On 1st August I attended my first ever protest outside the houses of Parliament. There was no kettling, shouting, or even any placards. Instead, there were balloons, balloons filled with nitrous oxide – laughing gas. This was the protest against the Psychoactive Substances Bill, organised by The Psychedelic Society to highlight the idiocy of the Bill, both in its principle and in its wording.
I could fill this entire post, and a few more, with criticisms of the Bill itself, from its illiberal premise, to its impact on medical research, to its utter unworkability, but I won’t.
If you’d like more, I suggest you listen to Lord Paddick, Lady Hamwee and crossbencher Lady Meacher’s destruction of the Bill during its hearings in the Lords. It was both heartening to hear so many practical, evidence based arguments and amendments put forward against the Bill, and of course slightly crushing, albeit inevitable, to see them all subsequently withdrawn or voted down.
The protest was, by its own admission, silly, but that was the point. At 3pm, all protesters inhaled brightly coloured balloons of gas, before promptly falling about giddy and giggling, as if some occult hand were tickling the entire crowd. The aim was to use a ridiculous act to draw attention to a ridiculous piece of legislation, and although fewer people turned up than hoped, it created the desired media response. I spotted more than one rainbow tie-dye shirt, but overall, drug user stereotypes were largely avoided. Harm reduction advice was distributed beforehand and a ‘leave no trace’ rule was observed. No one there expected the Government to suddenly reconsider the Bill based on their actions, but they wanted to voice their displeasure at the direction UK drugs policy is taking and to show that plenty of people use drugs, and they do not want to be criminalised for doing so.
It is hard to deliver a complex nuanced argument with a balloon full of laughing gas though (both in the wider and more literal sense), and that was the biggest criticism levelled at the protest by other detractors of the Bill.
Back in May, when most of us were still in states of shock, the youth wing of our liberal counterparts over in the Netherlands, D66, set up a pop-up ‘ecstasy’ shop, open for one day only. No actual drugs were sold, MDMA (the substance in ecstasy pills) is still very much illegal in the Netherlands. Placebo pills, clearly marked with the contents (0 mg of MDMA) were sold to adults with a valid ID, in a safe environment, alongside the provision of realistic and sensible harm reduction advice, in recorded, taxable transactions. The point was to demonstrate how a legally regulated system might work, which it did superbly, and to generate media interest in the issue, not hard with headlines like ‘World’s First Ecstasy Shop Opens’ running worldwide.
This approach to direct action was effective, media friendly, yet also initiated intelligent debate of the issues at hand. Contrast this with the many cannabis rallies that take place annually on 20th April, or even the Hanfparade taking place in Berlin this weekend. They are chance for cannabis users globally to join together and show their resistance to the international prohibition of cannabis without fear of arrest – after all, you can’t arrest an entire park full of people, although some police forces try. But these rallies can act as a double edged sword, giving the media perfect opportunities to reinforce negative stereotypes with pictures of red-eyed stoners adorned with cannabis leaf patterned clothes, peering through a haze of smoke.
For me, the laughing gas protest fell somewhere in between these two examples in terms of its efficacy, but I’d like to know how others saw it, especially those not so close to the drug policy debate.
UK drugs policy in general is well overdue an overhaul, yet the Psychoactive Substances Bill attempts to patch over current policy holes whilst setting us up for greater problems down the line. Direct action draws attention to this issue that most politicians would rather ignore, but it must be done well for it to have its intended effect. I will not be suggesting we swap #LibDemPint for #LibDemBalloon just yet though.
* Dr Henry Fisher is a Liberal Democrat and ALDES member living in London. He is the policy editor for VolteFace, a new platform that offers fresh perspectives on drug policy, lifestyle, and culture.
19 Comments
The D66 pop-up shop is a brilliant idea! Would love to see something similar staged here.
This protest was covered on TV.
The camera seldom provided a long shot but on the one occasion that it did there seemed to be fewer the three dozen people taking part.
The media seemed to outnumber the protesters. How many people would you estimate were taking part?
Did any of the media pose this question ?
“Don’t you think that self indulgent hedonism is very low priority in a world hit by hunger, war, poverty and terrorism?”
It would help to inform debate if you listed the names of the (at least) seventeen deaths between 2006-12 caused by misuse of nitrous oxide (The Guardian, August 2014).
There have been more since – including at the Kendal Calling Festival in Cumbria last week. It was the funeral of Christian Parr of Millom today. It is not illiberal to wish that he was still alive today.
A strange fact relating to prescription medicines is that even if people are told they are being given a placebo there is an effect.
David I was at Kendall Calling and the lad didn’t die of nitrous oxide – he died by taking an overdose of a synthetic drug which is meant to mimic the effects of cannabis. This synthetic drug is much more dangerous compared to the real thing.
Nobody is going to claim that all drugs are 100% safe – overdoses of legal drugs such as alcohol and paracetamol are sadly common. The problem with prohibition of drugs is this prohibition causes far more harm than a nuanced and sensible approach. In the Kendal Calling case the lad would still be alive if he could have used legally available normal cannabis.
If we are going down the route of listing names of people have died using nitrous oxide (which in itself is a pointless as the statistics are extremely dodgy) why don’t we list the names of people who have died horse riding, playing bowls (statistically a dangerous sport) or any other activity that we partake in for own enjoyment. It’s not illiberal to wish people were still alive but it is illiberal to prevent people from partaking in activities that will be perfectly safe for the vast vast majority of participants.
Why would anyone inhale Nitrous Oxide? I tried it as pain relief in labour and it didn’t make me laugh.
Hi John, I’d put the number of protest attendees closer to a hundred, which is still rather small I know – for comparison, the April 20th protest I mentioned saw over 10,000 attendees in Hyde Park alone this year. The number of media covering the protest didn’t exceed the number of protesters, but was close. However, the very aim of a protest like this is to generate as much media attention as possible, to draw attention to the issue being protested, and so in this respect, despite a low turnout, it was successful (although obviously greater numbers would have helped its impact).
Just to address the your hypothetical question from a well-meaning interviewer, the injustices and suffering caused by current national and international drug policy are far from trivial, and the links these policies have to causing and exacerbating war, hunger, poverty and terrorism could be written on at length. That said, I very much doubt any protester there would say drug policy reform trumps world hunger or world poverty for the number one global problem in need of attention today, but that does not make it an any less valid issue to protest.
Had there been vote on the fox hunting ban recently, I guarantee we would have seen people from both sides of the debate protesting their causes, as we have seen protests on student fees, sex workers’ rights, and a myriad other causes. Hopefully I don’t need to point out that it would be pretty illiberal to label any protest other than that explicitly in the name of ‘war, hunger, poverty and terrorism’ as a waste of time.
I didn’t expand on the many issues with the PS Bill in my post, but needless to say the protesters there weren’t simply there to defend the right to self-indulgent hedonism, but to draw attention to (amongst other reasons) the fact that the PS Bill as it stands looks set to fail dismally in its efforts to reduce consumption of legal highs (as evidenced from usage rates in Ireland and Poland where similar measures are in force), whilst the banning of the sale of these substances will simply act to make the potential dangers of there substances greater than they already are (evidenced from recent findings of crystal meth-laced ‘legal highs’ in New Zealand after the introduction of their ban), when a more liberal and evidence-based approach would have been to take this as an opportunity to to provide a framework for the regulation of such substances. Exploring that sounds like a post for another day though so I’ll leave it there.
David (Raw), I just wanted to pick up on the 17 deaths from nitrous oxide that have been reported, as it is worth unpacking the facts behind them and also putting them in the context of national usage rates of nitrous oxide. The majority of the deaths attributed to nitrous oxide have been due to the use of face masks and pressurised cylinders, as used by hospitals, or other risky behaviour such as the user putting a plastic bags over their head. The use and diversion of these medical cylinders in anything other than a medical setting is already illegal, yet that clearly hasn’t prevented this small number of deaths. Greater education about the risks surrounding methods of use of nitrous oxide would, however, prove more fruitful. for more info on the risks of nitrous oxide, please see the following guide: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/proposed-ban-nitrous-oxide-political-posturing-wins-out-over-pragmatic-policy
Apologies for the lengthy reply!
By the way, David (F) – watch this space!
Henry Fisher 12th Aug ’15 – 10:24pm
Henry, thank you for that excellent response which was a model of polite, considered and sensible discussion.
Can I nominate you to be LDV’s conciliation consultant when disputes flare up between the LDV moderators and banned members of the House of Lords?
This is all going to look rather silly in ten years time,
The USA is quietly legalising cannabis already. Since 2012 four states plus the capital have had referendums on legalising cannabis for recreational use and it has passed every time.
The American state of Ohio is next to have a referendum in 2015 and I’m not sure if that will pass but I believe there will be referendums in California, Nevada and massachusetts in 2016 that will pass.
When prohibition starts collapsing it will collapse really fast and the politicians who now back cannabis criminalisation won’t be able to get onto the new band wagon quick enough. It is a shame that the lib Dems have been so weak on this. A liberal party should have been leading the change. Norman Lamb spoke of wanting to legalise cannabis during the lib dem leadership election, now that he’s no longer seeking votes from liberal activists it will be interesting to see if he keeps on talking about that or if one year from now he’s no longer in favour of legalising recreational drugs.
“It would help to inform debate if you listed the names of the (at least) seventeen deaths between 2006-12 caused by misuse of nitrous oxide (The Guardian, August 2014).
There have been more since – including at the Kendal Calling Festival in Cumbria last week. It was the funeral of Christian Parr of Millom today. It is not illiberal to wish that he was still alive today.”
No it is not illibereal to wish he was still alive today….just as I wish all the people who has died from alcohol, heroin, glue sniffing, and adverse events to prescription medicines were alive today. A
As a pharmacist and a holistic therapist I have both a professional and a personal view on this. ALL medicinal agents are dangerous in one way or another. Even the humble paracetamol can kill and Nurofen is far more risky than most people realise. And don’t me going on codeine products sold over the counter…….which this bill will not control.
People who have a desire to get high will do so in one way or another. What needs to be tackled is not the availability of substances, but the desire of those who use them. If young people were equipped with techniques to help themselves feel better without resorting to misuse of any substance , there would be no market for these incredibly dangerous substances
@ sally-haynes preece,
I agree with every word you have written.
As a consequence of Henry’s post I have read the Psychedelic Societies literature and I still question the need for drugs rather than their availability, legal or otherwise. There are, I would argue other ways of achieving non pharmacological ways of achieving a state of peace and personal self awareness and knowledge without the ingestion of potentially health damaging drugs.
John Tilley
“Don’t you think that self indulgent hedonism is very low priority in a world hit by hunger, war, poverty and terrorism?”
A hypothetical responder may have said to the hypothetical interviewer. Don’t you think in a world hit by hunger, war, poverty and terrorism has far more important things to do than spend resources trying to prevent a small number of people engaging in ‘self indulgent hedonism?’ Particularly when this preventative action often has such appalling side effects.”
David Raw12th Aug ’15 – 5:24pm
“It would help to inform debate if you listed the names of the (at least) seventeen deaths between 2006-12 caused by misuse of nitrous oxide (The Guardian, August 2014).
[…] It is not illiberal to wish that he was still alive today. ”
It would also help inform the debate if you listed the names of the 100,000+ dead killed in the Mexican drug war. It is certainly not illiberal to wish that those killed by the repeated (failed) attempts at prohibition were not killed.
If I were to want to be crude I could suggest that your attempt to bring an emotional claim about the “victims” chose the 17.
David Wallace
“This is all going to look rather silly in ten years time,
The USA is quietly legalising cannabis already. Since 2012 four states plus the capital have had referendums on legalising cannabis for recreational use and it has passed every time.”
Absolutely, I would also point out they have seen the effect of imposing then removing prohibition in the past and are also closer to the direct effect of this current prohibition.
sally-haynes preece
“People who have a desire to get high will do so in one way or another. What needs to be tackled is not the availability of substances, but the desire of those who use them. If young people were equipped with techniques to help themselves feel better without resorting to misuse of any substance , there would be no market for these incredibly dangerous substances”
Excellently put, if people are taking things to escape their lives that is the question that needs to be answered not making that escape more dangerous (by making it illegal).
John Tilley 13th Aug ’15 – 6:18am Henry Fisher 12th Aug ’15 – 10:24pm “Henry, thank you for that excellent response which was a model of polite, considered and sensible discussion. Can I nominate you to be LDV’s conciliation consultant when disputes flare up between the LDV moderators and banned members of the House of Lords?”
banned memberS of the house of lords? may we have a short list please?
Thanks for the endorsement John, much appreciated, although don’t think that’s a battle I would want to go anywhere near! I think I’ll stick to [commenting on] drugs.
David (W) The Commons side of the parliamentary party has ben rather quite on drugs policy since the leadership announcement, but Lord Paddick and Lady Hamwee have been pretty vocal – Hamwee recently called for medical cannabis to be legalised (yes, baby steps I know). The challenge will be seeing how Norman Lamb (as I imagine he will have to lead the charge) will deal with the PS Bill and also the cannabis debate when they make their way to the Commons, as it would be pretty remiss of him (and LDs in general) to miss the chance to speak on an issue where the can stand out so clearly.
Jayne – just a caveat on the Psychedelic Society – they have been an excellent breath of fresh air in the drugs policy debate, as most other grassroots movements either stand on specifically a cannabis legalisation platform , or a harm reduction platform directed at hard drugs like heroin. They have achieved a lot in the 9 months since their creation, but they are very much at the libertarian end of things, and also speak specifically on psychedelic drugs, which compared to other drugs, have a particularly good safety profile and other unique aspects (such as being non-addictive, as far as any habit or substance can be non-addictive), but which means that some of the arguments for psychedelics translate less well to other drugs.
Richard Underhill 13th Aug ’15 – 4:36pm
May we have a short list please?
Richard,
Do you mean a short list of peers banned from LDV?
If you meant any sort of ban (and any sort of peer) it would have to be a long list.
I am told that a number of peers are banned from driving for alcohol related offences. It would appear that some admirable and upstanding peers of all parties are banned from visiting certain countries because they have spoken out about inconvenient things like human rights in those countries. Of course all women members of the House of Lords are banned from also being members of certain Golf Clubs and they would certainly be banned from driving a car if they ever visited Saudi Arabia.
All peers are banned from voting in General Elections.
My former MP now a peer was effectively banned from sitting with her fellow members of The Liberal Democrats in The Lords by the office of our former party leader. I am hoping she has been allowed back now because she is one of the best Liberal Democrats in The Lords and unlike some others did not lose an election whilst an MP and successfully handed on her seat in The Commons to another woman, (which I guess is unique for a Liberal Democrat MP).