Ecstasy: truth is the foremost casualty in the war on drugs

On Wednesday 11th Feb the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) will announce the outcome of its review of the classification of ecstasy, and in all likelihood will recommend it be downgraded from Class A to Class B.

A Transform spokesperson said:

“Parliament is reveling in moral grandstanding and populist posturing by eschewing the science on ecstasy. Truth is always the first casualty in any war, including the war on drugs. Given that the Government overruled the ACMD on cannabis classification, and has made it clear that whatever the evidence ecstasy’s classification won’t change, this entire exercise was doomed before it began.

“Drug prohibition is unique in the public health field in using criminal sanctions to reduce social and health harms. It is also uniquely ineffective. There is no evidence that punitive law and its enforcement has more than a marginal impact on levels of drug use or misuse.

“The Advisory Council's job is to reduce the health and social harms associated with the misuse of drugs, so it is a real concern that it is still using a system of classification that was derided comprehensively by the Science and Technology Select Committee less than two years ago. The ACMD’s time would have been far better spent conducting a fundamental review of the evidence underlying the classification system and distinguishing drug harms from harms caused by criminalisation. “

“From Transform’s perspective any reduction in unjust criminal penalties for consenting drug users would have been a positive step. But we remain deeply concerned that regardless of alphabetic classification, ecstasy will remain illegal, its users will still be subject to serious criminal sanctions, and the control of its production and supply will remain in the hands of unregulated criminal profiteers supplying pills and powders of unknown strength made with unknown ingredients.”

“Telling the truth about the harms associated with drug use compared to those caused by prohibition will remain taboo whilst the overarching commitment is to scare the public into supporting an unwinnable war on drugs.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

• Transform staff will be available for comment at the ACMD’s presentation of its ecstasy review at 11.30am Weds 11th February; The Council Room, One Great George Street, London, SW1P 3AA

Transform’s submission to the ACMD ecstasy review

Transform critique of the classification system in Drugs and Alcohol today

Science and Technology Select Committee report on the classification system

2006 Lancet paper on drug harm ranking

See also:

Ecstasy reclassification meltdown: it begins again 21.05.08

Transform submission to the ACMD ecstasy classification review

Transform have submitted a briefing to the ACMD review of the classification of ecstasy. The complete document is available here (pdf), the appended article from Drugs and Alcohol Today is available here (pdf), and the introduction, summary and conclusions are copied below. Some related issues are also discussed in an earlier blog: 'Ecstasy reclassification meltdown; it begins again'.

Introduction and summary

Transform’s response to the ACMD’s review of ecstasy operates at two levels. At one level, in the short term at least, we welcome the review as a long overdue response to the many calls(1) for the seemingly anomalous classification of ecstasy to be reviewed. From Transform’s perspective any reduction in unjust criminal penalties for consenting adult drug users is a positive step. At a more profound level, however, we remain deeply concerned that regardless of alphabetic classification, ecstasy will remain illegal, its users will still be subject to serious criminal sanctions, and the control of its production and supply will remain in the hands of unregulated criminal profiteers.

Over the past ten years Transform has argued that the absolute prohibition of drugs in the face of sustained demand inevitably leads to the creation of illicit markets that not only maximise the dangers of drugs for their users but also create a raft of secondary harms to society relating to the organized criminal networks and unregulated dealers who control the trade. There is no evidence that punitive law and its enforcement has anything other than, at best, a marginal impact on levels of drug use or misuse(2) despite the fact that the deterrent effect of the laws’ enforcement is nominally at the heart of the entire prohibitionist model. The model is unique in the public health field in deploying criminal sanctions to reduce social and health harms. It is also uniquely ineffective.

Ecstasy provides an instructive example, its use exploding in the late 80’s from almost zero in 1985 to around 2 million pills being consumed every weekend by the end of the decade, peaking in the 90’s and then falling gradually since the turn of the millennium. During this entire period ecstasy use was Class A and enforcement has not changed significantly. The recent decline in ecstasy use appears to be due to shifting youth culture, with the rise in cocaine use (also Class A for the entire period) evidently filling the void. How ecstasy is classified has been largely irrelevant but, Transform argues, the fact that it is classified within the MDA at all has had profound and dangerous implications. It is hard to imagine any scenario under which harms could be maximised further, and as such any recommendation for ecstasy’s classification maintains its absolute prohibition within the MDA and effectively perpetuates prohibition’s role in maximizing the harms associated with its production, supply and use.

This briefing explores the problems evaluating the harms of illicit ecstasy use, as well as the opportunity such a review presents to compare harms associated with illicit and licit use. It also considers the extraordinary political environment in which policy responses to ecstasy have emerged, and the Government’s unashamed anti-science posturing on the issue.

It concludes that any review of the harm of ecstasy, or indeed any illegal drug, is essentially pointless if no distinction is made between harms caused by the drug and those created and or exacerbated by its illegality. Transform has been calling for the ACMD to work at disaggregating policy harms from drug harms for some years now, maintaining that the ACMD’s continued explicit support for the criminalisation of drug production, supply and use (and failure to explore alternative regulatory options) makes them part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. Given the dramatic failure of the existing system and its appalling negative consequences (in both public health and criminal justice arenas) it is absolutely imperative that the ABC classification system itself, and the legislative framework of the MDA 1971 in which it sits, is the subject of the Advisory Council’s expert scrutiny.

Conclusions and recommendations

• In the short term, if the current review finds, as widely expected, that ecstasy is inappropriately classified in Class A then, in the context of the existing system, a recommendation for reclassification to B or C should be made.
  
  
• The ACMD’s report should also take the opportunity to make a clear recommendation for adequate resources to be put into targeted education about MDMA/ecstasy risks/harms and how they can be minimised/avoided.
  
  
• It is vital that the review report takes the opportunity to make a clear distinction between harms relating to MDMA toxicity specifically, and harms relating to use of ‘ecstasy’ when it is produced, supplied and consumed illicitly.
  
  
• Highlighting this important distinction between drug harms and harms created or exacerbated by policy will inevitably prompt a discussion of whether legally regulated production and availability of MDMA (obviously combined with the removal of all criminal sanctions for consenting adult users) would deliver better criminal justice and public health outcomes. The ACMD, as an independent voice of expertise should not shy away from such a discussion, however hysteria-inducing it may be in certain sections of Whitehall or the tabloid media. Indeed it is absolutely appropriate that the ACMD consider such matters in line with their remit to consider “restricting the availability of such drugs or supervising arrangements for their supply”, and the ACMD’s recent recommendation that "the current arrangements to control the supply of illegal drugs should be reviewed to determine whether any cost-effective and politically acceptable measures can be taken to reduce their availability to young people"(3).
  
  
• The ecstasy review, however, is a distraction from the fundamental flaws with the classification system outlined above (and in more detail in the appended paper). It is unconscionable for the ACMD to simply proceed with a systematic review of classification of all drugs covered under the MDA (which, at the current rate will take many years to complete) when there is simply no evidence that an ABC system for determining a hierarchy of criminal penalties produces positive public health outcomes, and a substantial amount to demonstrate it is actively counterproductive and harmful.
  
  
• It is of paramount importance that the ACMD assert the primacy of a scientific approach not only in terms of producing first class reviews of individual drug harms but also in terms of evaluating the policy impacts of ACMD recommendations, their implementation, and the system within which they operate. This is specifically in reference to the evidential and ethical basis for an ABC drug harm ranking system rooted within punitive criminal justice legislation.
  
  
• Transform, therefore, hope that the appointment of a new ACMD chair will provide a fresh opportunity for the ACMD to instigate the long overdue root and branch review of the entire classification system; its aims and objectives, its outcomes on key indicators, and the legislative and institutional structures within which it operates.
  
  
• Such a review was promised by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons in 2006(4), but despite a review consultation paper being fully drafted and ready for dissemination, the review was abruptly cancelled when a new Home Secretary was appointed. Such a review was supported by the Science and Technology Select Committee, the ACMD itself and, to the best of our knowledge, everyone in the drugs field. The absurd reason given by the Home Office for this review being cancelled was that ‘The Government believes that the classification system discharges its function fully and effectively and has stood the test of time’(5).
  
  
• The ACMD cannot stand idly by whilst the Government so blatantly prioritises its own political posturing over rational policy evaluation and review, and dismisses a scientific approach on the basis of entirely un-evidenced ‘beliefs’. That such political games interfere with reclassification recommendations is beside the point (there is no evidence classification changes have any impact anyway). The more significant danger is that a policy infrastructure that has been such a manifest failure for over three decades remains unchallenged, perpetuating systemic failure and in a very real sense, costing lives.
  
  
• The ACMD should demand of the Government that the classification review process be re-instigated with some urgency, and failing this undertake or commission such a review themselves.

1. Including, notably the Police Foundation Inquiry 2000 and the Home Affairs Select Committee 2002

2. For further discussion on the deterrent effect see; ‘Classification and Deterrence; where’s the evidence?

3 Pathways to Problems, ACMD 2006

4. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/65/6112201.htm

5. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm

Ecstasy reclassification meltdown; it begins again

Thought the reclassification ridiculousness was over? WRONG. It's only just starting. The miserable cannabis reclassification saga (as chronicled on this blog over the last couple of years) may be done and dusted for the time being but the next installment is about to begin with the imminent ACMD review of ecstasy's classification status. And if it was possible to find a drug that works tabloids and politicians into more of a irrational lather than cannabis, then that drug is ecstasy.

buckle up folks, its about to begin again. And it'll be even worse this time.

The first trickle has begun with the media reporting the fact that Sir Micheal Rawlins has resigned (more accurately stepped down at the end of his tenure) as chair of the ACMD, to be replaced by Professor David Nutt, the coverage leading with the hook that Nutt wants to reclassify ecstasy downwards to class B.

The Telegraph for example, reports that 'The Home Office Considers Reclassification of Ecstasy' . For a start it is the nominally independent ACMD, not the Home Office per se, that has decided to review the drug's classification. We can be certain that the Home Office would be delighted if the committee would leave the whole question well alone; they are painfully aware the review will once again highlight the absurdities and injustices of the classification system and the crumbling edifice of the Misuse of Drugs Act in which it sits. Secondly, the 'news' of this 'admission' is actually neither. The ACMD have been very open and clear since 2006, yes that's over two years, that the ecstasy review would be undertaken. Indeed it has already begun, with a review of the literature already commissioned and underway. All made fully public. The Telegraph are either guilty of lazy journalism or, surely not, whipping up some non-news into a sexy headline.

Almost the exact same story ran in the Sun (which informed us that ' BRITAIN’S new drug Czar wants to DOWNGRADE mind-bending ecstasy and LSD, it was revealed last night.') , and minus a few gory details but using much of the same (presumably agency supplied) text, on Politics.co.uk . Nutt, it should be made clear is not the new Drugs Czar - that absurdly titled post (it was actually on the job application form) was created and inhabited by Keith Hellawell in 1998, until he was rather ungraciously shunted into retirement and the post quietly dropped into to the stupid-populist-ideas-bin in 2002.

Anyway, the ACMD ecstasy review will report later this year and will almost certainly call for ecstasy to be reclassified as a class B drug. Just as happened with the cannabis saga, opponents of the move, or the Government, or both, will say repeatedly and entirely incorrectly that this is 'sending out the message' that 'ecstasy is harmless/safe'. Now, as has been explored in detail by Transform for a number of years, the classification system is riddled with conceptual and intellectual holes rendering it almost completely devoid of public health or criminal justice utility. None the less it is at least nominally based on ranking drug harms and Nutt and his brainy academic colleagues have recently, if rather belatedly (a mere 35 years late) made it clear how they think this ranking should work. Moving ecstasy to B will no more be saying 'it is safe' than moving cannabis to C did. It will merely indicate, correctly as far as it goes, that the risks (addictiveness, toxicity, mortality, social harms etc) are relatively less than other drugs in A, such as cocaine and heroin, just as the cannabis move to C described it as less harmful than class B drugs such as amphetamines. Nutt has also suggested that LSD be moved to B, and moving ecstasy and LSD out of the 'most risky' category has been supported by the Police Foundation report back in 2000 and the Home Affairs Select Committee drugs inquiry back in 2002. Its far from hot news this.

We can fully expect to see all the same confused, emotive and partisan nonsense from the cannabis debate regurgitated once again as ecstasy classification rears its head over the toilet bowl. The ghost of the Leah Betts tragedy will no doubt return to haunt and misinform us, lazy journalists will trawl scientific papers for ecstasy-shock statistics to cherry pick and mis-report, meaningless monkey brain-scans and unclever headlines about 'The agony and the ecstasy' will make a unwelcome return to our newspapers, and the David Davis sending-out-the-wrong-message-ometer will light up like a Christmas tree.

Now before I conclude by pointing and laughing at the anti-science political posturing of drugs minister Vernon Coaker (that has a particular bearing on this story) I would like to say a couple of words to the ACMD on the off chance that any of them are reading this; Reviewing the safety of ecstasy is a very tricky business. Not only is the literature painfully thin (I wrote my undergraduate thesis on the subject in 1992 and was able to read everything ever published) but the drug's effects on individuals, or on populations, is nigh on impossible to ascertain for a number of reasons:

• Ecstasy is rarely used in isolation - poly-drug use with alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, ketamine and / or amphetamines is very much the norm amongst ecstasy users and teasing out which negative effects can be pinned on ecstasy alone is highly problematic. The ABC classification system is woefully inadequate for describing or tackling such complex interactions of variables and behaviours.
  
  
• Ecstasy death statistics are an epidemiological minefield. What is recorded on death certificates does not imply direct causality with ecstasy use as raw death stats suggest. As the Leah Betts case demonstrated, related behaviours can cause or contribute to deaths, as can poly-drug use or other individual predispositions. 60% of recorded 'ecstasy deaths' are of people 'known to drug services'. Think about the significance of that.
  
  
• What is taken as 'ecstasy' is not always MDMA, indeed testing suggests it rarely is. I have done pill-testing at parties (using the maquis reagent) when none of the pills tested contained any ecstasy at all. Are you examining the risks of MDMA or the 'pills' containing a range of different unknown substances that are now sold as ecstasy? (I have discussed this briefly with Prof Nutt and I'm glad to say he acknowledges the difficulties)
  
  
• The nature of the ecstasy pills, and patterns of use has changed dramatically in the last 20 years - they have become far cheaper and (generally) weaker (consequently used in much greater volume) as well as less often containing MDMA - is the research you are looking at still relevant to today's patterns of use? (probably not)
  
  
• There is also a split in the market between cheap ecstasy 'pills' and more upmarket crystal MDMA powder (I predict this to be the new ecstasy version of super-potent 'lethal skunkabis' around which the imminent media ecstasy panic will, er, crystallize). Again, patterns of use are very different and generalised conclusions about harms are not useful for making policy decisions.
  

• As the above points suggest, drug harms are directly impacted by legal status. Pills and powders of unknown strength, purity and often containing unknown drugs are (unless they contain no drugs at all, which is not uncommon) intrinsically more risky than pharmaceutical grade drugs from legally regulated sources with dose, purity and safety information on the packaging. Comparing the safety of pharmaceutical ecstasy (and there is some literature on this) with the safety of illicit use and related behaviors would not only be scientifically sensible but also very illuminating for policy considerations. This point highlights the significant missed opportunity from the 2007 Nutt et al Lancet study on drug harm rankings, discussed in more detail here.

Also, please remember that translating rankings of rather vague population wide harms of a certain drug into criminal penalties for individuals is neither scientific nor ethical and there is no evidence that such and approach, even if the rankings made more sense, delivers any useful policy outcomes. The classification system is long overdue a major review and overhaul, that goes a long way beyond an occasional alphabetical re-jig. The ACMD supported the call of the Science and Technology Select Committee classification inquiry for such a review in 2006, as promised by a previous Home Secretary to the House of Commons in January of the same year. In line with the responsibilities of the committee, the appointment of the new chair provides an apposite moment to repeat this call.

And while you wrestle with all the above remember that whatever the review determines regards ecstasy, the cannabis classification debacle demonstrates with absolute clarity that the government do not give a stuff about science and rational policy making when it does not fit their political prerogatives or pre-ordained 'beliefs'. For those in any doubt let us revisit the follow up oral evidence session to the publication of the Science and Technology Select Committee’s devastating 2006 critique of the classification system, when the the committee re-interviewed then ACMD chair Sir Micheal Rawlins, soon to be chair Prof Nutt (who both acquit themselves very well) and drugs minister Vernon Coaker MP (less well).

By any stretch it is a truly remarkable interrogation, with the Minister not having a leg to stand on when he is repeatedly challenged on the lack of evidence base for the classification system's effectiveness, or the justification for certain howling anomalies within the system. He falls back on evasion, changing the subject or the excuse of decisions being ‘political judgements’ , or worse, merely that it is his ‘belief’ that the system works. There is not even the pretence that the system is evidence based. So here you go folks, just so you know what you're up against.

First is a section about the reclassification of ecstasy:

Q109 Mr Newmark: If the ACMD discovered new evidence when it undertook the review, would you consider reclassifying ecstasy?

Mr Coaker: We would consider their evidence. As I say, we have no plans to reclassify ecstasy. The ACMD is independent of government, we obviously respect what they say, and they will bring their report forward, but the Government has no plans and no intention of reclassifying ecstasy.

Q110 Dr Harris: You say that you do not propose to move ecstasy and it will remain a Class A drug. Is that an evidence-based policy?

Mr Coaker: That is a judgment the Government makes on the basis of what we believe to be something that is in the interests of the public at large to keep ecstasy as a Class A drug.

Q111 Dr Harris: Is it an evidence-based view?

Mr Coaker: It is a judgment that we make based on all the evidence we have had no recommendation from anybody to reclassify ecstasy from an A to a B. We think it is a drug which is harmful. There is no safe dose of it. We were talking about alcohol earlier on and one of the problems you have with alcohol is there probably is a safe dose. Like many here, I have a drink now and again, but there is no safe dose of ecstasy, we think it would send out totally the wrong messages and, as I say, we have no intention of reclassifying ecstasy.

Q112 Mr Newmark: Because it kills unpredictably?

Mr Coaker: As I say, there is no safe dose. This is the point, just half a minute—

Q113 Dr Harris: There is no safe dose of tobacco.

Mr Coaker: It just does make the point very well, the exchange that we have just had between two members of the Committee, quite rightly, about the difficulties that there are in this area and the different views and opinions that people have. I think what we all wrestle with is using evidence and using science and also trying to think about it from a non-scientific point of view in the social judgments and the individual judgments and the community judgments that we make. We wrestle with that and, as I say, as a Government we have no intention of doing anything with respect to ecstasy because we do not believe there is a safe dose, it is harmful, it kills unpredictably, as Brooks has said, and we just think that it is a very important way to use the classification system.

Q114 Dr Harris: If the ACMD reviewed the evidence and that review made recommendations to you, are you saying now it is not worth them doing it because your decision on this will not be evidence based, it will just be a reassertion of your "no intention to reclassify ecstasy"? Even if they said there will be fewer deaths, for whatever reason, if it is reclassified, are you saying that you will never consider an evidence-based decision on this drug?

Mr Coaker: I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is the ACMD, of course, can conduct research and look at whatever they wish to with respect to drugs and make recommendations to the Government. What I am saying quite clearly is that we have no intention of reclassifying ecstasy.

Q115 Dr Harris: I am keen to pursue this one. I understand you have no intention and I assume that is current because I do not think you could bind your successors if the evidence changed. Is it your view that all drugs for which there is no safe dose should be in Class A or is there something special about ecstasy which means it is one of the drugs for which you say there is no safe dose which means it must be in A?

Mr Coaker: In talking about ecstasy, it kills unpredictably, we do not believe that there is a safe dose; we will not reclassify ecstasy.

Q116 Dr Harris: Does that apply to all drugs that meet those criteria?

Mr Coaker: What we try to do where we have evidence and where people come to us with recommendations is make individual judgments, as we will do whenever people come to us. All I am saying with respect to ecstasy is that we have no plans and no intention of doing so.

Q117 Dr Harris: So do you think you are wasting your time, Professor Rawlins, if you end up doing a review in this area?

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: No, I think we will give advice on whatever we feel is appropriate but perhaps in a way more importantly we will also be able to, I hope, give better advice on harm reduction, which is actually rather important, and on what further research is needed in order to understand the dangers of it.

Q118 Dr Harris: Will the fact that the Minister has said quite categorically that he is not going to change the classification have any bearing on whether you follow through and do a report?

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: None at all because we are going to do it*.

*please take note, James Kirkup, Political Correspondent at the Daily Telegraph

Now here is a second section from slightly earlier in the session. Creationism gets a mention in reference to the Minister's scientific discourse; it seems an appropriate analogy:

Q45 Chairman: Vernon, in response to us, you said that the Government "fundamentally believes that illegality is an important factor when people are considering engaging in risk-taking behaviour . . . It believes that the illegality of certain drugs, and by association their classification, will impact on drug-use choices". Where is the evidence for that?

Mr Coaker: That is the belief and the judgment that the Government have.

Q46 Chairman: I did not ask you that. People believe in creationism and they are entitled to do that, though I do not agree with that, but I am asking you, where is the evidence?

Mr Coaker: To be fair to the response that we tried to make in response to the Committee where the Committee has challenged us, we have ourselves said that we need to do more research into the deterrent effect, that we need to establish a better evidence and research base for that, so we have accepted the point of the need to actually do something about it, but we do believe, and strongly believe, that the classification of drugs in the current system, A, B and C, with respect to Class A does act as a deterrent system. That is a judgment we make, it is a belief that we have and we have accepted that there is more to do with respect to that.

Q47 Adam Afriyie: If when you carry out and conduct this research the evidence shows that you are completely mistaken in that view, will change your view?

Mr Coaker: I cannot prejudge what any research is going to tell us. Clearly you make judgments about the research that you receive and that is obviously the point.

Q48 Chairman: Vernon, you have not commissioned any research and nor have the ACMD.

Mr Coaker: No, but what we have said in response to where the Committee challenged us and said, "Where is your evidence base for that?", as we have done with a number of other things, we said that we understand that point, we accept that point and we need to look at establishing a better evidence base for that, but it does not alter the fact or change the fact that the Government believes that the tripartite system, the classification system, does send out a strong message and does impact on, and affect, behaviour.

Coaker's speaking in political tongues couldn't help but remind me of this:

Ken Livingstone on drugs

The media circus that is the London mayoral election becomes more and more like a Punch and Judy show and less like a meaningful policy debate each day (and yes, I actually sat through the Question Time debate last night). Still, the outcome will have little impact on drug policy development or implementation in London whoever wins, since the most important policy decisions are still made centrally (or by individual police forces), and anyway, there doesn't seem to be much to choose between Boris and Ken's positions on drugs, or that of the parties the y represent.

The issue has briefly grazed the news media this week with a rather barrel-scraping story in the Telegraph about how Boris had tried to embarrass Ken by associating the incumbent Mayor's apparent links to the Green party with the Green's drug policy (generally very sensible as it happens) - specifically the fact that it calls for the legal regulation of drugs. For some reason ecstasy was alighted on and the headline morphed, in classic lazy-journo style, into Livingstone in row over 'legalise ecstasy' call

I don't care if it's close, you re still both boring me

Challenged on what he is going to do about London's drug problems in the Sun online this week, Ken is quick to note that:

'I am against the legalisation of drugs'

this despite not actually being asked about legalisation in any shape or form. Assuming Ken even penned the Sun online answer, he has arguably changed his tune, or at least his tone on this issue since an interview in 1997 when he said:

“I think all drugs should be decriminalised and addicts could register with their GP for them so organised crime could be driven out of drugs.”

IRC on VirginNet, Nov 12, 1997

His short answer in the Sun seems to differ from this position somewhat and is otherwise rather empty and unhelpful, as indeed have been the answers from all the three main candidates on the drugs issue (see here, page 7, for a deeply uninspiring summary compiled by LDAN).

Whilst Paddick comes out on top from the reformers perspective but this isn't terribly surprising as he came to prominence largely because of his progressive position on drugs in the first place and also because the representative of the 'big three' party with the most forward thinking drug policy by a long stretch. Like his party he has a sound position but doesn't choose to broadcast them, and anyway, he's evidently not in the running anyway with only about 9% on most polls.

yawn

Richard and Judy back drug legalisation

Following the publicity around Chief Constable Brunstrom's recent report critiquing the failings of prohibition and calling for legally regulated drug markets (much of which is *blows trumpet* informed by Transform's literature), support has now come from an unlikely but welcome quarter: none other than Richard Madeley writing in the Express under the Richard and Judy Byline. Yes, that Richard and Judy, 'the nation's favorite TV couple'. Madely makes his point 'defending' Brunstom's 'call for the legalising of drugs' , and negotiates his way around the sensitive issue of drug deaths (from a parents perspective) with real sophistication.

Somehow this one slipped past me a week or so back ( probably because I only dip into the Express when I want to read made up stories about Madeleine McCann or Diana-Death conspiracy theories, i.e. never) . Still, in many ways this is even more remarkable than Transform bagging a double page cover story feature in Take a Break magazine. If the nation's favorite TV couple can pull in the Prime Minister to play 'you say, we pay', and push a book onto the best sellers list just by featuring it on their Book Club (Tools for the Debate, Richard?) who knows what they an do for pragmatic drug law reform?

What with the nation's number one TV presenter, Jonathan Ross, already a Transform Patron, Take a Break, and now Richard and Judy, we are getting so mainstream we are in danger of getting washed away. Mustn't grumble of course, but I rather miss that aura of radical chic from the old days...

There's little to add other than to say, Richard, I could have written that myself. Over to you*:

"How awkward it is to have to begin the new year defending the apparently indefensible... in the form of eccentric police chief Richard Brunstrom’s latest headline-grabbing “gaffe”. I refer, of course, to his call this week on Radio 4’s Today programme for the legalising of drugs.

Brunstrom reckons all currently banned substances – everything from Ecstasy to heroin – will have been decriminalised inside 10 years. He added that Ecstasy is “safer than aspirin”, for good measure.

“Idiotic”, “Mad”, and “Captain Calamity” were just some descriptions of the head of the North Wales force the following morning. Parents of young people who died after taking Ecstasy queued up to castigate him – quite understandably. If my child had perished because of drug abuse, I would be first in line calling for Brunstrom’s head.

Which doesn’t mean I would be right. It is pointless here to get into a statistical debate about the dangers of aspirin versus Ecstasy.  Both preparations can kill: Ecstasy by fits following dehydration and other factors, aspirin usually from internal bleeding.

Ecstasy kills around 50 people every year – although many more have a close encounter with the Grim Reaper in their local intensive care unit.

But considering the colossal number of (mostly) young people who swallow Ecstasy tablets in nightclubs up and down Britain every night of the year, the toll is comparatively small when set against those killed or maimed in drink-driving crashes.

Don’t get me wrong, I think taking Ecstasy is stupid.

Prolonged use may well cause memory loss. But being against the law hasn’t stopped it from becoming endemic – which means the criminal supply of Ecstasy and other drugs is endemic too.

This is at the root of the gang culture that grips virtually every city in Britain and is largely responsible for the proliferation of guns on our streets. The analogy with Thirties prohibition era Chicago is inescapable.

Personally, I’d feel safer taking a palmful of aspirin than even one Ecstasy. But as a social policy, the criminalisation of drugs must surely be recognised for what it is:  an abject failure. Cocaine, heroin, speed and, yes, Ecstasy, have never been more widely available or cheaper to buy.

Their illegal sale on an industrial scale nourishes a huge, sprawling and hydra-headed criminal underclass.

All Richard Brunstrom – with,  by the way, the broad support of his police authority – is really asking is for a sensible debate on how we move on from the failed drug policies of the past.

He may be a ridiculous honorary druid with an irritating penchant for speed cameras and absurdly sensitive to weak jokes about the Welsh, but he’s doing something rarely seen in our chief constables.

He is thinking out of the box. That is brave and bold and deserves thoughtful consideration, not calumny."

*I hope the Express will forgive me for reproducing more than a usual sized snippet/quote here ( I haven't used Judy's section).

ACMD opens its doors to the public.

The Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, the Government appointed panel of experts established under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) 1971 to advise ministers on drug policy and law, yesterday opened its doors to the public for a full meeting (or at least part of it) for the first time. I went along and it wasn't nearly as boring as I expected.

The Home Office: 'come on in' (actually the meeting was in a Hotel in Victoria)

The impressively knowledgeable and diverse panel of 30 or so experts from the drugs field spent several hours discussing a range of current concerns and how best to respond to them including a detailed discussions on the growing use of anabolic steroids, the threat of GBL (a precursor of GHB), implementation of the Council's recent 'Pathways to Problems' report, needle exchanges, and the upcoming reviews of the classification of ecstasy (MDMA), cannabis (again - at the request of the Home Secretary) , and, we were told, all drugs covered under the MDA. A full agenda is available here.

This last point I found interesting as a quick look at the drugs covered under the MDA reveals that there are over 400. No timetable was given but at the Council's going rate of reviewing about 2 drugs a year, and I'm being generous here and assuming the Government doesn't ask them to undertake pointless re-reviews (a la cannabis), we can therefore look forward to the process being finished sometime around 2200.

Even if they are only looking at, say, the top 20 problem drugs we are still looking conservatively at the process ending sometime around 2020 and lets face it, that's just not good enough. At one point during the public Q&A session Professor Nutt said, in response to a question about why they weren't looking at cocaine given the worrying growth in its use, that they had 'a lot on their plate' and couldn't do everything. It was a fair point to which I, rather supportively I think, suggested that it was about time the Home Office provided the appropriate resources to give the them the required research capacity to deal with all that stuff on said 'plate'. ACMD Chair Micheal Rawlins curiously said he didn't feel increased funding/capacity was necessary and that the Council would increasingly be working with the MRC and other research agencies. To me this was an odd answer: there are some specific tasks, like the 400 classification reviews, that only the ACMD can do.

I noticed Alan Travis from the Guardian was amongst the public audience and his report appears in todays Guardian, titled: Boys of 12 using anabolic steroids to 'get girls'. (it is probably worth noting that a lot of boys are also using steroids to 'get boys' but anyway). Travis quotes me at one point:

Challenged by Steve Rolles, of the drugs legalisation campaign Transform, to look at the whole system of drug classification, Rawlins remarked that the notes detailing the basis for each classification from A to D dating back to 1973 had been lost. But he confirmed the council is reviewing the legal status of ecstasy as part of a systematic look at the classification of each illicit drug in turn. The ecstasy review began in September and involves the Health Technology Association in Plymouth appraising 750 scientific papers on the harmful effects of the drug in relation to similar illicit substances.

He rather misunderstands the thrust of my question (as well as the fact that the classification system is A-C, not D). I observed that the most of the ACMD meeting had been considering, in detail, the evidence of harms for various drugs and the implications of this analysis for whether they should be brought within the MDA or have their classification changed. My point was that there was major flaw in the Council's thinking if the impacts on key public health and criminal justice indicators of such changes were not being evaluated (as we have discussed in detail in previous Transform briefings). I then pointed out that the Government had called for, and indeed fully prepared, a comprehensive root and branch review of the classification system, a move that had been supported by the ACMD itself, The Sci-Tech Select Committee, Drugscope, and as far as I am aware everybody in the drugs field. Since the Government had since canceled the review (for transparently political reasons), but the need for such a review remained pressing, would the ACMD itself undertake such a review itself?

Rawlins answered that yes there were anomalies in the system but that the systematic review of classifications was underway, including ecstasy, and that the ACMD did not have the power to change the law.

I responded that I was not talking about the anomalies, but rather the more general efficacy of and the ABC system and its nominally harm based hierarchy of penalties. I also noted that it is specifically in the ACMD's remit under the MDA to call for 'changes in the law' as they see being necessary, and also that they can undertake reviews of drug policy if they deem it 'expedient'. Rawlins replied rather vaguely that they would take my points on board and look at the question but this didn't translate into any firm commitment to make it an agenda item (although one member of the committee I spoke to afterwards was very supportive and said they would raise it in the 'closed' afternoon session). We'll wait and see, but I don't have much cause for optimism.

As Transform have said before, the work the ACMD does is of the highest quality. The recent 'Hidden Harms' and 'Pathways to Problems' reports being fine examples of this. The problem with the Council is not the work they do, but the questions they don't engage with, and nothing demonstrates this better than their equivocation over reviewing the efficacy of punitive ABC classification system, and indeed a broader cost benefit analysis of the MDA - and prohibition as the basis of UK drug policy. Given the disaster that has unfolded over the last 36 years, such a review would seem to be 'expedient'.