested in over the past few years. The noticeable thing was though, non of the other reports anywhere in the media did so and Drugscope didn’t go into this root cause either.

All in all this whole story is part 1 of a good example of how to release bad, critical news without being noticed and without stirring up a debate the politicians and media don’t want.

There was far, far worse news in the Drugscope report however, indeed the “skunk” issue wasn’t even the main story of the Drugscope report, as, to be fair, most other media reports highlighted. Staying with the Mail report, the item went on to say:

The annual assessment, DrugScope’s Street Drug Trends Survey, also highlighted the increasing use of diazepam as an alternative to heroin.

Having mentioned that little snippet, after two short paragraphs describing what the survey actually was and that prices for illegal drugs have remained largely unchanged in the past year, the Mail then devoted another seven paragraphs to the skunk issue and how the dominance of “skunk” is claimed to be a serious and growing health issue.

Only now, getting near the end of the the article, do we return to the issue of Heroin users, which is the very serious development mentioned above that should be ringing those alarm bells and creating the headlines and which actually formed the main item in Drugscopes report.

DrugScope also brought attention to the vast increase in (the use of) diazepam.

Known also as Valium or, formerly, ‘mother’s little helper’, Drugscope said the tranquilliser is growing in popularity among drug addicts because of the shortage of heroin on the domestic market. Now quite why there’s a shortage of heroin isn’t known, given the huge amounts apparently available but of course it is the aim of the present policy of prohibition to bring about just such a shortage. Indeed, we are, as a nation, spending millions of pounds a year in order to achieve just this result, so a shortage on the street is “good news”, or so you would think. So what gets reported next from Martin Barnes is actually dynamite:

Usage was up in 15 of the 20 towns surveyed and Mr Barnes said: ‘The rise in the use of illicitly imported diazepam is concerning, particularly as drug users face a high risk of overdose when using the drug in combination with other drugs such as methadone and alcohol.
‘With the proliferation of counterfeit diazepam comes unpredictable quality and strength.’

So this development has serious implications for the policy of methadone maintenance, which is central to the treatment of heroin addicts. It’s also increasing the use of a drug which reacts badly with alcohol, a drug which just about every drug user will be using.

He added: ‘A heroin shortage might instinctively appear a positive development, especially as it can lead to more people entering treatment but it can bring its own problems.

‘Users may be more inclined to inject rather than smoke the drug during times of shortage or poor quality.

‘And there is a higher risk of overdose when the heroin market readjusts to more normal levels of supply.’

So there we have the Chief Executive of Drugscope, the leading organisation on drug advice in the country warning that a “successful” outcome for the main aim of the present drugs policy will lead to more dangerous methods of consumption, a move in the drugs market to more dangerous substances (which in the case of Valium react badly with legal drugs) and ultimately cause more harm and even deaths. That is a long way from a ringing endorsement of the present policy, but not one report in any of the media picked it up.

Drugscope accept, apparently, that the present policy increases harm and managed to say so in such a way as not to cause any problems for the government. Does this warning from Drugscope form a part of their advice to government? If so, what do they propose is done about it, or do they accept it as a part of the price to be paid for supporting prohibition?

This was reported throughout the British media this week without critical comment. It is indeed mind boggling a statement like this can be made by such a respected organisation and yet be missed by everyone reporting it, but that’s what happened.

Read the actual Drugscope press release here

Read the Drugscope report “Peaking Vallies” here

Guardian report – here – although not as twisted as the Mail report again it carries the warning about increased risk, but doesn’t make the connection with the aims of prohibition.

BBC report here –  again fails to make the link between prohibition and the changes in the market.

BBC “Today” interview with Martin Barnes (audio)  here. Again. doesn’t discuss the role of prohibition.

Life’s just much too hard today,
I hear every mother say
The pursuit of happiness just seems a bore
And if you take more of those, you will get an overdose
No more running for the shelter of a mothers little helper
They just helped you on your way, through your busy dying day

Rolling Stones – “Mother’s little helper”.

——————————————–

Footnote: Today’s Observer (Sunday 7th September) carries an interesting article which is not unrelated to the above: Legal chemicals sold to fuel heroin profits

Legal chemicals imported from such countries as China and mixed with pure cocaine and heroin include the anaesthetics benzocaine, lignocaine and phenacetin. Other substances used include caffeine and tetramisole, which is given to pets to expel tape worms.

And they call Prohibition “drug control”…