As a passionate advocate of drugs policy reform, I was very excited on Wednesday evening about the prospect of a former drugs and defence minister coming out in favour of regulated drug supply. I thought someone with such experience could blow the debate wide open, and we could really start getting to grips with the issue as a nation. Sadly the debate that resulted was again loose and ill-defined. Was he talking about legalisation of all drugs, decriminalisation, prescription of heroin to addicts? Because the debate was poorly defined, it was allowed to spin out into sensationalism and I quickly got the sense that this wasn’t going to be the breakthrough I had hoped.
I have therefore come to the conclusion that drug policy reform is not going to happen soon if we are going to continue this trickling pattern of lone mavericks each proclaiming different varieties of the sensible, progressive message. What we need instead is for all these mavericks to get together with respected stakeholders and work to produce ONE message, one set of policies which can be held up as the first step. Reformers need to engage with other lobby groups outwith the major political parties whose activities aren’t closely monitored by the Daily Mail for any sign of intelligent (and therefore reprehensible) thought. We need to engage children’s charities and talk through how best reform can tackle issues of child neglect and abuse. We need to talk to police associations about how best to reduce serious organised crime and petty thefts. We should talk to retailers about the potential to massively reduce shoplifting. We should invite the teacher’s unions in to talk about how we close off criminal career opportunities for disadvantaged children and help them engage in education as their best means of advancement. Mental health charities can make vital inputs into breaking the links between depression and addiction or between cannabis and psychosis. The list of sensible influential groups who can contribute to the development of and subsequently support a single message of moderate reform could go on and on.
The identification of a few focused, moderate policies also allows the political parties to go to their focus groups and pollsters and ask them whether they’ve been right to fear the voter’s wrath on the issue. We know that voters don’t particularly like the idea of legalisation, but we now also know that strict government control and regulation is much more appealing.
A few sensible policies with well-defined expected benefits can take all the fear out of the debate and allow us to move forward.
I have my own ideas of what I think this single message should look like, and it has three main features:
Firstly, the strict government control and regulation of a legal, British cannabis market. This should not be a liberalisation of current law, but a concerted effort to reduce the harms that cannabis and the illegal cannabis market have for individuals and communities. The poll linked to earlier suggests pharmacy sales, age restrictions, a ban on marketing, comprehensive education on harms before individuals are licensed for use, and prices set by an independent panel tasked with the aim of balancing minimising the illegal market and discouraging use. Such a model may gain the greatest support from voters as it is furthest from an anarchic free-for-all, but stakeholders need to get together and discuss whether it will be the most successful in minimising harm.
Secondly, increased investment in drug treatment services that are proven to decrease harm. The new government drugs strategy is right to identify recovery as the ultimate goal and to describe drugs addiction as a complex problem that need to be addressed alongside psychological, social and employment interventions. But opioid substitution therapy in the form of methadone and diamorphine if necessary is essential in many cases if the lives of dependent users are to be stabilised before they can consider what kind of recovery they can handle. Diamorphine maintenance treatment has the potential to be a remarkable outreach tool for the most vulnerable and/or disruptive users in our communities, and its sensible employment could vastly reduce the available points of entry for others into the same lifestyle.
Thirdly, the movement of possession for personal use of any drug from a criminal to an administrative offence. This step in reform can only work if there exists effective and well-resourced drug treatment services into which drug users can be directed. Portugal has led the way on this and decriminalised drugs possession has been so successful it is now as much an accepted feature of the political landscape as prohibition is in the UK. The reform allows drug use to be seen primarily as a medical problem and the numbers of individuals entering treatment has rocketed as a result. It is so much easier to seek help for a loved one if you know they will always be treated by a doctor and never a judge.
These three features of reform run through the core of the latest drugs policy motion I have drafted for the next Liberal Democrat conference. The Liberal Democrat membership are a group with power and influence, though it could be argued that the precise level of that influence is on the wane. What is more important is for those with undisputed power and influence from the business, public and charity sector to get together and formulate a way to break the political deadlock on this debate. If instead we see over 20% cuts to drug treatment services like those Bob Ainsworth reports from Coventry happening all around the country, then Britain’s drug problem will get a whole lot worse, crime will spiral out of control, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be punished severely at the ballot box.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
20 Comments
Well done Ewan.
I’m in complete agreement with you about your analysis of why no progress has been made in drug law reform. Certainly in the cannabis lobby we have the same problem as defeated Proposition 19, too much infighting and deliberate sabotage from the dealer/growers who don’t really want anything to change. Perhaps the best indication of this is the way that Debra Bell is wheeled out to comment all the time whereas the cannabis lobby never has a spokesperson. I’m currently working with the LCA to try and change this.
I also agree with you on your proposed solution in that we need organisation and a coherent plan. Also that our aim should not be “legalisation” or “decriminalisation” but “fact and evidence-based regulation”.
I think there is a strong argument for a special case for cannabis for these reasons:
1. It is, by a factor of at least 10, the most widely used illegal drug
2. It has proven medicinal value which is still being denied by government
3. It is relatively harmless to the individual compared with all other illegal drugs
I agree with your three main features except that I think the model you propose for cannabis regulation is far too strict. I think pharmacy based sales is way over the top for recreational use although correct for prescribed medicinal cannabis.
I agree entirely that complete recovery from addiction should be the goal of drug treatment but the move away from harm reduction is potentially disastrous, particularly with a drugs minister who thinks that increased adulteration of drugs is a measure of success. See http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-most-dangerous-man-in-britain/
Very well done. You will have my full and active support in any effort to move this forward. Please let me know what I can do.
I
Quite frankly this is how change happens.
The Civil Rights movement in America didn’t stumble upon the charismatic Martin Luther King, organise a few protests – and then hey presto! change just happened.
It was through decades of a growing movement of people putting in the hard slog to create the conditions so that change can happen. The shame is (and Peter Reynolds will know this as well) some patients using cannabis do not have the time that we are talking about.
But we must carry on anywya.
Well done Ewan – and I agree with Peter – let me know hat I can do. Im ready to join this movement for change in our drug policy.
Good stuff here Ewan and I agree with the premise that identifying a few coherent moderate policies is the way forward. I would also have little argument with your own views on what these should be.
I’m very glad that you have acknowledged opiate substitution as a key component of treatment. There is a real danger that this is going to be seriously eroded in the near future. I recognise the point you are making about Libdem power but the move away from evidence-based policy on harm reduction and OST is happening now, is government policy and we are, supposedly, in a coalition.
I think you are suggesting a credible and distinctive policy – I’d support it and, like Peter, I’m happy to be actively involved.
Euan
A good article, and, I think, a good strategy. I’m agnostic on drugs policy and open to persuasion, so I’m probably the sort of person you need to persuade.
What immediately puts me off, and I suspect puts many off, is that too many who advocate change make categorical assertions. I want evidence-based policy. When I hear someone state something as fact, when I know there is debate on the issue, they come over to me as fundamentalist, rather than evidence-based.
There are fundamentalists on drug reform, who believe it is a civil right for all drugs to be made legal, irrespective of the consequences for wider society. As well as forming an army of moderates, you also need to strongly distance yourselves from those fundamentalists. Otherwise, you’ll be seen as a stalking horse for those who want legalisation whatever the cost.
Hi George,
The vast majority of drug policy reformers want evidence-based policy too. See here for how prominent opponents want drugs policy to be determined:
http://www.cps.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=381:the-need-for-reason&catid=23:prisons-and-addiction&Itemid=42
I want drugs to be legalised because I think it will lead to less harm and (genuinely I do) to less use. These reforms would not be the start of a slippery downward slope but the start of a 10/15/20-year climb up the drugs policy mountain. It’s not a big mountain, but it is right for us to study in great detail the path ahead to ensure it is safe and wise to continue. We may even have to turn back and climb a different mountain at various points, but we’re far from the minimum harm summit at the moment and we’re going downwards if we’re going anywhere at all.
Peter, Rory. Thanks for the offers of help and support. How do you think this plan of action can be taken forward?
You have my sympathies… anyone suggesting anything other than the current policy or heaven forbid something more Draconian is portrayed as being “soft”.
Prohibition of alcohol created a very lucrative business for organised crime and brought with it violence, death, & despair. Without prohibition, we might still have had Capone et al, but quite possibly to a much lesser degree.
The reduction of harm to individuals is crucially important. A few years ago a Chief Superintendent pal told me that two thirds of acquisitive crime was drugs related. Ouch! The quality of drugs is enormously variable, and often deadly.
I’m not a supporter of widespread drug use. The only ones I use are prescribed for whatever ailment I’m suffering at the time. I don’t drink much either, but that’s because I’m often driving, and as those who have suffered it will know my driving’s scary enough when I’m sober…
Best of luck with the campaign, it will be an uphill mountain to climb, but if we can get to a more rational system, worthwhile.
Part of the evidence might be a study of when and where prohibition has ever worked.
I hope you succeed in transforming drug policy very soon.
I am sure you know about Transform Drug Policy Foundation, http://www.tdpf.org.uk .
You identify a real problem, but the component missing is the transformative dialogue. You are so right about the debate being too vague. What is preventing progress is the very language is rooted in the past that buys into the whole prohibitionist mindset. Whilst arguing for some change on the surface, actually the core understanding of the issue is weak and conservative. Not only that, you are not positive about drugs and such piety is alienating the audience we need. You see drugs as an evil we must accept, but to control more sensibly. Personally I think we should be upfront about the positive utility value of recreational drugs, especially when used responsibly.
When you say “the movement of possession for personal use of any drug from a criminal to an administrative offence” this really is a scary you, very authoritarian, totally unwelcome intervention into people’s private habits. I take it you don’t mean ‘any drug’, although if you are to be fair, then please bring alcohol and tobacco into this as they account for far more harm than controlled drugs – definately not make an administrative offence re drug possession, hands off our drugs!
The thing you ought to do in my view is to study the law as explained by the Drug Equality Alliance, for you do not understand yet how it should work. The key to all of this is legal principle, the principle enshrined in the Misuse of Drugs Act and indeed the common law. Neutrality, fairness, preventing social harms. You must address the artificial divide between various drug users first, for herein lies the entire problem, the errors of law made by government re so-called legal and illegal drugs (Peter Reynolds should know better)
Do keep people at the heart of this, it’s not about controlling or regulating drugs, its about regulating people. You must transform this into the correct language paradigm, but I sense you do not understand this yet. This is about the arbitrary control of people’s drug interests and mind states. Don’t see alterred consciousness as a problem and be so dour about it. Focus only on drug MISUSE, and insist that peaceful drug use is absolutely fine. You cannot enrol people int a consensus talking like this even though you want to. Consensus can only come from truth, and whether you realise it or not, there are still have too many control memes operating from the legacy of drug war propagandised lies in this discourse.
Hey Ewan
I shouldnt be on here because I am a member of the Labour Party, and am so proud of Bob Ainsworth.
Special mention should be given to Paul Flynn, Caroline Lucas, Tom Brake and Peter Lilley too – all of whom supported Bob last week. This proves we can get cross party support.
This maybe fanciful but I am really hoping for a YES vote on AV. If a Drug Policy Reform Party ever got going I would have to seriously consider joining it. REFORM being the operative word, as I dont think prohibition will be dismantled by any other means.
The only other thing I can suggest is we keep talking to our fellow citizens. This means our friends and families, especially those that support the status quo and are fearful of change in this area. Remember we have the evidence on our side. Switzerland shows us Heroin can be prescribed. The Netherlands proveds a model for Cannabis. Portugal shows decriminalisation for possesion does not turn society into Soddom and Gomorrah. And the USA (yes, that it the KING of the Drug War) demonstrates compassion to patients (in 15 states, at least) who need cannabis, and a growing debate on about the efficacy of prohibition.
I am optimisitc, but not complacent. Until we can demonstrate to our politicians they will pay a heavy political price for supporting the status quo, things will contiunue as they are. (For example, my local MP has not replied to my email asking for their views, but Bob Ainsworth has replied thanking me for my support. Which reminds – if you want drug policy reform – go on twitter, sign up, and follow Bob Ainsworth and the other MPs who want reform too. Its a small step, but better than nothing.)
Hi Rory.
I’ve identified a bunch of people who might be able to help set up a Labour for Drug Policy Reform group. My twitter is @ewanhoyle If you want to follow me I’ll send you some details. Johann Hari apparently is keen on something like that happening too.
Ewan has made some very good points, however if a convincing case is to be put for drug reform we must be clear to provide evidence for the arguments stated. I don’t claim to be an expert in this area and am sympathetic to the underlying sentiment, however am wary of the way that it has been articulated in this case, particularly as there is an argument that we need ONE message. If that is the case I believe it needs to be based on ‘rights of the individual’ rather than ‘benefit to society’ especially if we cannot articulate to the electorate a benefit from liberalisation (which I expect will be the case).
The clearest example/problem that I see in the post is the commonly stated argument is reflected in the statement.
We should talk to retailers about the potential to massively reduce shoplifting.
The line of reasoning states that since most shoplifting is carried out by drug addicts then if we prevent their need to shoplift then the amount of shoplifting will be reduced. I asked a police representative in my area if this was the case and he told me that this was not their experience. Local police know who the most prolific shoplifters are. If circumstances lead to the fact that all of these are arrested, which happens from time to time, this does not lead to a reduction in shoplifiting because new prolific shoplifters appear. It seems that shops have a budgeted level of shoplifting that is acceptable. If it goes above that they take action, if it reduces then they reduce in store levels of awareness. This leads me to deduce that this comment has been made without reference to any research. It leads to questions as to what evidence underpins the other arguments proposed which may well be perfectly valid because I have little experience in this area.
I agree that drug reform is more likely if people unite around a common idea but it needs to be evidence. Authoritarians to a large extent use cultural objections, including some that are religious based, so we need to be very strong in that area countering with our own philosopical arguments. We should also use evidence wound around that argument.
Personally I believe that an argument based on classical liberalism/libertarianism ie that the individual owns their own body is a better starting point than the ‘benefit to society’ argument. This ‘harm principle’ is, after all, the basis of our party. If there is to be ‘ONE’ massage that is one that can be articulated easily by us it is surely liberalism.
If there is to be reform then small steps will be required. We need to be clear that ‘harm’ can be shown to be unlilkely as the first step to reform, rather than advocating that benefits in terms of crime reduction will happen. There is a big danger that if pilot schemes are run then there will be no reduction in shop lifting and the argument for reform will be damaged.
Hi Ed.
On the shopliftng front I’m just going by a combination of government research statistics that state 85% of shoplifting is motivated by drug use and experience from Widnes where there was routine heroin prescription in the 90s. A Marks and Spencers manager was bemused by the precipitous fall in shoplifting and ended up donating £2000 to fund a drug policy conference when he found out about the clinic and attributed the fall in shoplifting to that clinic. I wish more research would be carried out on the potential for heroin clinics to reduce shoplifting, but I’m happy with my presumptions. It’s quite possible the new shoplifters you speak of are drug addicts moving into what was someone else’s patch, though this is speculative.
I have to say I disagree with you on the main thrust being “the rights of the individual”. This is no way to gather broad support for the reforms being proposed. Guardian and Indy readers are already on board. It is Sun and Daily Mail readers who need to understand why reform is necessary for real progress to be forthcoming. Despite their hatred for the nanny state, I think it likely that arguments based around getting dealers off the streets and drugs away from children are more likely to be transformative.
I also disagree that we need strong philosophical counterarguments to the religious objections. I would ask if it was moral to withhold life-transforming medical treatment from street prostitutes, or to create situations in which drug dealers can exploit vulnerable young people. Rowan Williams is a drug policy reform advocate too http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/03/fear-prevails-at-un-as-voices-for-drug.html
The current liberal democrat position reflects liberalism and we never mention it in campaiging because we regard it as toxic (I presume). I have no problems with liberalism being a motivation for campaigning for reform, but as I have said previously “We think you should allow people to get high” is a much weaker argument to take to the UN than “your conventions are severely restricting our ability to protect our citizens from harm”.
The liberal arguments have been tried and haven’t succeeded. If they are front and centre then we risk alienating a large section of the audience.
I totally agree that evidence-based policy is vital and am totally committed to careful progress and evaluation of any reforms that take place.
Most of the reform industry are adopting a ‘don’t feed the monkey’ approach to my sniping. I will make one point I think you should reflect upon, whilst ‘hard drug’ misuse is a very genuine concern, reality is that of the 4 million or so controlled drug users, most do not engage in misuse. The problem with Ewan’s position is that he hasn’t woken up to this at all and keeps talking about reducing drug use. Whilst you could argue that all drug misuse stems from drug use, nevertheless the same could be said for alcoholism, yet we have the responsible use and misuse of alcohol enshrined within legal policy as a fair representation of what should be happening from insisde the MDA. Unless you can split use from misuse, no drug users are likely to take any notice of what you are saying. If you want consensus then don’t ignore people.
@Ewan
I think that you have a good point in stating that when looking at the new prolific shoplifters we need to determine whether they are addicts from other areas, or non addicts who take the opportunity to shoplift. The impression that I had, however, was that it was a mixture of crack cocaine and heroin users switching from prostitution to shoplifting.
I am concerned of the weight given to a single M&S manager. We need a rigorous analysis of all available information. This is available in the form of an analysis of changing crime patterns following the simultaneous arrest of large numbers of addict shoplifters in an area, and unfortunately that evidence points in the other direction. Analysis of island communities could provide the basis for a convincing argument if there is one to be made. Providing heroin addicts with prescription drugs would not cause a reduction in shoplifting in my view because of the shift from prostitution to shoplifting where the opportunity arose.
I am a supporter of drug reform, which would need to be gradual and targeted, but would recommend that evidence beyond the M&S manager provided is generated before this goes to conference with supporting arguments about crime reduction. The target group is against the nanny state so it would at least be worth appealing to that argument that people should be free(er) to make their own decisions.
@Ed
I’m afraid your interpretation of the evidence presented to you fails to recognise that 95% of street prostitutes are also problem drug users and so would hopefully be attracted into treatment at the same time rather than move into shoplifting.
Evidence of the efficacy of heroin maintenance treatment clinics in reducing shoplifting can not be judged by analysis of shoplifting rates following the arrest of addicted shoplifters. It can be judged when heroin maintenance has been tried in a community, and the Widnes experience is a fine example of this. Interestingly, the clinic also prescribed cocaine as maintenance treatment for those addicted to cocaine or both drugs, reducing the need for criminality still further.
The need to raise money for drugs is a major and uncontroversial motivation for acquisitive crime of all sorts. Most working in law enforcement will freely accept that around 50% of acquisitive crime is explained by this. Maintenance prescribing should address this issue.
If there were more clinics like the one in Widnes I would have more evidence to point to. That clinic closed 15 years ago and there have not been any clinics with a similar low threshold for inclusion since that time.
I’m glad you are supportive of drug policy reform and am not sure why you have chosen to try to undermine my arguments on flimsy grounds rather than be more constructive.
I maintain there is no point in preaching to the conference choir about liberty. An argument for drug policy reform formed around liberty will be attacked on grounds of increased harm. An argument formed around careful harm reduction is more difficult to counter.
You don’t actually believe in liberty Ewan as you have said before. The issue you are missing entirely is that the vast majority of drug taking is not harmful within the criterion for harm as established by law, that is to say, social harm. Your focus on harmful drug taking thus avoids the area of interest to millions of others is the irrational criminalisation of their activities. This is absolutely a liberty issue, rights to Articles 8 and 9 spring to mind. Some forms of drug taking are about freedom, and the problems many encounter are all to do with the curtailment of that freedom. Harm just doesn’t come into the equation at all. There is a real role for harm reduction to be at the forefront of drug misuse policy, but you just will not grasp the nettle about drug use versus misuse at all. It starts with respecting drug users, respecting their rights and treating them fairly – your medical interventionalist model is specific to certain forms of drug misuse and is most a unwelcome approach for the majority of drug users who don’t want to, and don’t need to become subject an adminstrative penalty, treatment order, counselling or anything else.
I certainly do believe in liberty Darryl, and I agree that criminalising drug users is irrational in the face of all the evidence of the harm it has caused over the years. I also am aware that some people use drugs responsibly with minimal harm to themselves or others. I am however far more concerned about the rights and freedoms of the victims of current policy who are enduring far greater levels of suffering: I am more concerned about street prostitutes unnecessarily enduring horrific acts of sexual and physical violence; victims of burglary (80% of which are motivated by drug use according to government figures) who no longer feel safe in their own home; the families of addicts who go to incredible financial and emotional lengths to try to prevent loved ones descending into prostitution or criminality; The families of young cannabis users who watch their child’s behaviour grow more and more erratic and troubling and feel powerless to intervene.
It is the freedom from suffering that motivates me in my campaigning Darryl, not the freedom to enjoy illicit pleasures without harrassment. In attempting to be politically realistic about what can be achieved, I believe the first steps I have described above can significantly reduce harm and might slowly (if evaluation indicates continued reform) lead to a situation where individuals can consume drugs with minimal potential for harm and can receive appropriate assistance should they encounter difficulty. It is a position I hope that the majority of the population who do not use drugs can tolerate. I also hope those who currently use drugs would find this course preferable to the status quo, but then I also wish they would stop using drugs and find better things to do with their time that didn’t involve regularly handing over money to criminals.
Quote “I certainly do believe in liberty Darryl”
I was referring to your posting in another thread on drug misuse a couple of months ago or so where you said words to the effect that you certainly were no libertarian.
I agree that all those victim groups are worthy of support, but these problems you describe arise out of the disregard for liberty that prohibition represents. Every problem drug user started with a relatively harmless interest that grew unhealthily due to many factors, but underpinning them all is prohibition and the social opprobrium causing criminal activity, problems with the law, terrible social networks, associated health problems, bad drugs etc all making matters much worse to the point where families don’t know what to do with their own kids and thus again make them much much worse than the drugs ever could in isolation.
I would be careful about jumping on the cannabis/mental health bandwaggon, context is everything with drugs and what’s going on here is much more complicated than the harms allegedly caused by cannabis. It is my observation that cannabis makes people more like what they really are in some ways, brings things to a head where there are underlying social and developmental problems. Yes, kids misuse it and mess up, but they do so because their parents know nothing about it and can’t offer any decent advice, nor can Frank, so all they have is their peers.
I strongly object to your description of ‘illicit pleasures’ – IMO this is where you fall down badly time after time, your drug naievity, your pious belief that drugs are illcit substances. Firstly the laudible wish to help victims is in no way opposed by recognising the rights of people to engage in peaceful drug taking, so why try and play one off against the other? In fact, they are mutually supportive because you cannot give a credible message by denying the importance of the right to adjust your mindset with drugs, this is exactly why govt messages fail, because they do not make the right differentiations and this lose all credability in the eyes of the very persons who need to listen. The vital and true stuff is disregarded because of comments that deny the importance of the users experience, the positive aspects of drugs use. This is what you don’t understand; you are an abstainer which is all well and good, but you won’t consider that the postions of non-abstainers are valid; indeed they are vital if you are to influence such persons in their choices.
‘Politically realistic’ is just a euphemism for low horizons, slavery was not abolished by asking for padded shackles. You must appreciate what is at stake here, not some celebration of hedonism but people being treated very unfairly because of an appreciation of drugs and a wish to explore their own sense of being and use them as people have done for eons. It is about thinking, being, it’s about consciousness and what is means to be human, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom to choose medicine and to be your own counsel and healer, freedom to a private life – yes all without harassment. You are very glib about this Ewan, telling people to find better uses for their time – as I say, if you want consensus, then don’t disregard the very persons who are involved with drugs. Yes, the effect on others is the key factor, but you don’t help anyone by ignorring these freedoms.
1st sept 2010 11.54am quote Ewan “I am no libertarian”
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/2jcl/2JCL7.htm