Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 564 party members responded, and we are publishing the full results here over several days.
Seeking to assess the support amongst the party membership for reforms to how alcohol, tobacco and currently illicit drugs are regulated, the latest LDV members survey has thrown up some interesting results – we’ll start by looking at what respondents make of the current regulatory regimes for alcohol and tobacco.
Most LDV readers back status quo on regulation of alcohol an tobacco
LDV asked: In general, do you think existing regulations and taxes on the sale and use of alcohol…
Go too far: 10.8%
Are about right: 51.1%
Don’t go far enough: 34.8%
N/a – it should be illegal: 0.2%
Don’t know / No opinion: 3.2%
Asked the same question in relation to tobacco sales and use, the readers’ responses were as follows:
Go too far: 9.8%
Are about right: 53.0%
Don’t go far enough: 32.8%
N/a – it should be illegal: 2.3%
Don’t know / No opinion: 2.1%
There is remarkable consistency between the responses, with a significant minority saying the regulations on both alcohol and tobacco sales don’t go far enough (3 times as many as those who say they go too far already) whereas a clear majority say they’re both about right.
As the Prime Minister recently asked for minimum alcohol pricing proposals to be explored, these results are a timely indicator of the party’s position on the matter. It appears that current levels of regulation are considered appropriate by LDV readers, although admittedly there wasn’t a specific question relating to minimum alcohol pricing – it would be interesting to determine readers’ response to the current proposals (as advocated here by Ewan Hoyle), the Scottish minimum price policy that’s imminent, and the kind of proposals put forward by drugs expert Prof. David Nutt.
Majority of LDV readers support legalisation of possession of cannabis, with significant support for reform regarding other drugs
LDV asked: Which, if any, of the following drugs do you think should be legalised (ie, permit both possession and regulated sale)?
Cannabis: 69.7%
Amphetamine (“speed”): 31.0%
Cocaine powder: 27.8%
Ecstasy: 38.3%
Magic Mushrooms: 37.8%
LSD: 29.1%
Ketamine: 20.7%
Crack cocaine: 17.4%
Methamphetamine (“crystal meth”): 16.8%
Heroin: 23.1%
Other drugs: 4.8%
None of them: 18.3%
Don’t know / No opinion: 11.0%
There is significant support for reform of the way drugs are regulated, with a clear majority of respondents backing the decriminalisation of cannabis possession and its regulated sale. Interestingly significant numbers of LDV readers also back a similar regime for drugs that are currently ‘Class A’.
This support for drug law reform, affirmed at Lib Dem Conference in Birmingham, is mirrored by overwhelming support for the way that the harms from drug use is dealt with.
LDV asked: Assume that at least some drugs remain illicit, and that supply would continue to be punishable as now. How should possession for personal use typically be treated?
A huge majority of LDV readers (85.8%), when asked how possession for personal use of those drugs that remain illicit should be dealt with, backed alternatives to the current criminal sanctions (backed by just 7.5%). Such scant support for the status quo is mirrored by opinion in the Conservative party, where ConservativeHome readers backed changes to the way drugs are regulated – albeit with significant support for what many see as a tougher stance.
The party’s progressive stance on drug law reform comes in the context of ambivalence about the electoral consequences thereof:
LDV asked: On balance, do you think the Lib Dems would benefit or suffer electorally if the party’s MPs and/or manifesto were to vocally support substantial drug policy reform?
Benefit a lot: 7.5%
Benefit a little: 24%
No significant difference: 19.7%
Suffer a little: 29.4%
Suffer a lot: 14.7%
Don’t know / No opinion: 4.8%
So currently there are more LDV readers who think that the party would suffer to some extent if we vocally supported drug law reform than those who consider a reforming stance a potential benefit. It may be that as voters become more familiar with the arguments in favour of evidence-based reform of the failed ‘war on drugs,’ and as Lib Dems own the reform agenda more clearly, the responses to the last question may change. 2012 is likely to be a pivotal year in the effort to secure drug law reform, as the Home Affairs select committee conducts an inquiry into drugs policy. Of course the party’s policy is for an independent panel to conduct a full Impact Assessment and review of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, but the HASC inquiry does represent an important staging post on the way.
What’s clear is that LDV readers are fully engaged with the movement to ensure that the UK has robust, evidence-based policy to control the harms that stem from drug use – the debate as to the details of such policy continues apace.
- Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 564 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 9th and 13th December.
- Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
- The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll
* Prateek Buch is Director of the Social Liberal Forum and serves on the Liberal Democrat Federal Policy Committee
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
Another Sunday band concert at Magdalen Green #dundeewestend
Beware the white lady
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
Steve Trevthan
William Wallace
12 Comments
I am against minimum pricing for alcohol – if it really has to be done (show me the evidence) then surely it should be a tax – what are the arguments against it being a tax rather than minimum pricing?
Louise,
A tax would have little effect on cheap alcohol but a big effect on more expensive products. The idea of a minimum price is exactly the opposite – the effect is huge on the cheapest brands but has no effect on anything already more expensive than the minimum price. The aim, by those who support it, is to discourage people from buying huge quantities of cheap alcohol.
Given the scale of antisocial behaviour, domestic abuse, and just plain violence that alcohol causes I am surprised that more people think the current (very weak) regulation of it “goes too far” than think the much tougher regulation of tobacco “goes too far”. Sure, tobacco damages health (although tobacco taxes more than pay for the cost of treatment) whereas I would very much doubt that the duty and taxes on alcohol cover the cost of all the problems it causes.
Quite a few people in the party seem to have missed out the anti-paternalism side to being a liberal.
The question I’d ask you Joe is why you believe the state should foot the bill for alcohol related idiocy? The failure to to internalise the external costs of abusive alcohol consumption is effectively a state subsidy for negative behaviour. As an economic liberal, I find such a situation offensive.
There’s a simpler argument regarding alcohol.
Waking up with a hangover after a night of indulgence on one or other will quickly illuminate the difference. Meantime, you probably won”t remember, but the quality of what you drank will have a large bearing on what you do while under the influence.
Cheap alcohol means bad alcohol makes worse behaviour.
Minimum pricing cannot exist alone because influencing consumption levels through price is an unrealistic policy aim – if it is to happen it really should exist alongside a designation of quality during production to enable the use of some of the proceeds from bad quality alcohol to make the good quality stuff cheaper.
I’d also recommend tightening up on off-licenses, especially since the big supermarkets chains are starting to exert a strong hold over this sector and they are the biggest culprits regarding sale of cheap alcohol because of their corporate muscle.
@Oranjepan “they are the biggest culprits regarding sale of cheap alcohol because of their corporate muscle.”
you think it a bad thing that super markets are able to use bulk buying to sell things people want to buy cheaply?
@Simon McGrath
“you think it a bad thing that super markets are able to use bulk buying to sell things people want to buy cheaply?”
In the first instance, the answer would seem to be no, but there are possible second order effects. It has to be seen integrated over time. Does aggressive pricing restrict choice by.driving competitors out of business, leaving weaker members of society with no access to shops and stronger members of society to use their vehicles more often? Once the competitors have gone will price reduction be replaced by excessive profits? Will the power these excessive profits confer be used for bullying customers, neighbours and government? Too much “liberalism” for the powerful can act against the freedom of the individual.
I don’t think minimum pricing alone will sort out the boozing problems, but it is a possible weapon in the armoury for use in a developing situation.
@Simon & Ian
yes, as we’ve seen with supermarkets getting into the cornershop sector and are gaining an powerful hold over shaping buying tastes. I think there’s also another aspect in that these more powerful corporations are often producers as well as distributors.
In which case they’re not simply supplying a good, but attempting to control the whole supply chain and are therefore doubly incentivised to push lower quality at higher volumes for lower prices. Their commercial power is distorting the market and stimulating negative attitudes in society.
Did you hear about the premiership footballer who caused an accident while drink-driving and fled the scene because he only had a provisional license? He’s now the face of the seasonal road safety campaign in his area! Guess who, sportingly, are sponsoring this initiative? Guess which sponsors’ reception the player drove away from into that night? Just pure coincidence!
How did I miss this survey? Was there an option for “total deregulation”? If not why not?
Jock: If you ping an email to [email protected] he can check what records for you were used for the survey. Worth doing to make sure you don’t miss out on any future ones.
Somewhat disgusted that roughly a third of respondents think that the present vilification of smokers ‘doesn’t go far enough’… Nice to see that only 18% are against legalising any sort of recreational drugs though.
Also – would the (0.2% can surely only signify 1?) ‘LIBERAL’ Democrat who presumably wants to ban both alcohol and tobacco, like to give us a wave?