UK drugs policy is in chaos and it’s all the fault of politicians playing to the media instead of making policy based on fact. To paraphrase Douglas Adams of “The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy” fame: The skills needed to get elected mean that anyone who has the ability to do so is precisely the sort of person who should never be allowed to. That would seem to describe politicians only too well as recent events have demonstrated.
Alan Johnson is probably a nice bloke, but his qualification for holding high office was through experience of life being a postman, it’s hard indeed to see how he is better qualified to pontificate on the issue of drug use than someone who is a professor of psychopharmacology at Bristol University and head of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London.
Alan Johnson sacked Professor David Nut, the former chief drugs adviser and head of the ACMD because his comments
…damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
and
I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy
Read the full letter from Alan Johnson here (BBC website)
In other words giving the public information might make them question the way government applies the criminal law. Now that argument is, in itself, very dangerous and is totally unacceptable in a democracy. It doesn’t matter what the subject at hand is, the idea that information should be kept from the public domain in order to allow governments to do what they want flies in the face of the democratic process. In sacking David Nutt, Alan Johnson has stepped over a very important line and has shown himself to be totally unsuited to high office. Any government policy should be able to withstand a vigorous and well informed public debate and such debate should always be encouraged.
Thing is, the misuse of drugs act, flawed and despised in some quarters as it is, actually accepts that knowledge of drugs will change and that from time to time it may be desirable, because of this change in knowledge, to move drugs around the classification system and the ACMD is there to give governments such advice.
Politicians claim the right to make decisions, but those decisions should be evidence based, not based on what they think might play well with the media. Jacqui Smith, the previous Home Secretary defended her decision to reclassify cannabis in large part on the grounds of “public perception”. This would seem to be an misuse of the MoD act, which is simply not concerned with such matters.
As all this is happening there is an interesting legal case unfolding on behalf of Edward Stratton which is claiming that the misuse of drugs act is being misapplied. You can read the full explanation on the Drug Equality website. The DEA mission statement reads:
The Drug Equality Alliance (DEA) is a UK based not for profit organisation whose purpose is to transform the “War on some people who use some Drugs” from its subjective historical and cultural roots into a rational and objective legal regulatory framework that secures equal rights and equal protection to all those who are concerned with dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs.
Our mission is to use domestic and international legal jurisdictions to interrogate the law and its application to those who exercise property rights with respect to such drugs. We believe governments have failed to administer drug law in an evidence-based manner. This failure contributes to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and imprisonments each year. The Drug Equality Alliance seeks to remedy this.
It would seem pretty clear that Alan Johnson’s statements and actions have provided clear an undeniable proof that the present drugs policy is indeed subjective and that this government has failed to administer drug law in an evidence-based manner. The criminal law is being used to “send out messages” that some drugs are unacceptable based on “public perception”. That is not the intention of the act and it would seem that Edward Stratton now has a much stronger case thanks to Alan Johnson.
Not only that, but David Nutt’s comments about alcohol and tobacco needing to be brought within the act are also in line with the DEA argument. The fact that booze and fags were not included in the MoD act is purely cultural, because the act was drawn up by alcohol drinking tobacco smoking politicians. Alan Jonson’s crass stupidity can only help Edward’s case on so many levels and we await developments with interest.
The truly impressive aspect of all this so far though has been the public reaction, which has been almost entirely hostile to the government’s position. It’s hard to think of any other example where public opposition has been so universal other than perhaps the reaction to the Iraq war. But a reading of the comments on web reports, forums and blogs shows an amazing near unanimity of opinion, the only real support coming from morons who post comments such as
Not called Nutt for nowt, is he?
That was posted by someone called “Annon” and rated as a bad post by 345 people on the Daily Mail website. So despite being so keen to play to public opinion, it would seem that the government has seriously misjudged it with this sacking.
But all that pales into insignificance if they can’t put the lid on this quickly because scientists don’t like being ignored and told to shut up. Mark Easton of the BBC wrote
I understand that senior figures within the scientific and academic community are already looking to rally behind Professor Nutt, whose response to the home secretary suggests that he is happy to become a “poster-boy” for science as a contributor to policy-making.
We are witnessing a collision between science and politics (see my earlier post, Science v Politics?). There may be significant fall-out.
Resignations have started so the question is how far will it go? If a sizeable number quit, or if senior people quit – that would count as a vote of no confidence in at least Alan Johnson, he could surely not survive and if that were to happen and how could Gordon Brown cling on? Would such a rebellion be limited to the ACMD or could it spread to other areas? We will see over the next few days.
But perhaps the biggest casualty of all this is the policy on cannabis and the perception people have of the various warnings which have been promoted about cannabis use over the past few years.
Prof Nutt said (as reported in the Daily Mail)
‘When Gordon Brown says that cannabis is a “lethal drug”, when it clearly isn’t, young people are not going to pay him any notice. You don’t reduce drug harm by lying.’
Cannabis users now know that the policy of prohibition isn’t based on fact, they now know that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis and they all know the government is imposing this law on them for simply political ends. It doesn’t take much to imagine what is likely to happen to the rates of cannabis use amongst children as a result. UKCIA has long warned that this was likely to happen if or when the exaggerated claims were shown to have been based on lies, it’s the baby and the bathwater all over again.
Absolutely the worse thing to have happen if you’re concerned about young people’s drug use is to have the whole effort shown to be no more than the lies of politicians, especially when the politicians are held in such low regard as this present lot are. If we know they are lying, why should we believe anything they tell us is, in all fairness, a perfectly logical conclusion.
There is already a Facebook group calling for Prof Nutt to be re-instated, next week will be very interesting indeed.
I totally agree with your comments.The lies & misinformation continue to be published & much harm is being done to innocent people.As a 59 year old I have only ever been in trouble with the police over cannabis & I resent it.
The present situation is intolerable.Without heeding scientific evidence,the government has no credibility.The problems caused by alcohol & tobacco are far greater & cost the NHS millions.Cannabis never
killed anyone & has in fact provided medical benefit to many.
Good Article.
The Government has got away with this for too long. It’s time for action!
Strange that the government (Alan Johnson in his dismissal letter to Prof Nutt) does not want to confuse the public but his colleague – Gordon Brown – ignored ACMD advice based on public opinion. How can the public form a balanced opinion if they are only being told one side of the story – sounds like a bit of a cyclic argument to me. They have forgotten that they serve us and have an obligation to explain their decisions. The only time they may campaign on a single point of view is when they wish to be elected – NOT when they are in government (but of course they are only really in office – fear dictates policy and governs us).
As always let us not forget that it is OK to talk about the harms of cannabis but what most users face is the harms of a contaminated product mixed with tobacco – now that really is dangerous and that danger is a direct result of “not confusing the public” with facts and the policy of prohibition. It is not just a matter of ignoring the experts they have assigned to help (thereby wasting time and money) but there are real and serious consequences to the government’s actions that cause harm to the public. So how is Gordon Brown different from Mao Tse Tung or Joseph Stalin then ?
PS Thanks to those who produce this site for working overtime to stay on top of things
I’m hoping this turns into a good thing – if many members of the ACMD quit it may expose the failings of the drug policy and open the door for some progressive discussion.
The ACMD are said to be meeting a week today (11 November) to discuss what action to take as a group (can’t remember where I read it) so this should be an interesting month.
UK drugs policy is in no more chaos than it has been since the early 1970s, and your comment about Alan Johnston having been a postman implies an aimmense snobbery.
Professor Nutt got one thing wrong in his statement that the reclassification of cannabis to class B was a political act. It wsa is its declassification to C that the Government smelled votes.
I don’t disagree about the harms of alcohol and tobacco, but at least we have well-structured industries for their distribution and sale that more or less work well, while a legalisation of cannabis would beg the question of how much THC content we could allow. Given that it would be unethical to legalise skunk, the cannabis factories would not be pressurised to close down.
I hope, in finishing, that Prof Nutt’s replacement is able to perform on a higher intellectual function than comparing horseriding unfavourably to ecstasy.
Frugal Dougal
The “postman” remark was a simple observation of fact, Alan Johnson has no qualification to make any decision regarding drug harms whereas Prof Nutt clearly has.
As regards legalising so-called “skunk” being “unethical”, perhaps you could explain that logic? Do check your facts first though!
Of course the reason we have a properly regulated alcohol industry is because it’s legal and not subject to prohibition.
UKCIA, anecdotal evidence – ie that gathered by drugs workers in the fields over almost two decades – is that as little as a gram of skunk a day can render endogenous depression treatment-proof.
There are of course unethical aspects to the sale of alcohol, ie strong lager/cider being sold at low prices. The makers of Special Brew etc are well aware that many of their clients are problematic drinkers and sometimes also apiate and/or methadone users.
In the same way, people who farm skunk know that they’re not selling it to folk who want to relax, but rather – often – to kids who will stick it in a bong for the maximum THC-caused euphoriant effect possible. With the rising TCH levels in plants, there is less of other chemicals, for example cannibidiol, which Zuardi et al stated in a 2006 paper can have an antipsychotic effect.
Talking about papers, I think Prof Nutt threw away his academic merit when he pulled his “equasy” stunt. That was pure campaigning dressed up as science.
FD Regarding your claim that “…as little as a gram of skunk a day can render endogenous depression treatment-proof”. I had to look up “endogenous” which means apparently
1. Produced or growing from within.
2. Originating or produced within an organism, tissue, or cell.
If you mean amongst people who already suffer depression then maybe cannabis isn’t going to do them any good, indeed cannabis isn’t the only thing such people should avoid. But you should know anecdotal evidence also suggests that some people with depression benefit from cannabis use, even of the high THC variety. I suggest we stick to science rather than relying on what people say. Your claim is probably more relevant to sufferers of schizophrenia actually, rather than depression.
However, such a group would ideally be considered a vulnerable minority (along with children), deserving of protection from the law rather than being treated as criminals and the existence of a vulnerable minority is no reason to restrict the freedoms of the vast majority who are at no such risk.
However, you are right to say that CBD has anti psychotic effects and it may be the case that some vulnerable people should avoid low CBD varieties although that is by no means proven. But again that is a legalisation argument – ie A for proper labelling and regulated sales, not an argument for prohibition in any way shape or form.
Regarding the horse riding analogy – which is outside the scope of this blog which is cannabis related – you clearly don’t understand the point the prof was making. He was not making a judgement on the merits of either activity, but simply on the risks involved with each. Horse riding, which may be a good healthy activity is non the less dangerous, but despite these dangers we don’t ban it.
I do wonder though – and this is not the point Prof Nutt was making – what the risk from horse riding would be if we were to forbid official riding schools and left the pastime in the hands of an uncontrolled illegal trade? I doubt if it would become safer as a result.
You are right that “endogenous” means coming from within – ie in the case of depression, not being due to a life-event that one can point to or talk about. In these terms cannabis would provide the environmental stressor that pulled a genetic trigger predisposing one to the condition. In other words, it would be a causative factor together with the genetic trigger, the latter being something that may well be inside many of us, regardless of whether we are ever exposed to the stressor(s) that might pull it.
If a government legalised cannabis, how would it (a)ensure that only cannabis with lower levels of THC and higher ones of cannabidiol were sold, and (b)close down cannabis farms producing the stuff that leads either to somebody developing psychotic illnesses or spending a couple of decades in a low motivational state?
Lots of points here FD, but the genetic trigger theory involving the COMT gene which was being put around a while back doesn’t seem to have stood up to further studies.
Interestingly the profile of people suffering severe mental illness has not changed over the past few decades and there has been no increase in rates of psychosis in that time (check out previous blog entries), population studies don’t provide evidence that cannabis is actually making the situation worse as was claimed perhaps rather unwisely a few years ago.
We may all be subject to various vulnerabilities in life though, the thing that makes us adults is the right to look after ourselves as we see fit. If something doesn’t suite you, it’s up to you to avoid doing it. It certainly is not the role of the police to protect your health.
Assuming there were a need to restrict the levels of THC (actually it’s the relative proportions of THC and CBD that might be important) that’s dead easy to do; simply don’t allow the commercial production of certain strains. Cannabis isn’t random; the type of plant you get is determined by the seed you plant, just like all plants.
Proper regulation of a legal commercial cannabis market would be easy infact.
Another point in passing, cannabis has been around and used by humans for several thousand years, why do you think it’s only in the past 20 or so years these super strength varieties have emerged, if indeed there is any truth in that claim? Could it not, just possibly, be due to the corrupting effect of prohibition on the economies of the trade?
I would argue though that all that’s really needed is proper labelling, laws to protect children from the commercial trade, laws to ensure dealers are fit and proper people and which allow consumers redress when things go wrong. At present under prohibition the only requirement to be a dealer is unaccountability and none of this protection is possible.
OK, if cannabis were legalised then good labelling practice could help people decide what might be good for them and what not quite so good. What I’m saying is based on the assumption that it would be unethical to legalise cannabis with the strongest THC content, which is, in many cases, what is being farmed in houses. There would be no mass emigration to weaker legalised cannabis on the part of those who felt addicted to the high-THC sort.
There are many people with poor mental health who aren’t being diagnosed, let alone treated, by their GPs or sometimes their psychiatrists, who are saying that they can’t get a true picture of their mental state until the cannabis is out of the picture. The problem is that they are unable to get cannabis out of the picture, and you get a vicious circle set up.
Frugal Dougal,
You seem to be concerned about “Skunk” like it is somehow a new thing. In the minds of most users it is just a slang term for uncured, domestically grown marijuana. The term is actually the name of a particular strain grown in Northern California in the late 1980s (A hybrid or popular varieties from Thailand, Mexico, Afghanistan and Columbia). It was one of the first strains grown indoors by growers in the UK in the early 1990s so the name stuck as a slang for any domestically grown marijuana. It is not necessarily any stronger than the best strains available in the 1960s or 1970s (Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, Columbian, Thai sticks, Jamaican Sensimelia etc). Potency (or the THC level as you term it) is not just a matter of genetics but also when the plant is harvested, how it is stored, cured or even how carefully it is trimmed. The real dangers in skunk lie in the chemicals used to grow it, mold/fungus and the fact that users mix it with tobacco (often cigarette tobacco which is very dangerous when smoked without it’s original filter).
I wonder what your views are on Hashish ? Up until 20 years ago most of the cannabis used in Britain and Europe was hashish. As I am sure you know this substance is the refined extract of resin glands from female cannabis flowers and much more potent than the original cannabis plant it was taken from. So the product used by most people in the 1970s was probably more potent (THC rich) than your modern day “skunk”.
May I suggest a trip to Holland – Ask in some of the better coffeeshops, The Hash/Hemp museum or seed shops and they will set you straight. People are often reluctant to talk about it in the UK so many people are left to form their views from the ill-informed media coverage.
Even If I am wrong and your concern is warranted I still do not see how prohibition helps matters or how this is really any different to alcohol. (Remember most young people have easier access to alcohol and every week young people die from overdosing on it)
FD,
from personal experience, when i was in amsterdamn and i was exposed to the very very potent strong strains of cannabis. You merely use less quantity to get the desired effect…I like to think that it works like that for alot of things…if the sugars sweeter you use less of it in your tea…you get me? anyway we can all agree that prohibition is not working and that any form of relief in cannabis laws is beneficial and eradicates problems that are around now.
Peace
Dougal, i would be interested to hear your previous drug use, and contrary to your opinion on ‘the equasy stunt’, it seems professor Nutt was putting the ecstasy issue in perspective. Personally, i would much rather roll on MDMA than ride a horse.
I am a University Graduate, a teacher, Mother of two healthy and well balanced grown up children and have many friends and hobby’s including singing,gardening and film making.
I am fit, healthy and don’t abuse alcohol or take class “A” drugs. I’m not depressed and have never been involved in any crime apart from the fact that I have used marijuana for many years. At almost 60, what I want to know is when I can relax, stop looking over my shoulder and grow my own plants in my own garden for my own use. The Netherlands have a good balance of 5 plants per household and fines for people who grow more, they also tax the coffee shops and use that revenue to help care for people who have a real PROBLEM with substance abuse.