Green Party Manifestos on Drug Policy, 2010 and 2005

In the penultimate installment in our review of party election manifesto commitments on drug policy  (see Labour, LibDems and Conservatives), today is the turn of the Green Party manifesto, published yesterday and titled 'fair is worth fighting for'.

The overarching analysis is something no other party has touched upon, recognising that inequality is a significant factor in determining health outcomes, including levels of drug addiction (Transform has raised this point in its recent CBA and Blueprint publications). This is a proposition laid out in more detail by the Equality Trust, drawing on the work of Prof. Richard Wilkinson, co-author of "The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone". The influence of Wilkinson's work on the Greens' thinking is very evident. Also uniquely, drug use is addressed in the "Health" section rather than being ghettoized solely as a criminal justice issue:

Simply making our society more equal will improve our health, without spending a penny extra on the NHS. Life expectancy, infant mortality, low birth-weight and self-rated health are worse in more unequal societies. Mental illness is much more common in more unequal countries. Drug addiction is more common in more unequal societies. Obesity is less of a problem in more equal societies like Japan and worst in the most unequal ones like the US. Better health is not a matter of ever-increasing spending on the NHS. A surer route, which can’t be disrupted by the need to bail out bankers, is to support simple things like good food, less competition and less stress." 

Drugs do also get a mention in the crime section, but again in the context of the need for greater equality, and with a clear call to treat drugs as a health issue:

To deal with crime we have to address why it occurs and what to do when it does. On the causes of crime we must first recognise that there is more crime in more unequal societies, and that by making our society more equal in the ways set out in this manifesto we will also make it safer. Second, we must act on the fact that over half of all crime is caused one way or another by misuse of Class A drugs, mainly heroin or crack cocaine. Radical reform of our drug laws will massively cut crime.

To address the causes of crime we would:

• Treat heroin and crack addiction as a health issue and not wait for them to become a crime problem. We would offer treatments that may include prescription of heroin thus removing the cause of most petty drug-related crime carried out by the addicts and removing the market from heroin dealers.

• Concentrate police and customs resources on the large-scale production, importation and marketing of these drugs.

So there is a welcome recognition that drug use should be primarily a health issue, and that it is the criminalisation of drugs that causes the huge secondary harms to society in terms of huge amounts of property crime. The clear need for more radical reform of the drug laws is made very clear as is the support for heroin prescription as central to reducing prohibition harms.

The last bullet point about focusing police and customs resources on Class A drug markets, suggests that they would not be focussed on other drugs, but, like the Lib Dems, is somewhat at odds with the rest of the analysis, essentially recommending a symptomatic response whilst ignoring the reality that prohibition is the primary cause of these markets.

Like the Lib Dems, the Greens have an official drug policy document which takes a rather more bold and progressive stance than you might assume from the slightly watered down version put forward in the Manifesto. Called "Drugs: A Realistic Approach"(2008) its analysis does not mince words:

"The prohibition of drugs doesn’t work. It does not protect society in any way, and makes it more difficult to minimise the harm caused by drug use. Addicts are treated as criminals, rather than patients in need of treatment. Every year, tens of thousands of people are put through the criminal justice system, needlessly paralysing the resources of the police, courts, and prisons. Families are torn apart, and people are made jobless and homeless just because they are criminalised by outdated laws. Drug barons are profiting from prohibition and using that money to corrupt those individuals and institutions that should protect society".

whilst amongst its more specific recommendations in one to:

"Take the drug trade out of criminal control and place it within a regulated and controlled legal environment."

The 2010 Manifesto call for a radical reform of our drug laws is welcome, but it is a shame that the Greens' long held commitments to legal regulation drugs is not made explicit. Like the Lib Dems there is a clear reticence to take debated and agreed intellectual positions to  the people, rather undermining claims to be parties of political boldness and change.

The 2010 manifesto does, however, offer marginally more than in 2005 when all that was proposed on drug policy was:

"Restitution for the victim and the community and rehabilitation of the offender are key ingredients of the Green approach to justice. While prison plays an important role in the criminal justice system, it should not be used as a way of simply holding people with long-term drug addiction, social and mental health problems."

 and, under a bullet list introduced with:

The Green Party will develop and invest in a range of crime reduction and prevention measures that focus on tackling local sources of potential crime and improving the safety  of our communities. These measures will address the social and environmental causes of crime and will include:

the proposal of:

• Demarcating drug-taking as a health rather than a crime issue

...although, no details are given as to what this might entail in practical terms. So similar, but even less detail or engagement with the debate around regulation/prohibition.

Liberal Democrat manifestos on drug policy, 2005 and 2010

Continuing with our coverage of election party manifesto commitments on drug policy, today its the turn of the Lib Dems. (see Labour here and the Conservatives here). Unlike Labour and the Conservatives, the 2010 Lib Dem manifesto, published this morning, opts for a more functional title: 'Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010'

In line with the other main parties, drug policy only appears in the crime chapter, with nothing in the sections on health, education or families. In the 'Your community' chapter, that covers crime issues, under the heading 'practical steps to make you safer - we get two specific drug policy commitments:

"Ensure that financial resources, and police and court time, are not wasted on the unnecessary prosecution and imprisonment of drug users and addicts; the focus instead should be on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police should concentrate their efforts on organised drug pushers and gangs."

It is not clear if this is a call for de-facto decriminalisation of possession (through non-enforcement), as has happened in a number of countries across the world, or just a shift of emphasis in enforcement - more detail is clearly needed on specifics here. The last sentence is telling, in terms of the total failure to recognise, (or at least articulate) that it is primarily the enforcement of supply side prohibition that turns drug use into a crime issue in the first instance. This position undermines an otherwise welcome call in the next paragraph, to:

"Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government."

In the same chapter, under the heading 'making the justice system work to rehabilitate criminals and reduce crime' two more commitments (the former not specifically drug related but obviously relevant):

"Introduce a presumption against short-term sentences of less than six months – replaced by rigorously enforced community sentences which evidence shows are better at cutting reoffending." (this commitment also appears in the 'Your money' chapter under a list of where government savings will be made)

"Move offenders who are drug addicts or mentally ill into more appropriate secure accommodation."

This is essentially all there is, excepting a mention of being 'critical supporters of the Afghan Mission' in the 'Your World' chapter. Drugs, however, are are not specifically mentioned, the stated aim only being to 'stabilise Afghanistan enough to allow British troops to come home during the next Parliament'.

The tone of the Lib Dems drug policy (and criminal justice policy more generally) is notably different from that of the other two main parties, with a seemingly more upfront commitment to evidence over punitive populism. The exception is the above reference to "pushers" which is rather old-school fear mongering language, and a term notably not used to describe those who aggressively market alcohol or tobacco.

That said, the commitment to 'Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice' does set the Lib Dems aside from the other parties regards how the Government deals with the ACMD, although it would be good to see what an ACMD 'completely independent of government' means in practical terms (this would presumably involve redrafting the Misuse of Drugs Act). Also clearly related to the ACMD-saga is a  commitment, appearing in the 'Your Job' section under the heading  'creating a dynamic environment for science and innovation' to:

"Safeguard academic freedom and the independence of scientific advisers by amending the Ministerial Code to prevent government from bullying or mistreating advisers and distorting evidence or statistics. "

The 2010 commitments offer marginally more detail than the Lib Dems 2005 manifesto , which was also far more concise overall.

Once again there is nothing on drugs in the health, family and education chapters, and we have to wait until the chapter 3 on crime, 'Tackling Crime, Defending Liberty'. Under a subheading '10,000 more police on the street - cut crime and the fear of crime':

"We will concentrate more police efforts on tackling drug traffickers and those drug users who resort to crime to feed their habits, rather than criminalising people possessing cannabis only for their own personal use."

On the same page under the different subheading 'Quality investigations, safe convictions, fighting crime and terror' :

"We will increase police resources to improve the detection and investigation of crime. We will create a co-ordinated UK BorderForce to strengthen the country’s borders against terrorism, people trafficking and drug smuggling."

The most obvious change between 2005 and 2010 is the dropping of any direct mention of cannabis, presumably reflecting the minefield that issue become in the intervening years, although the 2010 commitments regarding the ACMD are arguably at least an indirect nod to cannabis policy.

What you do not learn from either manifestos is that the Lib Dems do in fact have a more detailed official drug policy document, that was developed in 2002, titled Honesty, Realism, Responsibility: Proposals for the Reform of Drugs Law that is - from Transform's perspective - far more pragmatic and forward looking than anything to emerge from the other two major parties. It contains a strong critique of prohibition generally, and openly explores ideas for decriminalisation of personal drug possession, and legal regulated cannabis supply, albeit caveated with the need for UN convention reform as a precondition. They are unique amongst the three main parties in having engaged with these ideas.

Whilst the Lib Dems appear to have made the intellectual journey on drug policy reform, they have still shied away from it when it comes to front line politics. For them it remains an issue on which they have generally been defensive, (choosing to avoid - sometimes even deny) rather than one they actively campaign on.

The Conservative manifestos on drug policy, 2005 and 2010

Continuing with our coverage of election party manifesto commitments on drug policy (see Labour's here), today the new Conservative 2010 manifesto is published, titled 'Invitation to Join the Government of Britain'.

The first mention of drug policy actually comes in the first chapter titled 'change the economy' in a subsection called 'ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity' under the subheading 'create a modern transport network':

"We will stop central government funding for new fixed speed cameras, and switch to more effective ways to make our roads safer, including authorising ‘drugalyser’ technology for use in testing for drug-driving. "

This is interesting reflection on evidence based policy making in as much as it proposes reigning in speed cameras, a proven technology, at the same time as rolling out an unproven one, 'drugalysers', in the same sentence.

The main drug policy content has to wait until the 'Change society' chapter, unsurprisingly perhaps, under the 'Fight back against crime' subsection (again there is nothing in the health sections) which explores the Tory themes of  mending 'Broken Britain', with the main focus on a crack down on binge drinking, and various calls for tougher alcohol regulation.

"A Conservative government will help to mend our broken society – by cracking down on drink- and drug-fuelled violence, tackling re-offending, and intervening early to stop young people getting onto the conveyor belt to crime – in order to reduce the causes of crime and anti-social behaviour."

The next direct mention of (illegal) drug policy comes in a familiar association of drugs with external threats to our borders, and foreign criminals (themes also evident in Labour's 2005 manifesto):

Extremists, serious criminals and others find our borders far too easy to penetrate. That is why we will create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls, and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges, and extend collaboration between forces to deliver better value for money.

Some more detail on reoffending and rehabilitation is then offered at the end of this chapter:

At the moment, many prisoners leave jail and lapse back into a life of drink, drugs and re-offending. We will never bring our crime rate down or start to reduce the costs of crime until we properly rehabilitate ex-prisoners. So, with a Conservative government, when offenders leave prison, they will be trained and rehabilitated by private and voluntary sector providers, under supervision. We will use the same approach that lies behind our welfare reform plans – payment by results – to cut re-offending, with organisations paid using savings made in the criminal justice system from the resulting lower levels of crime.

Drug and alcohol addiction are behind many of the crimes that are committed on our streets, but the treatment that too many addicts receive just maintains their habits. We will give courts the power to use abstinence-based Drug Rehabilitation Orders to help offenders kick drugs once and for all. We will introduce a system of temporary bans on new ‘legal highs’ while health issues are considered by independent experts.

To reform our system of rehabilitation further, we will:

• apply our payment by results reforms to the youth justice system;
• engage with specialist organisations to provide education, mentoring and drug rehabilitation programmes to help young offenders go straight; and,
• pilot a scheme to create Prison and Rehabilitation Trusts so that just one organisation is responsible for helping to stop a criminal re-offending.

There is obviously a bit more to consider than the Labour's paltry 55 word offering, but there are no surprises and, in reality very little to distinguish it from Labour's existing drug strategy. There are some minor (and largely unexplained) tweaks to the way services are to be funded and a bit of rhetorical window dressing. The irony presumably lost on the Conservatives, is that they demand 'payment by results' for those providing services to reduce offending, whilst failing to take the same medicine themselves by assessing the value for money of prohibition - which creates most the offending in the first place.

Again we will leave you to make your minds up on the merits or otherwise of what's on offer.

In contrast to Labour, the Conservative manifesto in 2005 had considerably less content on drug policy than in 2010, but the 2005 manifesto was generally more concise deploying lots of populist soundbites and almost no detail.

This was all they provided on drug policy:

We will break the link between drugs and crime by massively expanding treatment programmes, including 25,000 residential rehab places (compared with fewer than 2,500 places today), and by giving all young users of hard drugs a straight choice – effective treatment or appearing in court. We will stop sending mixed messages on drugs by reversing Labour’s reclassification of cannabis as a less serious drug, changing it from class ‘C’ back to class ‘B’.

We will support the social institutions – families, schools, voluntary bodies and youth clubs – that can prevent crime and drug dependency before it starts.

Along with this, in a box titled 'More Police' highlighting their key criminal justice policies:

More Police

• 5,000 extra police a year
• Less paperwork and political correctness
• More rehab places for addicts
• Tougher sentences for career criminals
• Prisoners to serve their sentences in full

The specific 2005 commitment to increase residential rehab 10 fold has now gone, although the emphasis on rehab remains (interestingly 'residential' rehab is not mentioned specifically, perhaps now the cost implications have sunk in), and we see the abstinence rhetoric, that Labour have also led with (two mentions of 'drug-fee lives' in 55 words), also appearing more explicitly. The only other real 2005 commitment, to reclassify cannabis back to B, has gone as that has obviously happened anyway.

The Labour Manifestos on drug policy 2005 and 2010

The Labour Government today publishes its election manifesto, 'A future fair for all'. Here's what the manifesto tells us we can look forward to over the next 5 years or so in terms of drug policy, all fifty five words of it, in the rather unpleasantly titled 'crime and immigration' chapter. In the chapters on health, education, family and 'a global future', nothing (save two general (non-drug) references to national security relating to stability in Afghanistan). Bear in mind that this is a policy area on which they will continue to spend at least 4 billion of your taxpayer pounds each year:

"On drugs, our message is clear: we will not tolerate illegal drug use. We have reclassified cannabis to Class B and banned 'legal highs'. More addicts are being treated, with a higher proportion going on to drug-free lives. We will switch investment towards those programmes that are shown to sustain drug-free lives and reduce crime."

Truly, then, a drug policy for the twitter generation (a full 2.5 tweets worth, unedited). We leave you to make of that what you will, and whether it is likely to contribute to "a future fair for all". It hardly seems to warrant a detailed deconstruction here (argubly more significant for what it doesn't cover), beyond noting that it looks as if Labour is seeking to reduce the rhetorical gap between themselves and the Tories.

The Government does have a drug strategy to which it is signed up for the next five years.

For context, copied below is what Labour had to offer on drug policy in their 2005 manifesto.

The first reference to drug policy, which again featured in the Crime chapter (more specifically titled: 'Crime and security' and subtitled 'Safe communities, secure borders. Forward to neighbourhood policing, not back to rising crime') features in the general intro:

"Today, there is less chance of being a victim of crime than for more than 20 years. But our security is threatened by major organised crime; volume crimes such as burglary and car theft, often linked to drug abuse; fear of violent crime; and anti-social behaviour. Each needs a very different approach. We are giving the police and local councils the power to tackle anti-social behaviour; we will develop neighbourhood policing for every community and crack down on drug dealing and hard drug use to reduce volume crime; we are modernising our asylum and immigration system; and we will take the necessary measures to protect our country from international terrorism."

The new Labour case

"The modern world offers freedoms and opportunities unheralded a generation ago. But with new freedoms come new fears and threats to our security. Our progressive case is that to counter these threats we need strong communities built on mutual respect and the rule of law. We prize the liberty of the individual; but that means protecting the law-abiding majority from the minority who abuse the system. We believe in being tough on crime and its causes so we will expand drugs testing and treatment, and tackle the conditions – from lack of youth provision to irresponsible drinking – that foster crime and anti-social behaviour."

(The bit about testing is used as a large pull quote). Whilst not sure that 'new fears and threats to our security' should follow, as implied, from 'new freedoms', it is still interesting to see how threat-based rhetoric that was being deployed in the first post-911 election, both directly and indirectly linked to drugs (this blog from last week also explores this theme).

In the same chapter there was much more detail on drugs and crime:

"We will increase, by at least a half, programmes targeted at young people most at risk of offending and will expand drug-treatment services for young people."

"Cutting crime through cutting drug dependency

"Communities know that crime reduction depends on drug reduction. There are now 54 per cent more drug users in treatment and new powers for the police to close crack houses and get drug dealers off our streets. We will introduce compulsory drug testing at arrest for all property and drugs offenders, beginning in high-crime areas, with compulsory treatment assessment for those who test positive. Offenders under probation supervision will be randomly drug tested to mirror what already happens to offenders in custody."

"From 2006, the Serious Organised Crime Agency will bring together over 4,000 specialist staff to tackle terrorism, drug dealers, people traffickers and other national and international organized criminals. And in consultation with local police authorities and chief constables we will re-structure police resources in order to develop strong leadership, streamline all police support services, and focus upon national and regional organised crime."

On the following page, in a paragraph introduced with: 'We will tackle reoffending.':

"Our new National Offender Management Service will ensure that every offender is individually case-managed from beginning to end of their sentence, both in and out of custody – with increased effort targeted on drugs treatment, education and basic skills training to reduce reoffending. Voluntary organisations and the private sector will be offered greater opportunities to deliver offender services and we will give local people a greater say in shaping community punishment."

The following paragraph:

"Making sure crime does not pay
Those who commit crimes should not profit from them. Already we have introduced laws that enable the courts to confiscate the assets and property of drug dealers and other major criminals.We will enable the police and prosecuting authorities to keep at least half of all the criminal assets they seize to fund local crime-fighting priorities."

There is then nothing (in the chapters on education, health, and families) until chapter 7 on international policy ('International policy: A stronger country in a secure, sustainable and just world') which lacks specifics but is introduced with:

"Domestic interests and international action are entwined more than ever before. Action on drugs, terrorism, people trafficking, AIDS, climate change, poverty, migration and trade all require us to work with other countries and through international organisations. The best defence of our security at home is the spread of liberty and justice overseas."

The first sentence of the above paragraph also warrants a half page pull quote.

It is interesting to speculate why the prominence of drug policy, even whilst it remains effectively ghettoized within criminal justice, has diminished so dramatically between the two manifestos, to the point where it has now become almost invisible. The assumption has to be that whilst once viewed as political strength, drug policy - even in its populist get-tough criminal justice formulation - is now viewed as a liability (with no evidence that it has improved domestic or international security).

The invisibility of drug policy in the 2010 manifesto perhaps, therefore, reflects the ongoing historical failure of the prohibitionist paradigm, and, if we can try and be positive about things, reflects progress in the debate and public discourse - at least in so far as the critique of prohibition has exposed its failure on its own terms.

We will cover the drug policy commitments from the other parties as they emerge during the week.