The Sunday Times is claiming to have knowledge of the results of Jeremy Browne’s drug policy “grand tour”. In an article today, Put that in your pipe, Mrs May, the paper describes many conclusions expected to feature in the final report which will bring great cheer to the ordinary Liberal Democrat member:
“A review ordered by Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, and due to be published before Christmas, is expected to suggest Britain could benefit from emulating two American states where the use of recreational cannabis is legal. The Home Office report is also expected to call for the introduction of heroin “shooting galleries” where hardcore addicts are given the drug on prescription in an attempt to reduce crime; and a new approach to club drugs. …also expected to suggest that primary responsibility for drug policy should be shifted from the Home Office to the Department of Health.”
This is all very positive — and in keeping with the drug policy motion passed by conference in 2011. But there are things in the article that give me cause for concern.
The first is the connotations of the language used by The Sunday Times. Their phrase, “… the Lib Dem ministers want a dramatic relaxation of the law after concluding that the government is losing the war on illegal substances”, describes a party throwing their hands up in despair and throwing in the towel. If we could persuade the broadsheets to adjust their language and instead say things like, “…the Lib Dem ministers want sweeping changes to the law so that government can more effectively restrict the ability of drugs to do harm”, then we might instead be framed as brave warriors striding onto the battlefield with the most up-to-date anti-drugs weaponry.
Nick Clegg has already started well in exploring this route with the phrase: “I’m anti-drugs – it’s for that reason I’m pro-reform.” But we need to work more with the broadsheet press (largely supportive on this issue) to put across the message that we are actually “tough on drugs”, but that we feel it unjust to persecute the people who use them.
I am also concerned at the attention being paid to the cannabis legalisation models of the US states of Colorado and Washington as opposed to that being proposed in Uruguay. I worry about the ability of a nation steeped in free-market fundamentalism to protect young people from the potential dangers of cannabis. I’d hope Norman Baker could visit Uruguay before the report is concluded so that he could take in the arguments for a more tightly controlled market, proposed as a solution to health and crime problems, and bravely in defiance of public opinion.
This has the potential to be an area in which we differentiate ourselves strongly from the Tories before the next election. If we can persuade allies in the press to help us present our policies as by far the toughest and most responsible course of action, then we could be proud of doing the right thing while transforming a “third rail issue” into a major source of new votes and members.
* Ewan Hoyle is a West Scotland list candidate for the Scottish Parliament election next May
23 Comments
A progressive and evidence-based drugs policy will be a vote winner at the next election for whichever party has the courage to include it in their manifesto.
That pretty much rules Labour out and the Tories are unlikely but if they do it will be a free market model, more like Colorado and Washington.
I know it will sound like heresy in this forum but UKIP have an intelligent and pragmatic approach to drugs. I have personally spoken to Nigel Farage on the subject and they may well include reform in their manifesto.
It’s a big chance for the LibDems, now that Browne has gone, to seize this issue and make it their own. That means action not words. Norman Baker could take the high ground immediately with a very straightforward decision that nobody could disagree with and would fly the LibDem flag high – simply state that anyone who is prescribed medicinal cannabis by their doctor will be granted a licence to import Bedrocan products (the Dutch government’s official producer of medicinal cannabis).
Great article, if we can turn public opinion so addicts are viewed as patients with an illness that need treatment instead of criminals we’d be big step further to reducing drug related crime and the social issues they cause. One question I have (and I’m sure you’re much better informed than me), but it appears that drug use is trending downwards over the past couple of years? Is there any reason for this? Are attitudes towards drugs changing?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2012-to-2013-csew/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2012-to-2013-crime-survey-for-england-and-wales
@ Peter I agree, this is something we can really differentiate on as a party, and its exactly the sort of Liberal policy we should pursue, knowing full well the other parties can’t or won’t.
No, no and no. Just say what you are doing and be proud of it. Don’t do one thing and then try to spin it as another to win votes. This is one of the reasons why people hold politicians in contempt.
My above comment doesn’t express my opinion on drug policy. I refuse to debate with a spinner. Rebellion is the only way to stop the spin.
OK, I went a bit extreme, but if decriminalising drugs is being tough, then what is criminalising menthol cigarettes? It is like when people try to market benefit cuts and making the mentally ill almost crack through welfare sanctions as “reforms to help the poor”, when it does the opposite. People should keep messages simple, honest and direct.
I hope that the ministers in question are serious about bringing through proper regulation instead of what we have now, its shockingly obvious that what we have been doing for the past 40 years has failed, whether Theresa May likes it or not with her distorted “facts”. Drug use has went down primarily because legal highs are well… legal. Yet much more dangerous than the drug they’re replicating.
Having worked with young people who have all sorts of substance abuse issues, I’ve found Alcohol, Benzos and Opiates to be the big problem causers. IF they are going to take any substance, I would rather they smoked a bit of grass instead of popping a load of diazepam or going out and looking for opiate patches on the street. It needs to be recognised that Cannabis IS safer than other popular drugs out there, and since the market for illicit drugs isn’t going away, Cannabis is by far the safest option for people who want to use mind altering substances. Its certainly safer than drinking Alcohol. Doesn’t mean it needs to be encouraged, but the vast majority of Cannabis users are sensible productive members of society – issues arising from abuse always stems from something else lacking in their life.
Like Peter said, this is something that could work in the favour of your party. Being non-aligned myself, it would certainly push me in the direction of being more supportive of the Lib Dems who are generally quite a sensible party stuck with an overbearing “brother” in Government!
I don’t see what the problem is with people taking drugs for recreational enjoyment, TBH.
As long as you aren’t harming anyone else, why should I (or the state) interfere?
People jump out of aeroplanes, climb mountains, race motorbikes and other massively risky endeavours (c.f. the observation that horse riding is more dangerous than taking cannabis). We don’t stop them from getting their kicks in the way they want, why should we stop people from getting high if that’s the way they want to enjoy themselves?
Cannabis should never have been prohibited in the first place and the sooner cannabis is relegalised the better.
Cannabis is a remarkably benign, but not harmless, herb used by people as long as there’s been people. In contrast, prohibition is violent, counterproductive at reducing harm, racially implemented, expensive on many levels and has caused more harm to people and society than cannabis ever could have without its prohibition.
Cannabis has medicinal properties, is a safer recreational alternative to alcohol and tobacco and the sooner it’s market is regulated that responsible adults have access to quality assured, well labeled, potency specific cannabis from accredited outlets ie chemists or pubs etc the sooner we can reduce the harm of a market run by organised crime.
Prohibition is indefensible from a harm reduction perspective. We now have hard evidence that where regulated harms from cannabis are reduced. Given a choice, as with tea, coffee etc people choose medium strength cannabis.
Regulation of cannabis is inevitable. The challenge is to implement a system that best serves a discerning clientele with age restrictions, sensible pricing, opening hours etc. With prohibition all such decisions are left to the illicit market.
Politics.co.uk – Is Norman Baker the man who will finally make sense of UK drugs policy?
http://politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/10/14/comment-is-norman-baker-the-man-who-will-finally-make-sense
Whether drugs are harmful or safe, whether or not people should have the fredom to use them, are not questions with an easy answer.
What is beyond dispute is that most narcotics are only available from crimminal sources, who are in the drugs market to make huge profits. It is why many users (addicts) are themseles forced into crime to raise money to pay the suppliers.
Remove the profit motive and suppliers will stop selling. That requires some kind of state monopoly selling at a price close to cost that still provides enough funds for medical supervision of purchasers.
Or am I over simplifying?
There is a difference between legalising cannabis similarly to alcohol and tobacco – ( because liberals think adults should be free to do what they want with their bodies if it doesn’t cause excessive harm – ) and ‘legalising’ dangerous drugs like heroin to remove it from criminals who often sell it adulterated with even more nasty chemicals and bugs.
Ewan wrote: “Nick Clegg has already started well in exploring this route with the phrase: “I’m anti-drugs – it’s for that reason I’m pro-reform.””
Including alcohol, minimum pricing etc?
RIGHT TO A FAMILY LIFE
I have a right to family life, which means I have a right to expect society to create an environment in which my children are safe. An environment full of shooting galleries doesn’t seem like that at all.
My children are likely to try anything legal and easily available, as well as some things that are mildly illegal. Therefore I want these things – available, legal, and mildly illegal – to be safe.
CRIMINALS NEED THINGS TO DO
Criminals are like everyone else, they need to earn a living, they need things to do. Keeping cannabis illegal at least gives them that something. Making it illegal will just push them to more toxic activities.
@Jonathan Hunt
‘What is beyond dispute is that most narcotics are only available from crimminal sources, who are in the drugs market to make huge profits. It is why many users (addicts) are themseles forced into crime to raise money to pay the suppliers. ‘
This also means that there is absolutely no consumer protection and consumer feedback.
At least if someone is selling counterfeit or contaminated alcohol or tobacco that is a crime in itself.
I absolutely support drug law reform – but I’d be quite disappointed to see us spinning it as ‘tough on drugs’.
Prohibition doesn’t work. I believe the arguments for keeping marijuana illegal are much weaker than those in favour of decriminalising or legalising it, and what damage the herb does do is almost entirely the result of it being illegal in the first place. The “war on drugs” is counter-productive, expensive and ultimately an unmitigated failure. Last year the Global Commission on Drug Policy reported that opiates, cocaine and cannabis had all increased during a decade-long war on drugs. The only winners in the war are the drug lords.
Even if you believe such substances should remain illegal it is clear the current strategy is nowhere near achieving its’ aims. It is much more likely to imprison ordinary people using for recreational drugs than catch the traffickers at the top of the chain.
If we want otherwise law-abiding citizens to associate with hardened criminals then keeping cannabis illegal is the way to go. It’s like outlawing coffee and forcing housewives to seek their caffeine fix from a guy who also tries to get them hooked on heroin and cocaine.
That is exactly what is happening with weed. This is a drug that, in its’ natural form, is not a contributing factor to violence and murder yet is classified in par with ecstasy and speed as a Class B drug.
Meanwhile the ‘drugs’ that cause tens of thousands of painful deaths each year (cigarettes), fill up our hospital casualty units every weekend and fuel violence in the home and on the streets (alcohol) continue to be perfectly legal.
Even several police chiefs agree it is nonsensical to dedicate huge police, court and prison resources on everyday recreational users and away from tackling real criminals with real victims. The answer is simple; take the ‘soft’ drugs like cannabis out of the hands of the criminal gangs by legalising and regulating it, and instead focus state resources on tackling suppliers of harder drugs.
Cannabis has its’ risks but it is inconsistent to argue that it should remain illegal while more the harmful alcohol and tobacco remain legal. I’m not in favour of any of the negative effects these substances produce but as a liberal I’m against criminalising people for using them.
If the purpose of outlawing drugs is over the danger they pose to the public then marijuana clearly does not qualify. Quite simply the reasons for prohibition do not add up. Besides, even though cannabis can have side-effects we cannot and should not legislate against every risk. The fact that weed remains illegal is the starkest example of the ‘nanny state’ that I can think of.
Liberal Democrat members voted to legalise cannabis at the annual conference in 1994 but this inconvenient policy was ignored and buried by successive leaderships, such is the nervousness of a backlash from the puritanical and moralistic Daily Mail. These are the very mindsets that must be challenged if we are to let rays of common sense into this debate and liberate Britain from ham-fisted attempts to control the population with prohibition of a drug that (if consumed properly) contributes to an increased consciousness.
Whether one approves or disapproves of the taking of mind-altering substances it is undeniably part of human behaviour throughout the ages. Alcohol certainly falls into this category. I take issue with 4×4 drivers – they damage the environment and annoy other road users – but regulation is the answer not giving 4×4 drivers criminal records which plight their lives.
Cannabis users deserve to know they are not consuming a cocktail of dangerous chemicals introduced by unscrupulous dealers to make the product more potent or addictive, regardless of the medical effects. All manner of substances have been found in cannabis, including Class A drugs. And then there is the constant strengthening of the ‘high’ by modifying the plant and its’ cultivation, which makes it less ‘natural’ and its’ effects more unpredictable.
The only way to take responsibility over the quality of what consume is to grow your own with kits freely available on the internet. But growing your own turns the user from a consumer (maximum jail term: four years) into a supplier (maximum jail term: 14 years). In other words people who just want a tok for relaxation, to alleviate stress or stave of depression or just to feel good – and who don’t want to play Russian Roulette with their spliffs – are turned into even worse criminals in the eyes of the law.
In Britain we caution and convict in the courts 90,000 people for cannabis each year. The failure of the political class to get to grips with solutions have allowed gangs to push Skunk onto our streets which induces effects quite different from traditional cannabis and hashish resin to the extent that there is a strong argument that it is a distinct drug and should be separated from the debate over decriminalising or legalising of cannabis.
There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest cannabis is a ‘gateway’ drug in itself, but a when dealers handle soft and hard drugs it makes drug ‘progression’ more likely. Gangs arm dealers with a range of harder drugs to peddle to cannabis users.
Legalising cannabis not only provides quality assurance to users, eliminating the risk of inhaling any number of dangerous and unknown substances, but also clears the way for an honest public education debate which can get to grips with issues like drug-driving in addition to removing the average smoker from associating with the criminal underworld.
There is another aspect to this debate. Many cultures have a tradition of consuming drugs, such as Khat in Somalia and east Africa. Buddhists, Sufi Muslims and some Hindus take cannabis, and Rastafarians value the drug as a central part of their faith. Indeed they point to Revelations (22:2) which says “the herb is the healing of the world” to back up their beliefs.
Rastafarians also bless the pipe they smoke with, dedicating it to Haile Selassie. Similarly in Nepal, where they have used cannabis since 2 B.C., they believe that smoking without first undertaking rites is a sin. The further back in history you look the more cannabis is associated with the act of communicating with the divine reaching a place of peace and enlightenment and trans-meditation.
Today the vast majority of smokers just want to get high or have the rough edges of their day smoothed out. Apart from true Rastas and dedicated ‘hippies’ there is a chasm between the herb and the spiritual benefits that it is known to bring. I guess it is inevitable in the concrete jungle life hardly goes any better with weed than it goes better with coke, especially if it is artificially manufactured.
I haven’t tok’ed regularly for some 14 years. After years of enjoying hashish it sudden gave me a feeling of mild nausea. And with my life at the moment, filled with politics and campaigns, I have no intention of returning to it. However if there is ever a day in the future when I’m living a peaceful life close to nature I may feel in a mental place to blaze up again. It’s nothing to do with being an old hippie – I’m not – it’s more a recognition of the origins and purpose of the herb.
An appreciation that it delivers more than a cheap high. In the right ‘space’ and with the right heart it can open up a part of ourselves, not by hallucination, but in a more subtle way. Some may not care for such talk but I, for one, regret that marijuana is no longer respected. Perhaps the normalisation of it that legalisation would bring could prompt such debates. Perhaps in an atmosphere where it is no longer a forbidden fruit people can be free to promote cannabis in a new way.
Is this a collective decision “So are we all going to be smoking this marijuana then?” or is it an individual one “Do I want to smoke marijuana?”
Instead of all this lifestyle-judgemental stuff about how you have better ways to get people off drugs, in other words better tactics than the other parties, putting forward a decriminalisation model – why not say that you don’t see that smoking marijuana is a collective decision and you are going to legalise it, in other words, you have better values than the other parties.
@ Richard Dean
CRIMINALS NEED THINGS TO DO
I’ve often wondered about this, if you legalised all drugs what the hell would all these dealers do? Do we think they’d just go ‘OK I’ll get a proper job now’. Doubt it. However, its not a reason to keep drugs like Cannabis and some of the clubbing drugs illegal when they cause less harm that socially acceptable alcohol and tobacco.
Lets not kid ourselves though, cannabis *is* harmful. Not only is it highly carcinogenic but it causes serious mental issues in some people and complete lethargy in others. I’ve seen very bright talented people waste a decade up in smoke doing nothing other than watching TV and eating Pringles. Hell of a waste, but they seem happy enough.
“CRIMINALS NEED THINGS TO DO”
Allow me to be facetious: Criminalise fluffy cushions, so that the dealers move into the black market in fluffy cushions instead of drugs.
This is of course nonsense. Crimes are committed when there’s a motive, means and opportunity. Decriminalising drugs won’t change the motives, means and opportunities of other crimes. In fact it will free up police resources will enable us to tackle the most serious crimes and reduce the opportunities that orginanised criminals have to profit from them.
@Gareth Wilson
Cannabis is not harmful, current evidence shows it has anti cancerous properties rather than what you suggest. It does not cause serious mental issues either. There have been studies done to suggest it can act as a safer way of managing these problems than through diazepam (government sponsored addiction). Wade through prohibitionist propaganda and scare stories from the Daily Mail (not exactly bastion of truth and respect) and you’ll find many scientific studies into the matter that come to those conclusions.
According to many websites cannabis contains many poisons, not just the THC that is the relaxant.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/drugs/Pages/Cannabisdangers.aspx
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/
It’s the only way forward for the uk hope the correct choice is made