How the Daily Mail dealt with the Julian Critchley story

As reported on our blog on Wednesday, the former head of the UK Anti-drug Co-ordination Unit (UKADCU – UK Anti-Drug Co-ordinating Unit) Julian Critchley, called for the legalisation of drugs. It was reported in the Daily Mail online thus ’Legalising drugs would cause less harm AND cut crime, says former senior civil servant’. It is fairly straight reportage with some entirely unexceptional quotes from the usual suspects.

For a number of weeks now, Transform has been talking about policy climate change – the developing environment, increasingly toxic to prohibition and more nurturing toward fundamental reform. So how does the Mail story stack up? Firstly the headline is not rabid, it is absolutely neutral with a nicely capitalised ‘AND’. Secondly, the majority of the story just reports the key parts of Critchley’s analysis. It isn’t until the end that the unreconstructed ‘drugs are bad’ nonsense kicks in - the comments - copy and paste soundbites - seeming extreme and rather bizarre relative to the more nuanced Critchley analysis. Thirdly, no leader comment to undermine what Critchley said and no rant from Melanie Phillips (I know she’s on holiday, but my guess is that they have a bank of Mel sound-alikes that they could have drawn on).

For me this explodes the myth that the Mail-type reactionary tabloids will destroy anyone that calls for significant reform and shows that policy climate change is happening. As I have said many times before, it would be bizarre for any tabloid to seriously attempt to defend prohibition (aside from the un-useful ‘drugs are bad’ generalisations) because there is no line of reasoning or evidence to support it. Indeed the Mail has historically been equivocal and sometimes supportive of debate.

I was called by the Mail.

It is crucial that we, as commentators on the drug policy issue, challenge the rhetoric that the tabloids have created, an atmosphere where it would be ‘political suicide’ for senior politicians to call for prohibition to be replaced with legal regulation of drug production supply and use. As we are calling for the evidence to prevail on the policy issue, we should also review the evidence on ‘political suicide’. David Cameron will, in all likelihood be our next Prime Minister. Not only is he on the record calling for a genuine debate on legalisation at the highest level, he’s also a former cannabis user. Added to that, his friend and cabinet colleague Alan Duncan, is a supporter of legalisation, as he proudly displays on his web site. This is the next Tory Government folks, not some parliamentary candidates for the Green Party. Forming the next Government is not ‘political suicide’. Paul Flynn MP, the most outspoken advocate of drug law reform in the House has been reelected three times with increasing majorities.

My conclusion - the Daily Mail is not responsible for closing down the debate on drugs and drug policy – politicians are. It is their cowardice, opportunism and careerism that they prioritize over telling the truth about the failure of prohibition and the need to bring the drugs trade within the law and the ambit of state regulation. And that applies not just to Labour and the Conservatives. The Lib Dems have hidden their far more enlightened drug policy so deep as to render it effectively invisible, for (misplaced) fear of taking flak from political opponents.

Politicians cannot continue to blame the media for their reactionary positions and overwhelming silence on drugs policy reform. And we must not let them off the hook by repeating the myth that they are basically in hock to The SUN and the Mail. It is incumbent on our elected officials to subject any long standing policy to substantive analysis and fundamental review – especially when it has been subject to such long running authoritative critique from a wide range of academic, parliamentary and NGO bodies.

It’s our money that they’re spending on the drugs war, and they’re fighting it essentially in our name. Buying into the rhetoric about ‘what the tabloids will say’ is to collude with political cowardice and opportunism. The tabloids are in fact potential allies in communicating policy failure and the need for change to the wider public. The target of our ire must be our elected officials and their dangerous propaganda. Don’t let’s shoot the messenger.

blog by Danny Kushlick - Posted by Steve

UK produces more opium than 24 of Afghanistan's 35 provinces

According to Dr. Liam Fox, Shadow Defence Secretary, in 2007 the UK was the 11th largest producer of opium poppy.

Fox, writing a blog on the CentreRight website says,

'... figures recently released by the Government show that when the United Kingdom is compared with the 34 provinces in Afghanistan the UK ranks an astonishing 11th place in the amount of opium poppy production in 2007.
Figures released by the U.S. State Department show that in 2007 the UK grew more opium poppy than Pakistan.'

Astonishing? Not really, in fact its a pretty daft comparison. The UK production is all legal and for the medical market whilst the Afghan is all illegal and all for non-medical use. Also Helmland alone produces more than half of the country's opium with over 100K hectares, then there's a pretty dramatic fall off with number 8 being only 3K hectares, and UK 2.7K hectares.

I have recently stumbled into one of these opium poppy fields across 'acres of rolling Hampshire fields' as referred to by the Daily Mail and Liam Fox.

I photographed this opium poppy field in Hampshire at the weekend

The Transform blog has previously discussed the hysteria that is occasionally whipped up by media reporting (the Mail's ridiculous coverage in particular) of these 100% legally grown Class A poppies here.

Fox finishes his blog with a reference to the Senlis Council's Poppy for Medicine proposal,

'Not only are we failing to eradicate it [opium poppy], we are growing it at home when we could be buying it from farmers in Afghanistan before it ends up on the black market. The Government tells us that they have to grow poppy in the UK as part of a strategic reserve. I find this ironic considering that the UK is supposed to have the strategic and tactical control of one of the biggest poppy producing places in the world: Helmand Province!'

What he fails to point out, as Steve has argued previously is that UK, NATO and Afghan forces in Helmand province (and elsewhere in Afghanistan) don't have the infrastructure, or security situation, to prevent leakage into the illegal market which is fueling the conflict and lack of security. Even if they could, demand for the illicit product would remain and economic forces would inevitably lead to cultivation elsewhere, either in Afghanistan (most likely by the same people), or elsewhere (the 'balloon' effect identified recently by the director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. )

Hampshire police (and other UK police forces in counties where poppies are grown) on the other hand have a better grip on 'security' than their counterparts in Afghanistan, as well as substantially less to worry about; there seems to be no problems with legally grown opium poppies being diverted into the illegal market in the UK. However, having found no fences to prevent me accessing the field (and what use would they be anyway), I can only conclude that those involved in the production of medical opiates rely on the fact that the general public has no idea what is growing across our purple and pleasant lands. Or, more likely, couldn't care less.

Either way it demonstrates that there is absolutely no need for Afghanistan to be growing any of the opiates consumed in the UK. This problem is one of our own making and an alternative path that doesn't involve any terrorists, wars or dead British soldiers is there for all to see. Here's the one line version for those who have not worked it out yet:

legal production for non-medical use.

The choice is ours, and I have the photos to prove it.

The Daily Mail's occasional forays into drug law reform

No sooner have I finished moaning to the Americans about how the Daily Mail has been distorting the news agenda with its politically driven reefer madness and drug war scaremongering, than said paper go and run a straight pro-legalisation/regulation op-ed by Andrew Alexander, titled 'the seriously inconvenient truth on drugs. It's almost alarmingly sensible stuff.

He rounds off in suitably bombastic Daily Mail style thus:

"..applause by the zealous and high-minded for a drugs crackdown is quite drowned out by the noisy cheers from another quarter - the drugs suppliers; in particular, the obscenely wealthy drugs barons of South America.

Their wealth and power is wholly dependent on drugs being illegal.

This is why drugs will have to be legalised at some time - but controlled like tobacco and appropriately taxed.

Prohibition was the biggest single boost to gangsterism the U.S. ever experienced.

With huge sums at their disposal, the bootleggers corrupted the police, the courts, the judiciary and politicians.

No one was keener on Prohibition then, or the criminalisation of drugs now, than the mafia."

This is great stuff to see in the Mail, but it would be stretch to claim I'm consumed with remorse. Nor do I think that Paul Dacre has stumbled across some Transform leaflets and had a Damascene conversion to pragmatic drug law reform. Whilst the Daily Mail does run such positions intermittently (for example, Bruce Anderson, and Eddie Ellison and going further back, op-eds from long time reform advocate, Paul Flynn MP), and even occasionally a moderately engaging editorial, these are far and few between and they are significantly outgunned by regular pro drug war, anti-legalisation polemics from (lefty turned reactionary-right) commentators Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips, along with occasional efforts from others, including the utterly vile rantings of Richard Littlejohn.

More significantly, however, it is their news coverage that really pushes an overtly punitive drug war agenda, manifesting in classic moral panic and scaremongering coverage, supported by bad science and emotive anecdote (see for example here , here, here and here). I suggest the editorial slant has two primary motivations.

Firstly, a deep seated fear of, and loathing for the 'otherness' of illegal drugs (they aren't 'our' drugs) and those who use them (the 'hippies' 'junkies', and 'pot-heads'), that can probably be traced back to the culture wars in the 60's and the Mail's romantic vision of Britain's glorious lost post-war heyday. A generic concept of 'drugs' as an unquestioned social menace, or 'evil', has evolved, and this generalised concept has become a convenient scapegoat for all the ills of modern urban youth, rather than drug misuse (the concept of 'use' is not one the Mail can grasp with those 'other' drugs) being seen as a symptom of a wider underlying social, economic and cultural malaise. Their response is invariably a call for punitive responses, longer sentences, securing our borders, building more prisons or similar knee jerk crackdowns that have a gut level appeal to their middle-England readership but no actual basis in the reality of evidence based policy making.

The second reason is because the Mail has spotted a golden opportunity to attack a Government it dislikes and, either deliberately or by default, support the Tory's who they now appear to endorse (after a brief flirtation with New Labour in the 90's). Any bad things that happen - that are in any way related to drugs, however tangentially - can now be blamed on the Government's weakness, their 'sending out the wrong message', or their being 'soft' on drugs, druggies, junkies or 'drug dealing scum' (not including tobacconists and pub landlords).

This has particularly been the case with the unseemly political wrangling over cannabis classification during the past 6 or 7 years. Despite the fact that the change itself was relatively trivial in practical terms we have now reached a stage where any crime, murder, yobbish youth, car crash, poor parenting or in fact any bad thing anyone in this country has ever done since 2004, will - if they can be shown to have used cannabis at any time in their life - be blamed on the fact cannabis was reclassified to class C. These extravagantly headlined news items are then bolstered with sound-bite analysis from a exclusive posse of on-message pundits; Prof Neil McGeggany - the academic credibility, Mary Brett - the concerned ex-teacher and prevention expert, David Davis - the critical politician, Marjorie Wallace - the mental health expert, and more recently, Debra Bell - the crusading parent. That's pretty much it.

As noted in a previous blog on some wayward Daily Mail drug reporting;

This [news item], like the various others before it, seems to be an attempt to have a go at UK drug policy and in doing so make the Government look bad. Fair enough I suppose if that's your political/editorial position, but if so then the really baffling thing about the Daily Mail's ongoing rubbish reporting and bad science in its coverage of the cannabis issue is that there's just no need for it. There is so much wrong with UK drug policy that they could be running all manner of withering coverage without having to misrepresent and twist statistics. The drug strategy has been a disaster on almost every indicator you could choose from, so it seems downright odd that the Mail repeatedly chooses to direct its ire at one of the very few bits of Government drug policy that the police can legitimately argue has been vaguely successful.

So, any Daily Mail reporters reading this, if you want some ammo against the Government drug strategy (or for that matter, Tory drug policy thinking - which is essentially IDENTICAL) then by all means plunder this blog, the Transform website, or give us a call. There's plenty to go around.

the ACMD cannabis decision: stay in class C

I attended the ACMD cannabis classification hearings on February 5^th. There were 23 speakers in all, representing opinion and expertise from a range of fields relevant to the issue (see the whole list here). There were speakers from mental heath charities (Rethink and Sane) , a range of speakers on cannabis potency, cannabis and mental health, cannabis and lung damage, cannabis and driving, cannabis policy and law, as well as parents of cannabis users. It was comprehensive to the point of tedium; I was there for the whole occasionally interesting but generally rather miserable day and if there is a condition called power point induced psychosis, I was in danger of suffering it by nightfall. It was also in the grisly Excel conference center in the middle of nowhere, a magnificent 25 tube stops from my house.

There was even more evidence heard away from the public eye the following day (apparently unpublished draft research not for public dissemination), and of course the ACMD itself represents a considerable body of expertise. On top of all this were the written submissions from the speakers, and many others besides, which constituted four terrifying inch-think black ring-bound volumes. The committee (of around forty) spent three days in session and were expected to have read through all the written submissions in advance. It didn’t strike me a trifling exercise.

By contrast, reading an account of the ACMD hearings by David Raynes, old Transform sparring partner, occasional blog contributer, and representative of the NDPA, you would be excused for thinking the entire event was some sort of illuminati style plot, staged by a corrupt committee whose mind was already made up, and that the ACMD chair was guilty of ‘loading the witnesses with legalisers’ as head of some sinister pro-pot conspiracy (as also espoused by Melanie Philips in the Spectator ) .

The reality is somewhat different. Of the 23 speakers I was the only speaker, as the representative of Transform, nominally advocating for the legalisation and regulation of cannabis, but since this was not an issue on the agenda I only addressed it tangentially (although I did comment on the issue in Transform's written submission). I described what we see as the political context for the decision to revisit cannabis reclassification (for the third time in six years), and called for the ACMD to stay focused on a scientific review of cannabis harms and not get drawn by the partisan political gamesmanship and tabloid scaremongering. (If anyone wants my speech – let me know and ill send it to you, but it was essentially a distillation of the written submission, minus the stuff about legal regulation). My specific calls were that:

• In the short term the ACMD maintain their long held position that cannabis should be a class C drug under the current system.
  
  
• That the ACMD call for or undertake the long promised review of the intellectual and empirical basis for the drug classification system more broadly, and review its effectiveness on key policy indicators
  
  
• That they complain about the process bywhich which the PM requested the ACMD review then made a series of clear statements on his intent to reclassify before the ACMD has reported
  
  
• That the ACMD deliberations consider the specific harms created by prohibition and enforcement and the punitive criminal justice approoach more generally, and disentangle these from the harms created by drug use per se. Specifically; prohibition related crime, the mass criminalisation of young - often vulnerable - individuals, and the exacerbation of drug harms to users (when produced and supplied through illicit channels).

Proffessor Lenton from Australia, according to Rayne’s account a co-conspirator of mine in perverting proceedings (‘is Lenton a closet legaliser cloaked in fine words, hiding his real intentions?’), spoke about the impacts of the civil penalty scheme in Western Australia, contrasting its impacts with other states that maintain the more familiar criminal penalty approach to cannabis offenses. His clearly made conclusion: that there were no obvious benefits but measurable social costs to the criminal penalty approach, was fascinating but in no way a call for the legalisation and regulation of cannabis markets, or even a discussion of it. It usefully demonstrated how a return to arrest and prosecution for cannabis possession did not suggest the prospect of positive criminal justice or public health outcomes. Lenton advocated a public health approach based on effective targeted education and prevention. It all seemed pretty sensible and uncontroversial stuff, and he was the only speaker to get a round of applause.

Rayne's disappointingly condemns Lenton by association (with some people he apparently doesn’t like or agree with), and questions why he was a speaker at all. Perhaps it was because he is a respected professor, extensively published academic expert on the subject and leading thinker in the field who can bring some international perspective to the debate - which has become somewhat blinkered and parochial over here in the UK? Or maybe because he is Soros-funded pro-pot Aussie infiltrator hell bent on corrupting the youth of Britain? You tell me.

Some also felt it inappropriate that Transform were present, like the journalist from the IOS (representing Jonathan Owen) who asked me only one question, nothing to do with drug policy: why had Transform been given a platform? It seemed an odd question, but my answer was that we represented an important constituency in the debate (somewhere between 30 and 58% of the population support legalisation/regulation of cannabis if the IPSOS MORI speaker was to be believed) and the ACMD were just doing their job in representing a variety of views in the field. I had no problem with Debra Bell, SANE, ACPO and others being there even if I disagreed with there position and thought that some of their presentations were a bit weak, and in Bell's case - pitched for entirely the wrong audience (a day-time TV approach for a group of scientists was never going to work). But this was an open session reviewing various – often conflicting - evidence and perspectives. If there were voices missing from the presentation line up they were arguably:

• those of the majority of cannabis consumers whose use is occasional, moderate and not causing them or anyone else significant problems,
  
• people who have been criminalised for cannabis possession and suffered unduley as a result,
  
• or mothers of problem cannabis users – like Helen Sello (who was in the audience but not given a platform) – who think that a punitive criminal justice approach is entirely counterproductive and the focus should be on public health education.

But let’s be clear: I didn't talk about legalisation, Lenton didn't talk about legalisation. The legalisation question was barely touched on, only being alluded to briefly on a couple of occasions during the day, with references to the Dutch tolerance model (which isn’t technically legalisation anyway, and besides was raised by the Speaker from SANE who advocated a move back to B). Legalisation was barely mentioned for one simple reason: for better or worse this was a discussion about cannabis harms and classification harm rankings. Much as I think the ACMD should hold a similar session looking at the legalisation/regulation debate - this wasn't it. The proposed change in harm rankings and associated change in related penalties is nothing to do with the legalisation debate - why I found Rayne's piece especially baffling. If some of the defenders of the status quo saw reclassification as the first crack in the citadel of prohibition from the ‘pro-drugs lobby’ (?) that's their business, but it is a view non-congruent with reality and nothing whatsoever to do with what was being discussed on Feb 5th.

Media

I’m not paranoid enough to think it was a conspiracy of course, but myself and Prof. Lenton had our presentations timed for the end of the day so all the journalists had left to go and fill their copy before the evening deadlines and we achieved (a very non-sinister) zero coverage the following day. I probably should have done a press release, still, I did get an invite to go on radio Five Live the previous night but couldn't make it. There was a lot of journalists there but, rather like Raynes, you sensed many had arrived not to really listen and analyse, but rather to filter the day’s information to fit a preconceived narrative, or just trawl for the juiciest panic headline. When skunk or psychosis was mentioned all the journos seemed to perk up and start scribbling. The coverage ranged from OK (the Guardian) to dismal (the Daily Mail), mostly focused on an morning presentations about the proportion of ‘skunk’ now found in police raids, reported to be 70% - 80% (not that police raids necessarily represent the market but anyway). The suggestion made by myself and others that the economics of unregulated markets was fueling this increasing prevalence of stronger cannabis went unreported.

The Times won the bad reporting oscar, scraping the tabloid barrel (not for the first time) with a ludicrous bit of sensationalism, leading, on its front page with the headline that ‘Cannabis dealers prey on Hospitals’, stemming from one brief comment from a speaker on cannabis and mental health treatment. It probably warrants a blog all of its own, but needless to say, Rethink and others have identified and talked about this (completely non-shocking nor surprising) issue for years.

General thoughts on the day

One theme I noticed throughout the day, even amongst the many speakers who wanted to see cannabis moved back to B, was a desire not to see more young people criminalised. Whilst welcome it seemed odd, given that the result of a move back to B would achieve precisely this, but there it was, from ACPO, from several of the Mums, from the Magistrates representative, and even from David Raynes. Yet it is also an unavoidably contradictory position and one that highlights the wider problems with a classification system that ties the harm rankings to a hierarchy of penalties. The only logical solution would appear to be what the Science and Technology committee recommended and ‘decouple’ the classifications from penalties in some way, but quite where this would lead isn’t clear. The ABC system is built around and exists to establish the hierarchy of penalties and doesn’t really serve any other useful purpose; it offers no practical public health benefits in terms of education, or if you like ‘sending out messages’, (even ‘unequivocal’ ones). It was a point raised several times in the day, not least from me; that there’s no evidence that changes in classification have any impact on use or overall harm.

The obvious answer for those who want to send out honest and effective messages about cannabis risks, especially if they are increasing (which I think we can safely assume includes everyone) is to use proven public health education and targeted prevention strategies. The B/C debate seems entirely pointless, and as Rethink pointed out, is a distraction from the more important challenges around how best to address the harm cannabis can cause.

I don’t think for a second that the ACMD will change their views in cannabis classification, but not because the evidence sessions were inadequate or manipulated by the evil pro-pot legalisation lobby, but rather because the ACMD don’t think there is significant new evidence on cannabis harms to emerge in the last 2 years that changes their long held view that it should be in Class C based on relative harms. Not harmless, just less harmful than say, amphetamines. The evidence at the hearings was comprehensive and mostly excellent, but I genuinely don’t think there was anything on the table that wasn’t there 2 years ago. If the committee seemed occasionally exasperated then that’s probably why, we are talking about 40 very busy and highly trained people spending 3-4 days of their own (unpaid) time on what was essentially a pointless political exercise.

What the Government will do when the ACMD report back in favour of Class C is hard to say. To go against the ACMD would be unprecedented and leave them horribly exposed as populist and unscientific, with any last vestige of us having an evidence based drug policy in tatters. The Government after all hand picked the ACMD in the first place. So I suspect the ACMD call will be used as an opportunity to step away from the debate again with moral credentials intact probably in tandem with an announcement on a big education push cannabis risks to show they are ‘doing something’.

In the meantime cannabis users will carry on using, the unregulated illegal market will carry on making lots of untaxed profits for often unsavory characters whilst maximising harms, and all the moral grandstanding, tabloid scaremongering political posturing – that has been going on for longer than I’ve been alive - will have got us precisely nowhere.

Maybe now we can have a debate about models for the legal regulation of cannabis, based on evidence of effectiveness, proven harm reduction initiatives and established public health principles? Or maybe not.

Brunstrom on drugs (again). Transform comment in Indie and Mirror

Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales has again hit the news over his views in support of drug law reform. The media don't seem to know quite what to make of him, torn between an intelligent engagement in the debates he highlights, or tearing into him with personal attacks. The most recent spasm of media coverage followed an appearance on BBC's Today programme

It provoked a flurry of media coverage, the Mail predictably leading the charge with its personal attack cover story and a total failure to engage with the actual policy debate being raised.

Whilst the Mail only quoted bereaved parents, and staunch anti-reform campaigners Mary Brett, and Peter Stoker (Transforms request for a response slot going unanswered) the Independent at least welcomed some alternative views inviting Transform to submit a discussion piece for the Indpendent blog, reproduced below:

In calling for the legalisation and regulation of drugs again, chief constable Richard Brunstrom has suggested that aspirin is more dangerous than ecstasy. Whether or not this is the case isn’t clear (apparently the Department of Health could not supply the number of those who die as a result taking aspirin each year). However, as Mary Brett (Europe Against Drugs) tells us in the Mail, “This was an extremely stupid and irresponsible comment. Aspirin is taken as medication to help people get better. Ecstasy is taken to upset the chemical balance of the brain deliberately”. Thanks Mary (she’s a teacher you know).

Commenting on the substance of Brunstrom’s remarks, the Mirror leader said: “Clearly, 40 years of prohibition has been a disaster. Our country is awash with drugs. Criminals are raking in billions… and billions are being wasted on the largely futile “war” on drugs.”

These vastly different views encapsulate precisely the fault lines in the debate on the future of drug policy: one, knocking Brunstrom for having the temerity to question the absolute success of UK (and global) drug prohibition; the other going right to the heart of the matter – prohibition doesn’t work. Indeed, the Mail followed the news piece with a relentless ad hominem attack on Brunstrom, with no analysis of his views on drug policy.

Happily, at least the debate is being kept alive in the media, with some excellent pieces being penned over the last few years. Sadly, the media is the only place where this issue is receiving an airing. For most politicians and Whitehall officials, questioning the status quo on drug policy is taboo (with some surprising exceptions) and the vast majority of NGOs, professional bodies and Government Quangos remain totally silent on the issue. To me it beggars belief that organisations and individuals that work with those most negatively affected by prohibition fail to speak out. That includes: development organisations that work in the drug producer countries, those in prison reform, drug treatment organisations, drug policy think tanks, criminology academics, and the legal field.

Brunstrom suggests that legalisation and regulation will take ten years. Transform is in agreement that this is probably a bare minimum. But in that time, the UK drugs trade will have made £70 billion for gangsters (globally that figure will be over £3 trillion). At the same time, UK families will have paid close to £200 billion of crime costs, either as tax payers or as victims. The illegal trade will have ruined, for another decade, Afghanistan, Colombia, the Caribbean and blighted every major urban environment in industrialised countries.

However, politicians will continue to trot out the “tough on drugs” propaganda for a combination of easy votes and the maintenance of our special relationship with the US. The UK public meanwhile, will continue to be swindled out of billions to support a failed regime. The challenge from the media will not be enough to force politicians to expose prohibition to significant scrutiny and explore alternatives. Those who know the score have a choice - stay silent about the massive social costs of a counterproductive policy that benefits only organised crime and cynical politicians or to speak the truth. Brunstrom’s courage should inspire others to follow his example.

Danny Kushlick is Director of Transform Drug Policy Foundation. Visit www.tdpf.org.uk for more information

The Independent today ran a reasonably balanced news piece considering the issues around ecstasy risks and its legal status, which also featured a quote from Transform. The Mirror also engaged more usefully by inviting views from Transform (Danny Kushlick) and the NDPA (Peter Stoker), so that unlike the Mail coverage, different views could be aired. A so-called 'debate'.

SHOULD ALL DRUGS BE LEGALISED?

Yes, says Danny Kushlick, Transform Drug Policy Foundation
Drugs will be made legal through licensed outlets or doctors within 10 years because that is the rational and most effective, just and humane way of dealing with the production, supply and demand for drugs.

All drugs are potentially dangerous but no substance is made safer in the hands of criminals and unregulated dealers.

Prohibition is counter-productive. And when it is ineffective it corrupts everything it touches.

It has corrupted Afghanistan, Colombia, South-East Asia, the Caribbean and most cities of industrialised nations in the West.

If that's success, I would hate to see what happens if we fail.

Supporters of prohibition have gifted a £320billion-a-year trade to the Mafia. In the UK, it takes £16billion a year to deal with the costs of crime alone.

The public can only be duped into believing it works for so long.

When people realise that it is a self-inflicted nightmare they will stop supporting the politicians who support prohibition.

No, says Peter Stoker, National Drug Prevention Alliance
All the evidence shows that every country that has tried relaxing drug laws regrets it and almost all have had to push the law back to where it was.

You can see with cannabis in Britain that the same thing is happening now. Every day we get some evidence about how harmful it is. If we are going to shift the classification it should be to where it is seen as more harmful.

How dangerous a drug is does not just relate to how many people die from it, but the wider impact it has in the form of crime and destroying people's lives.

It's not just the person who uses it that suffers, the impact of drug use ripples out across a much larger circle. As far as Ecstasy goes, if Richard Brunstrom thinks it's a safe substance he should talk to the parents who have lost children to it. We have enough trouble in Britain with two legal drugs - tobacco and alcohol.

The majority of the population are against current illegal drugs - they don't want them to be made more readily available.

The Mirror made its position very clear in a leader column, continuing its progressive line on the failure of prohibition and the need for reform.

Agonising on ecstasy

02/01/2008

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom is at it again.

He says ecstasy is safer than aspirin and predicts drugs will be legalised within 10 years.

Is this yet another unhinged outburst from a publicity-hungry police chief? Or could he actually be talking some unpalatable sense?

Clearly, 40 years of prohibition has been a disaster. Our country is awash with drugs. Criminals are raking in billions... and billions are being wasted in the largely futile "war" on drugs.

Advertisement

Brunstrom's comparison of ecstasy and aspirin is simplistic, not least because most of the medicine's fatalities are suicides.

But there's something in what he says - alcohol and tobacco are just as dangerous as ecstasy. And lumping the "dance" drug in with cocaine and heroin weakens warnings about "harder" narcotics.

But this is fiddling around the edges. We need a fundamental rethink of Britain's approach to drugs.

The current policy, as Brunstrom and many other experts argue, isn't working.

---------
He may not be popular with certain tabloids or politicians, but Brusntrom's position is certainly challenging a lot of people to think about this issue, and if people are thinking, talking and engaging then it can only be positive in the long run.

see also:

North Wales Police Authority endorse call for the legalisation and regulation of drugs

SHOCK : non-hysterical cannabis story makes headlines

'Cannabis use down since legal change', the Guardian reports today on its front page. And its true, at least if you believe the British Crime Survey. The report also knocks holes in a number of other recently hyped skunk-cannabis panics perpetuated by various tabloids and the Independent on Sunday (with its road-back-from-Damascus re-conversion to the wisdom of mass criminlisation of young people as the sensible policy response).

The Guardian report, in a welcome break from much of the reefer madness of the last year, highlights the fact that trends in reported cannabis use amongst 16-24 year olds (including frequent users), and 16 to 59 year olds, have declined steadily in recent years.

Of course, the BCS is not without its methodological flaws; it is generally acknowledged to under-estimate total use because it is a household survey and consequently misses out on certain groups – students, and those with no fixed address - with generally higher levels of use. That said, it is at least consistent in its methodology so there is no reason to think the general trends it describes are not for real.

There are, however, a couple of further observations that today's broadsheet coverage miss out on. Firstly, overall prevalence of use is not an especially useful measure of overall harm related to use. If patterns of more intense or risky use are increasing it is quite possible that falling use could be associated with increasing harm. Similarly rising prevalence could potentially be associated with decreasing harm in the opposite scenario – you just don't know without some more detailed research on using behaviours. Some research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, (also published this week) shows how heavy use can cause real problems, but also highlights the links between such patterns of problem use and social deprivation.

Secondly, the fact remains that the BCS prevalence data shows the downward trend in reported cannabis use predates the reclassification from B to C in 2004, in fact beginning around 2001/2. This rather undermines the suggestion of the Guardian headline that the reclassification might in some way be a factor in falling use, just as many others have suggested it is a factor in rising use (see this blog post from January about a Daily Mail story that reported how 'the "softly softly" approach is contributing to a huge rise in cannabis use.' )

Both of these observations point to a more important analysis: that classification of cannabis appears irrelevant to either overall levels of use, or levels of problematic use. As Transform has long argued patterns of use are determined predominantly by a complex interplay of social, economic and cultural variables, there is no evidence to suggest changing classification has a meaningful impact on deterrence, and enforcement and drug policy more generally can -at best- only have a marginal impact on levels of use. There may well be an increase in problematic cannabis use occurring, but it remains hard to quantify and whatever its true scale the appropriate response should be always be public health led rather than based on an criminalisation /enforcement approach already tried for three decades with demonstrably disastrous outcomes. If, as the research suggests, the key determinants of problematic drug use are related to social deprivation then any long term response must focus on addressing these underlying social causes.

Classification seems to have become a symbolic talisman in the ongoing culture wars, dominating political discourse over the past five years in a fashion that grossly overstates its relevance in practical terms. Should cannabis be B or C has somehow, ridiculously, come to represent an ideological position, namely whether someone is 'pro' or 'anti' drugs. Support C and you are part of a sinister Soros-funded conspiracy to legalise drugs and make crack available in school tuck shops, support B and you are a tireless warrior in the crusade to create a drug free world. Meanwhile in the real world classification remains almost entirely irrelevant to young people, dealers, and indeed the police, who still have the flexibility to enforce the laws regards cannabis as they see fit.

Correction 02.11.07:

In the original posting of this blog I claimed that:

In more than twenty cannabis panic features in the IOS since March the BCS figures have never been mentioned.

This claim is incorrect, as I have subsequently spotted that in this article from July 29th 07: The great cannabis debate: 50 top experts confirm mental health risk it is noted that:

The number of 16- to 24-year-olds who smoked cannabis in 2006 has fallen by a quarter since 1998 – the last time the Government published its drug strategy. And among 11- to 15-year-olds cannabis use is also down: 10 per cent of pupils had smoked cannabis last year, down from 13 per cent in 2003, 2002 and 2001.

So even though the figures aren't sourced (the first being from the BCS and the second from the DoH schools survey - both not without flaws), I retract the specific claim, with apologies to the Independent on Sunday.

That said, I don't retract or apologise for Transform blog critiques of all the other skewed, misleading and sensationalist reporting of this issue since March, or the shortsighted editorial analysis and comment that has accompanied it.

'So Macho' Reverend wants police to arrest more kids

I read in the Daily Mail yesterday that there is some sort of legal challenge being made 'in the High Court' to the ACPO guidelines, drawn up after cannabis was reclassified, clarifying that there should be a 'presumption against arrest' for possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use. Quite what this court action involves isn’t made clear by the Daily Mail report, by James Slack, but then a lot is left unclear by the story generally.

But before I tear into the Daily Mail report, a few words on the key protagonist. It is none other than the Reverend George Hargreaves, a 'senior church figure' and 'advisor to the Metropolitan Police' who is apparently 'backed by a £30,000 fighting fund'. Hargreaves is a Pentecostal minister with a particular brand of Christian politics that includes being strongly anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-euthanasia. He has also stood in various elections for various constituencies; for the 'Scottish Christian Party, Proclaiming Christ's Lordship' for the Scottish Parliament in 2006, the UK Parliament in 2005 for 'Operation Christian Vote' (and a by-election in 2004 - getting a handsome 90 votes), and the European Parliament in 2004. Way back in 1997 he contested Walthanstow for the Referendum party. It turns out that he has funded some of his political aspirations with a small fortune made from his former career as a pop song writer, apparently raking in £10,000 a month in royalties from penning the epic 80's disco smash and gay club classic 'So Macho', performed by the legendary popstrel, Sinitta. You know the one:



"I don't want no seven stone weakling nor a boy who thinks he's a girl
I'm after a hunk of a guy, and experienced man of the world
There ain't no way that I'll make do,
with anything less than I'm used to
If I have a man tonight he's gotta be right right right

So macho he's gotta be so macho
He's gotta big big and strong, enough to turn me on
He's gotta have big blue eyes, be able to satisfy
He's gotta big big and strong, enough to turn me on

I'm tired of taking the lead
I want a man who will dominate me
Someone who will love and protect me and take care of my every need
Now I don't mean to be personal but a guy like that's more preferable
In my humble point of view than any of you

I am in need of a man oooh
I am in need of a man a man a man a man a man

etc.

I had the pleasure of debating cannabis reclassification and related policing issues with Hargreaves on Talk Sport Radio yesterday morning, on the awful John Gaunt show. The No1 pop smash writing Reverend seemed like a perfectly nice chap, even if we didn’t really see eye to eye on the drugs issue. He admits to being a 'hedonistic sinner' and 'jack the lad' in his pre-Reverend days. However, he doesn't seem to have a very forgiving attitude to the young sinners in his flock. He wants them arrested and prosecuted for their cannabis related wickedness, not let off with a caution, a policy which, according to the Mail, he claims has 'led to a surge in youths smoking strong skunk cannabis that was turning many into dangerous 'schizophrenics.' ' He is quoted saying:

'This guidance must be reversed. The only way to crackdown on the problem is to return to arresting and prosecuting people carrying even small amount of cannabis.'

'So Macho' Reverend George Hargreaves

No evidence is given by him in the report that reclassification, or the ACPO guidelines, have led to any kind of 'surge' in use. The Mail report also fails to mention that the two key official surveys of cannabis use, provided by the British Crime Survey and the DoH (flawed as they may be) suggest that cannabis use has remained unchanged or has actually fallen marginally since 2004. I’m not making the case for or against the reclassification policy here (you can read the Transform briefings on the subject here and here) , but Hargreaves and the Mail clearly are, and they have got their facts wrong:

Trends in cannabis use among people aged 16 to 24 years
Percentage reporting use:
--------In past year----In past month
1996-----26.0-----------16.1
1998-----28.2-----------18.0
2000-----27.0-----------17.4
2001/02--26.9-----------17.1
2002/03--25.8-----------16.2
2003/04--24.8-----------15.6
2004/05--23.5-----------14.1
Source: Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey.
Home Office Statistical Bulletin.

I’m also not a doctor and I try and avoid getting dragged into the debate about cannabis and mental health. But what the various reports (from ACMD and other expert bodies) suggest is that, on the schizophrenia link specifically, it only effects a very small percentage of users, and that the published research shows that the link is ambiguous – whether cannabis use is causative or merely unmasks existing conditions is not clear. It's obviously not a completely safe drug, there's no such thing, and clearly no drug is risk free, but ‘turning many into dangerous 'schizophrenics.’ is not precision science, it is emotive scaremongering silliness.

From here the story goes into a bit of a nosedive:

“Earlier this week, the pastor blamed skunk for the mindless murder of Nyembo-Ya-Muteba by a gang of thugs.”

Is there any evidence to suggest this is true? Is there any evidence to suggest that cannabis was a factor? Should the Mail report unsupported hear-say before the police have investigated and made a statement, let alone charged or prosecuted anyone? Who knows what drugs any of the murderer or murderers had consumed. Maybe they were drunk; maybe they'd been sniffing bostik, maybe they were just murderous 'thugs'. I have no idea – and nor does Mr Hargreaves, or for that matter the Daily Mail.

Even if, hypothetically, the murderer/murderers turn out to have been stoned out of their minds, this still would not allow Hargreaves to link the murder to reclassification, or the enforcement of the new law (which he does even more overtly in yet another unambiguously titled Mail report: 'Cannabis downgrading blamed for psychotic killer gangs by vicar' ). Millions of people used cannabis before the changes, people have always been getting murdered - to suggest there is a causal link with a minor tweak in policing policy is completely spurious. There are some very real issues with young people misusing cannabis and it is no doubt sometimes a factor in antisocial behaviour, but Hargreaves' claims here have an air of hijacking a tragedy to further his own misplaced political objectives. The Mail apparently has no problem with this, not that its is the first time they have been guilty of dubious hype and nonsense reporting on the cannabis issue.

Anyway, we then hear from a regular Mail pundit on drugs issues, Mary Brett, neither a doctor, nor apparently, a statistician:

'What are the police waiting for? Since they talked about downgrading cannabis, admissions to mental health units have increased by forty per cent.'

A totally bizarre and unsupported claim for which no reference is given. She goes on:

'There has also been an increase in the number of users, despite the Government's denials, and there is also the awful violence.'

What increase? And this isn't about Government 'denials' - it’s specifically survey data from published and long established surveys that provide detailed notes on their methodologies. And precisely what violence is she talking about? Where does this stuff come from and why does the Mail publish it unchallenged? What evidence is there that cannabis use is a significant (or even insignificant) cause of murder or violence, or that reclassification has had any impact on levels of use or violence? I’m one of the most boring drug policy nerds on the planet and I’ve never seen any. What I have seen, however, was a recent detailed report by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee report which concluded that:

"We have found no convincing evidence for the deterrent effect, which is widely seen as underpinning the Government's classification policy, and have criticised the Government for failing to meet its commitments to evidence based policy making in this area."

Finally we learn from the Mail that:

"The Met's report declared the soft policy a 'success.' In an astonishing admission, it said letting-off more than 30,000 drug takers with a warning was good for 'police/public relations.' By not bothering to arrest the criminals, officers were having a 'positive effect in reducing friction between young people and the police.'

Why is this astonishing? Why is this an 'admission'? It’s just a statement of fact. It's just the police being honest and suggesting that it's a good thing for police relations that 30,000 more young people are not being branded with the stigma of criminality for something no worse than you or I having a few drinks down the boozer. I’m mystified why the Mail are having a go at the police anyway – they are just doing their job enforcing the laws handed down from Parliament, as they see appropriate with the limited resources they have – it has always been thus.

I despair reading this sort of thing, both the bonkers comments and the shoddy reporting. Drug policy is an important issue for debate - this really doesn’t help anyone. How about James Slack doing some accurate objective reporting and quoting a balance of opinions? To quote the 'So Macho' Reverend:

"I don't mean to be personal but a guy like that's more preferable
In my humble point of view than any of you"