A poll conducted by LDDPR last month got some positive exposure last week with a mention in Antonia Senior’s opinion piece in thursday’s Times “Over to you: Tell me why drugs must stay illegal.” It was also referred to at greater length in Mark Easton’s excellent blogpost “Drugs Policy: The British System” the day before.
I feel it is important for the results of this poll to be explored further as some of the implications are profoundly important for the progress of the debate on drugs policy in this country and beyond.
Almost all polls conducted prior to the one we commissioned last month were variations on the “Do you think drugs should be legalised?” theme. This is despite the fact that the serious drug policy reform advocates in the UK (Groups like Transform and Release for example) are calling for “government control and regulation”, not “legalisation”, a word that likely conjures up impressions of a sudden moral sanctioning of drug use, or an abrupt halt to policing of the trade without the introduction of sensible regulation.
To address this failure of polling, LDDPR commissioned a poll which asked which of three regulatory options participants would find most tolerable for a number of different drugs. The options were; light regulation; strict government control and regulation; and prohibition (explanatory descriptions of these regulatory options were also provided and can be found here).
Rather than finding that 35% of Britons support legalisation of cannabis (as was reported following an Angus Reid poll in January), the LDDPR poll conducted through the same company found that 70% supported either light or strict regulation of the drug, with the figure for light regulation being remarkably similar to those for “legalisation” in the earlier poll at 33%. It’s quite possible that poll participants up until now have been rejecting “legalisation” for the same reasons they reject “light regulation” and have been presumed to be rejecting reform only because the most likely reform options haven’t been presented to them either by politicians or by pollsters.
If politicians are reluctant to discuss drug policy due to their fear of public perception of the issue, and their beliefs about public perception come from “legalisation” polls, then it could be argued that pollsters have failed politicians and the general public on a massive scale.
Further analysis of the figures on cannabis continues to create a picture completely at odds to what we have been led to believe. The demographic groups most likely to favour light regulation could well be described as the usual suspects: (relative to the overall 33%) Londoners (40%); Liberal Democrats (38%); Guardian/Indy readers (43%); 18-34 year-old males (39%). Those least likely to support it again you could predict: Express/Mail readers (25%); 35-54 year-old females (27%).
When you look at the groups favouring strict control and regulation though, you can’t help but imagine politicians around the country slapping their foreheads with their palms as they realise they’ve been stupid cowards for all these years: (relative to the overall 37%) Express/Mail readers (41%); 35-54 year-old Females (46%).
Yes it’s true. 66% of Daily Mail/Express readers would prefer cannabis were legal and regulated. 67% of Conservative voters think the same. The single group most likely to favour the strict legal control and regulation of cannabis is the group likely to contain the most mothers of teenage children. This is not a policy for stoners and irresponsible libertarians. It is a policy with broad appeal that might just find its most vigorous supporters amongst the nation’s concerned parents.
They know their kids can get hold of cannabis whether it is prohibited or not. They probably like the idea of young people trying to buy cannabis having to prove their age to the vendor. They might even be yet more enthusiastically supportive if politicians explained the numerous other benefits of regulation that couldn’t be described in the text of the poll. I suspect the more factual information is provided in a poll such as this, the greater the bias in favour or reform. There certainly aren’t many facts that support the status quo.
Antonia Senior in her comment piece calls for “laissez-faire legalisation, which would see drugs commoditised, marketed and taxed like any other product.” I’m slightly bemused as to why we should move from a system that is neither popular nor effective in reducing harm, to a system (presumably similar to the light regulation option in the LDDPR poll) that is neither popular nor likely to be effective in reducing harm. I would however welcome the debate shifting from legalisation vs. prohibition to one over how we replace prohibition with a system of regulation which best safeguards the mental and physical health of the population.
I previously have been dismayed by the shameful populism displayed by politicians on drug policy issues. In light of this poll, I look forward to the politicians adopting and vigorously defending the truly populist stance in proposing the strict government control and regulation of cannabis.
Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform will be hosting a fringe event: “It’s time we talked about drugs policy” in which speakers from Transform and Release and myself will discuss current drug policy failings and our hopes for the future. The event will take place in Hall 1B of the ACC on Sunday the 19th at 8pm and will be chaired by Julian Huppert MP.
LDDPR will also be drafting a topical motion in response to several drug policy stories that have been covered in the national media in the last week or two.
If you wish to get involved in drafting the motion or be contacted when it is finished and looking for supporters please get in touch with me at [email protected]. I can also provide the full excel file of the LDDPR poll results for those who are interested.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Danny Chambers calls for penguins to be moved from "dark and cramped basement"
Failed State: why our government is broken and how to fix it
Unease grows within Labour ranks
Digital Skills Training for people over 65
David Rogers
Nonconformistradical
Mark
Jennie
Robin AG Bennett
19 Comments
Good stuff. The time is right for this now. With the LDs in coalition, many will be happy for some clear yellow water issues, and this will obviously be one.
Really interesting to see those statistics. Surely now is the time to thoroughly debate this issue?
Should anyone think that David Cameron and Nick Clegg are unlikely to move on this issue. They have history that suggests otherwise:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-contender-calls-for-more-liberal-drug-laws-505824.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7628760/Nick-Clegg-supported-legalisation-of-drugs.html
Ewan, the synopsis for your ACT group include the stark phrase, ‘Drugs are harmful.’ You yourself seem to have bought into the ludicrous tabloid oversimplification of the issue. Many soft drugs, when used responsibly, could not reasonably be described as ‘harmful’.
Jez. That is the position I am taking and I am not going to apologise for it. There are a great many people who don’t take drugs responsibly, and the root of much of that is ignorance of the harms that may come about to themselves or those around them. That ignorance is best addressed through strict control and regulation.
Also if you are going to be successful in arguing the case for legal regulation then you have to counter the arguments that will come from prohibitionists. “Drugs are harmful” is going to be the first statement they come out with. If you counter that with “Yes I know, that’s why we want to strictly regulate their supply.” then you’re far more likely to win the argument, and the support of the general public who are clearly concerned about the harms drugs cause.
Very interesting, and I’ll try to make the fringe event (as a steward I may be busy!).
@Ewan and Jez: How about “drugs are often harmful” or “drugs are often abused”? Both of these statements are factually correct and not oversimplified. And they could equally apply to tobacco, which is sold under the “light regulation” scheme.
Agree with Niklas. I think your statement that ‘drugs are harmful’ is just factually incorrect, Ewan, whether you ‘take that position’ or not. 🙂
Can I suggest that whether drugs are harmful or not is bit off topic and that you can take it to the Act group so that people here can concentrate on the poll and the implications for policy reform? (drugs are harmful 😛 )
Thanks for highlighting what the public really thinks about drugs policy. The shallow populism, lack of leadership and lack of insight displayed by politicians of all stripes is indeed shocking. It is high time that the failed prohibition approach was abandoned in favour of one that understands addiction as sickness.
But I don’t think that this means that we should make drug a regulated market like other more ‘normal’ products. Alcohol and tobacco show what damage results when the profit motive is harnessed in markets we should aim to see as small as possible. I therefore believe that the supply of drugs should be a government monopoly with criminal sanctions continuing for anyone supplying drugs privately and especially severe sanctions for anyone recruiting a new user.
Nor should the government seek to profit from drugs as is sometimes suggested, not even if it comes to operate a monopoly. Although criminals make vast profits from drugs the government’s business is harm reduction – not cashing in on a profitable market. This would be to confuse the approach with the ‘sin taxes’ conventionally levelled on alcohol and tobacco.
We also need to consider what measures are appropriate to protect the publci from drug-drivers etc. Possibly addicts should carry a card at all times and be required to produce them on demand for instance following an road accident.
Prohibition causes more harm to citizens than the the drugs themselves. Actually, until 1967 we had in this county (England) a drug-policy that worked under the Health service and not Law-Enforcement. During this time we were hailed as the ‘Envy of the world’ for our pragmatic drug-policy. While in the USA the Harrison Act ruled that drugs be under Law-enforcement, and we could see that we had a much better system. In the summer of 1965 the Home Office Index of Addicts stood at 427 people registered and thus receiving their drugs from a doctor/GP.
While in America, we could see that they had gangs with knives, guns, and with drugs, they were in a mess.
However, we changed our system because of a knee jerk reaction to one or two doctors who were perceived as over prescribing, like Lady Franco,Dr.John Petro and a few others. Within 6 months of changing to a prohibitive set of DDU’s with hand picked London based psychiatrists of a certain mindset, we had the importation of Chinese heroin Grade 4 (the strongest).This was the first ever large scale importation of heroin, which came from Red China. It proved to be a corrupting force upon the police force in west London, and so Gerard Street, London supplied folk with heroin for some years before police could get to grips with this matter.
Ian Harris
REFORM DrugPolicyInterestGroup
Reform is a NGO
member of encod
http://www.encod.org
@Ewan Hoyle
This poll is a powerful tool in encouraging are more evidenced-based approach to drug policy and I hope that your fringe event, which I will attend, will help put steel in the backs of some of our elected representatives to start a national debate.
Personally, I suggest strict regulation is the answer, but am not sure if some drugs should remain prohibited. If our argument is a libertarian one, then it doesn’t matter if the drugs are potentially lethal, it’s an individuals right to do with their body as they wish. If the argument is utilitarian, the possibility of prohibiting some drugs remains.
id say its better to describe drugs as ‘risky’ – The level of risk depends on the drug/preparation, the user, the using behaviour and using environment. Risk describes a probability of harm that can be high or low in relative terms. Harm describes a realisation of risk probability to an idividual or population.
The argument is that regulation would reduce risk to individuals – and thus harm when translated into populations.
Great work with the poll Ewan. I think it warrants some follow up research.
I don’t think you can advocate anything whilst stuck in this prohibitionist mindset Ewan. You just don’t get it at all, its not about drugs, it is about people. You cannot talk about legalisation of drugs, we are talking about the arbitrary arrest of people who wish to access certain mindstates. The law does not regulate objects, it regualtes people. This work is counter-productive and liguistically hopeless. You might want to say drugs are hamrmful and thus they need regulating, but the reality is that it is the cynical and arbitrary manipulation of freedom that caused all the problems in the first place. Most drug use is fine, you can educate people and make the appropriate consumer safeguards to cut drug harms. But how can you do that? You won’t even put people at the contre of this and talk about drugs as an abstraction from reality. I tire of the reform movement dragging us backwards into a worse present than we have already, remember NO drug is illegal and the only drug that it is illegal to use is opium, start from there and remember it is a war on people and work your way from there. You need to de-program out the incorrect ideas prohibtion planted in your mind before pursuing this in my opinion. The poll was totally flawed, get over it and start again.
Not all drugs are harmful. Take cannabis, for example: without it the quality of life for thousands of people with MS would be much worse and there’s no harm in enjoying a better quality of life. Just think how much better everyone’s quality of life would be if people who could use cannabis to enjoy a better quality of life could actually use cannabis to enjoy a better quality of life. Everyone would then enjoy a better quality of life, even those whose quality of life doesn’t seem much better for being able to use cannabis, because they would be surrounded by people who can use cannabis and enjoy a better quality of life. Where’s the harm in that?
I generally prefer a more liberal drugs policy, based more on evidence of actual harm being done to a person by the drug in question. Cannabis is a generally safe drug that shouldn’t be banned according to the opinions of a lot of experts, but I can’t see the argument for legalizing crystal meth. As long as we’re stuck between some puritan war on drugs mindset imported from the US and a legalize it all individualist option we’re going nowhere though. I applaud the LDDPR’s attempts to inject (ahem) the debate with at least a little more granularity.
Liberal Eye.
I agree with you on the subject of state control of the market. I would certainly favour a sitaution whereby any money raised from legal sale of drugs is fed back into treatment and education. That way if drug use does increase following legalisation then any problems can be tackled with the resources required to assist anyone who encounters problems. In the short term I hope funds raised from the sale of regulated cannabis could be diverted into providing the best possible treatment for heroin and crack addicts in order to reduce the crime they commit, reduce the recruitment of more problem drug users, and hopefully reintegrate them into society.
I don’t share your concerns over drug-driving. I don’t think drug use will necessarily increase were the trade to be legal and I don’t think the instances of drug-driving will increase. It will of course be illegal to drug-drive as it is illegal to drink-drive at present. And drink-driving will continue to be a far greater problem.
mpg
I am no libertarian. I am entirely motivated by reduction in harm and feel the best way to do that is for all drugs to be strictly regulated and controlled by government. Pharmacists will never go out and recruit children to heroin use with freebies. Illegal dealers do. That is the sad reality of an unregulated criminal market. Some features of regulation may be different for drugs like heroin: cooling off periods perhaps like you have with firearms in the US so that people at a low ebb have time to reflect between requesting heroin and receiving it. It is quite possible that the heroin problem could be effectively addressed through prescription for supervised use combined with considerable investment in social and psychological services. If problems with illegal dealing were to remain even with much improved treatment services, regulated pharmacy sale would be an additional weapon against the dealers.
Steve
I agree with you, but it’s much easier to accept the “drugs are harmful” statement from the home office and point out the absurdity of sticking to the policy that best allows those harms to occur.
Do you think there’d be funding bodies that would be interested in funding a broader public opinion project to build on the poll?
Quote “I am no libertarian. I am entirely motivated by reduction in harm and feel the best way to do that is for all drugs to be strictly regulated and controlled by government.” – Is being a libertarian a dirty word of something? I wish we could enrol the freedom loving peaceful people who just want to ahve a good time, experiment, chill out and find themselves with whatever drugs they like as long as they don’t go around harming people. This is really what much drug use is about, most drug users don’t cause harm yet we are seemingly focused just on that that does. The first step is to differentiate between harmful use and peaceful use of any drug, and then start regulating people on that basis. I am serious that the best thing to do across the whole reform movement is to start a new project, whatever people might think about the media taking note, the reality is the war on people goes on and on – it is not stopping and a nice cosey chat about medicalising drug users instead of criminalising them will only lead to yet more instrusive measures for intervention into liberty, and that Ewan is a very bad thing.
I wish you would re-examine your language in this role, when you say all drugs should be strictly regulated by government I don’t see what you mean as this is very vague; why should ALL drugs be strictly regualed by government? Do you mean all potentially harmful drugs? The law does not regulate drugs at all anyway – it’s a linguistic & legal falsehood. You are genuinely concerned about harm reduction and still you fail to put people at the centre of your thesis and end up using the prohibitionist mind-set of language. People who experience the prejudice don’t think there is a war on drugs at all, their drugs are not subject to unfairness, imprisonment or execution – they are, the people. I suggest you purge out all of these false memes such as ‘regulation of drugs’, war on drugs, illicit drugs etc because therein lies the problem – this is about people being treated unfairly by policy. Don’t go around saying ‘drugs are harmful’ to try and appeal to bigots because you will sound like them. The abuse of certain drugs may be a harmful activity, this becomes the concern of the law if that impacts upon society – the real problem with administration is that the govt fail to make the distinction between responsible and irresponsible use of classified drugs, and you are also buying into this unfairness. You have to be bold enough to say responsible drug use is not a bad thing in my view to lobby in this area.
Poll now available in poster form here: http://twitpic.com/4z8bmt