This was the week British drugs policy finally dropped any pretence of being evidence based and officially became an issue of political posturing, of “sending out messages” and of basing laws on what Mr Brown’s government thinks is “unacceptable”.
The government’s advisory body the ACMD produced a report – based on studying a mass of scientific data on the use of ecstasy and concluded it wasn’t as dangerous as heroin and cocaine*, and hence shouldn’t be in the same class A category as those drugs. As the Guardian wrote on Thursday:
The credibility of the official system of drugs classification suffered a fresh blow yesterday after the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, again vetoed a key recommendation from her own expert drug advisers, this time to downgrade the dance drug ecstasy from its class A status.
Actually Jaquie Smith (left), the Home Secretary, announced even before she had seen the evidence that the government would not even consider following the advice of their own experts because they believed it would “send out the wrong message” and encourage the use of ecstasy.
So here we are, for the second time in a year which is only two months old – this government has ignored science and evidence in favour of the belief it holds in the fairlytale deterrence effect of the law as applied to illegal drug use. With not a shred of real world experience to back them up, they have imposed a regime for which there is no track record of success and more than enough evidence of failure. This sort of political meddling is not the sort of thing that earns acts of parliament any respect, indeed it may have damaged the misuse of drugs act way more than any law reform campaign ever could have done.
What the government have done is to provide drug users – never mind drug law reform campaigners – with the evidence they’ve always suspected was true – that our drug laws are based on nothing other than the prejudice of politicians. Our drugs policies can now be regarded with even more contempt by the people they’re aimed at, only now that contempt will be based on fact, well done Jaquie.
Cannabis of course went through this process of political meddling last month and is now in the class B category which places it alongside speed in supposed dangerousness which is plain stupid. Of course it has its own special regime of enforcement which is born out of an acceptance that enforcement as a real class B substance would be impossible, but then as it’s all about sending out messages real life practicalities aren’t important.
UK drugs policy has become something close to a laughing stock, framed to appeal to Daily Mail readers and all but ignored by those it attempts to influence. Martin Barnes of DrugScope said in the guardian article above:
It would be regrettable if we reached a situation where, for political reasons, drugs can only be placed within, or moved up, the classification system, but cannot be moved down regardless of the evidence. It is crucial that decisions on the penalties for the use and supply of controlled drugs should be based on the best available information, otherwise the drug laws themselves lose credibility, especially among young people.
Martin is probably aware that we are already in that position really, he was just being diplomatic. It’s important to remember that Martin Barnes is very much an “insider” – a supporter of prohibition – as is witnessed by the fact he still calls illegal drugs “controlled”, which of course, they aren’t. When people as supportive of the government’s policy as Mr Barnes speak out, they should be taken very seriously.
This was all illustrated nicely on BBC Radio 5’s Breakfast show when Danny Kushlick (left) from Transform debated the Ecstasy report with Ian Johnston from the police Superintendants’ Association.The interview was preceded by vox pops of (presumably) clubbers saying how they were simply not interested in what class a drug was in, the law was, in their eyes irrelevant.
Ian Johnson repeatedly chanted the mantra of “sending out the message”, but could provide absolutely no evidence that doing so actually worked, he simply believed it did. Listen to the interview here (MP3 file) and cringe, it’s really quite pitiful that laws which criminalise millions of people are based on such ignorant beliefs frankly and more so that our elected politicians base the laws that they make on such mantras. This is highlighted over on the Transform blog and is worth a read. As Transform say, if this is the best supporters of the present policy can do, it’s no wonder we rarely get such debates. Perhaps most importantly one might ask why the police are driving what should really be a public health policy, but that’s what we have with prohibition.
It’s no wonder that people are beginning to ask once again whether the ABC system created by the Misuse of Drugs Act is past it’s sell-by date. This is fundamental to the whole ethos of the MoD act, and the fact that the government has failed to honour its duties under the act in setting penalties which reflect the potential for harm from drugs has probably fatally undermined it.
So should we simply scrap the ABC system? If drugs are to be illegal, why have categories? It’s tempting to go along with this as a drug law reform campaigner because if they had to respond to cannabis in the same way they respond to heroin, the whole regime would become unworkable overnight
If we look back to the last time the government looked at cannabis reclassification under the direction of the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2006 he reported to the House of Commons that
For these reasons I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will in due course make proposals.
However, he was soon thrown out of his job and the review he started was scrapped, the whole issue being kicked into the long grass where perhaps it could have stayed, had it not been for the arrival of Gordon Brown and the subsequent use of the law to “send out messages” not based on evidence.
The new Scientist editorial “Drugs drive politicians out of their minds ” summed things up quite nicely:
This is a worldwide problem. We need a rational debate about the true damage caused by illegal drugs – which pales into insignificance compared with the havoc wreaked by legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Until then, we have no chance of developing a rational drug policy.
There will always have to be different enforcement regimes for different drugs, the shear practicality of enforcement dictates that, so what would we base those enforcement regimes on if not harm potential? The whole basis of the Misuse of Drugs act is being undermined by this government and there is no clear idea of what should replace it, other than a desire for an all out, unwinnable and undoable hard line prohibition.
Frankly, as long as it’s left to politicians in any shape or form, we will never get a rational policy.
———————-
* A short footnote on the ACMD report into ecstasy. Because it’s illegal, much of what is sold as Ecstasy is not MDMA. The ACMD study reported on the “ecstasy” trade as it exists today, acknowledging this fact but without blaming prohibition as the reason for the uncertanty of the product sold. It is reasonable to speculate of course that is Ecstasy were properly manufactured MDMA sold in known and precise doses, the risk it presents to users would be even lower than it is now. The role of prohibition was not acknowlwdeged in the ACMD report, which included no criticism of the present regime.
Yet another excellent report. Cheers for the update.
The government is now obliged to say why they disagree with the ACMD. They cannot simply say that they ‘disagree with anything that …’ and not say why. A refusal to explain looks bad but a debate on the principals of law enforcement would lead to all sorts of awkward questions about the role of the law in this aspect of our society.
Really for someone who wants to send “clear messages” they don’t shout very loudly and that is because the press do not like this kind of drugs story. They only want the ones where someone seems to be ‘going soft on drugs’ to appear since that is a way to attack a politician or public figure and we live in a society that finds a story about inappropriate behavior more interesting than one about anything else. This leaves a politician with the simple rule of “don’t appear soft on drugs” – if you stick by that you will be alright. Of course the supposed merits of this approach are often re-enforced in the media with some news item about the dangers of drugs. (The harm is usually real but often the drugs cannot be conclusively blamed for causing it)
This time though it does seem as though the government have overreacted when maybe the prudent course of action would have been to leave well alone under the guise of further investigation (before taking such a big step). After all fewer politicians support tobacco smokers rights than that of drug users but hardly any would support re-classification of tobacco products under the law to deter use. So it must suit some one to tighten the laws on other drugs and they make sure the negative stories keep appearing in the press just as it was with Anslinger in the 1930s America.
“What the government have done is to provide drug users – never mind drug law reform campaigners – with the evidence they’ve always suspected was true – that our drug laws are based on nothing other than the prejudice of politicians.”
1. In the otherwise good report I must take issue with this: rather than the “prejudice” of politicians it is the politicians’ fear of Big Tobackgo which motivates them to take a stand against anything (such as a better or safer “drug” than tobacco) which threatens to compete against tobacco or against the hot-burning overdose cigaret.
2. Because Ecstasy may compete with alcohol, this possibility must be raised: Big Tobackgo also wants to protect the famous and beloved “tradition” of drinking parties and binge drinking, because many youngsters lose track of how much tobacco they smoked while drunk, or inhaled (sidestream) while passed out at some party. Then a week later, struggling to catch up with their schoolwork and needing to stay up all night “cramming”, they reach for a cigaret… A Habit Is Born.
For a government that wants to send out clear messages, they’re missing by a long shot. It couldn’t be much more confusing for a kid to hear “This is wrong and dangerous and as bad as speed, and WORSE than ketamine” then to actually try cannabis and realise the law is a joke.
Irrational policies breed contempt for the law.