One of the reasons Eric Carlin gave for his resignation from the ACMD recently was the almost complete lack of coverage to the follow up to the 2006 “Pathways to problems” report (see that report here) . Pathways to problems was a document that looked at how young people get into problematic drug use and made suggestion as to how protect them. It was most interesting because it also included alcohol and tobacco:
As their actions are similar and their harmfulness to individuals and society is no less than that of other psychoactive drugs, tobacco and alcohol should be explicitly included within the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
The fact that these two drugs are not included within the misuse of drugs act is at the heart of the case being made by the Drug Equality alliance (DEA) , which this blog has covered in some detail before. This is, as far as I know, the first and perhaps only time the idea of these two politically accepted drugs being treated in anything like the same way as the prohibited substances has been seriously suggested and as such this was something to be welcomed. However, the original report seemed somewhat confused by the situation, in that it states that alcohol is (page 6)
Of all drugs, … [alcohol] is also the least regulated
Which is, of course, simply totally wrong. There may be a debate to be had about the workings of the regime for alcohol, but it is actually by far the most regulated of all recreational drugs. What is true is that alcohol is not subjected to the same sort of criminal laws as are other drugs; it is not prohibited. To make the inference as this report seems to do that prohibited drugs are more regulated than alcohol would be to make an enormous error, prohibited substances of course have no regulation of the trade or product.
The very strict regulation of alcohol acts to reduce the potential for harm in many ways – known doses, high levels of purity and so on. None of which apply to unregulated and uncontrolled prohibited drugs. The report ignores this aspect when it lists the dangers associated with specific drugs. For example, on cannabis it states:
1.11 Cannabis can provoke the onset of psychosis or worsen existing psychotic illness
Without metnioning that different strains are thought more likely to do this than others and that proper regulation of the trade would significantly reduce this problem. When comparing the dangers associated with each drug, the way the trade is controlled or not has a clear and obvious impact on those dangers, yet this isn’t mentioned at all.
The original report made several recommendations as to how the regulation of alcohol could be improved in order to protect young people, options simply not available for other drugs. One very interesting recommendation it did make however was number 10:
The current arrangements to control the supply of drugs covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) should be reviewed to determine whether any further cost-effective and politically acceptable measures can be taken to reduce the availability of drugs to young people.
It’s easy to imagine the debate that went on regarding the wording of that recommendation, it just scrams “difficult compromise” and delicate tip-toeing around the real issue. This very timid suggestion was the only recommendation that went anywhere near specifically addressing doing anything to affect access by young people to prohibited drugs; every other recommendation concerned education campaigns, calls for better monitoring of what’s actually happening or better regulation and control of the alcohol and tobacco trade – and there were a lot of those.
Section 3 of the report gives some background to all this, where it essentially states that prohibition doesn’t work (page 46)
A recent study comparing experienced cannabis users in Amsterdam and San Francisco (where the supply and use of cannabis is illegal and subject to enforcement) found no difference in the average age of onset or pattern of cannabis use, but users in Amsterdam were much less likely to report having used other illegal drugs.
and
Recent reviews (including one systematic review) of enforcement activities in local drug markets have found little or no evidence that these have had any effect on levels of drug use.
Indeed it then goes on to outline how a legal regulated (and properly controlled) market can have suitable restrictions imposed to reduce the use by young people. At the end of this section which desperately avoids actually saying prohibition doesn’t work whilst providing plenty of evidence that it doesn’t , we get that very mild suggestion of a “review” of the Misuse of Drugs act to see if anything “politically acceptable” can be done. This is actually quite stomach churning to be frank and for a report which set out to examine the way children and young people could be protected from the drugs trade it’s truly pathetic.
So what of the follow up report? Well, it’s generally quite self-congratulating in tone and a fair few of the recommendations for alcohol and tobacco have in fact been taken up, but of recommendation 10 it does a valiant attempt at papering over the cracks; essentially the gentle hint that perhaps “controls” could be improved a little tiny bit was ignored, the government had no intention of following anything other than a full blown prohibition agenda and the ACMD wasn’t going to rock the boat. So they found a few enforcement aspects to praise but ended up with this:
Though the ACMD recognises the activity that is being undertaken by law enforcement agencies to restrict the availability of drugs generally, we are not aware of any specific measures being taken to reduce the availability to young people.
So whereas with alcohol and tobacco there are a great many measures which can be (and to some extent have been) taken to target protection at young people, when it comes to prohibited drugs there isn’t anything specific that can be done beyond a few Talk to Frank advertising campaigns and police raids.
Pathways to Problems did contain a lot of important information and recommendations, especially for alcohol and tobacco but it was a report which reflected without criticism the prohibition regime that applies to other drugs. As long as the prevention effort is directed against the adult trade in prohibited drugs, kids are just collateral damage and nothing specific can be done to protect them. So all in all as far as cannabis goes this follow up report was probably best buried.
The follow up report to Pathways to Problems is here
This is harsh IMHO. In the climate they operate in this was a very bold report in many respects – there were also very clear comments on the failure of mass media prevention campaigns, and clear statement against (at the time 2006) recently announced plans to roll out drug testing in schools. All of this was ignored by the media (which is why no-one got sacked of course), and most of it by the govt as the follow up report makes clear.
I wrote about it at the time: http://bit.ly/btAQVF
Flawed certainly, for the reasons you give – but progress none the less. I think we need to embrace the good and constructively critique the weak bits – ‘burying’ throws the baby out with the bath water, so i cant agree with you there. ‘Small steps’ and all that.
Let’s get this exactly right – when you say “The fact that these two drugs are not included within the misuse of drugs act is at the heart of the case being made by the Drug Equality alliance (DEA” – the point is that they are (as all dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs that cause or may cause a social problem are) included within the Act’s purview; it is just that the government has refused to administer the Act properly and this has failed to promulgate an Order requiring that these drugs be scheduled.
It is only now that the ACMD is waking up to it’s responsibility about alcohol and tobacco, but still fails to grasp the nettle as it believes in the spurious notion of alcohol and tobacco being unsuitable for control under the Act, and that drugs are either legal (Oh no) or illicit. However in the follow up report at para 4.2 it is clear that Government admit that they are the ACMD’s terms of reference, and thus, as the ACMD is a body created by and expressly for the MDA, that these drugs are within the MDA’s remit. I would like to see the document where the Government inform the ACMD of this, when they realised this. Will they now acknowledge that the statement in CM6941 that the MDA is unsuitable for A&T is wrong?
Steve
I wasn’t entirely negative about the whole thing – there was nothing wrong with the many proposals for alcohol and tobacco and for better monitoring for example, but frankly the way the ACMD just seem to accept as a fact that prohibition is the only option when they clearly know it doesn’t work is hard to understand.
Here we have a group of experts who even presented a good solid case against prohibition and yet stepped back from actually making the most obvious conclusions. Why? Why did they feel it necessary to ask for “politically acceptable” measures?
As we have been told so often now by politicians, the role of the ACMD is to give advice, so why didn’t they give it?
If they think it’s important that measures be taken to protect young people from the trade in prohibited drugs – especially cannabis which is on a massive scale – then they should have said so.
Perhaps what all this shows is the tensions at work within the ACMD which have really been at the root of recent events, but if that’s the case then we could use a little more honesty from people now free to speak.
But as far as the problems caused by prohibited drugs to young people, there is nothing of value in this report because it is so uncritical of the main cause of those problems. The recent follow up report all the more so.
I don’t disagree with that Derek, I just think that we need to embrace and encourage progress, even relative progress, where it happens. The ACMD is essentially a good thing, albeit an entity that remains compromised by the political environment. They needs to be supported and encouraged to fulfill their role properly.
Sure they need to be encouraged when they do things right, but not when they so obviously roll over like this.
If you step back from the propaganda that we have been bombarded with, and impartially analyse the industrial Hemp plant, its solves a lot of problems for this country in terms of employment, raw materials, soil improvements, food and biofuel.
To bracket industrial hemp with the highly narcotic strains is having a serious effect on this country. We need jobs and growth, hemp can provide this.
If the debate on Hemp/cannibis is moved away from drug use, and onto its role as a future biofuel crop to reduce dependence on crude oil fuel, then the argument for legalisation (of certain strains) becomes compelling for all stakeholders. Narcotic usage becomes a moot point compared to the current Mega-issue this country faces – Bankruptcy. We need a cash crop and if certain people are going to lose face because of their foolish decisions to ban harmless plants, then i will take that over a systemic collapse of the UK.
Make cannibis legal for over 16’s tax it, and let people decide if its worth paying for it. If they descend into over-usage then society corrects this through loss of livelihood, poor educational results, which are really a symptom of a fundamental psychological precondition, not the use of a plant.