Pre-election prohibition fast-track for mephedrone

In Prime Minister's Questions yesterday Gordon Brown came up with this response to a question calling for a ban on mephedrone:

The Prime Minister: I am very concerned about what my hon. Friend has told me, and I send my sincere condolences to Jordan’s family and to their friends. We are committed to preventing young people from starting to take drugs. The advice is clear that, just because a substance is legal, that does not make it safe.

A valid point - tobacco, alcohol, paracetamol, nutmeg, prozac etc.

He continued:

We are concerned specifically about the harms of mephedrone, and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs [ACMD] is considering that and similar compounds as an absolute priority. We will receive its advice on 29 March, and subject to that advice we will take immediate action. We are determined to act to prevent this evil from hurting the young people of our country.

'Evil'? If mephedrone is 'evil' because it can hurt people, then alcohol and tobacco (which kill respectively, 100 and 300 a day in the UK), must truly be the work of Satan. This is hyberbolic twaddle straight out of the pre-election manual: 'How to garner votes in marginal constituencies by appealing to populist fears and nationalistic prejudices'.

As for ACMD, when exactly did the Government start getting so impatient for their expert advice? Certainly not when they called for the downgrading of Ecstasy from Class A to B. Or when they said cannabis should be left as Class C.

Truth be told it is already pretty clear where the ACMD are going on this.

But what would Brown do if they actually did call for enough time just to gather the evidence properly, rather than support a populist knee-jerk reaction?

Or they called for a detailed review, now or even at a later date, of any unintended consequences of absolute prohibition (including those identified by the head of the UNODC) e.g. creating a massive criminal black market, diverting money from health to criminal justice, displacing users to more harmful substances, marginalising and criminalising large numbers of otherwise law abiding users? Or causing an increase in the use of hazardous cutting agents, or the drug becoming of highly variable strength leading to increased overdose risk, or an increase in acquisitive crime if prices rise dramatically? Many of which, at least anecdotally, appear to be happening in the Channel Islands where a ban already exists.

Or, heaven forfend, what if the ACMD even called for the creation of a new holding category? Whether Class D, with tightly regulated legal sales including the provision of detailed health and use advice as suggested by the ACMD's last Chair David Nutt. Or Category X as suggested by the UK Drug Policy Commission, while all the possible options were properly modeled, to make sure we took the best route to minimize harms to individuals and society?

David Nutt's latest from the Evening Standard is well worth a look, and bearing in mind his treatment from the Government, the most likely outcome for ACMD of seeking a genuinely evidence-based review, would be finding themselves all sacked...

Update 26 March:

This is how the Daily Mail ran Nutt's views after the Standard rewrote their own story.

Mephedrone and the ACMD: lessons from BZP and New Zealand's 'Class D' experiment?

Witnessing the media frenzy around mephedrone yesterday I was struck by the similarities with the situation that emerged around the last legal stimulant to achieve any real youth market penetration, namely BZP. BZP (Benzylpiperazine) was reviewd by the ACMD and, following their recommendation, brought within the Misuse of drugs Act just before last Christmas, but had been effectively removed from the 'legal high' market after the MRHA clarified that it was covered by the Medicines Act in 2007. There was never the level of media frenzy over BZP that we are now witnessing with mephedrone, probably because it was neither as popular nor (from the relatively little we know) as risky, and specifically was not directly linked to any deaths. Some journalists did their best to whisk up some hysteria (check out this joker in the Guardian for example), but it never really got any full blown drug-panic momentum.

But at the time the BZP issue was emerging (around 2006), Transform, aware that the drug would soon be under consideration, produced a briefing and submitted it to the ACMD. Central to that briefing was a consideration of New Zealand's policy on BZP, where a unique experiment was underway in which a new piece of legislation had been added to the conventional ABC system, in the form of a new 'restricted list' or  'Class D' as it came to be known, within which drugs would be legal for sale under certain conditions. This was, to our knowledge the first time that a non-medical stimulant drug widely used on the party scene, had been legally regulated for commercial sale anywhere in the world.

Since the briefing was written the situation in New Zealand has changed, and there are also obvious differences between the situation with Mephedrone and BZP. None the less, it was interesting to see David Nutt (who was sitting on the ACMD when we submitted our BZP briefing) suggesting the New Zealand Class D model in the Guardian CiF today. With all this in mind we thought it was worth revisiting the discussion and recommendations from the 2006 BZP briefing, as they seem pertinent to the current debate around mephedrone (not least since the ban on BZP arguably created the space in the market into which mephedrone emerged).

BZP as sold in 2006 

To note - the briefing was produced in October 2006, and some of the information is out of date (more up to date reviews of BZP have emerged). Also, whilst a Class D might be useful as a short term measure it  is not a long term solution and comes with its own problems (potentially further muddying public understanding of drug risks for example). If you want to know what Transform are advocating see here (it isn't prohibition, it isn't a Class D, and it certainly isn't powerful stimulants being sold without any regulation online as plant food).

The full 2006 BZP briefing, with references, is available here, the discussion and recommendations section is copied below:

Discussion:

Piperazines are psychoactive drugs and clearly not without risks. However, the assessments that have been done suggest that the risks are relatively low (see safety appendix), arguably on a par with or less than khat, another legal stimulant (in this case plant based) recently considered by the ACMD  - for which classification under the MDA was not recommended.

Whilst the demographic profile of khat use (largely limited to traditional use amongst the male Somali community) is very different to that of piperazines (mostly used in the party / club / dance music scene) some of the same conclusions apply.

Costs of prohibiting piperazines would include:

• Potential for the creation of an illegal market for drugs that have an established market and level of demand
• Profits being diverted from legitimate, taxed and legally liable producers/retailers into the hands criminal gangs and unregulated dealers
• Increased risks/harm to users from drugs of unknown strength and purity, sold without any health and safety information
• Removal of potential harm reduction gains achieved by diverting recreational users away from more dangerous illegal drugs such as amphetamines (including methamphetamine) and MDMA (ecstasy) and its analogues.
• Criminalisation of users, mostly young people
• An increase in enforcement costs to police, customs, courts, prisons and probation services

Are there potential benefits to prohibiting piperazines?

Benefits of such a move would seem to be primarily political (i.e. demonstrating ‘tough on drugs' credentials).

A deterrent effect from such a prohibition is possible, but doubtful given that there is already an established demand for these drugs, and those deterred would likely substitute back to other illegal equivalents. Such a deterrent effect is poorly supported by evidence. The Science and Technology Select Committee recently concluded that:

“We have found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin the Government's policy on classification. In view of the importance of drugs policy and the amount spent on enforcing the penalties associated with the classification system, it is highly unsatisfactory that there is so little knowledge about the system's effectiveness.”

The Government presented no evidence in their response to contradict this position. Piperazines (primarily BZP) have been prohibited in a number of countries including the US and it would be useful to examine what effects this had on patterns of use, and knock on effects on the use of other drugs. Transform is not aware that any such research has been undertaken.

There would be no prospect of reduced crime and social disorder, since there is none currently associated with the use of piperazines. According to the New Zealand EACD:

“ there is no reported criminal behavior associated with the use of BZP & TFMPP, as they are moderately priced and have a lower dependence potential than illicit amphetamine” (page 6)

Can we leave the market to self regulate?

The third alternative is to leave the market as it is. This is clearly not a long term tenable situation, even if producers of UK products (from New Zealand) and UK retailers put in place a voluntary code of practice. Although current UK retailers seem to be acting more responsibly than in the past (with, for example, magic mushrooms), there is no guarantee this will be the case for all retailers, and experience with unregulated ‘legal high' markets in the past does not inspire confidence. The New Zealand EACD report states that:

“Because there are many new substances that could appear on the market in this way, the challenge for public health practitioners and regulators is how to respond to these new substances in a way that promotes the public health while protecting individual rights. They are generally of lower potency and price than of illicit amphetamines and methamphetamine, and they are commercially packaged, labeled with the major ingredients and their strengths. The distributors would argue that this is a responsible approach to a demonstrated demand for the effects given by these substances.

When first distributed, this was an approach that allowed users to exit the illicit market with its inherent risks and the often poor quality drugs. Substitution of illicit with Piperazine is occurring, mostly amongst users who are afraid of the damage to their lives that a conviction would bring and who also wish to normalise the transaction required to purchase their choice of recreational substance. However, being unregulated at this time, they are being promoted within the free market, which has the generation of profit as the driving force. This can as easily lead to market saturation as can the imperatives driving the black market. Unlike either novel foods or new medicines, these products are being marketed without adequate scientific safety assessments because there is no need for the distributor to seek regulatory pre-market approval from a regulatory agency.” (p.8)

What would be the benefits of introducing appropriate regulation of the market and licensing of producers and vendors?

The idea of having a ‘restricted list' separate from, or a ‘Class D' in addition to the main drugs legislation (i.e. the ABC classification system under the MDA 1971) has many advantages over the status quo:

• It would create an enforceable legal structure allowing effective state intervention and control of production, supply (availability), promotion and use. This is not possible under the minimally regulated existing market, any existing regulatory options (medicines Act, food supplement regulations), or under the unregulated criminal market that classification under the MDA would inevitably create.
• It allows for full risk assessment of each drug as the basis for tailored penalties/restrictions rather than as a part of the blunt and malfunctioning instrument that is the ABC classification system.
• This form of legislation is significantly more flexible than current arrangements under the Misuse of Drugs Act and would allow for restrictions to be changed rapidly in light of new research, emerging trends or changing conditions.
• It removes virtually all the risks inherent in criminal markets; separating consumers from the wider criminal market (which in the case of Dutch cannabis policy is suggested to have kept down levels of use of more dangerous drugs) and offering harm reduction benefits from the availability of drugs of known content, strength and purity, and supplied with health and safety information
• Harm reduction through diversion away from use of more dangerous drugs.
• Harm reduction in terms of reducing the risk of young people being branded with the stigma of a criminal record.

The wider debate over classification and prohibition / regulation

Inevitably perhaps, proposals for a ‘restricted list' and or ‘Class D' will be seen by some as a ‘back door to legalisation' of cannabis and perhaps other drugs, a sentiment aired during the policy debate in New Zealand. The NZ legislation passed, however, following an intelligent public and parliamentary debate and engagement with all the relevant parties.

Transform's position on the current prohibition of drugs is well documented. We believe the enforcement led approach has been spectacularly counterproductive – failing to deliver any of its stated policy goals, maximising harms associated with dug use, creating a crisis in the criminal justice system and fuelling crime at all scales, at home and in producer and transit countries. We believe that drug policy should be led by evidence of effectiveness, established harm reduction principles and public health science. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that regulated markets (with different regulatory models depending on the drug) offer better outcomes than absolute prohibitions, on all key policy indicators; crime, social nuisance, public health, welfare of young people and value for money expenditure.

We are not alone in this view of prohibition:

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

John Reid MP Labour (now Home Secretary in charge of drugs policy):

Jeremy Vine programme, BBC Radio 2, 11.11.04

…"we can prohibit, regulate or leave it to the market. Prohibition does not work - it drives the activity underground…”

“Only ideological extremists favour a free-for-all where only the laws of the market hold sway. So the third option is regulation - and regulation with as much emphasis on the quality of the debate as the policy outcome. 'Better regulation' has to mean government engaging people in the decisions that affect their lives and doing so in new and better ways”.

Tessa Jowell MP Labour: 'Grown up politics for an adult world' The Guardian 21.11.04

The Piperazine issue offers a real opportunity to do the right thing, not necessarily the politically expedient one. These are drugs that have yet to attract the attention of a media hungry for drug scare stories (although the first murmurings are beginning to be heard in Ireland), so currently there is little political capital to be made from a high profile crackdown. There is some breathing room in which to address this issue before it gets out of hand. Intelligently handled this need not be a political minefield, and sold as a pragmatic public health intervention to better control a potentially risky substance and keep criminals away from the trade, regulatory options need not be perceived as ‘soft' either.

Important lessons can be learnt from the recent UK experience with fresh magic mushrooms. Whilst there has been well founded criticism that class A is not the appropriate classification for magic mushrooms (or psychedelics more generally), the situation with magic mushrooms was considerably different from that which we are facing with piperazines. Fresh magic mushrooms were legal because of anomaly in the law, rather than because they were a new ‘legal high'. Furthermore they were potentially creating a new market and demand for psychedelics that did not already exist, whereas piperazines are entering, and potentially displacing, existing demand for illegal stimulants (amphetamines and ecstasy) on the party scene. The ban on fresh mushroom sales has been effective at closing down the retailers and returning the market to its previous position, with lower levels of use and production returning to informal harvesting and small scale illegal sales of naturally growing UK mushrooms, that are rarely prosecuted. If there has been a knock on effect in terms of users moving to other drugs (legal or otherwise) this is impossible to quantify, however likely. This ‘success' (at least from the Home Office's point of view) is far less likely to occur following a similar move with piperazines, as has been discussed above, and as was concluded by the NZ Expert Advisory Council.

Similarly lessons can be learnt form the different approach taken with khat, which was rather more pragmatically left unclassified following a thoughtful and thorough investigation and report from the ACMD (unlike magic mushrooms, where policy alternatives received only the most cursory of consideration).

Piperazines probably lie in a similar risk spectrum to these drugs and if we have a choice between prohibition under the Misuse of Drugs Act (magic mushrooms, ketamine, GHB), and leaving things as they are (khat), surely the option of regulatory models, which have demonstrable advantages over both, must now be seriously considered. This is likely to remain a live issue as new ‘legal' drugs continue to emerge into the recreational market but are not covered by the UN drug conventions (Kratom, Fly-agaric mushrooms, peyote cactus, salvia divinorum and nitrous-oxide all potentially warranting consideration).

The ongoing debate around the ABC drug classification system has been brought into sharp relief by the recent Science and Technology Select Committee report, which concluded there was a poor scientific basis in support of its efficacy as either a public health tool or criminal justice deterrent. Even though the Home Office has now reneged on its promise to have a thorough review of the classification system (despite the fact that this idea was welcomed by everyone in the drugs field including the ACMD, and specifically requested the Science and Technology Select Committee) it is hoped that possibilities for the classification system to include a ‘Class D' - offering the possibility of licensed sales of some lower risk drugs - will feature prominently in this ongoing discourse.

The recent ACMD report ‘Pathways to Problems' has recommended that alcohol and tobacco be specifically brought within the remit of the ACMD. Such a move will raise many difficult questions about the historical legal anomalies between legally regulated and totally prohibited drugs. There may well exist possibilities for including alcohol and tobacco in a new ‘restricted' category (which, in effect, they already inhabit, albeit under separate legislation), and also for moving other misclassified (e.g. some psychedelics) or unclassified drugs (e.g. khat) into the new regulatory system. Transform would welcome a debate on these ideas within the ACMD, given that they have now very publicly opened the door for such a discussion.

Transform welcomes the recent shift in approach to the drugs issue, away from heavy handed enforcement towards public health and harm reduction as the guiding principles, and the development of effective regulatory models for some of the less harmful drugs currently in a legal grey area is inevitably going to be an important part of this process. Piperazines, a fairly marginal issue from Transform's perspective, could offer a useful opportunity to experiment with regulation whilst the stakes remain low, rather than leaving the market to self regulate, or opting for another expensive and counterproductive crackdown.

Recommendations

• Initiate an official consultation as part of a formal engagement between the relevant Government agencies (including the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Treasury and key stakeholders including drug services, police and enforcement, NGOs, user groups, producers and retailers) to consider the three key choices for going forward regarding policy and legislation on recreational piperazines (status quo, regulation, prohibition). The possibility for a ‘Class D' or ‘restricted list' for lower risk drugs along the lines of the New Zealand model should specifically be included in the consultation.
• That the ACMD produce a report that considers the information available on piperazines, clarifies the legal status and knowledge on of the various substances in question, and makes recommendations on ways forward, in line with similar recent reports on cannabis, khat, methamphetamines etc.
• The ACMD should be specifically required to consider the models brought into New Zealand law, and make direct contact with colleagues on the New Zealand EACD, to discuss their findings and recommendations.
• In the short to medium Transform recommends the establishing in of a new ‘Class D' within the MDA to enable the licensed sale of certain drugs under the direction of the ACMD.

Transform submission to the Home Office review of the ACMD

Transform have prepared a response to the Home Office review of the ACMD available in pdf here*. The introduction is copied below.

Introductory Comments

Transform is supportive of the concept of an independent expert Government advisory body on drugs and drug policy. In such a highly emotive and politicised policy area as drugs, the existence and independent functioning of such an entity becomes all the more critical; able to objectively review and speak to the evidence and make pragmatic recommendations on key questions based on science and rational analysis, rather than politics or ideology.

Whilst Transform have been impressed by the consistent level of expertise, thoroughness and rigor of the ACMD’s outputs, we have also been critical of them on a number of fronts, both analytical and procedural. Some of these criticisms are outlined – with proposed solutions – in this submission.

However, it has become clear that the ability of the Council to function properly is critically, undermined by the nature of its constitution within the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and its corresponding operation within the ambit of the Home Office. The discussion and proposals made in response to the questions posed by this review can hopefully offer some short term improvements, but are essentially band-aids for the wider malfunctioning of a system in urgent need of root and branch reform.

We have touched upon the more profound systemic problems with the ACMD, the classification system and the MDA throughout the following discussion as they inevitably frame other responses – but have not explored them in the depth they deserve as they are clearly beyond the remit of this narrowly defined review.

We would, however, hope that one of the recommendations to emerge from this process is for the review of the classification system, promised to Parliament by the then Home Secretary in January 2006 and then dropped by his successor, be revisited and undertaken with some urgency. The proposed review enjoyed, as far as Transform is aware, universal support in the drugs field, as well as from two Select Committees, and indeed the ACMD itself. The reasoning given by Government for abandoning the review - that it ‘believes that the classification system discharges its function fully and effectively and has stood the test of time’ - is entirely unacceptable given the widespread consensus beyond Government that the system is not fit for purpose.

*The online version has some small typo/corrections to the submitted version

MPs table motion calling for drugs policy based on scientific evidence

PRESS NOTICE: from the Parliamentary Drugs and Alcohol Treatment and Harm Reduction Group

Chair: Lord David Ramsbotham
Secretary: Mike Wood MP
Vice Chairs: David Burrowes MP, Paul Flynn MP, Paul Holmes MP

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

MPs table motion calling for drugs policy based on scientific evidence

MPs from the Cross-Party Group on Drugs and Alcohol Treatment and Harm Reduction (DATHR) have today tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) calling on the Government to base its drugs and alcohol policy on scientific evidence. The call comes in the wake of the forced resignation of Professor David Nutt as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

Mike Wood MP, DATHR Group Secretary, said:

"Following the debacle over Professor Nutt, there is a widespread concern now that the Government is moving away from an evidence-based drugs and alcohol policy. An open debate about the dangers of legal and illegal drugs should be welcomed by the Government."

Dr Evan Harris MP, Lib Dem Science Spokesman and former public health doctor, said:

"Ignoring scientific advice and evidence about the harms and effects of a drug classification has serious consequences for public health and for the over-criminalisation of young people. The key priority in these areas must be what is effective not political or populist posturing"

-Ends-

Notes to Editors:

The cross-party group on Drugs & Alcohol Treatment and Harm Reduction was established in October 2008 and brings together MPs and peers from all political parties and none with practitioner organisations delivering services to drug and alcohol users.

For further comment or interview:

DATHRG Office: 020 7219 1626

The EDM reads:

EDM 2244: Policymaking on Drugs and Alcohol

That this House believes that Government policy on drugs and alcohol misuse
and harm should be based on scientific evidence; and further believes that
the failure to do so will increase the risk to public health, and in
particular to young people.



Mike Wood
Paul Flynn
Paul Holmes
John McDonnell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Lynne Jones
Neil Gerrard
Peter Bottomley

Tripping over Nutt

The Nutt episode has revealed the limits of the Home Office's criminal justice approach to drugs policy

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) was set up under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) in 1971 on a premise that was thought radical at the time - an independent panel of heavy-weight experts from a range of fields would offer policy advice on drugs not just as a criminal justice issue, but as a social phenomenon too.

Sadly, for most of its existence the ACMD has been used by the government, as one member Dr Les King put it: ‘...as a rubber stamp, a poodle'. That changed with the appointment of Professor David Nutt. He is outspoken, principled, and not easily cowed by authority figures, as well as being a leading specialist with impeccable scientific credentials. That combination proved too much for the home secretary, Alan Johnson, who sacked him for telling an inconvenient truth - government policy is not evidence based.

In fact it is an evidence-free zone. Both internationally and domestically, we see drug supply and availability increasing; use of drugs that cause the most harm increasing; health harms increasing; and massive levels of crime leading to a crisis in our criminal justice systems. Illicit drug profits are enriching criminals, fuelling conflict and undermining security and development in producer and transit countries from Mexico and Guinea Bissau, to Afghanistan and Colombia, with the gravest impacts falling upon the poor and marginalised. Yet particularly at a time of economic stricture, it is crucial that drugs expenditure is cost-effective and humane, which it often manifestly is not.

That is why we have been urging the ACMD to call for a comprehensive review of policy, in the form of an independent and comprehensive impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act. An impact assessment comparing the costs and benefits of current policy with all the alternatives, from stepping up prohibition, through Portuguese-style decriminalisation, to legal regulation would be a process behind which all stakeholders genuinely interested in evidence-based policy could unite, helping break the emotive, polarised deadlock in the debate around drug policy reform. In the longer term, it would ensure greater transparency and trust in the decision-making process, and most importantly help to determine which mix of policies is most likely to deliver the best outcomes.

In the UK, it is now a requirement for all new legislation to have an impact assessment done before it comes before parliament, but this was not the case in 1971 when the MDA was enacted. As we stated during a recent meeting with the prime minister, we believe it is time to correct that anomaly. The UN should also carry out a similar exercise at international level to incorporate impacts on producer and transit countries.

Given this is such an eminently sensible call, why hasn't it happened already? For the same reason Professor Nutt was sacked - the government doesn't want the evidence made public because it knows what it would show. As Bob Ainsworth said when we put a similar request to him when he was drugs minister: ‘Why would we do that unless we were going to legalise drugs?'

Accepting the evidence will demand a much more fundamental reform of how drugs policy is handled by the government than tweaking the MDA. Just as with terrorism where security concerns are paramount and there is huge resistance to considering the root causes of radicalisation, the Home Office perceives everything in a criminal justice light. In American psychologist Abraham Maslow's analogy, when the only tool it has is a hammer, it sees all challenges as nails. Ultimately, we need to de-securitise drugs policy, get the lead on it out of the Home Office, and into the normal kind of cross-departmental framework within which other elements of government social policy operate.

This article originally appeared on the Progress website here.

Double Standards from the Evening Standard on cannabis classification?

There was a welcome outbreak of common sense in Yesterday's Evening Standard, a paper more often prone to reactionary drug war posturing, in its leader editorial on the David Nutt furore:

Spin and drugs

The row over the firing of drug expert David Nutt was almost inevitable. Professor Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was dismissed at the weekend; Home Secretary Alan Johnson accuses him of running a campaign against official policy.

But Professor Nutt made his comments about the Government's policy on cannabis under extreme provocation.

The ACMD was set up in 1971 as an integral part of the Misuse of Drugs Act year: its purpose is to advise ministers on the latest scientific thinking on drugs, and the intention of the Act was for that advice to inform policy.

So it was that cannabis was downgraded from a class B to a less dangerous class C drug in 2004, on the ACMD's advice.

In 2008, however, the Government reclassified cannabis as class B, despite the ACMD's objections - not because of the science but largely thanks to a media hue and cry over the alleged dangers posed by strong "skunk" cannabis.

If that is to be the basis of policy, it is hard to see what the point of the ACMD is any more.

The bigger worry is what this suggests about ministers' attitudes to science and to spin.

Gordon Brown likes to portray himself as less obsessed with spin and headlines than his predecessor.

That was always implausible but when such cynical objectives override science, and a policy that affects many people's lives, that is truly depressing.

A decent commentary, but couldn't help from prompting me to cast my mind back to the 'media hue and cry over the alleged dangers posed by strong "skunk" cannabis', and the particular papers that were the main culprits behind it. Ahem:






Follow the latest developments and coverage on the David Nutt/ACMD story in the miniblog (right)

or on

pic from Oct 15th 2007

David Nutt is sacked from the ACMD

There's a lot of important issues raised by the ACMD chair's sacking, and the subsequent reaction. Transform have been actively engaging in the debate in a range of broadcast media, including 5 live radio, and BBC and Channel 4 news. We will have more to say on all this as the story develops over the next few days but in the mean time follow the media coverage in the Miniblog (on the right) or on Twitter.

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

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

A Transform spokesperson said:

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

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

Transform’s submission to the ACMD ecstasy review

Transform critique of the classification system in Drugs and Alcohol today

Science and Technology Select Committee report on the classification system

2006 Lancet paper on drug harm ranking

See also:

Ecstasy reclassification meltdown: it begins again 21.05.08

Transform submission to the DoH consultation on tobacco control

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transform submission to the ACMD ecstasy classification review

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

Introduction and summary

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

3 Pathways to Problems, ACMD 2006

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

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

Ecstasy reclassification meltdown; it begins again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First is a section about the reclassification of ecstasy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q112 Mr Newmark: Because it kills unpredictably?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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