The coalition government (the “condems” seems to be their unofficial title) have opened a real can of worms by playing the “freedom” card. Lord Young went on Radio 4 last week to announce he wants to “scrap ‘excessive’ safety regulations” in the name of allowing people to take risks which they decide are reasonable and to use their own judgement. Make no mistake this is something most on this side of the drug law reform debate would support whole heartedly.
However, when interviewed on Radio 4 Today Programme the interviewer, Evan Davies, asked what in truth was a simple and quite reasonable question which the usual bigoted sections of the media totally failed to understand. As the Daily Mail reported
BBC presenter Evan Davis sparked controversy last night after being accused of using a new purge of health and safety rules to promote the legalisation of cannabis.
Which isn’t what happened isn’t at all. What actually did happen – as the Mail reports after the howler at the start of the article – all started when Lord Young was quoted as saying:
‘Frankly, if I want to do something stupid and break my leg or neck, that’s up to me.’
Describing it ‘a statement of libertarian principle of a very interesting kind’, Mr Davis added: ‘Did you really say that?’
When Lord Young replied: ‘Yes, haven’t you ever been skiing?
Evan Davis then asked Lord Youg
‘So if I want to smoke cannabis, that’s up to me as well, presumably?
‘What principle distinguishes between me doing something dangerous that can break my neck and having a spliff?’
The “principle” Lord Young fell back on was that using cannabis is illegal, skiing isn’t. Lord Young apparently demands freedom only within the existing laws, although he seems to want to change some of the more “excessive” health and safety ones.To be honest, it sounds like Lord Young hadn’t really thought it through properly.
Let’s have a reality check here. It has been known for laws to be passed from time to time which eventually come to be seen as unjust, if not actually immoral and wrong. Their very existence can ruin careers, destroy peoples lives and be used by extremist regimes to repress and spread fear, many of us in the drug law reform camp argue that is precisely the situation now with prohibition. Another such example was the laws against homosexuality, these things can and do change and it is surely right that they do.
These days few would argue that a persons sexuality is something that should be criminalised, yet presumably Lord Young with his love of personal freedom would have supported the anti gay laws simply because it was a properly constituted law at the time.
How can it be right then to argue that the right to freedom stops when a law is passed to prevent it? Lord Young’s idea of freedom is a fig leaf, a PR exercise and no more. If we are to really promote individual responsibility and real freedom then, as Evan Davis put it, surely we have to be allowed to do “stupid things” if that’s what we deicide to do, that is what real freedom is.
This is important because the government has made a big thing of it. We are being offered the opportunity to take control of our lives, or so they tell us. Yet it seems to come with a restriction that we can only have the freedoms over our own lives they allow us to have, somehow that’s just not the real thing.
The hysterical way the Mail reported this probably shows Evan touched a nerve. At no time did he promote the legalisation of cannabis, he simply extended the logic Lord Young was arguing to another area of government policy which looks set to become even less libertarian. His use of this argument exposed a smokescreen of hypocrisy and a glaring inconsistency in government propaganda.
The readers reaction in the Daily Mail was interesting with a pretty large number supporting Evan’s argument and the reaction (shown by red and green approval arrows) strongly supporting him.
It’s worth also mentioning the Express which was actually worse than the Mail in it’s reporting and just as rabidly inacurate
BBC presenter Evan Davis was last night at the centre of a row over “irresponsible” remarks about smoking cannabis.
The “row” he was “at the centre of” seems to be with the infamous Debra Bell of Talking about cannabis fame, the famously fact free anti cannabis website which seems to have had a major influence on government policy because the right gutter press keep promoting it. Debra’s reaction was
It is not safe to smoke cannabis and it is very irresponsible to make these comments.
Which, considering Evan Davis actually compared it to a pastime which could lead to a broken neck can hardly be labelled as arguing that smoking cannabis is “safe”. But that’s the shallow, hysteria packed level of coverage of the drugs debate we’ve come to expect from the media in recent years. That is is so influential on government policy should be a matter of grave concern.
From the UKCIA point of view Lord Young’s basic argument about allowing people – adults – to make their own bad choices in life is the correct approach, but to qualify it by saying it only applies to things that are within the law is contemptible. No-one is saying cannabis use is “safe”, although it would be a lot less unsafe if properly regulated and the commercial trade properly controlled. If the government is really, honestly interested in promoting freedom then prohibition is surely the most freedom restricting regime conceivable.
Anyway we don’t ban dangerous things as a rule, why should it be different for drugs?
Well done Evan, a true “jewel in the mud” of media reporting.
I loved Lord Young’s flustering about taking things to absurd extremes without offering up any counter argument more solid than “It’s illegal”, as if our laws are an inflexible set of rules that cannot ever be changed.
I salute Evan Davies for exposing a glaring flaw in Lord Young’s thinking.
You’re free to do what we tell you to do.
Evan’s question made me laugh, it is such a common sense argument, one that I personally use to describe to ill-informed people the ‘scale of risk’ with regards to drugs vs other risky activities. Treating drugs as a ‘risk management’ issue (i.e. harm reduction et al) rather than criminal/ideological is such a logical step that to go against it, as Lord Young tried and failed, smacks of hypocrisy and is intellectually corrupt. Just look at the blind hysteria when Prof. Nutt compared ecstasy to horse riding… The government hates these kind of common-sense, logical questions against policies that don’t work, for obvious reasons.
You can have your freedom… as long as you toe the party line and don’t offend an upset mother with no qualification to actually comment on the issue.. screw all the scientists, front-line workers and economists who only have evidence on their side!!
Will the rest of the media and ‘tv personalities’ please start exposing this hypocrisy more often! Pretty please?
I think Casey Hardison articulated the drug use risk analysis beatifully in terms of the law thus:
“The MDAct concerns itself with public health and safety; however, the Act does not concern itself with absolute safety. Rather the Act seeks to prevent, minimise or eliminate the “harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem” that may arise via the self-administration of “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs”.
The Act’s principles of law afford three “reasonable differentiation[s] fairly related to the object of regulation”:
1) A primary differentiation between drug use that is reasonably safe to the agent and does not result in harm to others and drug use that is reasonably safe to the agent yet results in harm to others;
2) A secondary differentiation between drug use that is reasonably risky to the agent and does not result in harm to others and drug use that is reasonably risky to the agent and results in harm to others;
3) A tertiary differentiation between drug use harmful only to the agent yet follows competent informed choice and drug use harmful only to the agent and does not follow competent informed choice.
These “reasonable differentiation[s]” are based on the outcome of drug use and are neutral with respect to the drug, the agent’s intent, and the setting in which drug use occurs. Only in this way are autonomous individuals separable from the public interest and education and health measures separable from the need for police power.
That is, if it were being enforced correctly, or fairly. Would be quite sensible if so…
Following the link on this site to the DEA I believe that Casey is seeking a judicial review. Is it in the process, or about to be conducted on the MDA? If so, does anyone know how the findings would likely affect current laws?
Jake there will be a full update before too long on the DEA website and a press release. Casey is launching 2 JR’s, the first will be within a fortnight against the Secretary of State and the second against the ACMD. Al this will mean is that the government will be required to regulate alcohol and tobacco as drugs under the MDA and then make appropriate regulations to control the harm caused by misuse by permitting responsible activities concerned with them under the Act. Eg. they could merely say that the Act does not apply in respect of the sale or possession of alcohol and tobacco to persons over 18 years of age whilst the drugs are nevertheless included in the MDA classification system.
Thanks sunshine band. So basically nothing would change other than including alcohol and tobacco in the MDA, they wouldn’t have to write any real new control/regulation legislation about alcohol or tobacco?
Isn’t there a principle in UK law that states a law must be applied fairly, so in theory if someone was prosecuted for e.g. possession of cannabis with minimal social and user harms compared to alcohol if it was also covered in the MDA, that this would be an abuse of power?
So although nothing may change in regards to how alcohol/tobacco are regulated they could undermine the current implementation of the MDA? A small ray of hope perhaps..?
p.s. sorry if I’m pre-empting questions regarding the DEA press release if you are involved with it
Firstly they would have to consult with the ACMD if they haven’t already recommended that alcohol and tobacco be scheduled as drugs. The they would use their section 2(5) powers to bring these drugs under control, then they would seek to make more regulations to protect the industry and responsible use of those drugs using sections 7,22 and 31.
The point of this is that the inequality you allude to requires a two-stage process to reveal, and to date the courts have been unable to see what is before them, so it is being made more simple for them with Casey’s first stage process.
There may be a margin of discretion about treating different drug users differently, there are many things to consider, but in general the notion of equality is the argument as the current administration runs far wide of any definition of equality by relying on two separate administration systems for ‘legal and illegal drugs’, an error of law and language that I again read today from the Treasury Solicitor in their misguided response to the pre-action letter to the ACMD from Casey.
It is that kind of definition (illegal v legal) which has segregated some psychoactive compounds from others, pigeon-holing certain drugs from ever being allowed to be talked about in rational debate by most of the media/public/politicians. If alcohol and tobacco are included in the MDA (as they should have been from the start), they will now be ‘drugs’ and not just ‘alcohol and tobacco’.
Inequality in such a ‘re-labelled’ system would surely be highlighted, and I look forward to the conclusions of JR’s… hopefully someone in power will have the guts to demonstrate just how unfairly and corruptly the MDA has been implemented…? But here I am back to asking pretty please again!!
I believe the retort that Lord Young needed was that – Skiing can damage the body but cannabis attacks the mind and soul and makes an anti social monster out of it’s users. But in the spirit of freedom this opens comparison between taking cannabis and other activities such as consuming alcohol or watching television programmes such as ‘Eastenders’. 😎
It is a very similar reaction to what happened when Prof Nutt compared Horse riding to taking ecstasy – the numbers show that Horse riding is more dangerous and It is an unnecessary pursuit purely for leisure purposes like taking MDMA so it was a fair comparison. After just a couple of days he forced to apologise to the families who have lost someone who took ‘ecstasy’ tablets since it was judged to be an insult to them to point out more people die in equestrian accidents.
This should be a lesson to those who seek change in this area of social activity. The media do not make statements based on facts and figures (these things always support a conclusion that has already been arrived at) – they only respond to emotional arguments and established ‘truths’. Presumably this is in a mistaken belief that this attitude is inclusive and does not require their audience to be able to assess the facts – headlines provide the conclusion and the logical argument is just window dressing. Whereas traditionally an academic essay poses a question or starts a debate in the title and arrives at a conclusion after some deliberation -possibly this is how the likes of Prof Nutt think .
Ordinary People do respond to the kind of logical argument expressed by Evan Davis when personally confronted with it in conversation but nearly always defer to the media view when it is expressed in contradiction. This slave reaction to the established truth is even quite prevalent in the attitudes drug users have to themselves and what their social standing should be.
As well as fighting against injustice, lies, misinformation and propaganda, we must remember to be positive too. Cannabis is a wonderful thing!:
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/cannabis-is-a-wonderful-thing/
For a “WordPress powered” blog, it’s remarkably difficult to subscribe. Am I expected to keep a browser window open constantly or just remember?