How to make cocaine

As this film from the Lonely planet travel channel demonstrates, its surprisingly easy*. Not the high tech bond-villain underground laboratory many seem to imagine, nor even the bandana wearing terrorist types with AK47's in a jungle fortress, no - it's an old bloke in a hut with a bag of leaves and a few buckets of chemicals from the local hardware store.



Cocaine powder can be nasty stuff, and I'm fine with people telling others, especially young people, that it's potentially very bad for you and you shouldn't use it. Id actually say that maybe we should do a bit more of that given that use has at least doubled in the UK in the last decade (note: its always been Class A - so what happened to the deterrent effect of Home Office mythology?).

But watching this short film it struck me how preposterous it is that the lion's share of the our 'anti-drugs' budget goes on supply side enforcement instead of public health based interventions (be they prevention/education, treatment or harm reduction of one form or another). Our collective primary response to, what is most commonly, lets face it, peasants in a jungle stirring some leaves in a bucket, is to spend billions deploying high-tech military resources with all guns blazing, black hawks, heavily armed storm troopers, satellite surveillance and all the rest. Quite aside from the fact that crop eradication has been one of the most ridiculous policy disasters of the 50 years (untold billions spent, millions of acres of land, and not a few peasants, sprayed with toxic chemicals - yet cocaine production trebling) you have to look at these impoverished people struggling to survive and wonder if, just maybe, we've picked the wrong enemy here.

Supply side controls have never, and will never, prevent the production or supply of plant based drugs if huge number's of people demand them at a level that they are willing - in substantial numbers - to buy them from gangsters and street dealers for ridiculously inflated prices - with no information or guarantee of strength and purity. People are weird like that.

But this is no 'counsel of despair', its simply the reality of economics in a completely unregulated illegal market controlled by criminal profiteers. If a kilo of cocaine costs £200 from a peasant in Colombia, and sells for £100,000 on the streets of London, you tell me how you think we are going to prevent it getting from A to B? But don't take my word for it;

What about George Bush (just about still US president) who said in 2002: 'As long as there is a demand for drugs in this country, some crook is gonna figure out how to get 'em here...'

Or indeed former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in January 2001 'If demand [for drugs] persists, it's going to find ways to get what it wants. And if it isn't from Colombia it's going to be from someplace else.'

Or Antonio Maria Costa, Director of the Unite Nations Office for Drugs and Crime who noted in 2008 that prohibition was responsible for creating a 'huge criminal black market that thrives in order to get prohibited substances from producers to consumers, whether driven by a 'supply push’ or a 'demand pull', the financial incentives to enter this market are enormous. There is no shortage of criminals competing to claw out a share of a market in which hundred fold increases in price from production to retail are not uncommon”.

The UN's drug head honcho also observed - with his economist's hat on- (in 2007) that: "I invite you all to imagine that this year, all drugs produced and trafficked around the world, were seized: the dream of law enforcement agencies. Well, when we wake up having had this dream, we would realize that the same amount of drugs - hundreds of tons of heroin, cocaine and cannabis - would be produced again next year. In other words, this first dream shows that, while law enforcement is necessary for drug control, it is not sufficient. New supply would keep coming on stream, year after year."

Tony Blair's 10 Downing Street Strategy Unit report in to the illegal drug phenomenon , in 2003, concluded that: “Over the past 10-15 years, despite interventions at every point in the supply chain, cocaine and heroin consumption has been rising, prices falling and drugs have continued to reach users. Government interventions against the drug business are a cost of business, rather than a substantive threat to the industry's viability.”

I could go on, but why bother? The politicians making the decisions and committing the money know full well that supply side controls are pointless (if not actively counterproductive) and evidently don't even make much of an effort to conceal the fact anymore. The truth is that these enterprises stopped being about preventing drug production a long time ago - if they ever were about that. Today, whether in Colombia, Afghanistan or anywhere else, these military policing efforts are part of a vast and complex array of interconnected political agendas, military interests and geopolitical strategies, for which the drug war is merely a convenient front.


* Cocaine production remains thoroughly illegal. Do not try this at home, or anywhere else for that matter, even if you can get hold of a tonne of coca leaves.

The fault lines within current drug policy

Extract 4 from transform's upcoming publication: After the War on Drugs - Tools for the Debate..

As a way of demonstrating the fault lines in the drug debate, consider the two pieces of text juxtaposed below. On the left is the introduction to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy by the (now former) Prime Minister Tony Blair, published in March 2004 . In many respects it reflects the reformer’s perspective on the drug debate fault lines described above: an acceptance of the reality of drug use (in this case alcohol) in the UK and a rational strategy to minimise alcohol related harm, both to consumers and to wider society, through a series of pragmatic regulatory responses based on evidence of effectiveness. On the right is the identical text with one minor editorial change made by Transform: the word ‘alcohol’ has been changed to ‘drugs’, and the word ‘drinking’ has been changed to ‘drug use’. This juxtaposition demonstrates that the fault lines in this debate, once the ‘hot button’ issue of drugs is removed, are by no means as polarised as they appear. The exact same fault lines actually exist within current drug policy.

Bizarrely, the Government is simultaneously running, on the one hand, a policy on legal drugs based on using public health and evidence led regulation to minimise harm, and on the other hand a policy on illegal drugs that ignores evidence of effectiveness and uses the criminal justice system to enforce a dogmatic moral view.

Transform have read out the revised version of the text below (right) in debates to great effect. It really forces people to think (and, whilst not meant as a joke, sometimes gets a few laughs).

Why This … Millions of us enjoy drinking alcohol with few, if any, ill effects. Indeed moderate drinking can bring some health benefits. But, increasingly, alcohol misuse by a small minority is causing two major, and largely distinct, problems: on the one hand crime and anti-social behaviour in town and city centres, and on the other harm to health as a result of binge- and chronic drinking. The Strategy Unit's analysis last year showed that alcohol -related harm is costing around £20bn a year , and that some of the harms associated with alcohol are getting worse. This is why the Government has been looking at how best to tackle the problems of alcohol misuse. The aim has been to target alcohol-related harm and its causes without interfering with the pleasure enjoyed by the millions of people who drink responsibly. This report sets out the way forward. Alongside the interim report published last year it describes in detail the current patterns of drinking – and the specific harms associated with alcohol . And it clearly shows that the best way to minimise the harms is through partnership between government, local authorities, police, industry and the public themselves. For government, the priority is to work with the police and local authorities so that existing laws to reduce alcohol-related crime and disorder are properly enforced, including powers to shut down any premises where there is a serious problem of disorder arising from it. Treatment services need to be able to meet demand. And the public needs access to clear information setting out the full and serious effects of heavy drinking. For the drinks industry, the priority is to end irresponsible promotions and advertising; to better ensure the safety of their staff and customers; and to limit the nuisance caused to local communities. Ultimately, however, it is vital that individuals can make informed and responsible decisions about their own levels of alcohol consumption. Everyone needs to be able to balance their right to enjoy a drink with the potential risks to their own – and others' – health and wellbeing. Young people in particular need to better understand the risks involved in harmful patterns of drinking. I strongly welcome this report and the Government has accepted all its conclusions. These will now be implemented as government policy and will, in time, bring benefits to us all in the form of a healthier and happier relationship with alcohol. Foreword to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England Cabinet Office Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, March 2004

… But Not This? Millions of us enjoy drug use with few, if any, ill effects. Indeed moderate drug use can bring some health benefits. But, increasingly, drug misuse by a small minority is causing two major, and largely distinct, problems: on the one hand crime and anti-social behaviour in town and city centres, and on the other harm to health as a result of binge- and chronic drug use . The Strategy Unit's analysis last year showed that drug -related harm is costing around £20bn a year, and that some of the harms associated with drugs are getting worse. This is why the Government has been looking at how best to tackle the problems of drug misuse. The aim has been to target drug-related harm and its causes without interfering with the pleasure enjoyed by the millions of people who use drugs responsibly. This report sets out the way forward. Alongside the interim report published last year it describes in detail the current patterns of drug use – and the specific harms associated with drugs . And it clearly shows that the best way to minimise the harms is through partnership between government, local authorities, police, industry and the public themselves. For government, the priority is to work with the police and local authorities so that existing laws to reduce drug-related crime and disorder are properly enforced, including powers to shut down any premises where there is a serious problem of disorder arising from it. Treatment services need to be able to meet demand. And the public needs access to clear information setting out the full and serious effects of heavy drug use. For the drugs industry, the priority is to end irresponsible promotions and advertising; to better ensure the safety of their staff and customers; and to limit the nuisance caused to local communities. Ultimately, however, it is vital that individuals can make informed and responsible decisions about their own levels of drug consumption. Everyone needs to be able to balance their right to enjoy using drugs with the potential risks to their own – and others' – health and wellbeing. Young people in particular need to better understand the risks involved in harmful patterns of drug use. I strongly welcome this report and the Government has accepted all its conclusions. These will now be implemented as government policy and will, in time, bring benefits to us all in the form of a healthier and happier relationship with drugs. Foreword to the Drug Harm Reduction Strategy for England Cabinet Office (with edits by Transform) Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, March 2004

part 1
part 2
part 3




online July 2007...

Unhappy birthday for SOCA

SOCA's annus horriblis must be even more dispiriting for all concerned given that the agency is only 1 year old. They really have had a shoca.

In January the blog discussed how the historic failure of supply side drug inteventions combined with populist 'get-tough' law and order politics provided the backdrop for the emergence of the the new Serious Organised Crime Agency - and also suggested why it was reportedly running into problems. A recent report in the Guardian to mark the agencies 1st birthday details the ongoing problems.

To the good folks at SOCA, just so you in the future you don't say we didn't warn you, to spell it out again: supply side drug control is doomed to fail because of high demand for drugs combined with the brutal economics of unregulated markets run by criminal profiteers (aka prohibition). No10 knows it, The Home Office knows it, in fact anyone who has even glanced at the evidence (that would be the trillions of pounds/dollars spent on interdiction whilst drug production, supply and availablity have increased consistently for 40 years) know it too. Its OBVIOUS: really, theres no more evidence required.

see also Massive drug seizures solve world crisis
.

Home Office splits...Home Office keeps drugs. Doh!

.
In January there was talk of the Home Office splitting into a Ministry of justice and a Ministry of public protection, or something like that. The Transform blog speculated over the scuffle that would ensue over who didn't get to keep the poisoned chalice of doomed drugs enforcement. It was a jokey piece, partly because it all seemed like a Government bluff to make it look like the doing something to make the struggling department 'fit for purpose' after the various crises and series of high profile debacles. Turns out they were serious.

Cut along the dotted line. (© TDPF 2006)

Tony Blair announced in his speech on the matter that:

The Home Office will retain its other existing responsibilities, including for policing, anti-social behaviour, drugs, overall crime reduction, immigration, asylum and identity, in addition to its responsibilities for security and counter terrorism.

The Ministry of Justice will be responsible for policy on the overall criminal, civil, family and administrative justice system, including sentencing policy, as well as the courts, tribunals, legal aid and constitutional reform. It will help to bring together management of the criminal justice system, meaning that once a suspect has been charged their journey through the courts, and if necessary prison and probation, can be managed seamlessly.

I don't really get it, but anyway drugs will stay in the Home Office after all: I can hear the whoops of joy from here. One suspects it wont make the slightest bit of difference for drug policy, and gives the strong impression of being just another 'process' achievement as a proxy for those still-elusive 'policy outcome' achievements (see the SOCA blog for more discussion of this phenomenon). But it does at least demonstrate that there is some flexibility - especially in response to failure. Bear in mind that drugs has already moved once during the ten year strategy (from the Cabinet Office), so, with the drug strategy review about to get underway, and given the disastrous outcomes of the Home Office's time in charge, maybe there is a window of opportunity for a rethink.....

For the record: Transform have been suggesting for years that the drugs brief, being a health issue, be moved to a more appropriate department, like Health for example (as recently happened in Spain). The recent RSA drugs report also suggested that the drugs brief be taken away from the Home Office, although they suggested it move the Department of Communities and Local Government, rather than Health where alcohol and tobacco policy are overseen.
.

Why 'legalising' Afghan opium for medicine is a non-starter

.
The idea of 'legalising' Afghanistan's opium crop for medical use was back in the news this weekend. According to the Independent on Sunday, Tony Blair is now 'considering' the plan that has been rejected by the US and also by the Foreign Office. Even though the IOS has hardly covered itself in glory for its recent drugs coverage, this story apparently comes from a prime ministerial spokesperson so there's no reason think its not true. Another report
in Pakistan's Daily Times say that apparently NATO are also 'considering' the plan.

Its not surprising they are at least considering it. Afghanistan is as chaotic and war torn as ever: current efforts to deal with the illegal opium trade are clearly failing in dramatic style. Add to this the fact that everyone knows the eradication plans being floated are hopelessly impractical and have zero chance of success, and there may indeed be potential window for more radical solutions to be reviewed. Unfortunately 'consider' is not 'do'. When they do 'consider' it they will find that in its current form the plan is a non-starter. Below is an article which appeared (with a couple of very small edits) in this month's Druglink magazine in which I explain why.

Fields of Dreams

The Senlis Council proposal to license Afghan opium production for medical use has been garnering much publicity and high level support, most recently from the BMA. Could this plan be a 'silver bullet', simultaneously helping to heal Afghanistan and solving the 'global pain crisis'? Sadly not, argues Steve Rolles from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation.

Superficially at least the idea has great appeal. Currently more than half of global opium production is legal and licensed for the medical market (morphine, diamorphine, codeine). This product is not profiting criminals, fueling conflict, or being sold to addicts on street corners. Could we not help Afghanistan on its road to economic and political stability and fill the apparent shortfall in medical opiates for pain control? Unfortunately no – this apparent 'silver bullet' solution faces a raft of practical and political obstacles that render it almost completely unfeasible.

Firstly, the medical opium 'shortage' is an illusory one. Licit opium production currently takes place primarily in Tasmania, Turkey, and India, strictly licensed by the UN drug agencies. The problem is evidently not a lack of opium but rather the under use of current production. The INCB estimated annual global demand for licit opiates (in morphine equivalents) was 400 metric tonnes and that over production since 2000 has led to stocks 'that could cover global demand for two years'. Afghanistan's annual production is 610 tonnes of morphine equivalent (and rising). Flooding an already over-saturated market would potentially cause precisely the supply/demand imbalance the UN control system was designed to prevent. Any first steps would, therefore, have to address under-usage of existing production and the related political, bureaucratic, and licensing issues before any realistic role for licit Afghan production could seriously be entertained.

The second problem is a purely practical one with Afgahanistan's status as a failed state and war zone presenting insurmountable obstacles. Although such an illicit-to-licit transition has been achieved in Turkey and India, this required a high level of infrastructural investment, state intervention and security apparatus, something Afghanistan is entirely lacking in its current chaotic and lawless state. Afghan production would also struggle to compete on the international market, with its unit costs estimated by David Mansfield (1) at almost ten times higher than the highly industrialised output from Australia.

Finally there is the fact that demand for non-medical opiates will not disappear, even if Afghan opium production hypothetically could. A lucrative illicit profit opportunity would remain - a vacuum into which other illicit production would inevitably move - whether in Central Asia or elsewhere. More likely, the demand would be met by increased Afghan production under the same farmers, warlords and profiteers, potentially making the situation worse. The plan has no more hope of getting rid of illicit non-medical production than the decades of failed alternative development and eradication have. The brutal realities of supply and demand economics in a completely unregulated and illegal marketplace will see to that.

There may well be a place for smaller scale licensing of Afghan opium at some point in the future, certainly for their domestic medical needs and perhaps as part of an amnesty plan or transition program for farmers moving into alternative crops. But the Senlis plan as currently envisaged is a non-starter - 'silver bullet fantasies' as the TransNational Institute describes it (2). Sanho Tree (Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC) described the plan as "a mirror image of prohibition – well-intentioned but ill-conceived, just from the opposite end of the policy spectrum". Whilst undoubtedly useful in stimulating debate on licensing opium production, the proposal is now casting a shadow over more thoughtful and cautious policy work being undertaken by other drug policy NGOs. For organisations like Transform there is a danger that an over hyped but ultimately doomed 'legalisation' plan is potentially undermining a reform movement struggling to promote a more nuanced exploration of realistic models for regulated drug production and supply.

1) David Mansfield's website

2) TNI Afghanistan report pdf

Senlis Council website

No10 drug policy e-petitions: a total waste of time?

The Number 10 Downing Street web site’s experiment in participatory democracy - in the shape of the petition-the-Prime-Minister page - is now positively brimming with petitions on drug policy. As we shall see they range from the eminently sensible to the totally barking, from the eloquent to the really quite odd.

In an attempt to make it as participatory as possible it is incredibly easy to submit a petition. Too easy perhaps. A lot of the drug policy petitions read like entries on a chat site, clunky, ill thought out and full of typos, almost as if they were ranting responses to a newspaper column, which I suspect a lot of them are.

But even if they were all thoughtful and beautifully composed, and we got rid of the ranting and repetition, I still question the merits of the whole exercise. Hardly anyone is signing them – the highest one being for cannabis legalisation with 1400 odd signatures, most barely scraping into double figures. To put this in perspective the petition for Spandau Ballet’s ‘Gold’ to be the new national anthem has 5500 signatures. The road pricing petition got a million+ signatures with the help of an orchestrated tabloid campaign (somewhat distorting its relative value perhaps) and was ignored, although it did provide No.10 with a nice bunch of email addresses. You have to wonder whether, like 'the big conversation' or the current No10 forum with 60 'ordinary people' (er, patronising?) this is just another fruitless PR excercise.


I suppose you could argue there’s no harm in it, as long as no one starts thinking it will make any difference, or that the Government pay it any attention. The Government barely consult on substantive drug policy changes at the best of times (the Drugs Bill 2005 being the obvious recent example), and they generally don’t listen to experts in the drugs field, Select Committees, or even the Govt appointed Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs and No.10 policy advisers - unless it happens to fit within their plans.

And anyway, for every petition stating a progressive drug reform position, there’s another one calling for drug dealers to be executed/ used for medical experiments/ jailed for life. Maybe that’s what democracy is all about, but I just can’t see any of this having the slightest impact. Drug policy reform requires an entirely more nuanced and sophisticated debate (petition anyone?) something we certainly dont have on this crude and polarising web page. There used to be open discussion forum on this site (my posts seemed to dissapear quite often)- thats seems to have now dissapeared altogether. Now we just have the almost completely pointless e-petitions page and a series of lectures from the Prime Minister

Oh well, for the record, here they all are. I have very democratically included links should feel moved to support any of them, and I have also included the full explanatory text along with the petition statements (copy and pasted directly to you). First up there are a set of petitions that are variations on the theme of ending drug prohibition and legally regulating currently illegal drug markets, some better than others (note: the first two have already closed)


We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Legalise all drugs.
Drugs are too dangerous to leave in the hands of criminals. Legalisation removes the need for people to procure their drugs through the criminal fraternity, thus drying up the cash flow to the suppliers and putting them out of business. If all drugs were legal then they could be sold through controlled licenced premisis (rather like alcohol), and the taxes that are gathered could be used for education and healthcare. The health benefits would be huge, as a large portion of the health issues experienced by users is related to deliberatly contaminated supplies. The war on drugs has been lost. Its time to draw up terms of surrender. We urge the prime minister to legalise all drugs immediately, under a scheme similar to alcohol, and to use the tax revenue for education.
(65 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise, sanitise, and control all recreational drugs and to make them safer.
notes N.A.
(67 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Initiate an effective counter measure against the illegal drugs trade.
To tackle the drugs problem requires military strategy against the energy of the illegal drugs trade, easy and vast profits. The target is to diminish such profits by drug dealers. Action. Make the selling of prescribed drugs government monopoly, selling to registered drug users at very low prices, decriminalising the use of drugs so obtained. Result. Drugs dealers would have no returns on their investment as the government agencies (hospitals, GPs, pharmacies etc) would take their markets away. Dealers would face fines by HM Customs and Excise, rendering the exercise futile and neutralised. Drug users would turn to government agencies for their supply who provide the drugs against controlled registration, allowing the authorities to know who the users are, where they are. In turn, to take control of the problem and help reducing the drug dependence for users. The need for users to commit criminal action to finance their habits would be reduced. (4 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Solve the prison crisis by legalising recreational drugs.
Two-thirds of the prison population are in jail because of drug related crime. By legalising recreational drugs we will take the drug industry out of the hands of violent criminals and kill off drug crime. Drugs would be safer and the tax collected would be used to treat addicts. We would reduce violent crime, burglary, robbery and prostitution. The streets would be safer, insurance premiums would come down and the economy would grow. Children are attracted to illicit drugs precisely because they are illicit, make them legal and the attraction wanes.
(7 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Treat all use of currently illegal drugs as a medical problem, by supplying them on prescription, with appropriate social, medical, and psychological support
To medicalise the current illegal drugs scene would immediately make drug dealers redundant, and remove a user's need to steal or prostitute themselves to support their habit. The reductions in violent crime would be a massive social benefit, and allow funds to be switched to increase the NHS services required. It would over time drastically reduce the prison population, where a majority of the inmates have an unresolved dependency problem. Let common sense take precedence over the perception of being "tough on crime". Try to be truly "tough on the causes of crime".
(8 signatures)


We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to take proper control and exercise intelligent management of all recreational drugs and remove this control from the hands of criminals and the black market
Far more damage to the millions of recreational drug users in this country occurs due to the poor quality, Rubbish used in "cutting" and general product tampering than occurs from the drugs themselves. All because government policy puts there control into the hands of organised crime and criminals.
(25 signatures)

I wont hear a word said against this next one as it was a blog-xperiment undertaken by our very own Transform Blog maestro Alex.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to To End The Prohibition of Drugs And To Regulate A Safer Marketplace For All Currently Illegal Drugs
To reduce the criminal and social harms associated with the prohibition of drugs, we the undersigned, petition the Prime Minister to end prohibition and to regulate strictly the sale and marketing of potentially dangerous and currently illegal substances perhaps via licensed pharmacists. The costs of prohibition far outweigh any benefits.
(260 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise heroin and cocaine and stop violent criminal gangs cornering and profiting from this $500 billion dollar market
we've tried prohibition and after many years it's obviously not worked. In Switzerland were they have legalised heroin, new drug user's fell by 85% and the 'cool' image of drugs has gone - instead drug addiction is seen as a medical illness. Other benefits would include controlling where the drugs come - not from Afganistan's Taliban! or from FARC terriots groups in Columbia
(26 signatures)

There are also a series of cannabis related petitions covering much the same ground:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to let class C drugs be legal for over 18 year olds.
Sold by licensed retailers. A limited quatity can be purchased.
(42 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to initiate a test program whereas cannabis users may purchase upto 5grams in a "coffeeshop".
Sold by licensed retailers. A limited quatity can be purchased.
(468 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove cannabis and cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated laws.
This is a petition to remove cannabis (marijuana) from prohibition laws and thus enable consumer protection.
(1412 signatures)

And then, inevitably perhaps, there are a series of prohibition oriented petitions calling for exactly the opposite. Whilst the above are by no means going to win literary prizes, the prohibition ones are all a bit, well, wierd. First up, one calling for the illegal drug cannabis to be made more illegal:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Reclassify cannabis as a dangerous drug and clearly criminal to use or sell.
Upgrade the classification of cannabis to a well defined crime as it is a dangerous drug on the strong evidence of its relationship to mental health breakdown, physical health breakdown,effect on drivers' judgement and addiction to itself and or other drugs. It is now a far stronger drug than before. Especially to protect the young it should be well upgraded.
(22 signatures)

Then a completely crackers one that should probably never have got through the vetting process for fairly obvious reasons:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Illegal Drug Users & dealers to be more Harshly Punished.
I believe users & dealers of Illegal drugs should be punished harsher thn ever before. Users should be forced to go "Cold Turkey" then USED for Medical experiments at Goverment Detention camps,with NO Civil Rights. At least then they serve a Public purpose. As for the dealers they should be either used in the same way as the user or sentenced to FULL LIFE TERM (NEVER to be released) in Prison/Detention camps.
(4 signatures)

This next one takes the prize for the most hopelessly argued case for prohibition :

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Keep cannabis, ecstasy heroin etc illegal.
Why on earth would we want to make illegal drugs such as cannabis, ecstacy, cocaine and heroin legal. Keep these drugs illegal!
(15 signatures)

The token nasty death penalty advocating one (three strikes you're dead) :

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce & apply the death penalty for persons caught in the act of selling narcotic drugs in the United Kingdom. To be implemented after two formal warnings issued by the Police to cease drug selling are found to have been ignored
Introduced in Singapore and reduced drug sales to almost nil. Introduced in China with the same effect. Drug pedlars are peddling death and misery and their activities should attract the harshest of punishment. The job of a government is to protect the people who elected it. This prime responsibility is being ignored by the government of the UK with respect to drug peddling, & our young people & the nation are suffering.
(8 signatures)

A sermon like call for 'zero tolerance':

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Recognise that Crime and Drug Dependency are now out of control and that to protect our children and culture he will give 3 years notice to adopt a Zero Tolerance Policy to all users of Drugs and abusers of Alcohol backed by free treatment or Custody Till Clean
Successive Governments have failed to create unambiguous policies towards drug and alcohol abuse and the crime and degradation that follows. Our children now regard a "Spliff" as a right of passage and some advocate legalising drugs as the only policy.This simply adds to the confusion. We,the caring majority,know that,given time,resources,and resolve we can ensure that future generations grow up knowing that ALL DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE IS UNACCEPTABLE IN THE UK. The 3 year notice will give addicts/dealers the choice of treatment and support OR custody. Custody will be no soft option and "Cold Turkey" the dish of the day to remind them of the reason to get clean. Yes, we will need more prisons and treatment centres in the short term but in the long term say 10 years society will reap the rewards. Less crime and delinquency,stable and supportive families,the hope of a caring society where its no longer hip to be high! We beg this to be YOUR legacy to OUR history.
(34 signatures)

Another zero tolerance tirade :

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to give criminals years and years to think about their crimes in prison. Big sentances like America.
Burglary 1st offence ~ 10 years. 2nd offence 100 years jail. Violent Murder 1st offence ~ life minimum 100 years Criminal damage 1st offence. Eg smashing car window. 10 years jail. Driving without insurance and license ~ £50,000 fine or 5 years jail. Drug addicts ~ 1 year jail forced to go cold turkey and trained in a profession to get a real job. Go back on the drugs and 100 years jail. No more life sentances for serious crimes with the minimum ammount of time to be served 4 years or anything stupidly small. Zero tolerence.
(3 signatures)

This next one shouldn’t have been passed, on the obvious basis that we don’t give illegal drugs to prisoners, but anyway:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop giving illegal drugs to prisoners.
It is rediculous that drug users should be able to continue their addiction whilst in prison & expect us to pay for it. Surely it would be better for everyone concerned if steps were taken to break the habit so that they are no longer addicts when they are realeased therefore removing one of the reasons for the original criminal behaviour.
(71 signatures)

If youve found all that a bit upsetting, there’s a certain amount of light relief to be had reading through the rejected petitions – where all the joke /inappropriate / repetious / totally loo-lah petitions are relegated, including my personal favorite legalisation call:"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it legal to push a saveloy in and out of a big bowl of blancmange whilst singing 'rock me amadeus' by falco "

A few of these, however, have managed to slip through the net:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that music education in our schools teaches children that drugs do not need to be taken to either play or listen to progressive rock
Progressive rock music encourages a culture of drug taking to both play and listen to it, expressed by the overlong length and repetitive nature of the songs. We're concerned thats its recent revival amongst young people will promote drug use and we'd like school music teachers to try and inform pupils that drugs do not have to be taken to either listen to or play it.
(22 signatures)

Now that one I may just put my name to.

Yet another leaked government report critiques prohibition/calls for regulation

A report by Marie Woolf in the The Independent on Sunday reveals that the Government has been giving far more attention to progressive drug policy than they would like to let on. The IOS story, titled: ‘Heroin on the NHS and a document too hot to handle’ (unfortunately the story is not available online without subscription) has a pretty juicy scoop in the form of a ‘restricted’ Home Office brief intended for the eyes of Tony Blair, which they have managed to get hold of.

Some statements cited from the document include:

"There is mounting evidence of the impossibility of winning the war against drugs supply.""The Home Office should consider wider rolling out of injectable heroin prescription for highly dependent users through the NHS"

A system of controlled availability of drugs would allow the Government to exert a much greater degree of influence over the way in which substances are used than is currently possible."

“there is a strong argument that prohibition has caused or created many of the problems associated with the use or misuse of drugs. One option for the future would be to regulate drugs differently, through either over-the-counter sales, licensed sales or doctor's prescription.’

These quotes are certainly striking, coming as they do from a Government that has steadfastly refused to even contemplate public debate on such matters. 'Dynamite' as Woolf describes them.

Perhaps the most interesting and encouraging thing about it is that it makes the most explicit high level call yet for the control and regulation of drugs, and specifically critiques the failure of 'prohibition'. It uses language that will appear spookily familiar to readers of Transform’s 'After the War on Drugs -Options for Control' report – linked in the margin to the right. It certainly supports Transform's position that, well, 'prohibition has caused or created many of the problems associated with the use or misuse of drugs' and our campaign to 'regulate drugs differently', specifically the 'controlled availability of drugs'.

The question now is how long can the Government ignore the mountainous evidence and calls (including repeatedly from its own advisors and civil servants) for a more rational approach to drug policy? Take one specific example – an expansion of heroin prescribing: there have been at least five major reports land on the Prime Minister’s desk in 8 years arguing for a such a roll out:

1. The 1999 Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 Police Foundation This made a detailed analysis of current policy failings and made recommendations for a number rational reforms, including the reclassification of cannabis, ecstasy and LSD, and a focus of spending on health rather than punitive enforcement. This independent report was roundly rejected by the Government on the day of publication – although many of its recommendations have subsequently been adopted. It called for more heroin prescribing.(Transform made a written submission)

2. The 2002 Home Affairs Select Committee Report: The Governments Drug Policy: Is it working? Powerful critique of supply side prohibition and detailed consideration of various options for reform including recommending more heroin prescribing. (Transform gave written and oral evidence and are quoted in the final report – which included a call for a Government debate on 'legalisation' at 'UN level'). All substantive recommendations were ignored.

3. The Strategy Unit report (Phases 1 & 2). In 2003 the Number 10 Strategy Unit was commissioned to produce what was initially described as ‘a scoping exercise' on illegal drugs. What emerged in Phase 1 of the reporting process, titled ‘Understanding the Issues’, was a thorough and clinical analysis by some of the best policy minds in the UK - of the counterproductive effects of national and global drug law enforcement. In December of 2003, Phase 2 of the report ‘Diagnosis and Recommendations' was produced. It later became known as ‘the Birt ' report' and its existence was made public, again by Marie Woolf in the Independent. Phase 1's critique of supply side interventions was sidelined, and Birt recommended an intensification of demand-side measures aimed at ‘gripping high harm causing users (HHCUs)’ in coerced treatment, in order to reduce property crime associated with fundraising to support a habit. This later culminated in the clauses in the new Drugs Act 2005 that mandate (with criminal sanctions including imprisonment) drug testing on arrest for certain trigger offences and mandatory treatment if positive. However – it also called for an expansion of heroin prescribing:

"In principle, there is a strong rationale for a more widespread use of heroin prescription in the treatment system

• around 260,000 heroin users have serious habits which are predominantly funded through crime
• it is better to draw those users into an environment where they can inject safely
• where they can be persuaded to move down the pathway towards abstinence
• it is also better to provide heroin freely to those users than to have them commit crime to buy it." (p.58)

4. The 2007 memo written by David Bennett, the head of the No 10 policy directorate, which according to the Sunday Times, 'outlines the prime minister’s “emerging ideas” for his last months in office which he hopes will be so far advanced when his successor takes over that Brown will have to follow them.' It includes the following idea: ‘Prescribing addictive drugs in a bid to help tackle drug-related crime.’

- Transform have blogged this article here.

5. and finally this newly revealed 2004 Final Report of the Crime Reduction Review detailed in the Heroin on the NHS and a document too hot to handle’ article.

So, just to recap: That's major reports in 1999 (Police Foundation) 2002 (Home Affairs Select Committee) 2003 (No 10 Strategy Unit) 2004 (Home Office crime reduction review), and 2007 (No 10 Policy Directorate) all telling the Prime Minister that expanding heroin prescribing is a good idea. This is not to mention the stream of senior police, documentaries and editorials making the same call, or the fact that Transform and numerous other NGO's in the drugs field have been calling for this for many years.So it was rejected (in the short term) as an idea, but it’s a relief to know that at least these things are being discussed (even if they don't want us to know). Who knows, one of these days we may even actually see an expansion of heroin prescribing, something the long since departed Blunkett promised back in 2002 – 5 years ago. Certainly no one will be able to claim it’s a big surprise when it finally happens.

See also: Has the heroin prescribing debate reached tipping point?

Has the heroin prescribing debate reached a tipping point?

The Independent today reports that the president of ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers), Ken Jones, has joined the long list of senior police and public figures calling for heroin (diamorphine) to be prescribed to 'addicts'.

Before considering this potentially significant development it is worth commenting on the Independent's front page which is, in the pursuit of an attention grabbing headline, both misleading and factually incorrect. Firstly, what's with the spoon and powder? Prescribed heroin is provided in liquid form in little glass ampoules, like these:

There is no spoon. And secondly - Heroin is already available on the NHS. It is already given to addicts in the UK (although only about 3-400) , by the NHS, and actually has been since the first world war. It is also given to women during child birth, and extensively used in palliative care and other pain control, including once for me when I had my appendix out. So an interesting 'scoop' for the Independent but slap on the wrist for the stupid sensationalist tabloid front page. I am just about willing to forgive them, however, because today they have also run another in a line of excellent op-eds from Johann Hari on the futility of prohibition which is available on his own website so you can actually read it here - which I strongly recommend you do.

Now back to the actual news.

Unfortunately the Independent isn't available on line after the day of publication (boo-hiss) so here's a link to the same story in the Telegraph. Jones is quoted saying (to the Independent) :

“I was a drugs officer and we have to be realistic. There is a hardcore minority who are not in any way, shape or form anxious to come off drugs. They think 'I am going to go out there and steal, rob burgle and get the money to buy it. We are we going to do - say 'Ok, we are going to try an contain this by normal criminal justice methods’ and fail, or are we going to look at doing something different? Start being a bit more innovative. It is about looking at things in a different way without turning away completely from the current position.”

All good solid thinking, albeit nothing new (slightly oddly, whilst calling for the legal supply of a currently illegal drug for non-medical use he also says "I am not in any shape or form a legaliser" but we will let that semantic conundrum pass). Ken Jones follows a string of senior police who have said the same thing, including Howard Roberts (Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire), Richard Brunstrom (Chief Constable of North Wales), Tom Lloyd (former Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire), Francis Wilkinson (former Chief Constable of Gwent) and ofcourse the late Eddie Ellison (former head of the Met drugs squad). There are many more, some on the record, most still choosing to remain shtum.

We should listen to them. They have been courageous to risk public opproborium by speaking their minds on what remains a highly contentious issue. They undoubtedly know what they are talking about having seen - first hand - the abject failure of using the criminal justice system to try and address a serious and growing public health problem amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised in society. Since heroin prescribing was restricted to few specialist doctors needing a Home Office license in 1967 (since when GP's cannot prescribe heroin as the Telegraph coverage mistakenly claims) the number of heroin users has risen from around 15,000 to around 300,000. Hardly a triumph for a policy aiming to reduce use and ultimately create a drug free society.

Moreover, as the Prime Minsiters own report from the No.10 strategy unit shows in gratuitous detail, the inflated costs of illegal street heroin (due to its non-availability through legal channels) combined with its generally low income problem-user base has led to over 50% of property crime being committed to raise cash to feed an illegal habit.

As discussed on the blog last month the idea of expanding heroin prescribing has been on the table in Government circles for years with very little movement. Everyone in Government knows it's a good idea because they have mountains of evidence from Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and even the UK telling them so. But since when has evidence of effectiveness had much to do with UK drug policy? Maybe Ken Jones will be the tipping point. Even if they are incapable of doing rational cost benefit analysis in cash terms maybe they can do one with politics. As the crisis in the criminal justice system and prisons continues to spiral out of control, you have to wonder whether the fear of any political costs of expanding heroin prescribing will soon be outweighed by the fear of the political costs of inaction,

On the cash front, one of the hurdles to more heroin prescribing (and the preference for methadone) is that it is widely seen as prohibitively expensive. The figure of £12,000 a year is the one usually quoted, and is roughly correct at today's UK prices, although it will vary from client to client. The Daily Mail covering the Ken Jones story today has somehow turned this into £15,000 a year in the print edition, but then uses the £12,000 figure in its online coverage. Indeed the print edition is full of all manner of classic Daily Mail drug-stat silliness, calculating, for example, that 'making heroin available free to all the country's 200,000 addicts would cost £3 billion.' In the online version the number of addicts is up to 320,000, which is the Home office estimate and probably more realistic. Either way they really don't like the idea of spending money on 'junkies' - apparently oblivious of the far greater cost to every one of leaving them in hands of the illegal market (£16 billion a year in crime costs) or putting them in prison (35K a year each).

In reality heroin prescribing is not going to be the answer for all of the UK problem users, it being just one potential option from a range of possible interventions, decisions that should rightly be being made by agreement between doctor and patient, rather than know-nothing politicians. In the short to medium term at least prescribing is likely to be most useful for the hard core of around 20-30,000 long term relapsing users, who are responsible for the vast majority of drug related offending, and who have failed on other programs. These are the High Harm Causing Users (HHCUs) identified in the Prime Minister's strategy unit report and it is similar criteria to these that have been applied with great success in prescribing regimes in Switzerland and Holland.

Furthermore the cost of diamorphine in the UK is artificially inflated by a huge margin due to the monopoly control of the UK opiates market by Macfarland Smith ltd, investigated as far back as 1989 by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. This monopoly over-pricing recently led to an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading and then a rather lame report from the DTI which concluded that there was a problem, that they would keep an eye on, but not much else. The upshot of this rarely mentioned scandal is that diamorphine is a whopping six times as expensive in the UK as it is in Holland. Yes, that's a 600% difference - for the exact same pharmaceutical product.

So in true Daily Mail style here's a quick back of the matchbox calculation with the revised 'real world' costs. 20,000 users at £2000 each a year = £40 million. That's without subtracting the cost of prescribing methadone to many of them as we already do. So not quite £3 billion then. But if this £40million made a dent, even a smallish one, in the £16 billion a year in crime that the Home Office estimates is the crime costs to society from fundraising-to-buy-heroin, then it would still be a veritable bargain.

For those who aren't simply hard nosed politicians totting up the pounds or political pros and cons, evidence of heroin prescribing from the 'real world' also shows that:

• numerous lives would be saved from avoiding dirty street drugs, overdoses and blood borne diseases (The UK consistently has the highest level of drug deaths in Europe)
• users lives would be stabilised and they would be far more likely to get into treatment and rehabilitation (because they are in more regular contact with services)
• the number of new young recruits into problematic use would fall dramatically (in Holland the average age of problem heroin users is 40 and rsing, in the UK it is mid-20's and falling)
• street dealing, drug litter and social nuisance would all fall (re: Zurich, Vancouver)
• some degree of pressure on the ballooning prison population would be removed (thanks to the massive resulting fall in offending)

Anyway you look at it, its a winner. Small wonder increasing numbers of big names in criminal justice are coming out in favour. Now, what about those big hitters over at the BMA... or even the NTA.....?

Postscript: I had an interesting clash with George Galloway on his TalkSport radio show on this issue on Monday night. You can listen to it here (click on the link and it should open in windows media player - or similar. im afraid theres about 10 minutes of guff before the action starts). I found it odd that Galloway, someone who you would assume to be anti-war generally, and specifically anti US imperialism, aswell as a defender of the marginalised peoples of the world, was an enthusiastic cheerleader for the war on drugs, unable to see beyond his rigid moral view that drugs were bad and therefore should be banned. He had no understanding of harm reduction, the economic realities of illicit production or the long term failure of drug interdiction. Still I gave him a good run for his money, and hopefully some food for thought.

Tony's drug policy map for Gordon

In an interesting development the Sunday Times reports on a 'confidential' memo written by David Bennett, the head of the No 10 policy directorate, in advance of a policy summit held at Chequers last Friday.

The memo, according to the Times, 'outlines the prime minister’s “emerging ideas” for his last months in office which he hopes will be so far advanced when his successor takes over that Brown will have to follow them.'

It apparently "brings together suggestions from policy groups set up by Blair in the wake of last autumn’s botched “coup” attempt by Brownites. Their job was to study ideas for Britain’s long-term future."

Internal Labour political shenanigans aside there was an interesting inclusion in the list of emerging ideas:

"Prescribing addictive drugs in a bid to help tackle drug-related crime."

Now obviously this isnt a new idea. The UK has been prescribing heroin for decades (even though it is limited to a couple of hundred recipients today) and also widely prescribes the synthetic opiate methadone as well as some various other drugs to long term addicts, including amphetamines. However, despite promises made by David Blunkett to expand prescribing (back when he was Home Secretary - to the Home Affairs Select Committee on drugs in 2002) and some promising pilot projects like the Swiss-style heroin prescribing drop in centre in London, the pace of change has been glacially slow.

The obstacle has been primarily a political one - both in Government and within the medical establishment. Politicians have been reluctant to be seen putting money into providing drugs to addicts - since whilst it makes all sorts of sense on any rational cost benefit analysis (using public health or criminal justice measures) it makes potentially terrible headlines in the Daily Mail and other papers who have it in for the Government (as being 'soft' of drugs and crime etc). That said, the idea has had personal and editorial endorsements from a range of unlikely individuals and publications, including many in the media who the Government are most afraid of. This Government PR problem has been compounded by politics in the medical establishment who are also notoriously reluctant to embrace substiutute prescribing, for different but equally lame reasons.

But then here it is on Tony's menu of legacy policy ideas. The idea actually was put to the Prime Minister, a second time, by 'blue skies adviser' John Birt's half of the Number 10 Strategy unit report back in 2003 but failed to have real traction (the report being supressed) and the alternative option of a massive increase in CJS administered coerced treatment apparently being more politically palatable. But now, third time lucky, Blair's advisors have once again alighted on the fact that prescribing to dependent users can potentially deliver excellent health and criminal justice outcomes (something UK drug policy has not seen alot of recently, or if we are being honest, ever).

The danger is that, as the Times suggests "the chancellor’s allies have indicated that Brown will make a decisive break from Blair’s legacy when he enters Downing Street by refusing to keep to the 10-year policy review" and that the drug prescribing idea will fall by the wayside with the rest of them, ironically for a different set of political reasons. The hope is that this innovation may survive the 'break' from Blair's legacy, given that it's impossible for Blair to be associated with any such progressive reforms of drug policy during his time as boss. Maybe Brown will be the pragmatist on drug policy that Blair has failed to be - he's from the Treasury after all and does, one hopes, understand the concept of cost/benefit analysis, as well as the need to appease the tabloids.