Transform's submission to the Drugs Strategy Consultation

The summary and conclusions are copied below, the full document (in Pdf format) is available here. 

Transform has a number of serious concerns about the consultation process and the contents of the consultation paper itself. These concerns are explored first with reference to the consultation document where relevant, and the Governments consultation code of practice. We then highlight and discuss key areas of policy that are absent from the consultation. 

On the specific questions in the consultation document not covered in this response Transform wishes to endorse the detailed submissions made by Release ( www.release.org ) and UKHRA / NNEF. (www.ukhra.org ) 

Summary: 

The consultation does not adhere to the first three criterion of the Government’s consultation code of practice regarding when to consult, duration of the consultation, or clarity and scope of impact.

There is no Impact Assessment for proposed policy changes, or research data / analysis presented in support of any proposals.

Key areas of the public policy debate are entirely absent from the consultation, specifically:

• Harm reduction – a key pillar of UK drug policy receives no mention 
  
• Sentencing / decriminalisation – the growing body of evidence, high level backing and active public debate are ignored
  
•  Supply side enforcement – its efficacy is unquestioned (despite the absence of evidence) and its impacts unexplored
  
• The classification system / ACMD – none of the high profile public debates and controversies on this important issue are addressed
  
• International drug policy – there is no mention of or engagement with the international dimension of UK drug policy
  
• Evaluative framework – there is no engagement with how policy should be evaluated – regards targets, KPIs and or how they should be prioritised
  
• Tobacco – there are many mentions of alcohol, but none of the drug associated with the greatest number of addictions and chronic deaths in the UK

 

Discussion / Conclusions 

There are some positive things in this consultation. We are pleased to see the call for ‘a more holistic approach with drugs issues being assessed and tackled alongside other issues such as alcohol abuse, child protection, mental health, employment and housing’.

Transform have long argued that levels of problematic drug use primarily reflect a complex interplay social, economic and cultural variables. In addition to those above we would certainly include social deprivation, inequality and broader measures of personal and social wellbeing. The corollary of this, of course, is that the impact of drug policy as traditionally conceived (prevention, treatment, and enforcement) should not be overestimated and may be marginal, in many cases irrelevant, relative to the underlying social determinants of drug using behaviours.

This analysis – that problematic use is essentially a barometer of a social wellbeing (or lack of) - has obvious implications for longer term prevention and harm reduction strategies. It suggests that success is likely to flow more from investment in social capital and addressing multiple deprivation and inequality issues, particularly as they affect young people, rather than from pouring ever more money into more conventional interventions that are poorly supported by evidence. 

Whilst conventional drug policy may only be able to achieve, at best, fairly marginal impacts on prevalence of problematic use, the overarching prohibitionist legal framework can, however, have a dramatic impact on levels of harm associated with drug use. This can be both by increasing health risks associated with use, and through the wider social harms created or exacerbated by the illegal drug market. 

This goes to the heart of the drug policy and law reform position that Transform represents; a pragmatic position that accepts both the reality of demand for drugs as it currently exists, and that this demand will be met by illegal supply routes if no legally regulated supply option exists. Drug markets can be controlled and regulated by governments or by gangsters; there is no third option that involves a drug free society. 

We argue that legally regulating drug production, supply and use (as detailed in ‘After the War on Drugs; Blueprint for Regulation’) would deliver better outcomes than the anarchic criminal free for all and underground drug culture we currently have. The pragmatic mindset also requires that whilst we acknowledge  most people do not use illegal drugs, we must also acknowledge that most of those who do, do so relatively responsibly. Their use is not associated with significant personal or social harms, and as such should not be deemed problematic. Of people (globally) who report using illegal drugs in the last year The UNODC only describes 5% as problematic users. It is important to be mindful of the 95% of non-problematic users who do not need treatment – let alone criminal sanction.

Whilst there is a welcome and growing acknowledgement that treatment, prevention and education should be are tailored to individual and local needs - prohibition remains a blunt, inflexible and indiscriminate legislative tool, an absolutist position that criminalises all users regardless of their impact on themselves or those around them, similarly forcing all supply in the hands of criminal profiteers.

The reform position has its roots in the critique of the failings of this approach – both on its own terms, and regards the secondary unintended harms of the illegal trade it fuels. As has been alluded to in this response, the prohibitionist paradigm cannot stand scrutiny, which is at least part of the reason why scrutiny has been so studiously avoided for so long. Indeed the ‘war on drugs’ has required a monumental propaganda effort to sustain it – just as many other wars have.

We only need cast our minds back to the farcical drug strategy consultation of 2007. It was supported by a consultation document described by the ACMD thus:

"it is unfortunate that the consultation paper’s ‘key facts and evidence’ section appears to focus on trying to convince the reader of success and progress; rather than providing an objective review and presentation of the current evidence. The ACMD found the consultation paper self-congratulatory and generally disappointing.’

‘It is of concern that the evidence presented, and the interpretation given, are not based on rigorous scrutiny.'

Of the same document the Government’s own Statistics Commission similarly accused the Home Office of spinning the data to make it look more favourable and failing to ‘provide a balanced presentation of the relevant statistical and other evidence’. 

 

Meanwhile a rigorous and critical ‘value for money’ study (referred to on page 10) that informed the Home Office’s internal review was not made publicly available – only emerging this year following an absurdly protracted 3-year FOI battle with Transform. 

Many the problems with that ill fated consultation (regards process, content and transparency) have unfortunately now been repeated, although this time around we do not even have crudely spun evidence to criticise – there is simply none.
 

This is why the core of our call in this response is to return to the evidence; to have, if you will forgive the oft-misused political clichés, a ‘mature and rational debate’ about ‘what works’.

But this time with all options on the table.
 

This requires open, honest and ongoing evaluation, and as a starting point; independently overseen Impact Assessments of all policies and legislation, new and old (including the MDA 1971). 

In terms of the general mindset, this will entail a move from misplaced moralising and outdated (but entrenched) drug war ideologies to pragmatic public health and social policy norms. If the Government follow the evidence it can only lead to better policies and the better outcomes we all seek. We are confident that if this happens it will only lead in one direction – and it will not be towards criminalisation and prohibition. 

Sadly this consultation falls short on almost every front – it is tokenistic, politicised, and entirely inadequate for the reasons outlined. It is more than a missed opportunity; it is entirely unacceptable as a basis for developing a new drug strategy. We therefore recommend that it be reviewed by the Cabinet Office (and will be requesting this from the Cabinet Minister) with a view to being re-launched. The new consultation process should address the identified shortcomings by adhering to the Government code of practice, including evidential support and Impact Assessments for all proposals, and covering all aspects of UK drug policy of concern to stakeholders.

Transform submission to Consultation on Sentencing For Drug Offences

Last week we submitted our response to the Sentencing Advisory Panel's Consultation on Sentencing For Drug Offences. It asks some fundamental questions about the premises on which the recommendations for change are based. Read the full Transform submission here.

For useful companion documents see the detailed legal dissection and discussions, see Release's submission here and the UKDPC submission here.

New consultation on drug sentencing guidelines

The Sentencing Advisory Panel (sap) has published a consultation paper relating to the sentencing of the most commonly committed drug offences - deadline for submissions is 15th July.

The panel recognises that, 'the courts approach to sentencing for supplying drugs has been driven by the desire to provide a deterrent effect. However, there is no evidence to show that lengthy sentences have the desired deterrent effect and research suggests that drug barons are more concerned about the loss of their assets than the threat of imprisonment.'

The deterrent effects of prohibition are poorly supported by the evidence. The response of Government to questioning on these claimed benefits has been to restate a ‘belief’ in such effects rather than to produce any evidence to support them. No research in this area has been commissioned or published by Government despite its centrality to the entire prohibitionist paradigm, and public commitments to do so. The limited research that has been done does not demonstrate any significant regional or national correlation between the intensity of enforcement and levels of use or misuse, suggesting any deterrence effect is marginal, especially for key populations responsible for causing most harms.

Reinforcing the view that criminalisation is not the best way to deal with drug use/misuse is a recent report published by the Cato Institute that reviews the impacts of drug decriminalisation in Portugal. The paper concludes that the change in laws has been overwhemlingly successful.

'The data indicates that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although post-decriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies—such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage—have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens—enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.'

The Cato report concludes that, 'Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.'

The sap consultation document looks at drug sentencing guidelines for the most serious offences and notes that they are harsher than sentences for rape or death by dangerous driving.

'Currently, Crown Courts impose higher sentences in the most serious cases of supplying drugs than they do for cases of rape of an adult, for the most serious cases of assault and for causing death by dangerous driving.'

The panel chairman, Andrew Ashworth, said,

'our provisional view is that current sentencing levels sometimes go beyond the levels that are justified by the seriousness of individual offences. We have compared them with the starting points for other serious crimes such as rape and grievous bodily harm and we want to know what other people think about comparative levels of sentences.'

Another key issue that the panel is consulting on is the sentences given to drug couriers.

'The Panel also considers the sentencing of drug couriers who are very often naïve, vulnerable men and women from third world countries whose fates are totally disregarded by those at the top of drug supply chains. Under the current approach such couriers often serve long prison sentences while their role in criminal organisations is minor. The Panel suggests that they should be treated as “subordinates” in the supply chain. This would be likely to lead to lower sentences than those currently being imposed.'

Keith Vaz MP announced recently that the Home Affairs Select Committee would also be carrying out a 'major inquiry into drugs that will begin at the beginning of April. We will look not just at what the Government have done in this case and at classification, but at the way in which drugs enter this country and at whether the penalties are sufficient to deal with what has been an increase in the availability of cannabis and other drugs. It will be a long inquiry and will be concluded at the end of the year, and we are willing and eager to have evidence and views from all political parties.'

Whilst Transform welcomes any consultation that commits itself to reviewing the evidence regarding the enforcement of prohibition, the narrow parameters of the sentencing guidelines consultation do not allow it to go far enough, and the HASC inquiry will not be much better as it will be limited to reviewing the status quo rather than looking at alternatives to the prohibitionist framework. What is needed is an open and honest public consultation on the wide-ranging effects of criminalising drug users as part of a impact assessment on the costs of prohibition for society.

Transform submission to the DoH alcohol policy consultation

Transform have made a submission to the latest DoH consultation on Alcohol policy, a section of which is copied below. The complete submission is available here (pdf). The submission includes some broader political discussion points:

• The negative influence of the alcohol industry on implementation of public health based regulation.
  
  
• The Government’s historic failure to stand up to industry pressure, or undertake the potentially unpopular regulatory measures required
  
  
• The anomalous status of alcohol policy, relative to a) tobacco policy and b) illegal drug policy

It includes an endorsement of the Alcohol Concern submission regarding answers to the specific questions posed as well as some additional recommendations on alcohol pricing and drink driving limits (neither covered in the consultation document), advertising/marketing controls, and product labeling.

• Government relations with a profit-making drug industry

The alcohol industry has fought tighter regulation at every juncture, with current and previous Governments evidently all too willing to prioritise industry interests over the concerns of the Royal Colleges of Medicine, The British Medical Association, numerous public health bodies and independent NGO’s, not to mention the overwhelming weight of published scientific research and epidemiological evidence. The current failing state of alcohol controls are a shameful testimony of the systematic failure of government to stand up to vested interests in the alcohol industry and their substantive lobbying resources, combined with an inability to demonstrate principled leadership and pursue public health policies that might incur short term political costs.

As with the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry is solely profit-motivated and therefore public health issues become a concern only when they threaten to impact on the bottom line. The industry will always to strive to concede as little market control to regulators as possible by deploying a now familiar menu of faux outrage and populist posturing (the nanny state against ‘a man’s right to have a drink in the pub’ etc.), dubious science (creating the false impression there is a genuine debate or controversy over issues like the efficacy of price and advertising controls), and token gestures (such as ending branding of child sport replica kits, setting up www.drinkaware.co.uk etc.). These efforts have been startlingly effective at distracting from, or delaying any meaningful regulatory legislation and have successfully kept what regulation has been passed at a voluntary level, meaning it can largely be ignored or sidelined to the point of being almost completely ineffectual.

The alcohol industry as a whole will never willingly accept any policies involving increased or stricter regulation that leads to a substantial decrease in consumption - as this will obviously lead to a consequent decrease in profits. Yet this is exactly what is required if issues of binge drinking and problem drinking in particular are to be addressed. It is important to remember that problematic and binge drinking constitute a significant proportion of alcohol industry profits; they are, quite simply, hugely profitable market sectors. Going on past experience - which demonstrates much of the industry not only avoiding the issue but actively encouraging unhealthy (but profitable) drinking behaviours - we have no reason to believe the alcohol industry when they claim to be serious about reducing such problems. Transform recommend that in the future they are kept at arms length in all development of public health policy and that some form of independent scrutiny of industry lobbying is established (and made public). The time for voluntary regulation of alcohol marketing has passed – it was a doomed experiment that has transparently failed on all fronts. The industry has held the balance of power in the policy-making equation for far too long, with systematic policy failures and disastrous public health outcomes there for all to see. It is time the brief was taken away from those that profit from maximising consumption and is returned to the public health experts whose goal is to minimise harm.

• Alcohol and tobacco policy

Some comparisons between alcohol and tobacco policy are appropriate here. Whilst there are obviously differences in how each should be approached, in many key respects research from around the world illustrates that the basic regulatory principles and public health approaches that underlie them are remarkably similar – for example regards price controls, controls on marketing and promotion, controls on availability, and controls on where and when they may be consumed. Yet developments in alcohol policy seem to be lagging at least 10 to 15 years behind progress on tobacco regulation. Whilst tobacco policy is delivering dramatic improvements in public health outcomes, the situation with alcohol is deteriorating.

The reasons for this disparity are hard to fathom, after all, tobacco industry lobbying was arguably no less ferocious or well funded 10 or 15 years ago than today’s alcohol lobbying and PR machine. We can only assume that it is an issue of political fear, and that a failure of leadership is primarily to blame. These fears appear to be two fold; firstly the negative public reaction to increased prices and other regulatory market restrictions, and secondly concerns about potential negative consequences for the alcohol industry itself, which, we are informed in the consultation document’s second paragraph, turns over £40 billion a year, whilst creating only £20 billion in health and social harms. Maybe from a certain perspective this constitutes a reasonable piece of political maths, but from any ethical or public health analysis – it is entirely unacceptable.

This baffling situation begs the question of how bad the public health crisis with alcohol misuse must become before it is taken anything like as seriously as tobacco?

Gordon Brown demonstrates safe, sensible and social drug use

Related blog posts:

Transform submission to the DoH consultation on the future of tobacco control
related themes are tackled

The fault lines in current drug policy
comparing approaches to alcohol and illegal drugs

Another alcohol strategy: fine words, but spineless
commentary on the June 2005 alcohol strategy this latest consultation is a follow up to

Why pulling alcohol ads from kids replica kits is nowhere near enough
a rant about the cynical alcohol industry

Government complicity in the alcohol marketing scandal
the industry couldn't have got away with it for so long without a bit of help

Supercasinos, drugs, and alcohol prohibtion: more than a whiff of ministerial hypocrisy
our leaders just haven't figured out how to be consistent when regulating 'vice'

Transform submission to the DoH consultation on tobacco control

Transform's have made a submission to the Department of Health's consultation on the future of tobacco control. The complete pdf of Transform's submission is available here, the introduction and one of the discussion points, on the wider implications of tobacco control policy, are copied below.

Introduction

Transform welcomes this consultation as timely, thorough and thoughtful, and hope that it will allow us to build on the recent achievements made in tobacco policy with more appropriate targeted regulation based around evidence of effectiveness on key public health indicators.

• Following a dialogue with Action on Tobacco and Health (ASH) Transform fully endorse ASH’s detailed submission (1) to this consultation and its answers to the individual questions posed.
  
  
• Transform also fully endorse the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control (2) signed by the UK in 2003

In addition to this endorsement of the ASH submission we include some additional comments on overlooked elements of issues relating to tobacco harm reduction that are relevant to Question 17 (3) in the consultation document.

Transform would also like to present some additional discussion points not directly addressed in the consultation document regarding:

• Possibilities for a more radical restructuring of tobacco market regulation
  
  
• Discrepancies between alcohol and tobacco policy development
  
  
• The wider issues raised around drug policy and how to regulate drugs

The wider issues raised around drug policy and how to regulate drugs

All drugs, whether currently legal or illegal, need to be subject to the optimum level of regulation such that harms, both to individual users and the wider community are minimised and wellbeing maximised. Better regulation of tobacco is now delivering positive public health benefits, and as we argue above, it is hoped, and indeed seems likely, that these lessons will soon be translated into more effective regulation of alcohol markets.

However, it is hard to ignore the fact that such regulatory interventions, on price, packaging, availability, ingredients/strength, marketing etc, and the positive outcomes they can demonstrably deliver are entirely beyond the reach of government when it comes to drugs covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act. Responsibility for control of illegal drug markets was abdicated to criminal networks and unregulated street dealers when they were subject to absolute prohibitions against their production, supply and use, enforced with criminal law.

The distinction between legal and illegal drugs is not based on any rational evaluation of harms, but rather is a quirk of our political and cultural histories over the last 200 years. Indeed a recent Lancet paper (4) ranked alcohol and tobacco as more harmful than many illegal drugs.

The disjuncture between how we approach legal and illegal drugs is entirely illogical, and the case for all drugs to be regulated within a single regulatory framework, by a single regulatory agency, using a consistent set of evidence-based public health principles/tools seems overwhelming. Why are alcohol and tobacco the primary concern of the DoH, whereas over 200 illicit drugs are covered by the Home Office? It is a quite bizarre and untenable situation. Even the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the body of experts appointed to advise Government on drugs issues recently argued that:

"As their actions are similar and their harmfulness to individuals and society is no less that that of other psychoactive drugs, tobacco and alcohol should be explicitly included in the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (5)"

Transform argues that the sorts of questions being asked about appropriate levels of legal regulation and state intervention in the tobacco and alcohol consultations are precisely those we should be asking for currently illegal drugs. The current anomalous legislative framework however, completely denies us this opportunity and there is a striking and depressing contrast between the public health pragmatism of these DoH documents and the shallow politically-driven criminal justice posturing that characterised last year’s disgraceful drug strategy consultation (6). The DoH should unambiguously assert that drug policy is primarily a public health issue and is should therefore be the primary responsibility of the DoH and relevant public health authorities.

No credible calls have been made for an outright ban on tobacco, or for it to criminalised and brought within the Misuse of Drugs Act. Indeed, when the then Home Secretary, John Reid, was asked on the Jeremy Vine radio show (BBC Radio 2, 11.11.04) if he supported such a ban he replied:

“Prohibition doesn’t work, as the US found out many years ago.”

---

[1] http://www.smokefreeaction.org.uk/news/ASH_DH_Consultation_tobacco_control_final.pdf

[2] http://www.who.int/features/2003/08/en/

[3] Do you support a harm reduction approach and if so can y9ou suggest how it should be developed and implemented.

[4] Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse . The Lancet , Volume 369 , Issue 9566 , Pages 1047 - 1053 D . Nutt , L . King , W . Saulsbury , C . Blakemore.

[5] Pathways to Problems 2006 http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/pathways-to-problems/Pathwaystoproblems.pdf

[6] Discussed in more detail in the submissions from Transform: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_DrugStategyConsultationSubmission.htm and the Drugs and Health Alliance: http://drugshealthalliance.net/documents/consultation_submission.php

Transform in the Economist: FOI documents hit the media

I'm pleased to see that a cost effectiveness report (looking at the CSR targets for the drug strategy) released by the Home Office following a Freedom of Information request from Transform has received its first media attention in the Economist. The report in question can be read on the Transform website here. As the quote provided in the piece indicates, there is, in some respectrs, a bigger story here than the revealing analysis in the report itself. There have been more recent CSR reports that the Government have specifically refused to release on dubious grounds. The Home Office also undertook a Value for Money study on the various strands of the strategy spending last year - that they have also refused to publish or release, despite our FOI requests.

This suppression of this information is particularly galling given that last year we had the 10 year strategy review and consultation process - for which this sort of objective cost benefit analysis is absolutely vital. Instead we got the ridiculous rose tinted propaganda piece that was the strategy consultation document - about which Transform and various high level Whitehall authorities have already made their views abundantly clear.

Whatever your policy views, it is hard to see how restricting information and analysis on what has worked and what hasn't in the strategy (and how much it has all cost), is in anyones' interest apart from ministers trying to hide failure and avoid embarrassment. It is, quite simply, a total disgrace, and as time will no doubt show, deceit tends to be uncovered and the trouble caused by it far worse than that would have been caused by telling the truth in the first place.

click to read the pdf

More to follow including a Transform briefing next week and more media coverage over the weekend.

Transform in the Guardian: drug consultation dodgy dossier again

Some not-so-festive cheer for the Home Office as the high level Whitehall bodies seem to lining up to point a finger at its drug strategy consultation document and say; 'hang on a second, that's complete rubbish'

• First it received a pasting in the House of Lords from a selection of distinguished peers. (read the gory details here)

• Then from the Government's own appointed committee of experts, the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (which, ironically enough, operates within the Home Office), that noted in its submission to the consultation that:

"it is unfortunate that the consultation paper’s ‘key facts and evidence’ section appears to focus on trying to convince the reader of success and progress; rather than providing an objective review and presentation of the current evidence. The ACMD found the consultation paper self-congratulatory and generally disappointing.

It is of concern that the evidence presented, and the interpretation given, are not based on rigorous scrutiny."

• And now from the Statistics Commission following a complaint from Transform.

For those not familiar with the Statistics Commission it was set up in June 2000 to 'help ensure that official statistics are trustworthy and responsive to public needs', to 'give independent, reliable and relevant advice' and by so doing to 'provide an additional safeguard on the quality and integrity' of official statistics.
Transform's complaint was made on the basis of our analysis of the statistics in the consultation document Drugs: Our Community, Your Say. You can read this detailed critique in the Transform briefing: Drug policy 1997-2007: the evidence unspun and discussion in the Transform submission to the consultation.

As reported in today's Guardian the complaint has been largely upheld:

Whitehall accused of drugs cover-up

· Watchdog asks officials to rethink use of statistics
· Document obscures policy failures, say campaigners

Duncan CampbellThe Guardian Monday December 24 2007

The Home Office has been accused of misusing its statistics on drugs in order to cover up failures in policy. The independent body responsible for providing and assessing government statistics has now asked the Home Office to "carefully consider" its handling of the figures.

In July the Home Office released a consultation paper - Drugs: Our Community, Your Say. It contained a section called "key facts and evidence" in the annexe which put a very positive gloss on the government's policies. Other statistics indicating that the government had failed to achieve its targets were obscured, according to drug reformers. Danny Kushlick, director of the campaigning Transform Drug Policy Foundation, complained to the Statistics Commission. The chairman of the commission, Prof David Rhind, accepted many of his points and has asked the Home Office to explain itself.

"We think that most people would expect it [the annexe to the document] to provide a balanced presentation of the relevant statistical and other evidence," Rhind said in a letter to Sir David Normington, permanent secretary at the Home Office. "This particular annexe is more like a briefing document. Where a target has been met or exceeded, as is the case with the target to increase participation of problem drug users in treatment programmes, this is highlighted ... but where the target has been missed or seems likely to be missed the relevant information is presented in a low-key way without acknowledging that a target exists."
Rhind added that "issues of public trust in official statistics" have recently been considered by parliament. He has suggested that the Home Office should "carefully consider" the criticisms.
Kushlick said the Home Office's use of statistics was a symptom of the government's refusal to accept that its drugs policy was not working.
The government had failed to achieve its target of reducing class A drug use among young people but failed to mention this, he said.
He added: "One of the outcomes of the government's unwillingness to allow public scrutiny of the overwhelmingly negative outcomes of current policy is that the debate on potential alternatives to prohibition are dismissed as unnecessary and irrelevant. This is despite the 10-year drug strategy delivering almost the exact opposite of its stated goals, costing billions a year, and creating over £100bn more in crime costs over the past decade, according to the government's own figures."
A Home Office spokeswoman said that it had responded to Rhind's letter and stood by the statistics quoted "which are an accurate reflection of current progress with the existing drug strategy".
She added: "The Home Office takes very seriously the need to ensure that we always publish accurate and robust data ... we are making progress in reducing all drug use amongst young and vulnerable people.

"The level of class A drug use has stabilised, and is therefore not increasing. In order to fully meet our target of reducing this class A drug use by young and vulnerable people a cross-government action plan has been developed to improve prevention, education and access to treatment."

here's the complete letter for your reading displeasure:

Its something of a shame that this story emerges only on Christmas Eve when it is unlikely to get much political traction as the drug policy world, with a few sad exceptions like myself, are wrapping presents and basting the turkey.

But the sham consultation is now threatening to cause far more trouble for the Home Office than they evidently hoped to avoid with it in the first place (by shamelessly dressing up the failures of the past decade as success with ridiculously rose-tinted nonsense like Drugs: Our Community , Your Say.)

It should have been called Drugs: Our Propaganda, Your Say* (*will be ignored).

The whole sorry saga looks set to continue into the New Year as the Home Office continue to stubbornly defend their hopelessly misleading cherry picked interpretation of the statistics as the Home Office representative quoted in the Guardian seems determined to do. There have been three highly critical national media stories (two in the Observer and now in Guardian) on this already, and there is much more to come in the New Year (oh yes), not to mention the growing possibility of a Judicial Review forcing the Home Office into the humiliation of having to do the consultation all over again. Properly.

Its all completely unnecessary of course (and I, for one, would much rather be drinking sherry and singing Carols around the piano with my granddad). This isn't about point scoring, its about coming up with effective responses to the drug related problems we face. It doesn't matter what your policy position is in the drugs debate, one thing is absolutely certain: it is in no ones interest to have debate or policy making on the basis of misrepresented data and politically tainted Home Office propaganda. This is one issue on which we should all have a policy of zero tolerance.

Further reading:

Lords savage drug strategy consultation, and debate prohibition

Observer: Drugs strategy debate 'is a sham'

ACMD attacks drugs strategy consultation

DHA publishes drugs strategy consultation submission (NGO coalition critical of the consultation document)

Drugs prohibition is a 'policy of mass destruction' and the consultation document is a 'dodgy dossier'

.

Drugs prohibition is a “policy of mass destruction” and the consultation document is a “dodgy dossier”

News release
No Embargo
Date: Monday 22 October 2007

The Government's consultation on the last ten years of its drug strategy and its future, finished last week (Friday 19 October). As part of its submission Transform uses correspondence from officials, previously not in the public domain, to illustrate the Government's knowledge that its support for drugs prohibition creates significant harms. The submission can be read here (pdf)

The submission demonstrates how the Government:

• manipulated the entire consultation to close down genuine debate on drug policy
• set the framework in such a way as to have determined the outcome before the consultation had even finished
• ignored ten years of constant criticism of its drug policy
• hid internal reports critical of prohibition
• treats criticism of drug policy with disdain and contempt
• refuses to evaluate prohibition
• is a hostage to US inspired geopolitical forces
• uses drug policy for electioneering

This is despite the fact that the Government admits that prohibition itself is a significant cause of harm. In a letter to Transform's Director Danny Kushlick in Oct 2005, Foreign Office Minister of State the Rt Dr Hon Kim Howells MP wrote:

“Prohibition of course gives rise to illicit trafficking and use and a range of problems associated with those.”

And in a letter to Dr John Marks from the Home Office Direct Communications Unit in September 2007, they admitted that:

“…it is likely that there would be a reduction in acquisitive crime, if drugs were legalised…”

The implication of which is that the Government admits that prohibition creates acquisitive crime. Home Office estimates suggest that crime costs associated with prohibited drugs are about £15 billion a year.

The letter to Dr Marks goes on to say:

“The Government is aware of the arguments for legalising controlled drugs in a regulated way and has concluded that the disadvantages would outweigh the benefits.”

These deliberations on cost benefit analysis have never been made public and, suggest that “arguments” have taken precedence over evidence.

Transform's submission concludes that political parties will not engage in genuine debate and that it is up to individuals from every walk of life to challenge drug policy spin and debate the issue in their workplaces, professional bodies and social circles to avoid another ten years of self inflicted disaster.

Danny Kushlick, Transform Director, said:

“The consultation should have been a thoroughgoing review of the policy making process and the impact that policy has in the everyday world. In the event, it turned out to be a sham. The consultation document is another dodgy dossier. It contained no proposals, breaking one of the fundamental rules for consultations. The document was the most blatant propaganda we have yet seen to support ten more years of prohibition. During the process Gordon Brown announced that cannabis law would be changed and that drugs will never be decriminalised. Lastly, the Government targets were announced, predetermining that the entire framework for future policy development would be unchanged.

“We have an enormous amount of evidence now to show that the Government is in full possession of the facts that the policy of prohibition of currently illegal drugs is the significant driver for harms associated with their production, supply and use. Prohibition is a policy of mass destruction, from Afghanistan and Colombia to London and Liverpool. Transform's submission contains extracts from previously unreleased correspondence from the Foreign Office and the Home Office demonstrating that both departments admit that prohibition causes great harms but that neither are willing to contemplate change. This intransigence is despicable, given the level of chaos and misery associated with the illegal drug market. The correspondence quoted above demonstrates that Government drug policy is explicitly based upon claims to have won an “argument”, rather than evidence. Whilst Government uses primary school debating society rhetoric to decide its drug policy, huge swathes of the global population die or live in misery and degradation as a result.

“In the absence of political parties' willingness to enter into genuine debate, it falls to institutions and individuals outside of government to throw down the gauntlet. Significantly the press has played an enormously valuable role in raising a debate where Westminster has obstinately refused. We believe that this will remain the case for the foreseeable future, until the counterproductive forces of prohibition bring the criminal justice system to its knees and the general public is in possession of the facts and analysis to see through the propaganda that the Government uses to support the status quo.”

Ends

Notes for Editors

Transform's submission to the consultation

The letter from the Rt Hon Kim Howells MP can be seen here

The letter to Dr John Marks can be seen here

Transform launches our latest publication ‘After the war on drugs – Tools for the debate' at Portcullis House on Wednesday 24 October. For an invite please email jane@tdpf.org.uk or call 0117 941 5810

‘Drug Policy Unspun: Overwhelming failure' is a briefing produced by Transform to counter the propaganda in the Government's consultation document. It can be seen here

Observer: Drugs strategy debate 'is a sham'

.

There was an interesting piece in yesterdays Observer newspaper, in which Transform loomed large. The item drew together three separate but related stories; The publication of the report by the Chief Constable of North Wales calling for the legalisation and regulation of drugs; the ending of the drug strategy consultation period and Transform's criticisms of the consultation and review process; and Transform's new publication 'After the War on Drugs, Tools for the Debate' which has its official launch at a Parliamentary reception later this week.

It is a welcome plug for the report and will add pressure on the Government to undertake a more meaningful review of the evidence of the last ten years than the rather preposterous piece of window dressing that we were given in the consultation document. Also look out at the end for a new entry in the all-time top ten stupid Home Office comments on drug policy, wherein we learn that legalisation of drugs can't proceed because it would be against the law. Doh!

Observer: Drugs strategy debate 'is a sham'

Think-tank says prohibition has failed and wants talks on legalisation as Home Office defends ban

Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday October 21, 2007
The Observer


The government's consultation on a new 10-year drugs strategy is a 'sham', according to one of Britain's leading think-tanks on narcotics, which warns that the current policy is fuelling a crime epidemic.

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation, the only UK organisation of its kind to advise the United Nations on such issues, will this week publish a new report claiming the current strategy has failed. The report, 'After the War on Drugs: Tools for the Debate', claims there is an urgent need for full consultation on allowing the controlled supply of illegal drugs. 'It is clear our drug policy cannot continue down the same failed path forever,' the report states. 'Prohibition's failure is now widely understood and acknowledged among key stakeholders in the debate... the political benefits of pursuing prohibition are now waning and the political costs of its continuation are becoming unsustainable.'

The report claims that drug prohibition has allowed organised crime to control the market and criminalised millions of users, putting a huge strain on the justice system. The Home Office estimates that half of all property crime is linked to fundraising to buy illegal drugs. The police claim that drug markets are the main driver of the UK's burgeoning gun culture. Official figures released last week showed that drug offences recorded by police had risen 14 per cent in April to June of this year, compared with the same period in 2006.

Politicians claim tough anti-drugs laws send clear signals to society. But Transform points to a Home Office survey, commissioned in 2000, which showed the social and economic costs of heroin and cocaine use were between £10.1 and £17.4 billion - the bulk of which were costs to the victims of drug-related crime.

'Over the course of 10 years, a series of different inquiry reports into UK drugs policy all say the same thing: the policy is malfunctioning,' said Steve Rolles, the report's author. 'They've all been blithely ignored by the government, which insists it is making progess.'

Last week, North Wales Police chief constable Richard Brunstrom said he would 'campaign hard' for drugs such as heroin to be legalised. Previously he has said that drugs laws are out of date and that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 should be replaced by a new 'Substance Misuse Act'.

Transform claims the consultation process, which finished on Friday, was designed to stifle debate on drugs policy. 'The consultation process has been a sham,' Rolles said. 'It hasn't highlighted any policies to consult on. It's becoming very clear the next 10-year strategy is going to be identical to the last one. The whole idea that there is going to be a radical change is just not the case.'

The think-tank has taken the unusual step of writing to the Better Regulation Executive, set up to ensure government runs smoothly, to complain that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is already making policy before the consultation process had finished.

The Prime Minister signalled earlier this year that the government would reclassify cannabis. He also recently insisted the government would never decriminalise drugs, something Transform argues makes a mockery of the consultation process.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: 'We have undertaken an open consultation and we welcome constructive ideas and views on how we can continue to reduce drug harm. However, the government is emphatically opposed to the legalisation of drugs which would increase drug-related harm and break both international and domestic law.'

DHA publishes drugs strategy consultation submission

The DHA today published its submission to the Government's deeply flawed consultation process. The submission can be read in full here (pdf format) (html format). Below is the accompanying covering letter.

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find enclosed/attached the submission from the Drugs and Health Alliance (DHA) to the Drug Strategy Consultation Paper 2007, Drugs: Our Community, Your Say.

The Drugs and Health Alliance (DHA) is a group of organisations and individuals who support an evidence-based, public health-led approach to dealing with illegal drugs. The consensus statement, to which all the member organisations have signed up to, is available on the DHA website: http://www.drugshealthalliance.net/ (please refer to this website for further information and a regularly updated list of member organisations).

The DHA was established in 2006/07 in part to encourage constructive input into the drug strategy review process and related consultation. As stated in the DHA consensus statement, it is our view that problems with UK drug policy ‘are perpetuated by the Government's failure to conduct an evidence based review of the progress of the UK drug strategy and its failure to consult with informed public opinion’. The DHA represents one such body of opinion.

We sincerely believed that the review and consultation process would be a genuine opportunity for open dialogue with key stakeholders, that the successes and failures of the last 10 years would be objectively reviewed, and that actual change in both the focus of policy and decision making infrastructure was a real possibility. This belief was the spur for the formation of the DHA. We have been disappointed to see that the process so far has not met any of these expectations and we have outlined our specific concerns in introduction to our submission.

We make this submission despite these concerns in the hope that the relevant policy makers will give due consideration to its contents. We also hope our concerns about the flawed review and consultation process can be responded to accordingly, by delaying the new strategy publication and instigating a process in line with what everyone in the drugs field had hoped for and expected (regardless of their policy positions).

We aim to continue with the process of engagement and would welcome the opportunity for DHA representatives to meet with relevant officials and ministers to present our ideas for achieving a more just and effective 10 year strategy that puts public health and harm reduction at the heart of policy development and implementation.

Yours faithfully, on behalf of the Drugs and Health Alliance members

Gordon Brown on Drugs: friend of the mafia, enemy of pragmatism

.
Gordon Brown has made his first big party speech as PM and has well and truly nailed his colours to the mast regards drug law reform. In a seemingly unambiguous statement he has said, amongst other comments, that:

“drugs are never going to be decriminalised.”

We’ll come to this implications of this statement in a moment but first I think it is important to point out that the Government is in the midst of a major ten-year drug-strategy policy review and consultation process (closing on October 19^th), what it claims to be the 'biggest ever public policy consultation' in its history. Now maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the words ‘consultation’ and ‘policy review’, indeed, maybe the Government should have waited a few weeks until their consultation on how to do consultations had finished and reported before undertaking the biggest one ever. That said I’m absolutely positive that a key rule is that you don’t decide on policy – and announce it publicly - before the consultation has even taken place.

Gordon has now done this twice and we should all find it profoundly troubling.

Firstly, he has let it be known he wants cannabis was to be re-re-classified, rather than merely referred to the ACMD (as he had previously announced). This is odd since the ACMD, the expert body appointed by the Government specifically to advise on nominally non-political technical matters like drug harm rankings, haven’t even begun to look at this again, let alone report back to the PM. Also odd since the (endlessly tedious) issue of cannabis reclassification was specifically added to the drug strategy consultation. Yes, the one that hasn’t closed yet and isn’t due to report its findings till next year.

Now, with today's announcement, for the second time in his short PM-ship, Brown has done it again. He has ruled out an entire swathe of policy options regarding drug law reforms something that rather goes against the 'discussing the options' spirit of a 'consultation and review' . Now, whilst admittedly contentious, the reform position is held by a significant proportion of the public and the drugs field, as well as intellectual, media, academic, political, and religious opinion. Other countries have moved in this direction with considerable success yet, apparently un-bothered by rational evaluation of evidence, Brown has not only ruled out such a move in the short or medium term, he has effectively closed down the debate FOR ALL TIME.

Now I understand Brown wants to make a high-principles political splash, and that their may be an election looming, but these announcements are frankly offensive to all the 1000s of NGOs and members of the public who have, or still are, diligently contributing their thoughts and suggestions to the drug strategy consultation process. This remains true regardless of their opinions on classification or decriminalisation: there is a serious process problem here.

As we have said, and will be saying again more vocally in the coming weeks, the drug strategy consultation is horribly flawed in its design, content and implementation, and if we are being honest, a completely fraudulent waste of time. But couldn’t they at least maintain some vague semblance of it being meaningful, or that they might have not already decided what the next drug policy was going to look like (i.e. – EXACTLY like the last one)?

There is something alarmingly arrogant and contemptuous of your 'stakeholders' about saying you are going to listen to their views, and then decreeing entire arenas of debate are closed down forever and announcing policy decisions, before even listening to their answers.

From a pragmatic perspective the decriminalisation announcement also seems a peculiar one for Brown to have singled out in his maiden speech, and has the unmistakable whiff of political positioning (not wanting to be out-DailyMailed by tough-on drugs Tories) , combined with ill-informed moral grandstanding. The rest of the speech is about things he is going to do - not stuff he wont even engage with. All very strange. Consider some of the other things he said in the speech:

"I stand for a Britain that defends its citizens and both punishes crime and prevents it by dealing with the root causes"

As Transform have argued in detail for years: prohibition directly fuels vast amounts of crime at all levels, something not even the Home Office or the previous prime minister's own advisers dispute.

"I stand for a Britain that supports as first class citizens not just some children and some families but supports all children and all families"

We all remember that biblical saying: "suffer the little children to come unto me." No Bible I have ever read says: "bring just some of the children."

Odd then that he makes such play of supporting a law that criminalises around half of all young people and a third of the adult population, including those who elected his party to power. Now that’s gratitude. Not casual criminality either, a cheeky fine or warning for example. No, if Gordon's apparent re-re-classification plan comes to fruition, cannabis possession will return to its status of incurring a prosecution, a criminal record, and a potential 7 year jail term - for about 6.2 million people in the UK if the Lancet is to be believed (including half the cabinet).

A criminal record: just what the socially excluded and marginalised young people of Britain need to help them get on in life.

I must say, I despise the hypocrisy of those who cite the bible for self-righteous political brownie points, and in the same breath are happy to indiscriminately condemn millions to the stigma of criminality and punishment for a consenting personal choice, that happens to offend their personal morality (especially given that only some drugs, for no logical reason, are deemed illegal, whilst others, equally or more harmful, remain legal…see below).

Mass criminalisation of young people, how very Christian.

"To punish the evil of drug pushers who poison our children: I want the tough new powers that have already closed over one thousand crack houses in some areas of the country to be used in all areas of the country"

Ridiculous and shameless drug war posturing. Crack use has risen consistently and dramatically throughout his Government's tenure, as well he knows, and crack is cheaper and more available than ever before. No mention of the fact that cocaine use has doubled amongst young people under Labour, or that we now top the European consumption leagues. This is classic drug war spin and misdirection (something that has characterised the entire 10 year strategy and positively infests the consultation document)

And to encourage local police to use new powers to confiscate drug profits, more of the confiscated funds will go direct to the police and local communities.

Laughable rubbish. It is the policy of prohibition which gifts the lucrative drug market to gangsters in the first place. The Government have hosed literally billions every year enforcing it and billions more each year attempting to deal with the chaos it creates. Meanwhile they pull in a couple of million a year in recovered assets. It’s a total joke to proclaim asset recovery as a central pillar of current or future policy.

To prevent addiction: we will extend drug education and expand drug treatment and we will send out a clear message that drugs are never going to be decriminalised.

Your own appointed expert advisers say drug education/prevention has been almost completely ineffectual, and recent announcements have been clear that drug treatment budgets are going to be scaled back. As for the decriminalisation announcement – well this appears to be a classic case of misappropriating the criminal justice system to send out public health messages – something it is not designed for doing and when it has been tried has been a counterproductive failure, as 40 years of a growing drug problem under prohibition demonstrate rather clearly to those with eyes/minds open.

So yes we will strengthen the police. Yes we will strengthen our laws. But preventing crime for me also means all of us as a community setting boundaries between what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour - with clear penalties for stepping over the line.

OK. That seems sensible enough, in theory.

Boundaries that reflect the words I was taught when I was young - words upon which we all know strong communities are founded: discipline, respect, responsibility

A bit school-teachery but fair enough, you are the Prime Minister I suppose

Binge drinking and underage drinking that disrupt neighbourhoods are unacceptable.

OK fine – but how come you make a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable drug use regards alcohol, but resort to the blunderbuss of indiscriminate blanket criminalisation for other drugs, Hmm? Why the moral absolutism for some drugs , but not others? (Reminds me of this.)

To punish: let me tell the shops that repeatedly sell alcohol to those who are under age - we will take your licences away.

Hang on. Why not give these ‘the evil of drug pushers who poison our children’ a walloping great big criminal record as well? Not being very consistent with your message about 'discipline respect and responsibility' now are you?

To prevent: councils should use new powers to ban alcohol in trouble spots and I call on the industry to do more to advertise the dangers of teenage drinking.

I'm forced to point out that your Government's record on alcohol advertising is a total disgrace.

So nothing new, and perhaps nothing we shouldn’t have expected, but there was brief moment when I thought that, just maybe, a new drug strategy and a new PM might herald some genuine reflection and even a reasoned debate on policy options (especially following on from an old drug strategy/PM combo that was such a complete disaster). This was particularly the case given that Brown comes from the Treasury and might have been expected to look more pragmatically at how spending on drug enforcement relates to policy outcomes.

Apparently not. Move along now, nothing has changed: if Gordon gets his way the mafia will remain in charge of the multi billion pound trade in illegal drugs.

Forever.

Legal challenges to broken Govt promises on classification review

Casey Hardison has been discussed on this blog before (here and here). He is currently serving 20 years for the manufacture of LSD, and whatever your view of his actions, there must be questions asked about a sentence - for producing psychoactive drugs to be used only by consenting adults who wanted them - that is substantially longer than most murderers and rapists.

Casey has been keeping himself busy in his legal battles, both in attempts to win his freedom, and also to challenge the illogic and injustice that underpins our drug laws. He has been supported from outside the prison gates by a group of legal experts and supporters, the unsung heroes of drug law reform. Transform has been keeping track of Casey's activities through phone calls from Casey in prison and from updates from the supporters. Most recently, August the 31st, involved a high court hearing for a judicial review of the Government's decision to abandon the promised review and consultation on the ABC drug classification system. The report from one of Casey's supporters is posted below (Transform also has the hearings Court submissions in print, available on request).

Casey is also soon to be having a High Court hearing for a judicial review of the drug strategy consultation process (again he will be appearing by video link from Swaleside prison), Casey and and friends have also made a submission to the Better Regulation Executive online consultation on conflicting regulations which you can read here. The Government response is due in 3 weeks. Some of this stuff may seem a little dense and legalese - but stick with it. This is important stuff. We will keep you posted.

report on the August 31st hearing:

Hi Steve.

Yes, the oral hearing went well apart from failing! Of course Casey will appeal, as usual.

It failed on a technicality: Casey had not sufficiently proved that Government had actually promised a classification review because he only provided one reference from Hansard (Jan 19 06). Case law says you can't get a 'legitimate expectation' from what may have been a passing comment in Parliament. BUT Casey had referred to Coaker's evidence to the SciTech Committee where Coaker said the draft consultation document was at the Home Office. Casey had told the court previously that he had tried to obtain that document but had been refused. So the Judge should have known that the Jan 19 statement was not a passing comment but a genuine promise. Casey did show that everyone else believed it was a promise, eg the Sci Tech Committee, but this is not legally sufficient. He now has extra evidence from Lords Hansard but this may not be admissible on appeal since its Casey's fault he didn't present it earlier.

Casey also believes the Judge assessed the type of legitimate expectation wrongly - I'll have to read the court transcript and case law to fully understand what this one's about.

The Judge was very impressed with Casey's concise summary and criticised the Government's side for irrelevance. Importantly the Judge does appear to have confirmed for the first time that the MDA does affect property rights - relevant to Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. The Judge also fully understood the equal treatment argument and corrected the Government's side when they suggested Casey was calling for prohibition of alcohol and tobacco by including them in the MDA.

All in all we were very pleased with the result. And the Drugs Strategy consultation JR should have a better chance of success. Casey is hoping to get professional representation for that - he realises that he can't know all the technicalities like the one that scuppered the oral hearing.

When I see the transcript I'll be able confirm or amend the above.

all the best

• Transform briefing on drug classification

blog discussion on drug classification:

• The Lancet and drug harms, missing the bigger picture
• Deterrence and the Government's insulting and intellectually bereft response to the Science and technology Committee.

Home Office refuses to release strategy evaluation research

.
As part of Transform's work on the new drug strategy and the current consultation process, we thought it would be useful to know as much possible about the old strategy, basically what research the Government had done to evaluate its effectiveness on various criteria. So on the 2nd of August we put in a Freedom of Information request to the Home Office with some nice and easy to answer questions about this.

Last week we received our reply. If I can keep you in suspense for a moment about the actual answer, the Home Office letter usefully summarizes the seven requests we made as follows:

1. supply you with a copy of any unpublished research that the Home Office has undertaken or commissioned to inform its current review of the Government's Drug Strategy;
   
   
2. supply you with details of all unpublished research undertaken or commissioned by the Home office since 1997, including research that was not completed or is still not completed, into the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the Government's Drug Strategy in preventing drug use and drug harms;
   
   
3. supply you with details of all unpublished research undertaken or commissioned by the Home office since 1997, including research that was not completed or still is to be completed, into the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the the Government's Drug strategy in reducing drug-related offending;
   
   
4. supply you with a copy of any unpublished research undertaken or commissioned by the Home Office since 1997, including research that was not completed or still is to be completed, which examines the value for money of the Government's Drug Strategy;
   
   
5. supply you with details of any unpublished research undertaken or commissioned by the Home Office since 1997, including research that was not completed or still is to be completed, into the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the Government's drug treatment programme;
   
   
6. supply you with details of any unpublished research undertaken or commissioned by the Home Office since 1997, including research that was not completed or still is to be completed, into the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the Government's drug education/prevention strategy in reducing drug use and drug related harms amongst young people; and
   
   
7. supply you with details of any unpublished options appraisals undertaken or commissioned by the Home office since 1997, including any that were not completed or are still to be completed, into the Government's Drug Strategy

All perfectly simple questions, most not even requesting copies of research, just details of what research has been done. Easy, we thought, this will take some junior staffer a few minutes to check the archives, check with the RDS and/or the relevant people who commission the research and presumably keep a record of it somewhere.

And after all, given that we are now half way through what the Government is describing as its biggest consultation ever, one that is undoubtedly costing millions, it seems entirely appropriate that all the relevant evaluation research is on the table, or at least known about. We aren't asking for CCTV from the Home Office toilets or plans for how to make nuclear weapons, just a list of research undertaken and copies of a few relevant studies (some of which we understand do exist - unpublished), to enable Transform and others to make a proper and informed response to the very important drug strategy consultation. So....

The response was that:

"We have estimated that the cost of answering your requests would exceed the £600 limit and we are therefore unable to comply with it"

It is usefully explained in the previous paragraph that:

....the Home Office is not obliged to comply with any information request where the prescribed costs of supplying you with the information exceed £600. The £600 limit applies to all central government departments and is based on work being carried out at a rate of £25 an hour, which equates to 3 1/2 days work per request.

Are we seriously to believe that the Home Office has so little clue about what research it has undertaken that it will take more than three and half days to get a simple list together, and fish out a couple of the relevant studies? To me this is barely credible, and smacks of obfuscation and delay. Presumably this recently introduced costs defence could be applied to almost any information request. Rather ridiculously the letter then goes on to inform us that:

"You should be aware that the costs in answering some of your requests [we are not told which] individually exceeded the cost limit of £600 but that we also aggregated the costs of complying as well as permitted by the Fees Regulations and that too exceeded the £600 limit."

Brilliant! So we can send them in separately and we will get the answers, or at least some of them? But no:

You may wish to consider refining your requests, particularly over the time period you have set. You should however be aware that if you break your requests down into a series of smaller requests , we might depending on the circumstances of the case, decline to answer if the aggregated costs of complying exceeds £600.

Have we stumbled into a George Orwell novel? What the Hell is going on?

We are essentially at a dead end, with the Home Office basically able to snub even the simplest of information requests with a completely non-transparent 'sorry - costs more than £600' get-out clause. We are now reduced to going through the laborious and almost certainly pointless appeals procedure that will no doubt drag on way beyond the close of the consultation period. They can spend bazillions on a flashy national consultation process but cannot be arsed to spend a couple of grand to let us know what they do about policy effectiveness.

Cynics, and I am one when it comes to Home office pronouncements on drug policy, would conclude one of the following:

1. The Home Office haven't done any evaluation at all and are stonewalling because they are embarrassed that they know nothing; or
   
   
2. The Home Office have done loads of unpublished evaluations but they are stonewalling because they are embarrassed about the fact that this research shows that their strategy (in contrast to the ludicrous spin in the consultation document) is a malfunctioning and counterproductive failure.

Personally I come down on number 2, based on the fact that we know there is unpublished research out there, combined with the almost universally critical analysis of the strategy from every serious policy review of the last 10 years, be it by the National Audit Office (treatment), the Public Accounts Committee (customs), The Home Affairs Select Committee (drug policy generally), the Science and Technology Select Committee (the classification system), The Prime Ministers Strategy Unit (drug policy generally) or numerous independent inquiries (UKDPC, RSA, Police Foundation etc) . All can be found here

For me, the idea of a 'consultation' involves open, honest and informed dialogue. The Home Office clearly does not share this view, and the drug strategy consultation is shaping up to be the shockingly bad, but perhaps fitting finale to a disastrous 10 years of drug-war madness.

more discussion of the drug strategy consultation here