How's your War on Drugs working out for you?

It seems to me that the trend is quite clearly more drugs coming on to the market, if the 'war' was working you'd expect fewer not more.  I know these are only supply figures but I think they indicate that if people want to take drugs then they will.

The problem here though is that there are 57 new substances that people will be taking where the effects on their bodies (particularly long term) are probably unknown.  If we had a legalised, regulated drugs market then the quality of the substances could be ensured, protecting the public from unnecessary harm whilst also educating them on the dangers of their chosen drug.  I despair at the people who still believe this war is working and isn't, like all wars, just creating unnecessary suffering.

Excellent interview with Amanda Feilding in the New Statesman

Amanda Feilding: "Tobacco kills 100,000 a year - cannabis a handful throughout history"

I'm really pleased to see another article/post that makes perfect sense when it comes to the illogical policies that are in place world wide when it comes to illicit drugs.  I know it's always easy to talk up people who agree with you but I really think she makes a lot of sense:

"What is your stance on legalisation?

[Drug laws] are often at variance with human rights: it is not clear why a person’s enjoyment of a recreational drug, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else, should be a criminal offence. The war on drugs is a war on drug users – because users are criminalised and must operate in the underworld, they are exposed to drugs of unknown purity and contaminated injecting equipment, and access to treatment is much more difficult.

How could the laws be fixed?

A first vital step would be to decriminalise the possession of drugs for personal use so long as no other crime is committed, as has happened in Portugal and the Czech Republic. A more radical policy, ruled out under the current UN conventions, would be to create a strictly regulated, legal and taxed market in a drug. The obvious starting point would be cannabis."

I have wrote about this subject often, I wish I could do so as well and coherently as she does (although I guess it is her job!) I hope she is very successful in persuading people and helping them to see her point of view.

"Learning from the past" by continuing to make the same mistakes...

Nicotine, a socially acceptable drug.

Ken Clarke yesterday commented on the the UK "Plainly Losing the War With Drugs".  I've written and spoken about this topic more times than I can remember but for me the reason we are 'losing' the war is that politicians and the media are fighting the wrong war!  Instead of being in a war against drugs we should be fighting the harm that drugs cause.  I feel another rant starting...

Far too often people speaking on the topic talk about minimising drug use, but this isn't where most of the harm occurs.  If all of the casual users stopped tomorrow would you see a fall in crime or drug related health problems in people?  I doubt it, the people with habits will continue to use because they need to.  As long as their drug use is seen as a criminal problem and not a health problem it is much less likely that they will seek the help that they need.

A few things that Mr Clarke said I find quite interesting:

"My purely personal view is I'd be worried about losing the deterrent effect of criminalisation on youngsters who start experimenting. The really key thing is to work out what can get fewer young people to start experimenting with drugs...

"One thing that does put them off is they could get into trouble with the police if they do it. Once you tell them they won't get into trouble, I've always felt that more of them would experiment."

In my experience, it being a crime doesn't stop young people experimenting.  Just looking around the people I personally have known over the years, plenty have tried at least cannabis, yet very few were what I would define as drug users.  It being a crime didn't stop David Cameron himself trying cannabis, even with his political aspirations - although he apparently 'didn't inhale'.  (Even back then just wanting to seem to fit in).  It also apparently didn't stop: 

• Jacqui Smith
• Bill Clinton
• Yvette Cooper
• Norman Lamont
• Matthew Taylor (Former Lib Dem Treasury Spokesman)
• Tom Spencer (Tory MEP)

That's just all that I read in one article.  These aren't ignorant people, unaware of the risks involved, both criminally or health wise, and they all turned out fine (well except for perhaps Tom Spencer when it was a case did have an impact on his political career with it being a smuggling issue).  Whereas had they been criminally convicted at the time of the incident then it would have tarred their futures and they probably wouldn't be where they are today (in some cases perhaps that'd be a good thing?).  

Young people in particular will always experiment, they will always push against their boundaries to learn from themselves.  Just because an authority figure says that something is bad doesn't mean that they will believe them, especially when they see the hypocrisy surrounding it.  In fact, I'm sure plenty of young people try them because an authority figure tells them that they can't!  

This statement also has the working assumption that all drugs are bad, despite it being pointed out on numerous occasions that only a handful of drugs are actually more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol.

More from Mr Clarke:

"We've engaged in a war against drugs for 30 years. We're plainly losing it. We have not achieved very much progress.  The same problems come round and round but I do not despair. We keep trying every method we can to get on top of one of the worst social problems in the country and the single biggest cause of crime."

This is what keeping supply on the black market achieves.

Firstly, if drugs we legalised, how much of that crime would fall away?  Just what proportion of the cause of crime that he's talking about is in relation to the cultivating, supplying/distribution and possessing of the drug.  Yes, where drug dependency forces users into crime to fund their habit this is a problem - but are these people more likely to be able to break from their criminal behaviour if their habit is illegal?  I can only see that happening once they are in jail (and since 7 percent of heroin addicts try it for the first time in jail* even then they may not break from the cycle).  How much of the violence that drugs creates due to rivals vying for the same distribution channels, trying to get their share of the high profit margins from operating in the black market?  How much of these high profit margins would still be there if a legal (and taxed) market still existed?

Secondly, why is it a social problem?  Is it because addicts are shoved into the margins of society, hidden away rather than helped?  Does criminalising these people help them out of the shadows of force them into there in the first place?  

Finally, Mr Clarke says that they keep trying every method, however the only methods that they are trying relate to prohibition and never evidence based policy.  If we are to ever reduce the harm that drugs can do to people's lives, to communities then I feel that we really need to look, as a minimum at evidence based legislation, with decriminalisation and then legalisation being the better steps.  

Professor David Nutt (who I often reference when talking about this) has written another excellent blog post after recently giving evidence to the parliamentary select committee.  He makes many excellent points, but I in particular agree with one of his opening comments:

"I strongly believe that we should focus on public health approaches to the drug problem, and decriminalise the possession of drugs for personal use, for the following simple reason;- If users are addicted then they are ill, and criminal sanctions are an inappropriate way to deal with an illness. If they are not addicted then criminalisation will almost always lead to greater harms to the user than the effects of the drug."

Overall my personal opinion is best summed up as:

The sooner we let our drugs policy develop beyond "Drugs are bad - because the media says so" the better

(Shamelessly stolen from @mynameisedd on twitter)

---

*Link is on the Sun's report on the same story here. (I don't like to blindly link people to News International).

Bad reporting and "research" can do more harm than good...

I've had quite a busy end of May/start of June so haven't had a chance to blog, or even keep up with most news stories (being out of the country/at a festival tends to cut you off).  However one story that caught my eye (well I couldn't miss it on the one day I bought a paper) "Young cannabis users 'do not realise the huge danger to their health'".  It particularly claims that smoking cannabis is 20 times worse than smoking cigarettes.

Now I welcome any attempt to improve the health of people and to educate people (particularly younger people) to the dangers of drug use - as I've often said, I would combat drug abuse through education rather than prohibition, however all this is doing is perpetuating a popular drug myth that has even been debunked on Wikipedia.  In fact most of the damage that is done comes from the fact it is commonly mixed with tobacco.  

I was pleased to see when I returned home a rebuttal in my inbox from the excellent Professor David Nutt:

"The BLF’s lack of care with the evidence, and the media’s lack of care in fact-checking, could have the opposite effect from their good intentions. Public confidence in science as a means of getting to the truth can only be harmed when the BBC reports “experts” mistakenly declaring that what 88% of us apparently think about cannabis is wrong. What’s more, if the BLF’s misguided information is believed, people could actually be put at greater risk of lung cancer, for example by cutting down on the cannabis in their joints and padding them out with more tobacco, or by making parents relatively more relaxed about finding out that their teenagers smoking cigarettes every day than finding out that they smoke the occasional joint."

That paragraph I think picks up on one of the most important aspects.  I've known plenty of people (the amount of festivals I go to it's hard not to be exposed to it) who smoke the occasional joint - not even that, it's more of a social thing where they might have a couple of tokes.  Yes people can get addicted to it and some people do abuse it but very few of the people I know who smoke cannabis would be classed as regular users whereas 100% of my cigarette smoking friends are addicts.

I'd recommend that everyone reads Professor Nutt's piece, he's not some liberal who wants to end prohibition like me, he is just an expert who was fired by the former Labour Government for pointing out that their drugs policy didn't make sense, alcohol and tobacco being much worse for people than numerous restricted drugs.

Richard Branson - a man who talks sense...

A few days ago (yet again I'm slow writing about something) I was really pleased to see a high profile figure voicing a very sensible opinion on drug use due to his work as part of the global drugs commission.  Below is an interview he had with Sky News:

The main message he is setting out is that drugs should be a health problem and not a criminal one.  I have argued this many times that the way our society acts is one of punishment - taking drugs is bad/immoral/whatever and as such you should be punished.  In reality surely it would be much better for society if these people were not handed ridiculous criminal records and instead were given the help that they need (if indeed they need help) to become a productive member of society.

Anyone with a criminal record will find it hard to find employment, or at least as good employment as they could have previously obtained, as such they are not fulfilling their potential and we all lose out.  This is a vicious circle as once you hinder someone's chances by giving them a criminal record they are less likely to 'get themselves clean' and more likely to stay on drugs.

A point I hadn't previously raised regarding decriminalisation (or perhaps more appropriate to legalisation) is that by doing so you remove the ability of certain people to get others 'hooked' on a drug and become dependent on that person and as a result a life of crime.  

I disagree that the overall aim should be to reduce the number of drugs users (as I don't think that this sort of moral decision should be imposed by anyone), however the aim should be to reduce the harm to each individual and society as a whole, the only way I see this as being possible is to bring people out of the shadows so they can receive any support that they need and for those who don't have a problem to not have their lives ruined by a silly criminal conviction.

Basically it can be summed up on one phrase mentioned below:

"The war on drugs is not working - there needs to be a rethink".

It always pleases me to hear another sensible voice adding their weight to the argument, unfortunately I don't see any changes happening soon!

Getting my news from Fox... UK media ignoring the story?

In all fairness, apparently it is on the Times' website as well, but I can't get beyond the paywall!

Anyway the story I'm talking about is: 

UK Government's Official Drug Advisers Want to Decriminalize All Personal Drug Use

It is good to see that the advisory committee is waking up to the possibility that the current war on drugs may not be the best way of minimising harm to society.  I am not sure I agree with the following however:

"The council also suggests drug users could have their driving licenses and passports confiscated as part of a civil rather than criminal penalty."

Yes, a civil offence is an improvement, however restricting people's movement is very illiberal.  Just because a person takes drugs doesn't mean that they drug drive.  They could require their vehicle to get to work or complete their job.  Depriving them of this could be just as bad for them as a criminal charge.  At the same time, possession does not necessarily indicate a willingness to smuggle!  If these measures were put into force they could only possibly be justifiable for those carrying the largest quantities.

It is disappointing that so little of the British media has picked up on the story, perhaps this shows that the debate currently is being hindered by the media's reluctance to accept that there could be an alternative.  Although, in their defence, I can't find where either Fox or The Times got their information - I am hoping it'll become apparent later and that I have not been misquoting them!

Taking the "War on Drugs" to a whole new level...

Any regular reader will know I'm not a fan of the "War on Drugs" which is mainly due to the US's policies on the matter.  One of my main objections to it is that it can often lead to criminal records for people who've done nothing that has harmed another person or society (there may have been harm further down the supply chain, however this is also specifically due to the "War on Drugs").  It is therefore possible that a teenager's life could be ruined just because they want to impress people and happen to get caught carrying a couple of ecstasy tablets.  

The US want to take this one step further.  Now they are looking to prosecute people who don't even engage in illegal activity, but just plan to do something (anywhere in the world) which is illegal in the United States whilst in the country - irrespective of the legality of the action in the country(s) where the act would take place.  

You can read more about this here.  The article makes the absurd example of organising a wedding in Amsterdam:

"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution," (Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance)

Under the Amsterdam wedding scenario, anyone who participated in the planning of the wedding with knowledge of the planned pot purchase would be guilty of conspiracy, even if their particular role was limited to buying flowers or booking the hotel.

The way I read the story I'd say it's even worse than that, just say two people booking to go away somewhere discussing the possibility that they may undertake in legal activities could be prosecuted - it doesn't even seem like they have to commit the activity.

I am not completely against the purpose of the bill:

"The law is a reaction to a 2007 case in which the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals threw out the convictions of two men who planned the transfer of cocaine from a Colombian drug cartel to a Saudi prince for distribution in Europe. Though the men planned the transaction from Miami, the court found that because the cocaine never reached the U.S. and was never intended to reach the U.S., the men hadn't committed any crime against the United States."

Given the fact that the US consider drug trafficking an offence then their reaction to not being able to prosecute people committing what they consider a crime is completely understandable - however planning to prosecute people for just planning what will be legal activities is just another example of the US trying to impose it's laws across the globe.  Sometimes they are for the benefit of people and an attempt to improve people's rights and lives but this does not, it creates victims, opens up black markets and leads to vulnerable people being exploited and finding it harder to get help.

The US has some very noble aims, however their drugs policy is completely ridiculous, in my opinion causes more harm than good and is completely hypocritical - in California, thanks to Proposition 215, it is legal for people who would benefit from medical marijuana to cultivate the crop.  Yet this article implies that someone (lets assume in a state other than California) advising a person how to cultivate cannabis would be breaking the law - would this be the case if they were advising a Californian?  I doubt it.

Alcohol vs Cannabis

Professor David Nutt has written another excellent short article looking at the relative harms of alcohol and cannabis use and how the current legislation is illogical.  Unfortunately I'm not going to subscribe to read the full report but his article says all it needs to.

My common point when it comes to these factors is even if you strip away my moral reasons for drugs legalisation the current prohibition is illogical, as it doesn't look at the relative harms to society or the individual, merely keeping alcohol legal because it's currently legal.

"Estimating the true relative harms of alcohol and cannabis is not easy as there are no societies today where the two drugs are equally available. However where neither are legal – as in some Islamic states – alcohol appears to cause more dependence than cannabis, even in Morocco a traditional cannabis growing country."

Yes it is hard to completely compare legal and illegal drugs (that reminds me of the conversation Mr Nutt said he once had with Jacqui Smith as I mentioned before) but that doesn't mean that the comparatives shouldn't be looked at. We all see the damage that alcohol does to our society, I think the most underestimated thing about drugs legalisation would be the positive externality of reduced alcohol intake.  

The only bit of this post I don't like is the start:

"I am often asked the question “if cannabis was as freely available as alcohol how many would use it and would its harms increase?.  Of course the answer is yes to both." 

That answer doesn't appear to answer the question - I think it should have read would usage increase and would harms increase. 

I don't know how you can say harms would definitely increase, given that as stated in his post the Netherlands has one of the lowest cannabis usage rates amongst young people.

Mail in the Metro

On Monday the Metro ran the story above.  This lead to the following letter by Andy from Birmingham (presumably not attending the conference) in the Tuesday edition:

"So the Liberal Democrats voted at the party’s annual conference to reform drug laws to make possession of heroin and cocaine legal (Metro, Mon). 

Yes there is a problem with drugs in this country but is decriminalising them going to help?  Making them as easy to buy as milk, bread, alcohol and cigarettes will undermine suppliers but what message does this send to our impressionable children?  And as for Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes, what a joke. 

It’s unsettling to think we helped put these people in charge of our country.  The power has clearly gone to their heads.

What on Earth will they come up with next?  A law to ensure bankers and politicians receive hefty bonuses every year?

Let’s just hope the powers that be come to their senses – and soon."

"

I particularly liked the way that he jumped from looking at drugs policy to the obviously connected topic of bankers bonus's as if they are similar - just to try and encourage maximum outrage.  I also love the Helen Lovejoy impression of immediately relating it to the children to try and make people even more emotive rather than logical and factual.  I don't know if Andy realises this but if a child would like to get their hands on drugs now, all they need to do is know the right people, exactly the same as if they want cigarettes or alcohol.  I'm also going to guess that he's never been to Amsterdam.  I was there myself less than a month ago and although cannabis was being used openly, I would hardly say it was a joke, in fact it looked pretty serious to me.  The overall impression I got of the cafés were that they appeared to be basically just like pubs, although even late at night there appeared to be no violence or tension around them (though admittedly I only had a two night snap shot and this is not where we were spending our time).

Anyway I couldn't let this letter go unchecked/without a response, it had annoyed me too much, so here was my response (published in today's issue):

"Both the Metro's headline writers and Andy from Birmingham appear to have missed the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation, the former (as called for in the Liberal Democrats conference) will not make drugs as easy to buy as milk, bread or even alcohol and cigarettes.

 "Possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education, health or social interventions."

 In other words they wont receive a criminal conviction which could ruin their lives.  I suggest people read the actual motion which aims to look at actual evidence with the overall aim of reducing the harm drugs cause to society and the individual rather than jumping to conclusions.   It may be unusual for a party in Government to look at evidence rather than tabloid reaction but far from letting the power go to their heads the Liberal Democrats are continuing to do that when setting their policy."

Well that was my email anyway, the actual version makes some small changes, mainly for the better but also removing my criticism of the Metro's headline writers.  Hopefully it comes across okay, there's only so much you can write - an essay or the whole blog post I was thinking of writing as criticism would never get printed!

I am pleased that despite the negative press the party will get from this they still went ahead and carried the motion.  It is just one of the many things I've heard over the past few days coming from Birmingham that make me proud to be part of the party.  (I will blog at a later date regarding other conference related things!)

Lib Dem drugs policy motion...

Yet more sensible voices on drugs policy.  This time the Guardian reports 

"The UK Drugs Policy Commission  ... says it backs the broad thrust of the Lib Dem motion to be debated on Sunday."

The motion itself basically calls for:

• The removal of criminal penalties for possession
• A regulated market for cannabis
• Expanded heroin maintenance clinics. 

On a couple of occasions it makes reference to the brave Portuguese model that I have written about previously.  At the end of the day surely it just comes down to something similar to what I wrote in my last blog  (about the judicial system), is the aim to minimise use, minimise harm and minimise cost (to both the user, society and the Government)?  If so then it would seem that the current policy is not working and we should try something else.  However all to often it appears that the policy is set out to just penalise people and punish them for wanting to live in a different way than the tabloid media and the establishment think is right.

This is one of the major reasons I know the Liberal Democrats are the right party for me - summed up by Ewan Hoyle (of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform):

"Hoyle said he hoped the party would take pride that its internal democracy allowed the membership to select the motion for debate without being vetoed by concerns about "reactionary tabloid hysteria"

I am proud that the party I am a member of can have a grown up, reasoned, evidence based debate on this.  It is also pleasing that such knowledgeable people as the members of the UK Drugs Policy Commission also broadly support it.

Will the real David Cameron please stand up?

Two recent drugs related stories obviously caught my attention.  


Firstly there was the story that Louise Mensch may have taken drugs when she was in here twenties.  Like Mark Thompson I was initially impressed with her 'so what' style response but then disappointed with her defence of prohibition.  In my mind you can't knowingly break the law, get away with it and then subsequently think that others should be punished for doing the same thing.  It can't be foolish if you do it and criminal if someone else does it, as Mark points out it's hard to view this as anything other than hypocrisy.


She had a chance to open up a real debate into an issue that effects a large number of people in this country.  Had she been caught she would have a criminal record, she would therefore not have had the opportunities that she has had.  She may think it would be harsh to penalise her for her 'idiotic' actions when she was younger, however many youngsters every day are having the same opportunities denied by simply being caught doing what she did.  


The Liberal Democrats however are trying to open up the debate by suggesting that an independent enquiry is set up to look at the decriminalisation of all drugs. This decriminalisation indicates that Portugal's model would be a good one to adopt as a half way house, test the water with a view of eventual full legalisation.  I have blogged about Portugal's system in the past (here) and whilst it may not be the system I'd draw up I struggle to see one in operation in a Western country that I prefer.  


The title of the post is: Decriminalising drug possession: an idea whose time has come? Unfortunately, the answer to this (rhetorical?) question is no, the media aren't ready to accept it and there is not quite enough public opinion to support it.  This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be keeping this narrative and persuading people that it is an improvement.  Also public opinion should not be the reason Governments make decisions. You can't expect the circa 30million voters in the UK to all be experts on everything.  Even if they disagree they elected the Government to make decisions, the Government will have more information available to them than anyone else (unless they have a vested interest) and it should be up to them to decide what is right - even when we think they are wrong (as I currently do).  This can only be the case however if they do consult experts and look at it from every angle, not just how it will effect the poles.

The best thing about the Lib Dem voice article (linked above) however, was not that it drew my attention to the Guardian report that I'd already seen, but that it highlighted something a novice back bencher called David Cameron wrote for the Guardian back in 2001.  Now I don't know much about this guy but he describes himself as:

'I am an instinctive libertarian who abhors state prohibitions and tends to be sceptical of most government action, whether targeted against drug use or anything else.'

Apparently he's in the new government, but it sounds to me that if someone like that was in a position of power then it should do the world of good for a decriminalisation campaign.  Anyone know what happened to him?

The "War on Drugs" is not working...

I always find it an enjoyable start to the day when I pick up a Metro and the main headline is something I agree with - the war on drugs most definitely isn't working!  


I have blogged about this many times before however it's good to see so many places running this story.  The Metro obviously leads with the fact that former global leaders are speaking out against the current policy, but also the BBC, Express and Politics.co.uk have the story that celebrities are writing to the Government to suggest they change their tactics.


It's all basic common sense.  One of the major sources of income for organised crime is drugs.  Make them legal, allow legal channels of production and distribution and you take away their ability to make huge profit margins.  Faced with the choice of drugs from a licenced operator who has strict rules on their ability to supply and the content of their produce and an illegal seller who could cut their drugs with anything and no legal duty of care I'm sure that the vast majority would chose the legal route.


It is also healthier/safer for the users, a large number of overdoses I'm sure are due to the fact that the underground drug market offers produce of differing strengths, so users take more expecting to need it to achieve their hit.  In addition you bring them out of the shadows, instead of hiding away fearful of being caught programmes to help addicts can be targeted directly at them as you know who they are.  


I haven't even mentioned the positive effect that could be seen on the Government's books - taxed produce, reduced criminal expenditure likely to offset the additional educational and health costs that would result.


It's quite clear that prohibition isn't working

"UN estimates that opiate use increased 35% worldwide from 1998 to 2008, cocaine by 27%, and cannabis by 8.5%. "

This is in comparison to Portugal's small fall in hard drug usage since decriminalisation.


The annoying thing about this though is that these former leaders speak up after they have been in power.  I'm making the assumption that just like most leaders they knew the current course of action is detrimental yet they also knew changing it could be bad for their political career.  Our current Government shows no sign of even contemplating evidence based policy, which as a Liberal Democrat I find very disappointing that our ministers aren't at least trying to start a debate.

...Cigarettes and Alcohol...

I haven't been blogging a lot this month, a combination of being busy at work/studying and the feeling out of the loop as all the main political action is relating to the Spring Conference season.  So far I have not exactly been the most supportive member (having only joined the party last year) however I am trying to improve, this week I will be going on my first leaflet round and I have been invited canvassing for the May elections which I hope to get involved in.


However one thing I do want to talk about is in relation to the recent change in legislation which means cigarettes will have to be sold in unbranded packages kept under the counter and the same time the recent discussions where a number of health groups refused to sign the Government's alcohol strategy.  There is an excellent post on the latter by Free Radical which I pretty much agree with.  All these measures (the hiding supply and minimum pricing) don't get to the reasons why people drink and smoke.  It is a firm belief of mine that anyone who wishes to drink, smoke or even do drugs should be allowed to do so, the duties on which should be used for:

• Meeting the increased health costs.
• Education.
• Rehabilitation where it is required.

Rather than just being lumped into the "tax" pool as normal government income.

In the main there are a lot of responsible drinkers and I believe that many drugs can also be used responsibly but at the end of the day it should be the person's choice.  The government's role should be in giving real education to the risks that each activity poses and helping any who become dependent.  

I think Free Radical makes an excellent point:  

...where students do choose to go out less often some will actually drink even more heavily when they do - hoping to have one really good night instead of two merely good ones.

This will be worse for the person's health overall than moderate drinking a few nights.  Price pressures influence the poorest the most and are therefore regressive - I know from my own student days I always found the money for a night out.  Restricting the sale of cigarettes is likely to hit the smaller shops harder than big supermarkets and wont stop those people who already smoke.  This wont be a case of out of sight out of mind, I have watched many people try and give up smoking and it is never out of mind!

The previous Labour Government tried to micromanage our lives, I really hope the Coalition wont fall into this trap.

"Ecstasy does not impare cause cognitive impairment..."

There was an interesting small piece in the metro today:

"Ecstasy does not impair the mental abilities of those who take it, a new study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the US claims.  In contrast to previous studies, it used volunteers who weren't substance users or ravers.  It said Ecstasy does not cause cognitive impairment - provided it is uncontaminated."

There wasn't even a headline to it, just in a small box sandwiched between a story on being able to tell an unhealthy lifestyle from your skin in just two minutes and a picture of a model.  No maybe this is my natural cynicism towards the press but I can't help thinking that if this study had come to the opposite conclusions then there would have been a sensationalist headline about how the drug warps the mind of the users.

I'm not saying that this is conclusive evidence that the drug is safe and I note that they authors emphasis that their findings are not the same as concluding the drug is risk free.  However it helps to fortify my own position in my mind which is that people should be allowed to make their own decisions on the substances they take with the supply regulated, the study highlights that illegally made pills can contain harmful contaminants and this is where most of the danger lies.  Personally, my opinions are always based on freedom of choice grounds but I think this is one drug that would lead also lead to direct health improvements if it was supplied through similar channels to alcohol/cigarettes.

A bit more on the study can be read here where there is also a link to the actual study.

"This Government does not believe that liberalisation and legalisation are the answer,"

The above quote from the current Home Secretary Theresa May pretty much says it all.  It really is astonishing that a government which has a party with Liberal in the name and a partner of the Conservatives with a small "c" are more draconian than any previous government.  Make no mistake the latest policy is very anti liberal and erodes even further into social freedoms. 

I rant about drugs a lot, but today there have been a fair few articles on these matters all worth a read:

Mark Easton for the BBC.

Peter Reynolds

Guardian: Devran Harris 1, Devran Harris 2, Decca Aitkenhead.

Mark Easton I find very good at highlighting issues, but the one I like the most is the Peter Reynolds blog.  Highlights the absolute hypocrisy of particularly Theresa May, but also the government as a whole.  

I also really like Decca Aitkenhead's interview with David Nutt.  He really isn't the most liberal, he is just sensible and highlights the fact that current policies aren't based on scientific evidence.  He is often held up as the voice of decriminalisation/legalisation but is actually far from it.  He even states that he'd rather ban alcohol and restrict use of lesser drugs.  The part I really like is:

He describes a truly surreal exchange with the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith, who told him: "You cannot compare the harms of an illegal activity with a legal one." But don't we need to compare the harms, he asked her, in order to see if something should be illegal? "And there was this long pause. And she said, 'You can't compare the harms of an illegal activity with a legal one.' And this is the problem. Many politicians seem to think that once something is illegal, job done. She didn't understand the paradox of what she was saying. So I think the home office were angry with me, and from that point on there were people out to get me."

Total hypocrisy there from the former Labour government, the problem is this government are even worse.  In one of the pieces the question is raised "What would they do if a safe form of ecstasy is found?" That is an easy question to answer, they would ban it.  The problem is that government after government are just looking for ways to control their populous and manipulate them.  

The only reason alcohol and to a lesser extent tobacco are acceptable is due to social history.  Governments are reluctant for people to find new ways of enjoying themselves.  

Hypocrisy annoys me.  Several of the leading Tories have admitted drug taking (But I didn't inhale your honour... yeah and Mike Ashley is loved by the Toon Army, pull the other one!) yet are reluctant to even entertain the motion that it may be better for their minions to be allowed to partake in this.  As such they allow policy to be formed by prejudice, ignoring both scientific and cost benefit analysis.  

Maybe one day we can have a grown up and sensible debate regarding a person's free will and how the state should not interfere in matters effecting ones self.  Maybe one day we will have government policies formed on reasoning and logic rather than sensationalist emotive tabloid headlines. Maybe one day people will be free from prejudice and judgement due to how they chose to live their lives.  Maybe one day people with drugs problems will not feel victimised and therefore will be able to come forward and get the help they need.  Maybe one day governments will stop wasting money on a policy that is completely ineffective at acheiving their rediculous aims.  Maybe one day people will realise that the best way to tackle drugs is education, making sure that people are properly informed and allowing them to make their own decisions.  Maybe I shouldn't be holding my breath.

Unintended consequences

Mark Easton seems to post quite often about drugs, not that I'm complaining as they tend to be pieces that go against the grain of typical reporting in the area.  In fact most of what he says I find quite accurate.

His latest piece goes on the theme of unintended consequences.  The theory is that whilst mephedrone was legal people were taking this instead of cocaine and ecstasy and that this drug is actually less harmful.  Now that it is illegal people have moved from being able to buy it on the Internet to street dealers where the price is higher and the quality is less.

None of this is rocket science.  If you prohibit the use of a drug and target all of your resources in restricting the supply then prices will rise.  There is increased risk of the supply however the demand remains so people are willing to take the risk for the super-normal profits.  In addition due to the increased risk profit margins will be increasingly looked at with production made cheaper (and therefore a less pure and more dangerous product).  There will also be no legal method for the buyer to complain as the substance they are purchasing is illegal.

Prohibition continues to baffle me, people will always want to take drugs (unless there is a massive clamp down on the demand side but that is never going to happen).  As such by making them illegal governments put these people at risk by not regulating the substances on the market and allow criminal gangs to use these substances in order to generate profits.  If drugs were legal then large markets for organised crime would disappear instantly.  

My opinion as I have stated many times is that the best way to combat drugs use is legalisation, taxation, regulation and education.

A more educated population will have the facts at their disposal to make educated choices.  Regulation will ensure that the products are of satisfactory health requirements and not cut with other damaging chemicals.  Taxation will bring in vital revenue streams (coupled with the decreased costs of prohibition), allowing governments to spend money on counselling, rehabilitation and education.

This will also bring drug users out of the shadows of society in order for them to get help where necessary when required.  

I hope that Portugal continues with it's policies (as previously mentioned) so that they show the way to the rest of the world (to go even further).

The Government believes the drug classification system works...

Mark Easton has posted yet another excellent blog (here) highlighting the absolute nonsense that is government policy regarding drugs prohibition, following Professor David Nutt's latest publication.  I am too tired to read the article (I shall do so tomorrow) by Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens (here) regarding their analysis of the Portuguese system, however they have drawn some interesting conclusions.  They found that following Portugal's decision to decriminalise illicit drug use in 2001:

• small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults;
• reduced illicit drug use among problematic drug users and adolescents, at least since 2003;
• reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system;
• increased uptake of drug treatment;
• reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases;
• increases in the amounts of drugs seized by the authorities;
• reductions in the retail prices of drugs.

 Overall this points to the fact that prohibition just isn't the correct option.  It doesn't prevent much drug use and just pushes that use further underground, leading to people less likely to seek help when they need it and having to go to illegal sources to purchase their fix which will probably be of poorer quality and therefore more harmful.

Though I wouldn't care what the evidence suggested to be honest.  My stance on drug use is that of freedom of choice not on some cost benefit analysis.  I cannot see why a sane consensual adult should not be allowed to chose what they do in the privacy of their own home on the proviso that no other living creature is negatively effected by this.  I know I have expressed this opinion time and again but I am a Liberal in this sense.

Unfortunately it will be a long long long time before there is any reform in this area, the government's response to the research that has been published:

"The Government believes the drug classification system works"

Hopefully Portugal will continue their policies and this will show improvements that will allow other countries to follow, I wont be holding my breath for any improvement here though.

Another sensible voice

Yet another 'expert' has come out and recommended that cannabis is decriminalised.  (Full article can be read here on the Independent's website).

I wonder just how long it will be, how many experts it will take before a Government is brave enough to have an open discussion regarding this, taking into account the view of all of those people who really know what they are talking about and not just worrying about what the sensationalist fear mongering red tops will print.  You can see the headlines now "Dopey Dave wants to get your kids STONED".  It is the media in the UK that set the political agenda, politicians know they would be slated for even thinking about this, it would be the sort of act they could never live down.  In that sense I have every sympathy, but we shouldn't have our policy decisions made by a few people who are able to set the media agenda, decisions like this should be made with the consultation of scientists.

Even a quick look at the facts would show that alcohol and cigarettes are both worse drugs both socially and for ones health.  (It is the tobacco that is often mixed with cannabis that makes it almost as bad).  The only possible reason for these being legal is cultural, along with the fact that prohibition has been tried (in America in the 1930s) and it failed miserably.  The truth is prohibition of any drug doesn't work.  I could walk out of my door and buy almost anything I wanted without trying, the only thing it does is makes it illegal to produce and possess, therefore criminalising those who do use it and pushing the market towards criminal gangs.

I could go on all day about why I think drugs should be legalised but the main reason is I believe in free will.  We only know for certain that we live once, as such I don't think it should be down to other people to tell you what you can or cannot do as long as this doesn't negatively effect another living creature.  I would allow people to do drugs in their own home or licenced premises, although I would limit the amount one could purchase or possess.  The key to controlling the use of drugs though would be education, from an early age, so children know the harm that they can do and the risks they face taking them.  Education would be much better than just a "Drugs are bad, m'kay" attitude!  The main additional benefit which shouldn't be overlooked would be the fact that this would bring in a huge amount of tax revenues (from any direct taxation and bringing the income of those who produce it out of the hidden economy) and lower costs on the prohibition side.  Like I said I could go on all day, so I will stop here.