Re-establishing the primacy of a public health / harm reduction approach

'After the War on Drugs, Tools for the Debate' part 10

Once the meaning of control and regulation is made clear, it becomes much easier to grasp that the response to illegal drugs need not be any different to our current response to legal drugs (see ‘fault-lines within existing policy’ ), or for that matter any other issue in the public health arena. Making the case for a public health-led response is crucial to getting the reform message across. It is a concept people are familiar with and understand (in relation to, for example, tobacco policy), and it helps direct the emphasis of the discourse towards evidence-based policy making and harm reduction – and away from the ideological dream of achieving a ‘drug free society’.

The fact that certain drugs are currently dealt with via the criminal justice system is a quirk of the history of prohibition, and not the conclusion of any kind of rational analysis or evaluation. Drugs, quite simply, are primarily a public heath issue and should be dealt with as such by the relevant public health agencies (see principles of drug policy).

Prohibition not only undermines public health efforts to reduce drug harms (by diverting budgets to enforcement and stigmatising the most vulnerable problem users with criminality) it actually increases harms associated with use by encouraging high risk behaviours (e.g. injecting/ sharing needles), it stifles access to accurate safety information, and ensures that dangerous drugs are of unknown strength and purity.

Public health interventions can be shown to be effective (e.g. needle exchanges, treatment programmes, controls on tobacco advertising), criminal justice interventions generally cannot.

Illegal drugs are unique in the public health arena in attempting to use criminal law as the primary method of educating the public. We have a whole range of alternative methods for public health education in schools, workplaces, public spaces, media and the home that can be shown to be more effective (and don’t involve making criminals out of a third of the country).

If the case for a public health-led response can be made effectively, it can only lead in one direction – away from irrational ideological commitments to prohibition and towards evidence based regulation and control. Once you have people thinking along these lines you are well on the way to winning them over.

Download colour PDF [1.4 MB]

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7
part 8
part 9

Print copies are also available, please contact Transform

Making the case for regulated drug markets

Today the blog returns to the serialisation of Transform's Autumn 2007 publication 'After the War on Drugs, Tools for the Debate'.

Download colour PDF [1.4 MB]

Chapter 4: Making the case for regulated markets

Although it is important to expose the shortcomings of current drug policy, no amount of devastating critique of prohibition will achieve very much unless a convincing case for an alternative policy is made. The big problem with the so-called ‘legalisation lobby’ in the past is that brilliant critique has tended to be followed with a one word solution – ‘legalisation’. Chapter 4 considers how to advocate clearly what the replacement for prohibition will look like, and the principles by which such policy alternatives will be developed and implemented. Chapter 5 chapter considers a number of the most common concerns raised about a post-prohibition world, and how these concerns can be addressed.

From 'legalisation' to 'regulation'

The alternative to the current system of drug prohibition needs to be clearly and confidently specified. Just saying ‘legalisation’ is inadequate - and indeed problematic, as the term comes with a lot of baggage. For many people it is associated with either ‘hippies and pot-heads’, specific political ideologies (usually libertarianism or liberalism) that condone the use of drugs, or suggests a surrender’ in the drug war that would leave us with some sort of un-policed ‘free for all’.

Using the term in isolation creates a vacuum that will be filled by such misconceptions (which are regularly promoted by prohibition’s advocates and political beneficiaries)– frequently of the 'heroin would be available in sweet shops’ variety.

In actuality the term ‘legalisation’ describes a process (rather like ‘abolition’)- in this case the process of something currently illegal being made legal – rather than an end point or goal in itself. It gives no indication what the policy replacing prohibition would look like. For this reason it is very important that the term is clarified as soon and often as possible.

Explain what you mean by ‘legalisation’ at the earliest opportunity and try to talk about ‘regulation and control’ as often as possible. There is no harm in repeating the phrase – in fact we would encourage it. Avoiding the term ‘legalisation’ altogether is no bad thing, but if it is unavoidable, either use it in the phrase ‘legalisation and regulation’ or make it clear it is a process not an end point: ‘legalisation is necessary to move from prohibition to legally regulated markets’. A useful alternative is to talk about ‘moves towards legal regulation and control’, or ‘legally regulated drug markets’ .

Be clear about what regulated markets are, and what they are not

Once you have clarified that your understanding of ‘legalisation’ is very specifically ‘regulation and control’, whenever possible it is worth going further to explain in very clear terms more precisely what you are proposing and the principles on which future policy developments would be based.

Some activities and products would remain prohibited as part of the regulatory framework.

This is hugely important point to make as it reinforces the idea of control, and moves perceptions away from the misconceptions of ‘legalisation’ and libertarian free markets. Activities that would remain prohibited would include, for example, underage sales, consumption in public, unlicensed sales, advertising and so on. Similarly, supply of certain particularly potent or high risk preparations of some drugs would also remain prohibited. All psychoactive drugs are potentially dangerous substances that should be subject to tight legal and social regulations. We should learn the lessons from tobacco and alcohol (see– ‘talking about… alcohol and tobacco’ on p.37). The level of enforcement, and associated penalties for activities that remain prohibited, would be determined by legislation, police force or local licensing body as appropriate.

Discussing the role of ‘prohibitions’ post legalisation may be a bit confusing; to avoid this, talk about replacing ‘absolute prohibition’ or ‘the war on drugs’ with ‘a system of strict legal regulation and control in which some activities remain prohibited’.

Make it clear you are not talking about a free market...

.. that would give carte blanche to multinationals and pharmaceutical companies to market or promote recreational drugs (see ‘concerns about legalisation/regulation’ on p.46). Producers would be strictly regulated, particularly with regard to advertising, marketing, health warnings and packaging.

Different regulatory regimes would be put in place for different drugs in different locations.

The strictness of regulation for different drugs (or different preparations of a given drug) would be determined by the comparative risks associated with their production, supply and use.

Regulatory regimes would be based on existing models

This is a point that allows people some real world perspective on what is being proposed. Models include;

• Medical prescription (possibly involving supervised use) for the most risky drugs (e.g. injectable heroin – the legal framework for which already exists in practice)
  
  
• Over the counter pharmacy sales – from qualified pharmacists (possibly with additional training for vending non-medical drugs)

• Licensed sales (as with off licenses or tobacconists) with various available tiers of licensing conditions that could be applied as appropriate

• Licensed premises (pubs or Dutch style coffee-shops) again, with variable licensing conditions.

• Unlicensed sales for low risk drugs – like coffee

(for more discussion of regulatory models see the Transform, KCBA and HOBC reports detailed in Chapter 6, p.59).

The type of regulation for each drug would be based on evidence of what works.

Unlike the inflexible straitjacket of prohibition, a regulatory regime could develop a range of responses to the risks that different drugs present. Different models would be piloted and tested, with policy development and implementation based on evidence of effectiveness. Regulatory frameworks could be changed and updated in response to changing circumstances.

Implementation would be phased and based on the precautionary principle.

Regulated models would not be rolled out for all drugs overnight. It is likely that certain drugs would be legalised and regulated first (probably cannabis) and other drugs phased in over a number of years. Initially the default position would be to err on the side of stricter regulation, which could then be relaxed only if evidence suggested that would be more effective.

Internationally, this is about returning democratic freedoms to sovereign states.

Under this new system no country is going to be bullied into legalising and regulating any drug (in contrast to the bullying to maintain prohibition that many experience now). The changes we are seeking at the international level would change the UN legal system to allow the freedom of individual states to democratically decide on any move towards regulated drug markets if they determined that was the best way forward for them. It would merely put regulatory policy options back in the frame. If certain nation states (those, perhaps, where alcohol is still prohibited) wished to maintain absolute prohibition, that decision would remain their sovereign right.

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7
part 8

Print copies are also available, please contact Transform

Home Office spin guide for the new drug strategy. Part 1

When an arena of social policy is as politicised, emotive, and contentious as drugs, it’s hardly surprising that the Government message is subject to very intense media management. The need for such efforts is dramatically amplified when policy outcomes are as shockingly bad as they are with drugs policy, requiring a Herculean propaganda effort to present them in anything even approaching a positive light, and especially tricky when this propaganda is now subject to intense parliamentary, NGO, and media scrutiny.

So when the new drug strategy was launched with a medium sized fanfare yesterday it was no surprise that a pretty comprehensive briefing was also circulated to relevant civil servants on how to answer likely questions from the media. It seems reasonable to try and make sure that everyone is on message, singing from the same hymn sheet and so on. A bit New-Labour-ishly controlling perhaps, but very much par for the course for a big departmental announcement about a complex policy issue. However, these briefings rarely emerge from their departmental bunkers, and for good reason. After all, you wouldn’t want the media to know all the answers in advance. That could be a bit embarrassing, and also run the risk of them coming up with some really tricky questions.

So all the more surprising that the ‘restricted’ media briefing on the drug strategy was also circulated outside of the Home Office to various people and groups that, whilst centrally funded, most certainly are not Home Office types who will obediently trot out the party line as determined by slightly creepy 68 page Q&A briefings. There is no guarantee that the Government strategy diaspora will all take kindly to being told what to say, and they are not bound by the Masonic-like codes of silence that seem to grip departmental civil servants. With such documents presumably being bounced around 1000’s of drugs workers and bureaucrats, as well as a zillion or so Whitehall-bots, the likelihood of an anonymous, presumably peeved individual forwarding a copy to my inbox starts to increase rapidly. (Remember that a lot of people in the drugs field are just as angry and alarmed at the new drug strategy - and last year’s disgraceful consultation and review process as Transform). So you will be unsurprised to learn this is exactly what had happened before the sun had set on launch day.

Here it is in front of me. I have to assume that the prime reason that a copy found its way to me was the rather bizarre inclusion of a guide to tricky questions on the debate around ‘prohibition vs legalisation and regulation’. It reads like a ‘how to deal with Transform’ guide and the wording suggests this is basically what it is. I should be clear: there’s no state secrets here, no WMD’s, dodgy dossiers or anything really juicy (and it's probably worth pointing out that the US DEA have something very similar, but as an entire public website and publication , which I should also note is dutifully shredded by my US reform colleagues here)

There’s actually little in this section we haven’t heard before in Home Office submissions to Select committees, ministerial correspondence with Transform, or Government responses to No.10 petitions; in fact it’s testimony to the tight ship they maintain that a lot of the wording is actually identical to what we’ve heard before. But it’s none the less fascinating to see the whole intellectually threadbare charade exposed all in one place, and it’s nothing if not reassuring in a sort of ‘is this it?’ sort of way. Pathetically enough this appears to really be all they have. I suppose we should also be flattered that the reform arguments have become mainstream and eloquent enough, and gained enough momentum, to warrant their own rather defensive five pages. And other than being quite amusing in a faintly tragic fashion, it will also allow us, and you, to know in advance exactly what to expect from the Home Office or relevant minister for any given question. Its almost a shame that the media have shown next to no interest on the new drug strategy beyond the silly bit of guff about benefits (just how much did the Home Office pay to organize that earthquake?)

Still, we will probably have blog-fun with the rest of the briefing over the coming days if I have time. But here below is the prohibition debate section, unedited. But as is our privilege because its our blog, I have added commentary and references (in blue italics) which in true Home Office style I mostly cut and pasted from various other bits of 'on message' Transform text. So make sure you get it right - or else.

PROHIBITION VS LEGALISATION AND REGULATION

Q: What’s the point on maintaining the pretence that prohibition works?

Drugs are controlled for good reason – they are harmful to health. Their control is a necessary and legitimate means of protecting individuals and the public from the harms caused by their misuse.

But they are NOT CONTROLLED. This is one of the strange Orwellian twists of logic we hear so often from the Home Office. Control of the £300 billion a year trade in dangerous drugs was abdicated to violent gangsters and unregulated criminal dealers when we bought into global prohibition back in 1961. (see below). The fact drugs are harmful is the reason why they need to be properly controlled and regulated within the law rather than left in the hands of an anarchic criminal free for all. Prohibition demonstrably maximises the harms associated with drug use as well as creating the disastrous additional problems associated with illegal markets. There are of course a number of legal drugs that are also 'harmful to health', highlighting the contradiction and hypocrisy that exists within it's own policy on 'harmful drugs'.

Whilst prohibition has not eradicated availability, it has been a crucial element in restricting availability and keeping the level of drug use under control. UK drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug misuse, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.

Not only has prohibition failed to eradicate availability, drugs have become progressively cheaper and more available under prohibition. There is no evidence that punitive drug laws are an effective deterrent to use and plenty of evidence to show that they are a marginal or negligible factor in drug taking decisions which are largely determined by cultural and socio- economic variables. Drug use has risen consistently during prohibition, faster than any time in history. making the case for prohibition keeping drug use down it a tricky one.

With most drugs, there is a direct relationship between the amount of use and the level of harm. As use increases, so does harm. If psychoactive drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of use, and the resultant harms and cost to individuals and society, would expand significantly. There is overwhelming evidence that the widespread use of drugs results in enormous social harms and economic costs associated with that: the many thousands of drug-related deaths; the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B and C through injecting drug use; and the mental health disorders associated with the use of drugs.

For a more detailed discussion on the impact of drug law reform on prevalence see chapter 5 of 'After the War on Drugs Tools for the Debate'. Regarding the harms associated with injecting, significantly there is no HIV transmission or AIDS caused by any form of legal drug use. The use of prescribed heroin with clean needles is not associated with any HIV transmission, so let us be completely clear on this: drug related HIV transmission amongst injecting drug users is very specifically a result of prohibition and the use of dirty drugs with dirty needles in unsafe environments. The Home Office is here defending the policy that has caused the widespread misery and death it is simultaneously condemning, whilst criticizing those who propose proven approaches that entirely eliminate the problem (this thoroughly unpleasant argument was similarly pushed by Joseph Califano in the Financial Times and the BMJ recently - and duly shot down, by me as it happens).

The most ridiculous part of all this is the fact that the Home Office know all this full well - to the extent that they are doing a Swiss clinic-style prescription heroin pilot in London, and are planning to roll the program out. This is actually mentioned in the new strategy. Bizarre. What do they think 'regulated supply of legal drugs' means?

Q: What about the legalisation and regulation of drugs?

The Government has been very clear that the new Drug Strategy would operate within the existing legal framework and the international conventions which underpin it. We have been unequivocal in our stance of having no intention of either decriminalising or legalising currently controlled drugs for recreational purposes.

In response to the Home Affairs Committee report on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working? in 2002, we stated that "We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs". The Prime Minister reinforced this view when, on the 24 September 2007 to the Labour Party conference, he stated “that drugs are never going to be decriminalised”.

A total non-answer. For some commentary on the Brown speech quoted above see here.

Q: Drug misuse has risen exponentially since 1971, the year of the Misuse of Drugs Act doesn’t this mean that our drug laws and policies have been a complete failure?

Crikey, these are good questions, its almost uncanny.

Overall, the trend in drug use has been upward since the 1970’s, but has more recently stabilised and for some drugs has been falling, particularly cannabis. To suggest that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act or more recent drugs policy has been a failure is unreasonable, in part because it is not possible to ascertain what the situation would otherwise have been should the Government of the day or successive governments taken an alternative approach.

Drug use has most likely stabilised (at an unprecedented and historic high point) because demand is now saturated, not because of some enforcement or policy triumph. Anyone who wants to use drugs does, and levels of use of different drugs rise and fall marginally as fashions s and socio-economic variables shift. It is possible to compare drug use between countries, and even within countries, that have very different levels of enforcement and punitive response and demonstrate there is no link between levels of enforcement and levels of use. (For a useful example see ref 35 here)

Data from both the British Crime Survey and the Schools Survey show that drug use is falling, while Class A drug use is stable.

This is just not true. See here for systematic debunk

Q: Isn’t it about time that we reviewed the entire Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, not just the classification system?

At its irreducible core, the 1971 Act is the means by which we transpose into domestic law our international obligations as a signatory of the 3 United Nations conventions on drugs. The principle purpose of the 1971 Act is to set out the offences of possession, supply, production and trafficking for illegal drugs.

Nothing to do with the question. And what is the 'irreducible core'?

As we have absolutely no intention of changing our position in respect of these offences, a review of the 1971 Act would be redundant. The 1971 Act continues to provide a coherent legal framework.

Again, a total non-answer: we wont review it because we don't plan to review it. Laughable.

Q: The Government should acknowledge that prohibition has not worked. Isn’t the only sensible alternative is a regulated market?

Legalisation and regulation of drugs will never be an appropriate response. Drugs are controlled for good reason – they are harmful to health. Their control is a necessary and legitimate means of protecting individuals and the public from the harms caused by their misuse.

See above

Whilst prohibition has not eradicated availability, it has been a crucial element in restricting availability and keeping the level of drug use under control. UK drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug misuse, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.

See above

With most drugs, there is a direct relationship between the amount of use and the level of harm. As use increases, so does harm. If psychoactive drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of use, and the resultant harms and cost to individuals and society, would expand significantly. There is overwhelming evidence that the widespread use of drugs results in enormous social harms and economic costs associated with that: the many thousands of drug-related deaths; the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B and C through injecting drug use; and the mental health disorders associated with the use of drugs.

See above

This type of alternative system – regulated supply - would not safeguard these very real public health interests, nor necessarily significantly undermine international organised crime.

How would taking control of the market in dangerous drugs away from gangsters and unregulated street dealers, bringing it within the law and subjecting it to strict legal regulation not 'safeguard these very real public health interests'?. And how would removing a 300 billion pound profit opportunity fail to significantly undermine organised crime? No answer is actually provided.

The benefits of such as system - such as taxation, quality control and a reduction on the pressures on the criminal justice system– are far outweighed by the costs and for this reason, it is one that this Government will not pursue either domestically or internationally.

Note, and this is important, The Government is clearly acknowledging benefits of legalisation and regulation of drugs, specifically financial and in terms of crime reduction. So can we assume from this that if we can persuade them about the completely spurious increased health harms thing then the game is up?

Q: The Government is using the argument that decriminalising illegal drugs “would send the wrong message to the majority of young people.” Isn’t this is simply a convenient excuse?

Legalisation of currently illegal drugs would run entirely counter to the HM Government’s health and education messages. Our educational message – to young people in particular – is that all controlled drugs are harmful and that no one should take them. To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send a disastrous message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.

Note how there has been a shift from legalisation causing drug use to 'expand significantly' in the previous answer, to here there just being 'a potential risk of increased drug use and abuse'. I'm not convinced they've thought this through.

On the subject of messages, in what other area of public health policy is heavy handed enforcement of criminal law and mass criminalisation of young people used as the primary tool to send out public health messages? Surely the stunning failure of this approach in drug policy (which has witnessed consistent rise in overall drug use, especially of the most dangerous drugs, for two generations) should prompt a pause for thought. Maybe there is a better way to educate the public about the dangers of drugs and encouraging responsible lifestyle choices, through, for example, established public health education channels.

Our drug laws and educational measures complement each other. In isolation their impact would be diminished.

Rubbish. Produce a single piece of research that shows spending a pound on enforcement delivers better educational and public health outcomes than a pound spent on evidence based, targeted public health education and prevention and I will eat my DARE baseball cap. Spending on counterproductive enforcement measures starves funds from public health initiatives that actually work.

Q: Wouldn’t legalisation surely reduce drug related crime?

We cannot look at any putative benefits of legalisation in isolation from its costs.

conceding the point on crime reduction again

If drugs were legalised, it is important to remember that there is other crime associated with drug misuse, for example crimes committed under intoxication.

Crimes committed under intoxication are not being legalised - the legal status of the intoxicant is irrelevant.

The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime.

Obviously it is ridiculous to imagine they will all ‘go straight’ and get jobs in McDonalds, or selling flowers, but it is equally absurd to suggest they will all embark on some previously unimagined crime spree. Clearly the impacts will differ at the various levels of the criminal infrastructure and, since reforms will be phased over a number of years and not happen overnight, criminal drug infrastructures will experience a twilight period of diminishing profit opportunities.

Undoubtedly some criminals will seek out new areas of illegal activity and it is realistic to expect that there may be increases in some areas, such as cyber-crime, extortion or other illicit trades (counterfeit goods etc.). However, crime is to a large extent a function of opportunity, and it is impossible to imagine that there is enough criminal opportunity to absorb the manpower currently operating an illicit drugs market with a turns over somewhere in the region of £300 billion pounds a year globally, or over £10 billion a year in the UK alone. Even if there is some diversion into other criminal activity, the big picture will undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall criminal activity. Getting rid of illegal drug markets is about reducing opportunities for crime.

This concern is a curious one because it seems, when considered closely, to be advocating prohibition as a way of maintaining illegal drug empires so that organised criminals don’t have to change jobs. By contrast, from our perspective the argument is about removing the largest criminal opportunity on earth, not just from existing criminals but, significantly, from future generations of criminals. Ending prohibition holds the prospect of diverting millions of potential young drug producers, traffickers, and dealers from a life of crime.

Neither would a regulated market eliminate illicit supplies, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling demonstrate.

The illegal market in smuggled tobacco is the direct result of taxation policy – specifically the large international differentials in tobacco tax that create a huge profit opportunity for smugglers. For example, tax rates on tobacco vary from zero % in Andorra, to several hundred % in the UK – a far greater range than almost any other mass consumer product. If tobacco taxes were reduced domestically, the international differential and profit opportunity in smuggling and illicit sales would fall accordingly; where there is no tobacco tax there is no smuggled imports or illicit sales. Higher taxes, however, mean higher prices which can effectively dissuade potential new users and encourage existing users to quit, just as falling prices can have the opposite effect. The Government has the difficult task of using taxation policy to balance these two conflicting needs (dissuading use / undermining illegal activity). Crucially, though, because tobacco is legal and regulated, governments are in a position of power to intervene on price, an impossibility with illegal drugs that are entirely at the whim of supply and demand in an unregulated criminal market. It is also worth noting that most smuggled tobacco is at least legally produced in the first instance.

It is worth noting that the profit margins on illegal drugs are so high, often running to 1000% or more, that there is plenty of room for manoeuvre for policy makers regarding tax and price control interventions. Prohibition has turned heroin and cocaine – essentially valueless processed agricultural products - into illicit commodities literally worth more than their weight in gold. Even with high taxes, legally supplied drugs would still dramatically undercut current illicit markets (more discussion on lessons from tobacco and alcohol in 'Tools for the Debate')

Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs.

which would be relatively minuscule compared to what we currently spend on enforcement

Unless drugs were freely available to everyone, including children, it would not be possible to stop the illicit market operating at the margins of any regulated system.

No one is advocating free availability. That is what we effectively have now and what we are trying to get rid of. The Government seem to be in denial of the fact that under the current regime illegal drugs remain easily available to most young people and a significant minority have used one or more. Regulation cannot eliminate such use, any more than it can with tobacco and alcohol, but controlled availability will create a significantly improved environment for reducing harm, and longer term reductions in demand. One of the key benefits of regulation is that it allows appropriate controls to be put in place over price and availability (location, times of opening and age restrictions) as well as controls over advertising and promotion. Thats the whole point. It is precisely because drugs pose risks that they need to be appropriately regulated, especially for young people. See also 'What about the kids' p.49, After the War on Drug, Tools for the Debate'

Q: The Government rejected the call made in the House of Lords by a number of eminent peers for an Independent Commission to be established, to review policy on drug control. Is this right?

The Government sees no need for any such commission. The United Kingdom is a signatory, along with almost all other countries in the world, to the three United Nations anti-drugs Conventions and legalisation would breach those Conventions. The Government participates in debates in the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which keeps under review global strategies for dealing with drugs on a global basis. The position the Government takes in these debates is, and will continue to be, consistent with our domestic legislation and international obligations.

This is another one of those bizarre non-answers that only a minister can really deliver with a straight face; we don't need a commission on the drug laws because we have drug laws. What? The CND has never and will never review the efficacy of global prohibtion, as it exists to solely to maintain it.

Q: Isn’t the Government hiding behind its “international obligations” in relation to any move towards decriminalisation or legalisation?

Drugs are a global problem; very often they are produced in one country and consumed in another. A co-ordinated international response is vital in our commitment to tackle drug misuse. The UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on drug control and takes its international responsibilities very seriously. Legalisation, even for a few drugs, would cause substantial damage to international relations and diminish the UK’s standing amongst our international partners. We have no intention of breaking our obligations.

So that is a pretty emphatic 'yes'; Geopolitics is more important than domestic policy. Some honesty at last. Vaguely reminiscent of that BAE Saudi corruption business?

Unilateral action by the Government's towards legalisation would undoubtedly encourage drug tourism as the Dutch have discovered and they are exploring ways to tackle that problem.

Don't do it unilaterally then. There's widespread dissatisfaction with the strictures of global prohibition across Western Europe and beyond, and moves towards reform will be led by a coalition of reform oriented countries. The drug tourism argument is so marginal as to be irrelevant. Dutch drug policy is based on tolerance not legalisation, and there are no plans to abandon the approach, which has been conspicuously more effective than that of the UK.

Q: Doesn’t the Government have room for manoeuvre on legalisation of the possession and use of drugs under the United Nations Conventions?

The United Nations Conventions oblige us to adopt the offence of possession. However, the legal framework within which this the possession offence in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 sits is a lot more subtle than it first suggests, allowing both the police and the judiciary the discretion to take into account all the circumstances of the offence.

I'm not completely clear what they are driving at here. There is clearly room for the UK Government to define penalties for possession, and this can include moves to civil rather than criminal penalties (so like a driving fine rather than a criminal record) or as many countries already do, just direct police/judiciary to not enforce, ie depenalise / de facto decriminise. This discretion is for policy makers, rather than police and judiciary. this is a seperate issue from legal regulation of drug production and supply. See p.54 of 'Tools for the Debate'

-----

Thats all for now. But if you really want to get to grips with this debate please do take look at the guide we have produced specifically for the purpose; After the War on Drugs - Tools for the Debate. It covers everything here and more in plenty of detail.

Challenging prohibitionist myths and misinformation

After a short break The blog returns to the serialisation of Transform's latest publication :After the War on Drugs, Tools for the Debate. (see below for, previous sections)

Download colour PDF [1.4 MB]

Once some common ground has been established on the aims and principles underlying drug policy, the next logical step is to critique prohibition based on these agreed aims and principles. Generally speaking, this is not especially difficult, as prohibition has failed on almost every indicator imaginable. The key here, given that you are being listened to in the first place, is simply to make sure you have the basic facts and analysis at your finger tips.

Bear in mind, however, that no policy which has been such a spectacular and consistent failure could have been sustained for so long without a monumental propaganda effort to prop it up. As you critique prohibition you will need to be aware of the forest of misinformation , myth, and statistical chicanery that defends it, so that you can cut through it when necessary.

There are numerous myths perpetuated by the defenders of current drug policy, most of them aimed at supporting the case that prohibition is effective. Quite simply, it isn’t, as even a cursory examination of the facts reveals.

Prohibition was intended to eliminate drugs from the world and has achieved the exact opposite. On a consistent basis, over more than two generations, drug production has risen, drug consumption has risen, drug availability has risen (whilst prices have fallen), and drug related health problems have risen. Crucially, in addition, prohibition has directly created a raft of new problems associated with criminal markets locally and narco-states globally. Once an illegal market has become established, prohibition has not worked anywhere, ever. Moreover it has been universally and quite spectacularly counterproductive on all meaningful indicators.

The myth of prohibition’s effectiveness is constructed from a series of assertions that can very easily be demolished:

1. Prohibition reduces availability

This is perhaps the most easily-refuted claim made for prohibition – so much so that you rarely hear it anymore. Nevertheless, the goal of reducing the availability of drugs remains a key pillar of the UK national drug strategy, and indeed of the entire UN international drug control apparatus.

Reducing availability remains the sole aim of supply-side enforcement at the international, domestic and local levels, absorbing billions of government spending each year. The simplistic rationale for this strategy is that if drug supply can be stopped then no one will take drugs and the drug problem will disappear. However, drug markets are demand-driven, and supplying them is a staggeringly lucrative business. Consistently, over several generations, and in countries across the world, there has been a clear trend of drug supply and use steadily increasing. Drugs are cheaper and more available today than at any time previously, something that even official analysis from the Home Office, the ACMD, and even Tony Blair’s own confidential report produced for him by his Number 10 Strategy Unit12 does not dispute. Never let anyone claim that supply side enforcement is effective without a very robust challenge – the evidence against this assertion is clear, overwhelming and acknowledged by all credible sources, official and independent.

2. Prohibition reduces use / is an effective deterrent

This myth is entwined within the previous one, that prohibition reduces drug availability; but it also depends on the concept of using enforcement to ‘send out the right message’ on drugs, namely that they are harmful to health and you shouldn’t take them. The concept of criminal law as a deterrent to drug use is absolutely central to the entire prohibitionist paradigm, and yet the assumption has little or no evidential foundation.

This is a point that you can raise with great confidence whenever the deterrent issue arises:

• Drug use has risen faster under prohibition than at any time in human history.
  
• International comparisons show no correlation between the harshness of enforcement and prevalence of use. The UK, for example, has one of the harshest regimes and the highest level of drug use in Europe.
  
• Different states within the US and Australia have very different enforcement regimes for cannabis possession – from very punitive to de facto decriminalisation. Comparing the different states shows there is no correlation between enforcement and prevalence.
  
• In the UK it is mostly Class A drugs, with the harshest penalties, which have seen the most dramatic rises in use. Heroin use in the UK has risen by at least 1000% since 1971, cocaine use has doubled in the last ten years. Similarly ecstasy use went from zero to several million pills a week being consumed in a matter of years in the late 1980s.
  
• The Home Office has never undertaken any research to establish the extent of enforcement related deterrence, despite it being at the heart of the Misuse of Drugs Act and all subsequent policy thinking. The research that does exist suggests enforcement related deterrence is, at best, a marginal factor in influencing decisions to take drugs.
  
• In his oral evidence to the recent Science and Technology committee, Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the ACMD Technical Committee stated: “I think the evidence base for classification producing a deterrent is not strong”.
  
• The Commons Science and Technology Committee reported that: “We have found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin the Government’s policy on classification."

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7

Print copies are also available, please contact Transform

Transform Parliamentary reception to launch new publication

Last Wednesday Transform held our annual reception and officially launched our latest publication ‘After the War on Drugs, Tools for the Debate’ in the House of Commons with the support of Paul Flynn MP. There was a good turn out, with a distinguished audience including the peers Lord Turner, Lord Cobbold, and Lord Mancroft, the MPs Brian Iddon, Lynne Jones, Evan Harris, and Edward Garnier (from the Tory front bench) who made a brief appearance. Also present were with Henry Hoare, Transform Patron and senior partner at Hoare’s Bank, representatives from the National Audit Office, the Drummer from Blur and aspiring politician, Dave Rowntree, as well as a selection of key journalists, civil servants, academics, NGO representatives and Transform funders, colleagues and friends.

Paul Flynn opens proceedings at Transform's reception in the Attlee Room,
in the new Portcullis House extension to the Houses of Parliament

Paul Flynn introduced the evening and spoke, amongst other things, on the importance of shifting the Government’s resources away from the criminal justice system and into public health and treatment, and his experiences as the point man parliamentary drug law reform in the Commons. This was followed by a presentation from Steve Rolles, Transform Information officer and author of the new Transform Publication 'Tools for the Debate’ introducing the broad themes and highlighting a selection of key passages to illustrate how the book can be used to engage in and take forward the debate on drug law reform. The presentations were rounded off by Danny Kushlick, Transform Director, with a review of some of Transform’s key recent achievements to date, and plans for the future.

The evening then turned into a lively question and answer session, which included discussions on how to deal with critics, and Transform's vision for the future: what a controlled and regulated market might look like. The evening concluded with an opportunity for some networking over a glass of splendid House of Commons wine.

An MP3 of the presentations and question and answer session is available: please email info@tdpf.org.uk

After the War on Drugs: Tools for the debate

After nine months of toil Transform's latest publication is now available online to download in PDF format

After the War on Drugs: Tools for the debate is a guide to making the case for drug policy reform designed to:

• Re-frame the debate, moving it beyond stale ideological arguments into substantive, rational engagement
• Provide the language and analysis to challenge the prohibitionist status quo, and to make the case for evidenced based alternatives

Download colour PDF [1.4 MB]
Download black & white PDF [1.5 MB]

We also have some rather beautifully produced print versions available, so get in contact if you would like a copy (we are asking for a small donation to cover print and postage costs).

It would be great to hear any feedback on the guide so please post comments below or email them to Steve

Any help you can offer with publicising 'Tools' would be much appreciated. This can include:

• mentioning it on your blog
• linking it from your website
• mentioning/linking it in discussion forums
• sending the link to colleagues and other interested individuals
• suggesting individuals to whom Transform can usefully send print copies

We have already done a large scale mailing to parliamentarians and are now sending copies to various policy makers, media commentators, NGOs and others in the drugs field and beyond.

Thanks for your help and we look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The first couple of chapters are also available, in edited format, on the blog here;

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7

Critiquing the failings of current policy

Extract 8 from Transform's upcoming publication: After the War on Drugs, Tools for the Debate.

Critiquing the failings of current policy

Once some common ground has been established on the aims and principles underlying drug policy, the next logical step is to critique prohibition based on these agreed aims and principles. Generally speaking, this is not especially difficult , as prohibition has failed on almost every indicator imaginable. The key here, given that you are being listened to in the first place, is simply to make sure you have the basic facts and analysis at your finger tips.

Bear in mind, however, that no policy which has been such a spectacular and consistent failure could have been sustained for so long without a monumental propaganda effort to prop it up. As you critique prohibition you will need to be aware of the forest of misinformation , myth, and statistical chicanery that defends it, so that you can cut through it when necessary.

Challenging prohibitionist myths and misinformation

There are numerous myths perpetuated by the defenders of current drug policy, most of them aimed at supporting the case that prohibition is effective. Quite simply, it isn’t, as even a cursory examination of the facts reveals. Prohibition was intended to eliminate drugs from the world and has achieved the exact opposite. On a consistent basis, over more than two generations, drug production has risen, drug consumption has risen, drug availability has risen (whilst prices have fallen), and drug related health problems have risen. Crucially, in addition, prohibition has directly created a raft of new problems associated with criminal markets locally and narco-states globally. Once an illegal market has become established, prohibition has not worked anywhere, ever. Moreover it has been universally and quite spectacularly counterproductive on all meaningful indicators.

The myth of prohibition’s effectiveness is constructed from a series of assertions that can very easily be demolished:

1. Prohibition reduces availability

This is perhaps the most easily-refuted claim made for prohibition – so much so that you rarely hear it anymore. Nevertheless, the goal of reducing the availability of drugs remains a key pillar of the UK national drug strategy, and indeed of the entire UN international drug control apparatus. Reducing availability remains the sole aim of supply side enforcement at the international, domestic and local levels, absorbing billions of government spending each year.

The simplistic rationale for this strategy is that if drug supply can be stopped then no one will take drugs and the drug problem will disappear. However, drug markets are demand-driven, and supplying them is a staggeringly lucrative business. Consistently, over several generations, and in countries across the world, there has been a clear trend of drug supply and use steadily increasing. Drugs are cheaper and more available today than at any time previously, something that even official analysis from the Home Office, the ACMD, and even Tony Blair’s own confidential report produced for him by his Number 10 Strategy Unit does not dispute.

Never let anyone claim that supply side enforcement is effective without a very robust challenge – the evidence against this assertion is clear, overwhelming and acknowledged by all credible sources, official and independent.

2. Prohibition reduces use / is an effective deterrent

This myth is entwined within the previous one, that prohibition reduces drug availability; but it also depends on the concept of using enforcement to ‘send out the right message’ on drugs, namely that they are harmful to health and you shouldn’t take them. The concept of criminal law as a deterrent to drug use is absolutely central to the entire prohibitionist paradigm, and yet the assumption has little or no evidential foundation. This is a point that you can raise with great confidence whenever the deterrent issue arises:

• Drug use has risen faster under prohibition than at any time in human history.
  
  
• International comparisons show no correlation between the harshness of enforcement and prevalence of use. The UK, for example, has one of the harshest regimes and the highest level of drug use in Europe.
  
  
• Different states within the US and Australia have very different enforcement regimes for Cannabis possession – from very punitive to de-facto decriminalisation. Comparing the different states shows there is no correlation between enforcement and prevalence.
  
  
• In the UK it is mostly Class A drugs, with the harshest penalties, which have seen the most dramatic rises in use. Heroin use in the UK has risen by at least 1000% since 1971, cocaine use has doubled in the last ten years. Similarly ecstasy use went from zero to several million pills a week being consumed in a matter of years in the late 1980s.
  
  
• The Home Office has never undertaken any research to establish the extent of enforcement related deterrence, despite it being at the heart of the Misuse of Drugs Act and all subsequent policy thinking. The research that does exist suggests enforcement related deterrence is, at best, a marginal factor in influencing decisions to take drugs.
  
  
• In his oral evidence to the recent Science and Technology committee, Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the ACMD Technical Committee stated: “I think the evidence base for classification producing a deterrent is not strong”.
  
  
• The Commons Science and Technology Committee reported in 2006 that: “We have found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin the Government’s policy on classification”.

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7




Online July 2007...
print copies in the office

Finding Common Ground: the aims of drug policy

Extract 7 from Transform's upcoming publication: After the war on Drugs, Tools for the Debate, this description of the aims of drug policy follows from the discussion of the principles of drug policy covered in extract 6

The Aims of Drug Policy

As developed by Transform, the core aims of drug policy, which can only be properly addressed once the current prohibition of drugs is dismantled, are:

• To minimise the prevalence of problematic drug use and related health harms, including drug related death.

Although this sounds uncontroversial, it actually challenges a central tenet of current drug policy: that any illicit drug use is unacceptable / illegal, and / or that non- problematic drug use does not exist. However, this assertion ignores the reality that problematic drug users, defined by the need for social or criminal justice intervention, are in reality only a small fraction of the drug using population. Transform argues that non problematic use should not be the primary concern of Government, beyond efforts to prevent progression into problematic use, which can be supported on public health grounds if there is evidence that they are effective.

• To minimise disorder, violence and social nuisance related to drug use
  
  
• To minimise criminal activity associated with the production and supply of drugs

These two aims are linked; however, there is a clear distinction between public order problems caused by intoxication (overwhelmingly by alcohol) and the far more significant problems caused by illegal markets.

• To minimise drug-related harm to vulnerable groups, young people and families

Whilst the ethics of dictating personal behaviour to adults is a tricky area, for non-adults there are clear arguments for programmes to prevent early drug use as a public health initiative and as part of a wider harm reduction approach.

• To ensure adequate provision of support and drug treatment for people seeking help

Some may argue that drug users don’t deserve care or should not be allowed to receive the benefit of non-drug-using taxpayers’ money. It’s a potentially thorny area (as recent debates on restricting certain treatments/procedures to alcoholics/smokers have shown). It can be avoided by highlighting the positive cost-benefit analysis of treatment versus continuation of chaotic drug use.

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6




Online July 2007...
print copies in the office on Monday!

Finding common ground: the principles of drug policy

Extract 6 from Transform's upcoming publication: After the war on Drugs, Tools for the Debate...

The first step towards establishing useful common ground is to point out that there are aims of drug policy and principles under which it should operate, that everyone in this debate can agree on. The principles and aims listed below will not meet with substantial disagreement (with some specific exceptions – see notes) and as such can successfully provide the starting point for more constructive debate between the advocates of alternative policy positions.

Establishing agreement on these fundamentals will allow you to maintain some control over the debate, defuse the anticipated tensions, appeal to the shared concerns of all participants, and create some breathing room in which a meaningful discussion can take place. From this point the debate can develop in a more constructive and rational way towards asking which policy alternatives are likely to bring about these policy aims we all seek.

(A table appended at the end of the guide uses these common ground principles and aims as the basis for a more detailed point by point critique of prohibition, and case for reform)

• All drugs are potentially dangerous, and all drug use is intrinsically risky
  

Making this point clear early on immediately establishes distance between you and any preconceptions about the law reform position being ‘pro-drug’ (a meaningless term anyway) or somehow ‘defending’ drugs or suggesting they are safe or cool. It also takes the sting out of many anti-regulation/legalisation arguments that revolve around shock/horror facts and anecdotes about how dangerous drug use is. As we will see later, the fact that drugs are potentially dangerous is at the core of the argument for their effective regulation.

• Drug policy should be based on evidence of effectiveness

This is the standard pragmatist’s argument, usefully engaging with the policy maker’s language and concern with ‘what works?’. It is a key point to emphasise, firstly because no-one can seriously make a rational argument against it (that we either shouldn't’t consider the evidence or that policy should be based on evidence of ineffectiveness), and secondly because it draws the debate away from the ideological fault lines, and towards the reality of prohibition’s failure. Emphasising evidence of effectiveness is a key part of re-conceptualising the debate as a rational/scientific one rather than a moral/ideological one.

• Drug policy should offer good value for money

This is essentially the same as the above principle that drug policy should be based on evidence of effectiveness, but has a more direct appeal to people’s pockets: both policy makers who have to decide how to allocate limited budgets, and the wider public who, as tax payers, are the ones funding drug prohibition in the first instance.

Emphasising this principle is another useful way of focusing debate on policy outcomes (rather than processes) and evidence of effectiveness. Because enforcement-led policy offers stunningly poor value for money – it is hugely expensive and creates further costs to society – economics is very fertile territory for arguing the reform position.

• Policy should be based on reality and adapt to changing circumstances

This principle also follows from broader pragmatic argument, but is worth spelling out. What seems obvious for all policy - that it should be based on reality - is less clear for the prohibitionist paradigm, the goals of which remain intimately entwined with a mission to promote abstinence and regulate pleasure.

Given society’s deep rooted dependencies on alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs (not to mention numerous other ‘vices’ and ‘sinful’ pleasures) the idea that we can become free of precisely those drugs whose effects are pleasurable becomes an absurdity. But prohibition and its legal structures remain rooted in these puritanical principles, despite the fact that the social landscape has changed beyond recognition in the 50 years or so since the UN drug conventions were drafted. Furthermore, these conventions were drafted, largely at the behest of the US, to deal with a marginal drug problem largely confined to ethnic minorities and career criminals, not the huge swathes of the population who use illicit drugs today.

• Drug policy is primarily a public health issue

This is a more contentious point to make and is developed later in the guide. However, if you do succeed in moving the debate towards your position that drugs are primarily a public health issue, the prohibitionists are obliged to argue why it shouldn't’t be – or, more specifically, why certain drugs should be dealt with as a public health issue (e.g. Alcohol) and others primarily as criminal activity(see ‘the fault lines within existing policy’).

• Policy should seek to reduce drug related harm

Again this may prove more contentious. Transform maintain that the overarching aim of drug policy should be to minimise harm and maximise well being. Within this overarching objective we can identify a number of specific aims to reduce harms related to drug production, supply and use, with success measured against relevant indicators (including reduction in demand/use).

Prohibitionists traditionally maintain that the aim of policy is to reduce the use of drugs and ultimately to achieve a drug free society. This aim sometimes has the feel of religious dogma – a commandment to which all policy aims must remain loyal, if the promised land of the drug free world is to be attained. It is important to point out that some ‘drug related harms’ are associated with drug use and misuse itself, while others are specifically created or exacerbated by the enforcement of prohibitionist policy and law (e.g. reusing dirty needles, crime to support an illegal drug habit). Consequently, reducing specific prohibition-related harms feature within the aims of drug policy reform, but become a thing of the past under a legally regulated regime. As an analogy, reducing car exhaust emissions would no longer be an aim of transport policy if everyone was driving solar powered electric cars.

As you engage in the debate try to keep this distinction in mind, making it clear that there is a difference between the aims of drug policy reform, (essentially to remove the harms created by prohibition), and the aims of drug policy itself (to maximise well-being and minimise health and social harms related to drug use and misuse). This also helps to highlight how, when prohibition is replaced, we will be in a far better position to address the underlying social ills that fuel most problematic drug use.

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5




online July 2007...

Finding common ground in the drugs debate

Extract 5 from Transform's upcoming publication: After the War on Drugs - Tools for the Debate...

Finding Common Ground - bringing the two sides in the drugs debate together

The fault lines in the drug debate (outlined here and here) have, in Transform’s experience, held back the drug policy debate for many years. Too often, particularly in the media, complex issues are reduced to a knockabout between the hard-line prohibitionist ‘drug warriors’ on one side and the ‘liberal’ reformers or ‘legalisers’ on the other.

Participants on both sides of the fault line have often been guilty of misunderstanding and misrepresenting each others’ positions, rarely showing any willingness to listen or give ground. The result is a repetitive debate that invariably creates more heat than light and never progresses beyond conflict or stalemate. This polarization (often driven by the media’s desire to present a clash between strongly contrasting views) is a barrier to reform, and must be overcome before real change can take place. Progress requires the two apparently irreconcilable sides of this debate to find some common ground and adopt a new language that will enable meaningful dialogue. This chapter aims to show how to find common ground in the debate about the aims and principles of an effective drugs policy (coming to the blog later this week...).

In reality the policy debate is nowhere near as black and white as the media debate portrays it to be. It is not a battle between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ drug campaigners, left and right, liberals and conservatives, or any other stark binary choice. It needs to become a rational, intelligent and sophisticated debate over the range of policy alternatives for addressing the issues of drugs in society.

It is important, therefore, should you be engaging in this debate in the media or any public forum, not to let yourself be pushed in the direction of a polarised emotive debate merely for sake of audience entertainment. Whilst there does exist a broad spectrum of views (from extreme authoritarian prohibition to extreme freemarket legalisation) almost everybody, including Transform, lies somewhere between the two, usually nearer the middle - and each other – than at either extreme.

Transform advocates the regulated central point on this graphic model – on the basis that this is the one that causes the least harm. This guide is about making the case for that position It is important to note that the different sides of this debate do not equate easily to broader political or ideological fault lines. The status quo / reform fault line is not simply the authoritarian / libertarian divide, nor the right-wing / left-wing divide, nor the socially conservative / socially liberal divide. This is a simplistic analysis, shaped largely by the media’s need for dialectical drama. Drug policy reform is supported by prominent thinkers and intellectuals from across the political spectrum, from Noam Chomsky to Milton Friedman, from members of all major parties in the UK and in the US, and from countries with a wide range of social, economic, political and cultural landscapes (again, see the Transform archive of supporters of reform). Some advocates of reform envisage replacing prohibition with a libertarian regime, others with draconian forms of social control. The reform argument itself is non partisan – it is simply a pragmatic position led by evidence of effectiveness and public health / harm reduction principles. Calling for legally regulated drug markets is actually the rational and moderate position between the ideological poles of absolute prohibition and free market libertarianism.

The suggestion that the drug law reform movement intends to ‘liberalise’ or ‘relax’ the drug laws is a common misconception that must be challenged. Advocates of law reform want more control and regulation of drug markets, not less. We are specifically calling for more and better regulation, and are specifically critical of the deregulation and lack of control that prohibition creates.

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4




online July 2007...