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

Drug decriminalisation in Argentina?

It appears that Argentina is on course to join the growing trend in states, in South America and beyond, decriminalising personal possession of drugs. A story on this Mexican news site (El Finaciero) notes that*:

Buenos Aires, April 23 .- A federal court in Buenos Aires decriminalize individual consumption of drugs in the Argentine capital, which would, in the process, anul thousands of cases of persons accused of possessing small amounts of marijuana, according to the judgement published Today the press in Buenos Aires.

The ruling states that the Board of 1 Federal Chamber of appeals declared unconstitutional sections of the law that punishes drug users, enacted in 1989.

The rule punishes consumers questioned on the grounds that are the backbone of a chain that ends in drug trafficker.

But the court ruled that such a presumption only generated "an avalanche of records for consumers without achieving move up the chain of trafficking" in drugs.

The ruling was applied to the case of two youths arrested by police for possession of marijuana cigarettes and pills of ecstasy when attending a celebration of electronic music in Buenos Aires in May 2007.

Although the issue should be settled in the Supreme Court, the court's ruling in Buenos Aires is in line with government policy Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in favour of reforming the laws to decriminalize drug use.

During the 51 Special Session of the Economic and Social Council of the UN, held last month in Vienna, the Argentine Minister of Justice and Security, Anibal Fernandez, raised the "complete failure" of the policy of punishing drug users.

In this way, and for the first time in 30 years, Argentina abandoned its commitment to the U.S. position of pursuing both the drug trafficker and the consumer.**

So it would appear that in the federal court has done more than establish case law and will apparently have a retrospective impact on previous convictions. Unfortunately I don't have much more information or details at this stage, but this is apparently only one case in one Buenos Aires federal court, although there is another similar case pending in Argentina's supreme court that could have a similar impact but on a national scale (more details from Argentinian readers are welcome).

It is important to make it clear that we are not talking about any form of legally regulated drug supply in this case. 'Decriminalisation' in this context and its usual understanding in drug policy discourse refers only to the actual or de-facto removal of criminal sanctions for personal possession and use, and does not effect the criminal markets that supply users. Moves towards decriminalisation of this kind have already occurred in a number of countries in South America, with other actively discussing it (including Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Venuezuela, Honduras and Equador) and elsewhere around the world including Western Australia, The Russian Federation, Portugal, Spain, Italy, some German Lander, Switzerland and the Netherlands. For cannabis only the list is much longer and includes 13 US states.

In practice, such 'decriminalisation' takes a range of administrative forms. In some cases the criminal sanctions remain but are not, or are only rarely enforced (for example, the Netherlands), whilst other states have translated formerly criminal punishments into administrative or civil sanctions that are responded to with a fine (Spain) or other sanction (suspension of drivng license in Italy, following a similar constitutional challenge), or combination of civil sanctions with a potential treatment referral (Portugal). This EMCDDA briefing provides more detail about decriminalisation in Europe.

Such moves can be seen as testing what is allowable within the spirit of the UN conventions (to which almost all states are signatories , and that possession is punishable but does not specify the penalty), but despite the not infrequent protestations of the UN convention's nominal enforcers, the International Narcotics Control Board, the moves do not violate the letter of the convention wording in technical terms.

That South America is, like Europe, providing a pole of reform states moving away from the heavy handed punitive approach to drug users is perhaps unsuprising. The continent has suffered more than most from the - as the Head of the UN would put it - negative 'unintended consequences' of enforcing prohibition. (The most destructive of the continent's prohibition-related problems relate to the production side of the illicit drug phenomenon and this broader debate is also active at a high level, and gaining momentum). For many South American countries, whilst sharing the global consensus in seeking to reduce drug related harms, there is a growing understanding some of the more oppressive and counterproductive elements of drug control reflect an outdated US mindset, and pressure to conform via the US/UN drug agency axis increasingly feels like imperialist imposition. Mexico provided a recent example of how such moves have been dramatically stifled by US pressure.


*as translated by google
** Reuters in credited but I haven't turned up the original report

Drug policy reform lobby on The Colbert Report

The excellent Stephen Colbert political satire show 'The Colbert Report' poking fun at the drug law reform lobby (its satire kids, he's actually poking fun at their critics). Ethan Nadlemann from the Drug Policy Alliance gamely plays along in the interview.






sorry about the ads at the end.

INCB annual report: even by their standards, this one's a shocker

Below is copied the press release from the Transnational Institute concerning the latest annual report from the International Narcotics Control Board, the quasi-judicial body that oversees state adherence to the UN drug conventions. The INCB has been on the receiving end of sustained NGO criticism for its secrecy, politicisation, and its overzealous approach to some policy areas outside of its remit (objections to established harm reduction initiatives), whilst ignoring key issues that are very much within its remit (notably adherence to human rights in drug enforcement). The TNI have taken issue with the INCB's latest extraordinary call for all coca leaf production to to be prohibited and its use, including indigenous and traditional, to be abolished.

The INCB's annual report is available from the INCB site here

A series of critical reports on the troubling machinations of this anomalous UN entity have been published recently (see below), and for further detailed information on the INCB, and the current UN drug strategy review process see the excellent new TNI website www.ungassondrugs.org

Abolishing Coca Leaf Consumption?

The INCB needs to perform a reality check

The Transnational Institute condemns the decision by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in their 2007 annual report released today, which calls on countries to ‘abolish or prohibit coca leaf chewing and the manufacture of coca tea’. (1)

According to Pien Metaal, researcher specialising in coca issues at the Transnational Institute:

“The Board is displaying both arrogance and blindness by demanding that countries impose criminal sanctions on distribution and possession for traditional uses of the coca leaf, which is a key feature of Andean-Amazon indigenous cultures. Isn’t it time for this UN treaty body to get in touch with reality and show some more cultural sensitivity?”

Coca chewing and drinking of coca tea is carried out daily by millions of people in the Andes as well as considered sacred within indigenous cultures. The INCB’s statement therefore clearly puts it at odds with the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights approved last year, which promises to uphold and protect indigenous cultural practices.(2)

It also contradicts the 1988 UN drugs convention which recognized traditional uses (3) as well as statements within the current 2007 INCB report which talk about “respect for national sovereignty, for the various constitutional and other fundamental principles of domestic law – practice, judgments and procedures –and for the rich diversity of peoples, cultures, customs and values.” (4)

TNI also condemns the demand within the INCB report that countries should “establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, the possession and purchase of coca leaf for personal consumption”,(5) which if it were implemented would mean the prosecution of several million people in the Andean-Amazon region. It targets not just consumers but also peasants who grow coca: “Governments should establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the cultivation of coca bush for the purpose of the production of narcotic drugs contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention”(6), reflecting all uses of the coca leaf.

“Given that the Board in the same report talks about proportionality in sentencing, the Board’s position makes no sense. It would criminalise entire peoples for a popular tradition and custom that has no harm and is even beneficial,” says Pien Metaal.

Earlier reports by the INCB have pointed to the inconsistencies between traditional uses of the coca leaf and the 1961 Single Convention on drugs (which included the coca leaf as “narcotic drug”), but no state has made serious efforts to abolish a habit that has no risk to public health.(7) Moreover, beneficial uses of the plant have growing markets worldwide.

It is understood that the Board was responding to Bolivia’s political decision to give the coca leaf a status as a valuable natural resource, reflected in the new proposed Constitutional text and in its national policy that allows a limited number of farmers to grow a small plot of coca for this traditional use.

According to Martin Jelsma, coordinator of the TNI drugs programme:

“The inclusion of the coca leaf in Schedule I of narcotic drugs of the 1961 Convention was based on an ECOSOC study done back in 1950, inspired by colonial and racist sentiments rather than science. (8) It is time the Board asks the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the World Health Organisation for guidance on this matter instead of casting its own narrow-minded judgment and retreating to the obsolete thinking of the 1961 Convention.”

Please contact:

Drugs & Democracy Programme (TNI) Tel +31-20-6626608
Pien Metaal +31640798808 pmetaal@tni.org or
Martin Jelsma +31655715893 mjelsma@tni.org
See also TNI’s website www.ungassondrugs.org launched to coincide with the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND)’s meeting in Vienna to review UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs for more background.

1 “The Board calls on the Governments of Bolivia and Peru to consider amending their national legislation so as to abolish or prohibit activities that are contrary to the 1961 Convention, such as coca leaf chewing and the manufacture of mate de coca (coca tea).” INCB annual report 2007, para 217

2 A/61/L.67, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly on September 13, 2007

3 1988 Convention, article 14, paragraph 2

4 Foreword, INCB report 2007

5 Idem, paragraph 219

6 Idem, paragraph 219

7 http://www.tni.org/docs/200703081409275046.pdf

8 The 1950 ECOSOC Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf claimed that the habit of chewing could be held responsible for malnutrition and immoral behaviour of the ‘Andean man’, while reducing his productive capacity. Report of the findings of the Commission of Enquiry of the Coca Leaf, ECOSOC 1950, now available here

TNI blog commentary on the new INCB report from Martin Jelsma:

INCB & Coca

A colonial attitude unworthy for a UN agency

When the INCB Annual Report for 2007 –under embargo until March 5- started to circulate about a month ago, I was in complete shock after reading the worst ever paragraphs on coca written in UN history for several decades. The position taken by the Board now can be characterized by no more talk about the need to solve 'long-standing ambiguities in the conventions', not a shred of sympathy anymore for traditional customs or rights of indigenous peoples, no trace of cultural sensitivity at all, an all-out attack against coca chewing, drinking of coca tea or any other uses of coca in its natural form in the Andean region and the northern parts of Argentina and Chile. We were warned last year in their report already about this direction of INCB thinking, but still I am outraged by this year’s call to “the Governments of Bolivia and Peru to initiate action without delay with a view to eliminating uses of coca leaf, including coca leaf chewing” and that all countries “should establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, the possession and purchase of coca leaf for personal consumption”.

In what world do these people live in, I wonder. True, the 1961 Single Convention did oblige countries to abolish coca leaf chewing within 25 years. That period has long past and formally all countries who signed that –including Bolivia- are still legally bound by that article. Bolivia and Peru tried to correct that when negotiating the 1988 Convention, which stipulates that drug control measures “should take due account of traditional licit use, where there is historic evidence of such use”. But unfortunately the US at the same negotiations ensured that another article said that the 1988 convention “should not derogate from any obligations under the previous drug control treaties”. Since then, impasse and contradiction.

The INCB has pointed out this contradiction several times (most clearly in its 1994 supplement to their Annual Report) and requested the CND to bring clarity and give policy guidance. Why then do they now take a high-ground position of judge, jury and executioner and arrogantly instruct the world to go back to the 1961 coca abolition dogma, which was based on a colonial and racist ‘study’ published in 1950? I’ve tried to follow dynamics within the Board over the past decade, not an easy task because it operates under a cloud of secrecy totally out-of-line with any accepted UN standards about transparency and accountability. But still, it leaves me puzzled.

Is this the influence of Camilo Uribe Granje, the new Colombian INCB member, previously known for his attempts –paid by the US embassy in Bogota- to deny any harmful impacts of the chemical spraying campaign against coca fields? Or is it due to INCB President Emafo’s influence, a true dinasaur of zero tolerance who also maintains that needle exchange or harm reduction is against the UN drug control conventions, on a moment UNAIDS and WHO declare such interventions to be the only effective answer to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Asia and Eastern Europe? Or is it an attempt by the Board to show to the US that they are still keeping a hard line on some issues to compensate for the softer line they take in this report on harm reduction and 'proportionality of criminal sanctions'? That could be a point, because there are several positive things to say about this year’s INCB report, positions that probably will not please the current Bush administration. However, even the US has stopped condemning traditional coca uses in the Andes and you can drink coca tea when visiting the US embassy in La Paz.

There must have been disagreement within the INCB on this issue, because not all the members are as ignorant and out-of-touch with reality to support such an extremist position. We may never know, because the Board’s policy is to not mention internal disagreements or minority positions. It is very worrying that the wording on coca in this year’s report apparently had a majority support within the Board and those members who agreed to it should feel ashamed, especially after the recent adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that acknowledges fully the right to the people concerned to continue to chew coca or drink coca tea. Including the WHO has found that coca consumed in its natural form is beneficial. What is the INCB thinking to achieve with this retreat to the obsolete thinking of the 1961 Convention? It merely underlines the need to reform the way the Board is operating. If a majority of the Board does not come to its senses and corrects this mistake, they will only further dig their own grave and confirm their unworthiness to be a UN agency.

Martin Jelsma, TNI

5 March 2008

Four critical reports on the INCB

1. The International Narcotics Control Board: Current Tensions and Options for Reform

IDPC Briefing Paper 7, February 2008

This briefing paper brings together material and analysis from a number of recent reports that raise questions about the role and functioning of the INCB. The IDPC analysis is that the Board mixes a rigid and overzealous approach to some aspects of its mandate, while showing a selective reticence in others. These inconsistencies do not arise automatically from the structure or role of the Board, but from the operational and policy decisions of its officers and members.

Summary:
Beginning with a discussion of its formal powers and self-proclaimed "unique" position in international relations, this IDPC report explores the tensions surrounding various aspects of the current operation of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB or Board). These tensions are analysed in light of the INCB’s interpretation of the UN drug control conventions and its mandate as laid out within them. It is argued here that in a number of contexts the Board appears prepared to act beyond the limitations which the treaties place upon it and engage in what can be termed mission creep. The report also explores other contexts within which the INCB appears reluctant to meet its mandated obligations and displays what can be described as selective reticence. The report contends that the areas of concern surrounding these mandate issues are further reinforced and complicated by the INCB’s culture of secrecy and the lack of transparency which characterizes all its work. It concludes by outlining "A Way Forward" in reviewing the way the INCB operates: a vital and timely endeavour that should be undertaken during the UN-level process to assess the 1998 UNGASS on drugs and the subsequent period of global reflection leading up to a high-level meeting in 2009 where markers for future UN drug control efforts can be adopted.

Download the Briefing Paper (pdf)

-------



2. ‘Unique in International Relations’? A Comparison of the International Narcotics Control Board and the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, by Damon Barrett, International Harm Reduction Association, February 2008
Download the full report in PDF

a new report released in February 2008 by the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA), the INCB comes in for some heavy criticism for being overly secretive, closed to external dialogue with civil society, and out of kilter with similar agencies in other UN programmes. IHRA also debunks the INCB’s defence that it is ‘unique in international relations’.
------

3. 'Closed to Reason: the International Narcotic Control Board and HIV / AIDS', by Joanne Csete and Daniel Wolfe, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and International Harm Reduction Development Program (IHRD) of the Open Society Institute, February 2007

A report published in March 2007 by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Open Society Institute Public Health Program, strongly criticises the INCB. It accuses the Board of becoming 'an obstacle to effective programs to prevent and treat HIV and chemical dependence'. “Nearly one in three HIV infections outside Africa is among people who inject drugs. The International Narcotics Control Board could and should be playing a key role in stopping this injection-driven HIV epidemic — but it’s not,” said Joanne Csete, Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and co-author of the report.

Download the full report in Pdf

------

4. The INCB and the un-scheduling of the coca leaf
TNI Drug Policy Briefing No. 21, March 2007

The 2006 International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) report emitted a clear signal to the governments of Bolivia, Peru and Argentina that growing and using coca leaf is in conflict with international treaties, particularly the 1961 Single Convention. The INCB, rather than making harsh judgements based on a selective choice of outdated treaty articles, should use its mandate more constructively and help draw attention to the inherent contradictions in the current treaty system with regard to how plants, plant-based raw materials and traditional uses are treated.

Download the briefing paper (pdf)

Further reading on coca:

From Soft drink to Hard Drug; A Snapshop History of Coca, Cocaine and Crack
Transform briefing 2005

Coca Yes, Cocaine No? Legal Options for the Coca Leaf
TNI Drugs & Conflict Debate Paper 13 May 2006

For more see the TNI publications page here

Home Office spin guide for the new drug strategy. Part 1

When an arena of social policy is as politicised, emotive, and contentious as drugs, it’s hardly surprising that the Government message is subject to very intense media management. The need for such efforts is dramatically amplified when policy outcomes are as shockingly bad as they are with drugs policy, requiring a Herculean propaganda effort to present them in anything even approaching a positive light, and especially tricky when this propaganda is now subject to intense parliamentary, NGO, and media scrutiny.

So when the new drug strategy was launched with a medium sized fanfare yesterday it was no surprise that a pretty comprehensive briefing was also circulated to relevant civil servants on how to answer likely questions from the media. It seems reasonable to try and make sure that everyone is on message, singing from the same hymn sheet and so on. A bit New-Labour-ishly controlling perhaps, but very much par for the course for a big departmental announcement about a complex policy issue. However, these briefings rarely emerge from their departmental bunkers, and for good reason. After all, you wouldn’t want the media to know all the answers in advance. That could be a bit embarrassing, and also run the risk of them coming up with some really tricky questions.

So all the more surprising that the ‘restricted’ media briefing on the drug strategy was also circulated outside of the Home Office to various people and groups that, whilst centrally funded, most certainly are not Home Office types who will obediently trot out the party line as determined by slightly creepy 68 page Q&A briefings. There is no guarantee that the Government strategy diaspora will all take kindly to being told what to say, and they are not bound by the Masonic-like codes of silence that seem to grip departmental civil servants. With such documents presumably being bounced around 1000’s of drugs workers and bureaucrats, as well as a zillion or so Whitehall-bots, the likelihood of an anonymous, presumably peeved individual forwarding a copy to my inbox starts to increase rapidly. (Remember that a lot of people in the drugs field are just as angry and alarmed at the new drug strategy - and last year’s disgraceful consultation and review process as Transform). So you will be unsurprised to learn this is exactly what had happened before the sun had set on launch day.

Here it is in front of me. I have to assume that the prime reason that a copy found its way to me was the rather bizarre inclusion of a guide to tricky questions on the debate around ‘prohibition vs legalisation and regulation’. It reads like a ‘how to deal with Transform’ guide and the wording suggests this is basically what it is. I should be clear: there’s no state secrets here, no WMD’s, dodgy dossiers or anything really juicy (and it's probably worth pointing out that the US DEA have something very similar, but as an entire public website and publication , which I should also note is dutifully shredded by my US reform colleagues here)

There’s actually little in this section we haven’t heard before in Home Office submissions to Select committees, ministerial correspondence with Transform, or Government responses to No.10 petitions; in fact it’s testimony to the tight ship they maintain that a lot of the wording is actually identical to what we’ve heard before. But it’s none the less fascinating to see the whole intellectually threadbare charade exposed all in one place, and it’s nothing if not reassuring in a sort of ‘is this it?’ sort of way. Pathetically enough this appears to really be all they have. I suppose we should also be flattered that the reform arguments have become mainstream and eloquent enough, and gained enough momentum, to warrant their own rather defensive five pages. And other than being quite amusing in a faintly tragic fashion, it will also allow us, and you, to know in advance exactly what to expect from the Home Office or relevant minister for any given question. Its almost a shame that the media have shown next to no interest on the new drug strategy beyond the silly bit of guff about benefits (just how much did the Home Office pay to organize that earthquake?)

Still, we will probably have blog-fun with the rest of the briefing over the coming days if I have time. But here below is the prohibition debate section, unedited. But as is our privilege because its our blog, I have added commentary and references (in blue italics) which in true Home Office style I mostly cut and pasted from various other bits of 'on message' Transform text. So make sure you get it right - or else.

PROHIBITION VS LEGALISATION AND REGULATION

Q: What’s the point on maintaining the pretence that prohibition works?

Drugs are controlled for good reason – they are harmful to health. Their control is a necessary and legitimate means of protecting individuals and the public from the harms caused by their misuse.

But they are NOT CONTROLLED. This is one of the strange Orwellian twists of logic we hear so often from the Home Office. Control of the £300 billion a year trade in dangerous drugs was abdicated to violent gangsters and unregulated criminal dealers when we bought into global prohibition back in 1961. (see below). The fact drugs are harmful is the reason why they need to be properly controlled and regulated within the law rather than left in the hands of an anarchic criminal free for all. Prohibition demonstrably maximises the harms associated with drug use as well as creating the disastrous additional problems associated with illegal markets. There are of course a number of legal drugs that are also 'harmful to health', highlighting the contradiction and hypocrisy that exists within it's own policy on 'harmful drugs'.

Whilst prohibition has not eradicated availability, it has been a crucial element in restricting availability and keeping the level of drug use under control. UK drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug misuse, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.

Not only has prohibition failed to eradicate availability, drugs have become progressively cheaper and more available under prohibition. There is no evidence that punitive drug laws are an effective deterrent to use and plenty of evidence to show that they are a marginal or negligible factor in drug taking decisions which are largely determined by cultural and socio- economic variables. Drug use has risen consistently during prohibition, faster than any time in history. making the case for prohibition keeping drug use down it a tricky one.

With most drugs, there is a direct relationship between the amount of use and the level of harm. As use increases, so does harm. If psychoactive drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of use, and the resultant harms and cost to individuals and society, would expand significantly. There is overwhelming evidence that the widespread use of drugs results in enormous social harms and economic costs associated with that: the many thousands of drug-related deaths; the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B and C through injecting drug use; and the mental health disorders associated with the use of drugs.

For a more detailed discussion on the impact of drug law reform on prevalence see chapter 5 of 'After the War on Drugs Tools for the Debate'. Regarding the harms associated with injecting, significantly there is no HIV transmission or AIDS caused by any form of legal drug use. The use of prescribed heroin with clean needles is not associated with any HIV transmission, so let us be completely clear on this: drug related HIV transmission amongst injecting drug users is very specifically a result of prohibition and the use of dirty drugs with dirty needles in unsafe environments. The Home Office is here defending the policy that has caused the widespread misery and death it is simultaneously condemning, whilst criticizing those who propose proven approaches that entirely eliminate the problem (this thoroughly unpleasant argument was similarly pushed by Joseph Califano in the Financial Times and the BMJ recently - and duly shot down, by me as it happens).

The most ridiculous part of all this is the fact that the Home Office know all this full well - to the extent that they are doing a Swiss clinic-style prescription heroin pilot in London, and are planning to roll the program out. This is actually mentioned in the new strategy. Bizarre. What do they think 'regulated supply of legal drugs' means?

Q: What about the legalisation and regulation of drugs?

The Government has been very clear that the new Drug Strategy would operate within the existing legal framework and the international conventions which underpin it. We have been unequivocal in our stance of having no intention of either decriminalising or legalising currently controlled drugs for recreational purposes.

In response to the Home Affairs Committee report on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working? in 2002, we stated that "We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs". The Prime Minister reinforced this view when, on the 24 September 2007 to the Labour Party conference, he stated “that drugs are never going to be decriminalised”.

A total non-answer. For some commentary on the Brown speech quoted above see here.

Q: Drug misuse has risen exponentially since 1971, the year of the Misuse of Drugs Act doesn’t this mean that our drug laws and policies have been a complete failure?

Crikey, these are good questions, its almost uncanny.

Overall, the trend in drug use has been upward since the 1970’s, but has more recently stabilised and for some drugs has been falling, particularly cannabis. To suggest that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act or more recent drugs policy has been a failure is unreasonable, in part because it is not possible to ascertain what the situation would otherwise have been should the Government of the day or successive governments taken an alternative approach.

Drug use has most likely stabilised (at an unprecedented and historic high point) because demand is now saturated, not because of some enforcement or policy triumph. Anyone who wants to use drugs does, and levels of use of different drugs rise and fall marginally as fashions s and socio-economic variables shift. It is possible to compare drug use between countries, and even within countries, that have very different levels of enforcement and punitive response and demonstrate there is no link between levels of enforcement and levels of use. (For a useful example see ref 35 here)

Data from both the British Crime Survey and the Schools Survey show that drug use is falling, while Class A drug use is stable.

This is just not true. See here for systematic debunk

Q: Isn’t it about time that we reviewed the entire Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, not just the classification system?

At its irreducible core, the 1971 Act is the means by which we transpose into domestic law our international obligations as a signatory of the 3 United Nations conventions on drugs. The principle purpose of the 1971 Act is to set out the offences of possession, supply, production and trafficking for illegal drugs.

Nothing to do with the question. And what is the 'irreducible core'?

As we have absolutely no intention of changing our position in respect of these offences, a review of the 1971 Act would be redundant. The 1971 Act continues to provide a coherent legal framework.

Again, a total non-answer: we wont review it because we don't plan to review it. Laughable.

Q: The Government should acknowledge that prohibition has not worked. Isn’t the only sensible alternative is a regulated market?

Legalisation and regulation of drugs will never be an appropriate response. Drugs are controlled for good reason – they are harmful to health. Their control is a necessary and legitimate means of protecting individuals and the public from the harms caused by their misuse.

See above

Whilst prohibition has not eradicated availability, it has been a crucial element in restricting availability and keeping the level of drug use under control. UK drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug misuse, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.

See above

With most drugs, there is a direct relationship between the amount of use and the level of harm. As use increases, so does harm. If psychoactive drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of use, and the resultant harms and cost to individuals and society, would expand significantly. There is overwhelming evidence that the widespread use of drugs results in enormous social harms and economic costs associated with that: the many thousands of drug-related deaths; the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B and C through injecting drug use; and the mental health disorders associated with the use of drugs.

See above

This type of alternative system – regulated supply - would not safeguard these very real public health interests, nor necessarily significantly undermine international organised crime.

How would taking control of the market in dangerous drugs away from gangsters and unregulated street dealers, bringing it within the law and subjecting it to strict legal regulation not 'safeguard these very real public health interests'?. And how would removing a 300 billion pound profit opportunity fail to significantly undermine organised crime? No answer is actually provided.

The benefits of such as system - such as taxation, quality control and a reduction on the pressures on the criminal justice system– are far outweighed by the costs and for this reason, it is one that this Government will not pursue either domestically or internationally.

Note, and this is important, The Government is clearly acknowledging benefits of legalisation and regulation of drugs, specifically financial and in terms of crime reduction. So can we assume from this that if we can persuade them about the completely spurious increased health harms thing then the game is up?

Q: The Government is using the argument that decriminalising illegal drugs “would send the wrong message to the majority of young people.” Isn’t this is simply a convenient excuse?

Legalisation of currently illegal drugs would run entirely counter to the HM Government’s health and education messages. Our educational message – to young people in particular – is that all controlled drugs are harmful and that no one should take them. To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send a disastrous message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.

Note how there has been a shift from legalisation causing drug use to 'expand significantly' in the previous answer, to here there just being 'a potential risk of increased drug use and abuse'. I'm not convinced they've thought this through.

On the subject of messages, in what other area of public health policy is heavy handed enforcement of criminal law and mass criminalisation of young people used as the primary tool to send out public health messages? Surely the stunning failure of this approach in drug policy (which has witnessed consistent rise in overall drug use, especially of the most dangerous drugs, for two generations) should prompt a pause for thought. Maybe there is a better way to educate the public about the dangers of drugs and encouraging responsible lifestyle choices, through, for example, established public health education channels.

Our drug laws and educational measures complement each other. In isolation their impact would be diminished.

Rubbish. Produce a single piece of research that shows spending a pound on enforcement delivers better educational and public health outcomes than a pound spent on evidence based, targeted public health education and prevention and I will eat my DARE baseball cap. Spending on counterproductive enforcement measures starves funds from public health initiatives that actually work.

Q: Wouldn’t legalisation surely reduce drug related crime?

We cannot look at any putative benefits of legalisation in isolation from its costs.

conceding the point on crime reduction again

If drugs were legalised, it is important to remember that there is other crime associated with drug misuse, for example crimes committed under intoxication.

Crimes committed under intoxication are not being legalised - the legal status of the intoxicant is irrelevant.

The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime.

Obviously it is ridiculous to imagine they will all ‘go straight’ and get jobs in McDonalds, or selling flowers, but it is equally absurd to suggest they will all embark on some previously unimagined crime spree. Clearly the impacts will differ at the various levels of the criminal infrastructure and, since reforms will be phased over a number of years and not happen overnight, criminal drug infrastructures will experience a twilight period of diminishing profit opportunities.

Undoubtedly some criminals will seek out new areas of illegal activity and it is realistic to expect that there may be increases in some areas, such as cyber-crime, extortion or other illicit trades (counterfeit goods etc.). However, crime is to a large extent a function of opportunity, and it is impossible to imagine that there is enough criminal opportunity to absorb the manpower currently operating an illicit drugs market with a turns over somewhere in the region of £300 billion pounds a year globally, or over £10 billion a year in the UK alone. Even if there is some diversion into other criminal activity, the big picture will undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall criminal activity. Getting rid of illegal drug markets is about reducing opportunities for crime.

This concern is a curious one because it seems, when considered closely, to be advocating prohibition as a way of maintaining illegal drug empires so that organised criminals don’t have to change jobs. By contrast, from our perspective the argument is about removing the largest criminal opportunity on earth, not just from existing criminals but, significantly, from future generations of criminals. Ending prohibition holds the prospect of diverting millions of potential young drug producers, traffickers, and dealers from a life of crime.

Neither would a regulated market eliminate illicit supplies, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling demonstrate.

The illegal market in smuggled tobacco is the direct result of taxation policy – specifically the large international differentials in tobacco tax that create a huge profit opportunity for smugglers. For example, tax rates on tobacco vary from zero % in Andorra, to several hundred % in the UK – a far greater range than almost any other mass consumer product. If tobacco taxes were reduced domestically, the international differential and profit opportunity in smuggling and illicit sales would fall accordingly; where there is no tobacco tax there is no smuggled imports or illicit sales. Higher taxes, however, mean higher prices which can effectively dissuade potential new users and encourage existing users to quit, just as falling prices can have the opposite effect. The Government has the difficult task of using taxation policy to balance these two conflicting needs (dissuading use / undermining illegal activity). Crucially, though, because tobacco is legal and regulated, governments are in a position of power to intervene on price, an impossibility with illegal drugs that are entirely at the whim of supply and demand in an unregulated criminal market. It is also worth noting that most smuggled tobacco is at least legally produced in the first instance.

It is worth noting that the profit margins on illegal drugs are so high, often running to 1000% or more, that there is plenty of room for manoeuvre for policy makers regarding tax and price control interventions. Prohibition has turned heroin and cocaine – essentially valueless processed agricultural products - into illicit commodities literally worth more than their weight in gold. Even with high taxes, legally supplied drugs would still dramatically undercut current illicit markets (more discussion on lessons from tobacco and alcohol in 'Tools for the Debate')

Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs.

which would be relatively minuscule compared to what we currently spend on enforcement

Unless drugs were freely available to everyone, including children, it would not be possible to stop the illicit market operating at the margins of any regulated system.

No one is advocating free availability. That is what we effectively have now and what we are trying to get rid of. The Government seem to be in denial of the fact that under the current regime illegal drugs remain easily available to most young people and a significant minority have used one or more. Regulation cannot eliminate such use, any more than it can with tobacco and alcohol, but controlled availability will create a significantly improved environment for reducing harm, and longer term reductions in demand. One of the key benefits of regulation is that it allows appropriate controls to be put in place over price and availability (location, times of opening and age restrictions) as well as controls over advertising and promotion. Thats the whole point. It is precisely because drugs pose risks that they need to be appropriately regulated, especially for young people. See also 'What about the kids' p.49, After the War on Drug, Tools for the Debate'

Q: The Government rejected the call made in the House of Lords by a number of eminent peers for an Independent Commission to be established, to review policy on drug control. Is this right?

The Government sees no need for any such commission. The United Kingdom is a signatory, along with almost all other countries in the world, to the three United Nations anti-drugs Conventions and legalisation would breach those Conventions. The Government participates in debates in the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which keeps under review global strategies for dealing with drugs on a global basis. The position the Government takes in these debates is, and will continue to be, consistent with our domestic legislation and international obligations.

This is another one of those bizarre non-answers that only a minister can really deliver with a straight face; we don't need a commission on the drug laws because we have drug laws. What? The CND has never and will never review the efficacy of global prohibtion, as it exists to solely to maintain it.

Q: Isn’t the Government hiding behind its “international obligations” in relation to any move towards decriminalisation or legalisation?

Drugs are a global problem; very often they are produced in one country and consumed in another. A co-ordinated international response is vital in our commitment to tackle drug misuse. The UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on drug control and takes its international responsibilities very seriously. Legalisation, even for a few drugs, would cause substantial damage to international relations and diminish the UK’s standing amongst our international partners. We have no intention of breaking our obligations.

So that is a pretty emphatic 'yes'; Geopolitics is more important than domestic policy. Some honesty at last. Vaguely reminiscent of that BAE Saudi corruption business?

Unilateral action by the Government's towards legalisation would undoubtedly encourage drug tourism as the Dutch have discovered and they are exploring ways to tackle that problem.

Don't do it unilaterally then. There's widespread dissatisfaction with the strictures of global prohibition across Western Europe and beyond, and moves towards reform will be led by a coalition of reform oriented countries. The drug tourism argument is so marginal as to be irrelevant. Dutch drug policy is based on tolerance not legalisation, and there are no plans to abandon the approach, which has been conspicuously more effective than that of the UK.

Q: Doesn’t the Government have room for manoeuvre on legalisation of the possession and use of drugs under the United Nations Conventions?

The United Nations Conventions oblige us to adopt the offence of possession. However, the legal framework within which this the possession offence in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 sits is a lot more subtle than it first suggests, allowing both the police and the judiciary the discretion to take into account all the circumstances of the offence.

I'm not completely clear what they are driving at here. There is clearly room for the UK Government to define penalties for possession, and this can include moves to civil rather than criminal penalties (so like a driving fine rather than a criminal record) or as many countries already do, just direct police/judiciary to not enforce, ie depenalise / de facto decriminise. This discretion is for policy makers, rather than police and judiciary. this is a seperate issue from legal regulation of drug production and supply. See p.54 of 'Tools for the Debate'

-----

Thats all for now. But if you really want to get to grips with this debate please do take look at the guide we have produced specifically for the purpose; After the War on Drugs - Tools for the Debate. It covers everything here and more in plenty of detail.

Support for reform: The Unusual Suspects

Drug law reform is often pigeonholed as the preserve of Guardian reading liberal-lefty types. The reality, as a recent blog post on the Canadian shotgun blog (part of the Western Standard) highlights, is that there are many more unusual suspects - of conservative political leaning - who also have strongly held and often vocal views in support of drug policy and law reform. The shotgun blog provides a interesting list of some of these, including individuals such prominent conservative commentator William F Buckley, conservative newspaper the Ottawa Citizen, and conservative think tank the Cato institute.

The list also includes a quote from the late Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.

‘There is, in my opinion, no government policy that is as immoral as drug prohibition...’
(Friedman and Freedom, March 15, 2002). Whilst he arguably came more from a libertarian than conservative perspective his stance, about which he wrote many times still surprises many. (Friedman’s views on drug prohibition are considered in this piece by Johann Hari in the Independent from 2006 posted on the blog)

America’s Cato Institute, a public policy think tank, is yet another supporter of reform.

‘In spite of the greatest anti-drug enforcement effort in U.S. history, the drug problem is worse than ever. What should be done now? ... The status quo is intolerable--everyone agrees on that. But there are only two alternatives: further escalate the war on drugs, or legalize them. Once the public grasps the consequences of escalation, legalization may win out by default.’ (Thinking about drug legalization, May 25, 1989)

Back in the UK we also have number of supporters from possibly surprising corners of the political and intellectual map.

The Economist, a UK publication with a circulation of 1.2 million (over half being in the US) is respected and widely read by those with a serious interest in economics around the world from all political persuasions, despite its generally right leaning economic perspective. It has been and outspoken advocate of legally regulated drug markets for decades.

“The role of government should be to prevent the most chaotic drug users from harming others – by robbing or by driving while drugged, for instance – and to regulate drug markets to ensure minimum quality and safe distribution. The first task is hard if law enforcers are preoccupied with stopping all drug use; the second, impossible as long as drugs are illegal."

The Economist, editorial. From Issue entitled: ‘Time to legalise all drugs’ – 28/06/01

In stark contrast to the populist drug war rhetoric regularly deployed by current shadow Home Secretary David Davis, the now Conservative party leader David Cameron was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2002 during its detailed inquiry into UK drug policy and supported the recommendation that:

“the Government initiates a discussion within the [UN] Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma” (paragraph 267).

He also, notably given the current political shenanigans, supported the calls for reclassification of cannabis from B to C, and ecstasy from A to B.

Conservative front bencher and former cabinet member Alan Duncan MP, is also a proponent of reform:

"The only completely effective way to ameliorate the drug problem, and especially the crime which results from it, is to bring the industry into the open by legalising the distribution and consumption of all dangerous drugs, or at the very least by decriminalising their consumption."

‘The Legalisation of Drugs' in ‘Saturn's Children'. Read the complete chapter here.

Of course support for a more rational approach to drug strategy can be seen across the political spectrum. There are in fact supporters of pragmatic reform from all parties.

Clearly the reform argument does not fit easily into either the right/left political divide nor an libertarian/authoritarian one. Some of the false assumptions about the political fault lines in this debate are explored in Transform’s recent publication ‘After the War on Drugs Tools for Debate’:

‘Some advocates of reform envisage replacing prohibition with a libertarian regime, others with more draconian forms of social control. The reform argument itself is non-partisan – it is simply a pragmatic position led by evidence of effectiveness and public health/harm reduction principles. Calling for legally regulated drugs markets is actually the rational and moderate position between the ideological poles of absolute prohibition and free market libertarianism.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHOULD ALL DRUGS BE LEGALISED?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agonising on ecstasy

02/01/2008

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom is at it again.

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

see also:

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