More rank hypocrisy from the Home Secretary

Alan Johnson is leading for the Government in trying to convince us that it is curbing the worst excesses of alcohol retailers.

Apart from the fact that the Government has failed to take on the drinks industry with any degree of principle, Alan Johnson's criticism of some retailers as irresponsible, smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

In a news item in the Telegraph today he is quoted as saying:

“Alcohol-related crime costs the UK billions of pounds every year and while the vast majority of retailers are responsible, a minority continue to run irresponsible promotions which fuel the excessive drinking that leads alcohol-related crime and disorder."

Johnson is accused by the Health select Committee, the Royal College of Physicians and Alcohol Concern for not going far enough to regulate alcohol sales, rejecting a series a strongly evidence based proposals including minimum unit pricing (which might not be popular in an election year therefore deemed 'not sensible'). Johnson appears happy that Football clubs and national sport squads run around with drink brands emblazoned across their shirts at a time when there is a growing epidemic of problem drinking amongst their key audience: young people. Even for alcohol brands to continue to sponsor high speed driving events (mixed messages anyone?)

But he is also charged with overseeing the control of illicit drugs, the (ever growing) market for which he has chosen to give in its entirety to organised criminals and unregulated dealers, thereby losing any control of the trade whatsoever, pushing up the street price, fuelling the majority of acquisitive crime and bringing misery and mayhem to some of the most deprived communities on earth.

Sending out the wrong message?

In the grand scheme of things who do you think is being more irresponsible?

Should you wish to let Mr Johnson know what you think, you can contact him at:

Home Office

Direct Communications Unit

2 Marsham Street

London SW1P 4DF


Further reading:

• Supercasinos, drugs and alcohol prohibition: more than a whiff of ministerial hypocrisy
  
  
• Transform Submission to the Department of Health Consultation on Alcohol Policy October 2008 (pdf)

Addicts’ adventures in wonderland

The following editorial by Danny Kushlick was published in the the journal; Addiction Research and Theory (15(2): 123–126) in April 2007*, and is reproduced here as much of it seems relevant to current debates, both on this blog and in the wider drugs field.

Addicts’ adventures in wonderland

Viewed from a public health and wellbeing perspective, you could be forgiven for thinking that drug policy is developed at the Mad Hatter’s tea party. Huge numbers of legal drug users are effectively ignored, whilst relatively tiny numbers of illegal users have enormous time and resources spent on stopping them using.

I am going to suggest that policy is not rationally based upon sound public health or harm reduction principles, but rather that it is skewed to the point of ridiculousness by the Government’s denial of the counter-productive effects of drug prohibition.

What is the drug problem?

The drugs in the UK that contribute overwhelmingly to public ill health are tobacco and alcohol. Both are legal, with tobacco sales oddly, legally sold to those over the age of 16, as opposed to 18 for alcohol. There are over 10 million regular tobacco users and 40 million alcohol users. Alcohol is implicated in about 40,000 deaths per year, with 120,000 for tobacco. Tobacco products carry a health warning but no ingredients list, whilst alcohol products carry neither.

Cocaine and heroin also contribute to public ill health but at much lower levels of use. Both are illegal and consequently there are no controls on their production, sale or use, apart from the blanket prohibition that aims, fantastically, to eliminate them from society. There are an estimated 340,000 problematic heroin and crack cocaine users in the UK and much of the ill health associated with their use is directly related to their illegality.

Within the national ‘drug’ strategy there is no discussion of the needs of our 10 million plus tobacco users, four million problem drinkers or our one million prescribed tranquilliser users. The reason: our commitment to drug prohibition (and the orchestrated demonisation of illegal drugs that has gone with it) has blinded us to the fact tobacco, alcohol and tranquillisers are drugs. And more importantly, that the use of licit drugs constitutes by far the bigger public health problem.

Messages on ‘Addiction’

What does the Government’s Talk to Frank website say about cocaine and alcohol ‘addiction?’ Under the heading ‘Chances of getting hooked’ it says: ‘Coke is very addictive. It can be difficult to resist the craving and strong psychological dependence due to changes in the brain. Recent evidence suggests possible long-term changes to the nervous system’. And under the same heading for alcohol: ‘For most people, if you drink within the sensible limits for regular drinking, that’s OK. But for some people drinking gradually gets out of control and results either in regular binge-drinking, heavy harmful drinking or alcoholism (alcohol dependence)’. But, note not ‘addiction’ and no long-term changes to the nervous system.

So, different messages for each drug. But what about the response to those who do develop a ‘drug problem?’

Treatment – voluntary and coerced

As a result of our long-standing ‘war’ on illegal drugs, an enormous amount of resources are skewed toward ‘treating’ people who commit acquisitive crime in order to support their habits. One of the consequences of the prohibition of heroin and cocaine is that the price of a daily habit is hugely inflated. Consequently low income dependent users resort to crime to earn money and collectively commit anything up to half of all property crime. A Government that is keen to be seen to be ‘doing something about the drugs problem’ must try to ‘get addicts off ’ their drugs. Because if they don’t, ‘addicts’ will continue stealing things and prostituting themselves in public and generally proving how counterproductive prohibition is. The problem is that we have an apparent crime problem, that appears to be a drug problem, for which ‘treatment’ would appear to be the solution. When in fact, it is a self created prohibition problem (an attempt to eradicate a symptom of lack of wellbeing),underlying which are unaddressed wellbeing problems.

A Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) is a court-ordered treatment condition handed out for those who are convicted of offences related to their illegal drug use, usually acquisitive crime. But, remember it is our commitment to the global prohibition of drugs that create the high prices, that cause the offending to support a habit in the first instance. Interestingly, there are very few orders given for those whose violent offending is related to their alcohol use. You might wonder if the Government is more committed to addressing problematic drug use that creates property crime than that which creates horrible violence against other people.

Within a prohibitionist paradigm it makes perfect sense for Home Office-led interventions to force heroin ‘addicts’ to overcome their ‘addiction’. Whereas for the Department of Health: ‘Alcohol drunk in moderate amounts in appropriate circumstances is not a danger to health’. Perhaps we need a Drug Policy Rehabilitation Requirement for politicians in denial of the unintended consequences of enforcing prohibition.

Imagine someone walking into his or her local drug project seeking help to get into residential rehab for tobacco ‘addiction’. Why does this seem odd, funny even? The fact is that it even if it were to be possible for them to get funding for rehab, most centres allow residents to smoke tobacco.

Think about the number of smokers you know who are in ‘recovery’ from ‘addiction’, having assiduously gone through a twelve-step programme. (Both the co-founders of AA died of smoking-related disease.)

Our anomalous attitude to drug ‘treatment’ is not unlike the Caucus Race that the Dodo organised in Wonderland:

‘What I was going to say’, said the Dodo in an offended tone, ‘was, that the best thing to do to get us dry would be a Caucus-race’.

‘What is a Caucus-race?’ said Alice . . .

‘Why’, said the Dodo, ‘the best way to explain it is to do it’ .. . .

First it marked out a racecourse, in a sort of a circle, (‘the exact shape doesn’t matter’, it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no ‘One two three and away’, but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out ‘The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, ‘But who has won?’

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead . . . . At last the Dodo said, ‘Everybody has won, and all must have prizes’.

Except that those illegal drug users who are not ‘dry’ after half an hour might well find the Queen shouting at them, ‘Off with his head!’

A public health and wellbeing approach

The recent report from UNICEF put the UK at the bottom of the table of 21 countries for child wellbeing in industrialised countries, with the United States 20th. The UK and US also have some of the highest levels of drug use and misuse in developed countries and both also enforce some of the harshest drug laws on earth. The UK has the highest prison population in Europe, the US the highest in the world. Perhaps this is what is meant by the ‘special relationship?’

These laws conform to neither legislative nor public health norms when compared to other social issues (imagine criminalising tobacco use, gambling or teenage pregnancy). The criminal justice system should be used as a last resort, not a starting point in dealing with public health problems.

A drug policy based on a public health and wellbeing paradigm would be truly comprehensive, cross-departmental and tick all the right boxes with regard to social determinants of health and wellbeing. It might look something like the text below, adapted from Tony Blair’s forward to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy of 2004. I have swapped the words ‘drugs’ and ‘drug use’ for ‘alcohol’ and ‘drinking’. It speaks for itself:

‘Millions of us enjoy drug use with few, if any, ill effects. Indeed moderate drug use can bring some health benefits. But, increasingly, drugs 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 drugs-related harm is costing around £20 bn 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’.

The health and wellbeing approach will become reality within a decade, but for now unfortunately, Mr Blair and his colleagues prefer Wonderland.

References

• UNICEF report on BBC
  
  
• ‘Talk to Frank’ web site
  
  
• ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’, Lewis Carroll, 1865
  
  
• Tony Blair’s Foreword to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, 2004 (from an idea by Steve Rolles) See here

Danny Kushlick is Director of Transform Drug Policy Foundation**

* note that some of the content is out of date
** Danny Kushlick is now head of policy and commincations

We can do it again - celebrating the end of alcohol prohibition

This week marks the 75th anniversary of the end of alcohol prohibition in the United States. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) - a group made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities - is using this anniversary as a call to action for those who want an end to drug prohibition. In a report published this week they argue that lessons need to be learned from the failure of alcohol prohibition.

Click to read pdf

'But by learning a lesson from American history and ending today’s expensive and counterproductive prohibition of drugs like we ended the earlier prohibition of alcohol, we can cut wasteful spending and generate new revenues, all while making America’s streets safer. A legal and regulated drug trade will lead to far fewer people being arrested and incarcerated at taxpayer expense and will generate essential new revenues, some of which can be earmarked to finance improved drug treatment and recovery.'

They also highlight the failures of the current drugs laws and the parallels with alcohol prohibition,

'After spending a trillion tax dollars and making 39 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, drugs are now generally cheaper, more potent and easier for our children to access than they were 40 years ago at the beginning of the “drug war.”

'Today’s prohibition of the many so-called “controlled substances” is similar to, but is in many respects significantly more complex than, alcohol prohibition. The wide variety of prohibited substances; their global cultivation, production and trade; the global ease of capital movement and the connection between the illegal drug trade and political insurgencies are all modern features of prohibition that our great grandparents did not have to face. Nonetheless, in so many of its essential features drug prohibition has echoed alcohol prohibition’s impact on the economy, crime, public safety and public health. Alcohol prohibition involved ethnic, religious and regional prejudices, and those ugly features are dramatically worse under the racial stereotyping and disparities of today’s drug enforcement.'

In particular they emphasise a number of key areas where drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition before it, has had a negative effect on society:

1) More people use drugs today than at the beginning of the 'war on drugs'
2) Drugs are more concentrated and potent
3) The murder rate has skyrocketed
4) Organized crime as well as terrorist groups have profitted greatly from prohibition
5) People who are addicted to drugs are forced to commit crime in order to fund their habits
6) Public health has suffered
7) Drug money corrupts officials of the state
8) Governments spend huge amounts of their budgets on locking people up

Recent polls in the US indicate that 67% of police chiefs and 76% of the public believe that the prohibition of drugs has failed.

As a first step to ending this disastrous policy, LEAP support what Transform, RAND Corp and the EMCDDA have been calling for - a cost-benefit analysis of the current drugs laws.

'At a moment that is as economically threatening to millions of Americans as the Great Depression, we would do well to learn the lessons that history so clearly and compellingly provides and repeal prohibition, eliminating its numerous unintended consequences.'

Another report out this week funded by the same organisation and written by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron concludes that ending drug prohibition would boost America's economy by $76.8 billion a year. We've blogged it here.

Beer: ten free pints. Cannabis: death penalty.

Check out the screen grab below and note the juxtaposition of the horrifying death sentence imposed upon two young men in Malaysia for 'trafficking' what was under 500 grams of cannabis each, with the completely legal aggressive promotion of another -arguably far more socially damaging- drug.

screen grab from the NST website: click to see full size

The cannabis story is bad enough. These two men, both in their twenties at the time of their arrest are about to have ropes put around their necks, have their spinal cords severed and their lives ended. All for a crime that in the UK would probably not get you more than a few hours of community service, or a caution if you get a decent lawyer and have no previous.

Now before we hear the usual line about 'they knew the law and took the risk', I know that. But the law itself is morally offensive, it is ineffective and its enforcement is illegal under international law. Not only have the UN's human rights agencies called for a moratorium on all use of the death penalty, but specifically, no non-violent drug offences meet the criteria of 'most serious crimes' that would - by any legal interpretations of international law - qualify for the death penalty. Importing an amount of cannabis that weighs - as fate would have it - almost exactly the same as a standard can of Guinness is certainly not a 'most serious crime'. (for more discussion see IHRAs publication 'The Death Penalty for Drug Offences').

Ironic banner ad / news feature mismatches are a common internet phenomenon but it is still striking when the yawning gulf between illegal and legal drug policy is so blatantly exposed. There on the same page as the sickening and tragic story of cannabis enforcement brutality is an animated advertising promotion to 'win 10 pints of Guinness'. Alcohol is of course a psychoactive drug just as cannabis is. Its toxic, it can be addictive, and it causes a range of brain and organ damage for those who don't consume it sensibly. It kills lots of people (as it happens; far more than cannabis in population or per capita/user terms). Yet I'm quite sure you could bring an oil tanker of Guinness into Malaysia and not face the death penalty.



Related blog posts:

Transform submission to the DoH consultation on Alcohol Policy

The fault lines in current drug policy

Transform submission to the DoH alcohol policy consultation

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

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

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

• Government relations with a profit-making drug industry

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

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

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

• Alcohol and tobacco policy

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

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

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

Gordon Brown demonstrates safe, sensible and social drug use

Related blog posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Congress celebrates 75 years of drug legalisation and regulation

Let's raise a toast with the US Congress, that this week celebrated 75 years of drug legalisation and regulation. Yes indeed, it is a magnificent 75 years since the disaster of alcohol prohibition was ended, alcohol was re-legalised, and as this week's Congressional resolution recognises, our fine and noble 'State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community and industry members' established 'a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution, and sale' .

a big HURRAH! for the legal regulation of drugs

It is worth taking a step back and considering the implications of all this for the way we deal with all those other drugs (y'know, the still illegal ones), particularly for all you politicians and Whitehall/Capitol Hill folk generally (*waves*). Deep-breath now. Read the complete resolution below, but change the references to 'alcohol' to a more generic reference to 'drugs'. You will find yourself acknowledging things like the fact that drug prohibition:

"resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market drugs production, organized crime, and noncompliance with drug laws"

or celebrating how drug regulation has

"demonstrated the longstanding and continuing intent of Congress that States exercise their primary authority to achieve temperance, the creation and maintenance of orderly and stable markets, and the facilitation of the efficient collection of taxes"

and how you continue

"to support policies that allow States to effectively regulate drugs"

Now accepting, as so-called 'scientists' generally do, that alcohol is indeed a drug (one that is every bit as toxic and addictive as most of those that remain prohibited), this re-reading can only highlight the bizarre parallel universe in which illicit drug policy operates relative to legal drugs. But - barring the possibility of a Matrix-style awakening - this is no science-fiction story. These parallel universes are actually superimposed upon one another in the same reality, in the same law books, and by the same politicians and legislators. As this previous blog demonstrates you can do the exactly same thing with the UK's alcohol strategy and the effect is similarly disconcerting. It's almost like key legislators have been systematically spiked with some exotic hallucinogenic drugs for the past three generations and the drug war is all a terrible mistake based on a series of unfortunate out of body experiences.

It defies logic and reason, but then the entire prohibitionist paradigm always has. It is a faith based policy position, founded on a series of unquestioned 'beliefs' that it is both right and effective. (The UK Home Office actually describe how it 'fundamentally believes' the system works just fine thank you - before failing to back this with a single piece of evidence). These fundamental(ist) beliefs naturally do not require an evidence base, so the policy is never subject to meaningful evaluation, and the policy can never evolve in response to, say for example, decades of quite appalling failure, or adapt in response to, say for example, the fact that social and cultural landscape has changed quite a lot since the 1940's. All those annoying pragmatic and ethical principles that underly public health based models of regulation are completely superfluous.

Unless, of course, we are talking about alcohol or tobacco (see Transform's recent submission to the DoH tobacco control consultation). The parallel universe weirdness does not stop here - our very own Government ministers have gone as far as using the failure of alcohol prohibition to argue for appropriate legal regulation of tobacco and gambling. On the very specific basis that 'prohibition doesn't work'.

Short of asking our politicians to lay off the ketamine (it's Class C now after all), it's hard to know how to move forward with this, so profoundly entrenched is the Orwellian logic. It appears that Government are so dazzled by luminous absurdity of it all that their only response is to keep on digging, further and further down their own doomed drug-war k-hole. At least then they can't be accused of being inconsistent.

There is a way out of the hole course, and it has something to do with intellectual honesty, pragmatism, courage, and leadership. Unfortunately there's an election on the horizon - on both sides of the pond - so don't hold your breath.

Whereas throughout American history, alcohol has been consumed by its citizens and regulated by the Government; (Introduced in House)

HCON 415 IH

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 415

Celebrating 75 years of effective State-based alcohol regulation and recognizing State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community and industry members for creating a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution, and sale.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 16, 2008

Mr. COBLE (for himself and Mr. STUPAK) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Celebrating 75 years of effective State-based alcohol regulation and recognizing State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community and industry members for creating a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution, and sale.

Whereas throughout American history, alcohol has been consumed by its citizens and regulated by the Government;

Whereas prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol;

Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited `the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws;

Whereas the platforms of the 2 major political parties in the 1932 presidential campaigns advocated ending national Prohibition by repealing the 18th Amendment;

Whereas on February 20, 1933, the 2nd Session of the 72nd Congress submitted to conventions of the States the question of repealing the 18th Amendment and adding new language to the Constitution that the transportation or importation of alcoholic beverages for delivery or use in any State would have to be carried out in compliance with the laws of the State;

Whereas on December 3, 1933, Utah became the 36th State to approve what became the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, the quickest-ratified amendment and the only ever decided by State conventions, pursuant to article V of the Constitution;

Whereas alcohol is the only product in commerce that has been the subject of 2 constitutional amendments;

Whereas Congress's reenactment of the Webb-Kenyon Act, passage of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act, annual appropriations to support State enforcement of underage drinking laws, and the STOP Underage Drinking Act demonstrated the longstanding and continuing intent of Congress that States exercise their primary authority to achieve temperance, the creation and maintenance of orderly and stable markets, and the facilitation of the efficient collection of taxes;

Whereas legislatures and alcoholic beverage control agencies in the 50 States have worked diligently to implement the powers granted by the 21st Amendment for 75 years;

Whereas legislatures and alcoholic beverage control agencies in all States created and maintain State-based regulatory systems for alcohol distribution made up of producers and importers, wholesale distributors, and retailers;

Whereas development of a transparent and accountable system of distribution and sales, an orderly market, temperance in consumption and safe practices, the efficient collection of taxes, and other essential policies have been successfully guided by the collective experience and cooperation of government agencies and licensed industry members throughout our geographically and culturally diverse Nation;

Whereas regulated commerce in alcoholic beverages contributes billions of dollars in Federal and State tax revenues and additional billions to the economy annually;

Whereas 2,500 breweries, distilleries, wineries, and import companies, 2,700 wholesale distributor facilities, over 530,000 retail outlets, and numerous agricultural, packaging, and transportation businesses support the employment of millions of Americans;

Whereas the American system of State-based alcohol regulation has resulted in a marketplace with unprecedented choice, variety, and selection for consumers;

Whereas members of the licensed alcoholic beverage industry have been constant partners with Federal and State Governments in balancing the conduct of competitive businesses with the need to control alcohol in order to provide American consumers with a safe and regulated supply of alcoholic beverages; and

Whereas members of the licensed alcoholic beverage industry have created and supported a wide range of national, State, and community programs to address problems associated with alcohol abuse, including drunk driving and underage drinking: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) celebrates 75 years of effective State-based alcohol regulation since the passage of the 21st Amendment;

(2) recognizes State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community and industry members for creating a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution, and sale; and

(3) continues to support policies that allow States to effectively regulate alcohol

Thanks to Bruce Mirkin

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

Over 100 US college presidents call for drinking age of 21 to be revisited

It's interesting that at a time when the Scottish Government, and leading policy think tanks are seriously mooting raising the drinking age in the UK to 21 , in the US there is an emerging campaign led by college presidents to make a change in the opposite direction. The recently launched Amethyst initiative is a petition of over 100 US college and university presidents calling for the 21 age limit to be revisited. Their consensus statement is as follows:

It’s time to rethink the drinking age

In 1984 Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which imposed a penalty of 10% of a state's federal highway appropriation on any state setting its drinking age lower than 21.

Twenty-four years later, our experience as college and university presidents convinces us that…

Twenty-one is not working

A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.

Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.

Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.

By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.

How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?

We call upon our elected officials:

To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.

To consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.

To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.

We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold

I know nothing about the campaign beyond the website I stumbled upon, and of course there are 1000's of colleges in the US and I have no idea how representative the signatories are. But what did strike me was that many of the points made in the statement above are equally applicable to other drugs:

"A culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking - often conducted off-campus - has developed."

The parallel: Clandestine drug use is more dangerous.

"Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students."

The parallel: Abstinence only education doesn't seem to have worked with drugs

“By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

The parallel: The need for students to go outside the law to get access to drugs fosters their disrespect for the law in general and for the authorities behind the law

"How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?"

The parallel: Fairly obvious

Age controls are an important element of any legal drug regulatory regime and there will always be a difficult balancing act between dissuading use, not inadvertently creating unintended negative consequences, and respecting the freedoms of consenting adults (itself another age issue). It's not easy and the statement above seems to point to one key point - that any system needs have its effectiveness objectively evaluated on a regular basis. These issues can never be written in stone.

I therefore wonder what the college and university presidents might say if they were approached to apply these same arguments about the prohibition of other drugs? Could this newly-established group -- dedicated only to rethinking the drinking age at present -- be another potential ally, or will it merely perpetuate the hypocrisy of our world by saying that prohibition doesn't work for alcohol or tobacco, but that it should apply to other drugs? That evidence based policy applies to alcohol and tobacco control but that illicit drug prohibition is cast in stone for all time.

Transform in the Economist

The following article appears in this week's Economist, quoting Danny Kushlick from Transform. It is a typically level headed piece from the Economist, long time supporters of pragmatic drug policy and law reform, on the basis of some fairly obvious cost benefit analysis.

Drug-strategy review

Prescription renewal

Jul 26th 2007

No one can get rid of drugs but reducing the harm they do is cheap and simple

IT WAS the day the cabinet came out of the closet. When Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, admitted on July 19th that she had smoked cannabis in her student days, ministers rushed to get their own confessions out of the way. By the end of last week seven of her senior colleagues, including the chancellor and the drugs minister, had come into the open about their own youthful pot-smoking.

By wonderful irony the prime minister, Gordon Brown, had a day earlier ordered a review of the drug's legal status. In 2004 cannabis was downgraded from a class B drug to class C on the official three-point scale of seriousness which supposedly reflects the harm that illegal drugs cause and determines the penalties attached to possessing or dealing in them. Now, as the government prepares to renew its ten-year drug strategy, Mr Brown has hinted that he favours upgrading cannabis again.

It is only two years since the last review of cannabis classification, which left things alone despite reports that modern varieties were stronger than the sort that Miss Smith used to puff. And it is just a month since Mr Brown declared he had no wish to revisit the subject. A recent Tory report calling for cannabis to be upgraded, among other “tough” anti-drugs proposals, may explain his change of heart.

Britain's main problem drug, in fact, is alcohol. Young Britons swig far more than their peers in any other rich country, according to UNICEF. Drink-related deaths nearly doubled between 1991 and 2004, to 8,221—many more than the 1,644 who died from drugs in 2005. But Britain is also the stoned man of Europe. Among teenagers, only the Swiss smoke more cannabis; British adults beat most others on heroin, cocaine and ecstasy. The government says drug-taking is falling (see chart), but most of this is down to a dip in cannabis. Cocaine, more dangerous, has flourished.

This is despite a decade of real “toughness”. The number of jail years given for drugs offences increased by 22% between 1998 and 2005, thanks to longer sentences and more convictions. Officers seized nearly seven tonnes of cocaine in 2003, compared with less than one in 1996.

It is hard to know how strongly would-be drug users are deterred by the law, but the decline in cannabis consumption since it was downgraded suggests not very. And despite the efforts of the coastguards, cocaine is cheaper now than it was a decade ago. The government will not say how much its drug-enforcement efforts cost, but an estimate from the UK Drugs Policy Commission, an independent board of brains, puts it at about £2 billion ($4.1 billion) a year.

The £570m allocated for drug treatment last year is a fraction of this, but it is nearly a third more than three years ago (alcoholism charities now say they feel left out). The number being treated has more than doubled in the past decade; some 55% of those the Home Office identifies as “problem” users are enrolled, compared with 17% in America. Measuring results is more important than just “pushing people through the door and counting them”, says Danny Kushlick of Transform, a campaign group. But efforts to measure effectiveness are improving too. On July 25th NICE, the body that measures the cost-effectiveness of medical care, released guidelines on drug treatment, recommending innovations including vouchers for those who wean themselves off the stuff.

Those who cannot give up can still be helped. Doubling the proportion of primary schools that provide drugs education has not stopped cannabis use among 11-year-olds from increasing, but may help children who take risks to do so more safely. An official “safer clubbing” campaign warns youngsters not to mix ecstasy with other drugs if they choose to take it. Needle-exchange depots give heroin users a chance of escaping AIDS and hepatitis. Ayesha Janjua of Turning Point, a charity, would like sterile spoons, filters and other equipment to be made more widely available. This strategy seems to be paying off. Until 2001 the number of deaths from drugs had been rising steadily. Since then it has fallen back to below 1997 levels.

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...

Why Transform supports the smoking ban

As the smoking ban comes into force in England it is an apposite time to talk about what effective drug regulation is and what it is not.

It is a common misconception that those who support the legalisation of drugs are against any kind of drug control. This is why legalisation/regulation is often – wrongly - referred to as liberalisation or relaxation of the drug laws.

In fact, apart from the most libertarian of libertarians, most of those in the reform movement actually support more control, not less. Bear in mind that it is prohibition that has abrogated all control of the drug market to organised criminals and unregulated dealers.

So, just for the record Transform supports the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, partly because of the health issues, but crucially because smoking is anti-social. In essence smoking inflicts smokers’ drug use on non-users, and to that extent it is irresponsible drug use. The issue isn’t nicotine use that is the problem, it is the route of administration. This is not an affront to civil liberties, rather it is legislation that stops users inflicting their drug use on others. If someone wants to use nicotine, they can: there are no plans afoot to ban the use of patches, inhalers, snuff, or Nicorette chewing gum in pubs (although, strangely, some oral tobacco products have been banned at EU level). Indeed if the Government had any sense they would have used this new legislation as a cue to promote the use of smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to existing smokers (it is approximately 99% less risky). It is bizarre, indeed scandalous that smoking harm reduction has yet to bother UK policy makers, given that smoking is the most deadly of all drug habits by a vast margin: the WHO estimates smoking will kill a billion people in the next 30 years.

Returning to the subject of effective regulation, Transform also supports the raising of the age of tobacco sales from 16 to 18. We also call for ingredients lists to displayed on both alcohol and tobacco packaging, for health warnings to be displayed on alcohol products, and for a ban on alcohol advertising, starting with sponsorship of sports, music events and other advertising that directly reaches/targets children and young people.

We want better regulation not softer law. And for those politicians who claim that drug law reformers are soft, why have they not been calling for tobacco to be sold under licence, or for alcohol licensing laws to better enforced? Why have they repeatedly caved in to the alcohol and tobacco industry lobbying efforts to stall or water down any measures to strengthen regulation? How many publicans have been prosecuted for sale of alcohol to people who are drunk (illegal under the Licensing Act 2003)?

One of the problems we have in convincing the wider public to support reform is that governments of all shades have made such a pig’s ear of the regulation of currently legal drugs. The shorthand for which is the trite argument, ‘Why would we want to legalise more drugs? Look at alcohol and tobacco.’ The aim of any drug policy should be the optimum regulatory framework for minimising harms and maximising wellbeing. For legal drugs this can mean more and bettter regulation, whilst for illegal drugs, bringing them within a framework where they can be regulated at all.

When we began asking questions a few years ago as to why alcohol did not carry a health warning, we were told by the Department of Health (DH) that, ‘Alcohol drunk in moderate amounts in appropriate circumstances is not a danger to health’ - something that remains true for almost all drugs, legal or otherwise (see blog on alcohol policy). As for why ingredients are not displayed on tobacco packaging, the story from DH was that tobacco is so dangerous, additives are irrelevant. The Tobacco Manufacturers Association kindly sent us the booklet on the list of allowable additives in tobacco products. In this long list of noxious substances, was sugar, allowed at a level of up to 10% of the total in cigarettes – nice on your cornflakes, but do you want to smoke it? It goes against the central ethos of consumer rights that we are denied access to this information.

We must begin to put pressure on all governments and regulators to legislate so that legal drug dealers are obliged to conform to recognised codes of practice with regard to the sale of consumables, particularly in light of the fact that we are asking for new products to be added to the list of legally ‘regulated’ drugs.

Canada: Free speech goes up in smoke at school

Below is copied a story chronicling just the latest installment of drug war madness in North America, this time from Canada. Discussing the relative risks of illegal drugs alongside legal ones in the wrong environment, a school for example, and apparently you are sending out 'pro-drug' messages. So another triumph of misplaced moral posturing over science and reason then. It is admittedly worse over there than here in the UK, but not by much if the recent furore over cannabis reclassification and 'sending out messages' is anything to go by. I wonder how the distinguished authors of the recent Lancet paper, that made the same point as young Kieran regards relative drug harms, would feel about this?

Young people need to know the risks and dangers of all drugs they may encounter, regardless of legal status. Actually, now I think about it, arguably illegal status is one of the potential harms they need to be warned about aswell, as a criminal record will often cause more harm than the use of the drug itself.

The free speech issues in this story also echo the very wierd 'Bong Hits for Jesus' saga, which recently reached the US supreme court.

Free speech goes up in smoke at school

Saskatchewan student's marijuana research spurs lock down and suspension

JOE FRIESEN

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

June 20, 2007

WINNIPEG — It started months ago when Kieran King's high-school class heard a presentation about the dangers of drug use.

Kieran, a 15-year-old Grade 10 student in tiny Wawota, Sask., population 600, thought the presentation lacked credibility, so he did some research on the relative health risks of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.

When he told some of his fellow students that cannabis seemed the least hazardous of the three, he set in motion a series of events that led to a school lockdown, a threat assessment involving the RCMP, a suspension and failing grades on his exams.

"It's all a bit overwhelming," his mother, Jo Anne Euler, said. "It's just totally bizarre."

She explained that her son is a compulsive researcher who tends to go on at length about what he reads on the Internet.

One student at Wawota Parkland School didn't want to hear Kieran's thoughts about marijuana, and complained to principal Susan Wilson.

The principal then called Kieran's mother because she was concerned he was advocating drug use, Ms. Euler said.

Ms. Euler told the principal her son is an A student who doesn't go out, doesn't smoke or drink, and isn't pushing drugs on other kids.

"She said 'Well, if he talks about it again, I will be calling the police,' " Ms. Euler said. "I told Kieran that and he said 'Mom, all I'm doing is sharing the facts.' "

Kieran felt his right to free speech was being trampled, so he enlisted the help of the Saskatchewan Marijuana Party.

Together they planned a school walkout for free speech, scheduled for 11 a.m. last Tuesday, where free chocolate chip hemp seed cookies would be handed out.

But just before 11 that day, the principal announced that the school was a closed campus and that no one was allowed outside.

When several students tried to leave anyway, teachers barred the doors and ordered them back to class, Ms. Euler said. Kieran and his younger brother Lucas defied and joined a ragtag group of five protesters standing across from the school holding placards.

The principal then ordered a lockdown to ensure the safety of students. The RCMP raced to the scene, only to find a small, peaceful protest.

Kieran's mother was again called to the school and told that both her sons had been suspended for three days. Later that day, the school conducted a threat assessment on Kieran with the help of the RCMP and school division counsellors, Ms. Euler said............

read the rest of this sorry tale here

------