The government have scored another victory in its battle with the evil weed. Jacqui Smiths decision to reclassify cannabis from class C to B -despite the explicit advice of its own experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to keep it at C - was supported in the Lord's yesterday, the final potential hurdle before the reclassification takes effect in January.
In a last-ditch attempt to postpone the change, Molly Meacher called a debate in the Lords arguing that not only is the move ill-advised, as use has in fact fallen since the drug was downgraded in 2004 and therefore ironically the shift could lead to increased use, but also this change in the law will lead to more young people being criminalised unnecessarily.
Meacher’s arguments are supported by a group of scientists in a widely reported letter to the Guardian. They urged Peers to maintain the trend of evidence-based policy-making by supporting Meacher's amendment. She argues that cannabis should remain class C and that the evidence should be further reviewed by the ACMD in two years time.
Lord Ramsbotham: “One reason why I am strongly behind my noble friend Lady Meacher on this issue is that I hate the thought of large numbers of our young people being wrongly criminalised for being in possession of cannabis, with all that a police record means for their future.”
The Earl of Onslow: ‘Some 10 years ago I was invited on to the programme ‘Have I Got News For You.’ Not long before I had said in public that I was pro the legalisation of drugs. The man chairing the programme, Mr Deayton, who I think later had to resign when he was caught using cocaine, said in a perky way, “Of course, Lord Onslow, you are pro drugs, aren’t you? I answered by saying, “I am going to respond to the question seriously because the issue is too important for flippancy. Drugs are by far the greatest social problem in the country and they result in the greatest amount of crime.” The policy we have in place at the moment obviously does not work… If we go on with our present drug policies, the prisons will be full and we will produce markets for the ungodly to get rich, and thus continue to cause serious social damage. Incidentally, the whole audience clapped loudly and clearly at my answer. To think that the public take the view of the Prime Minister is not very well informed.”
In the end, the House of Lords voted by a majority of 52 against the amendment, which, whilst a disappointment for fans of evidence based policy (at least in the context of a hopelessly malfunctioning classification system ) does at least mean that the endlessly tedious cannabis classification debate wont drag on for another two years and we can get back to talking about more important things, not least the wider failings of the UK's drug enforcement strategy.
Hopefully for (almost) the last time, Jacqui Smith responded with her now familiar line on the subject:
“This is the next step towards toughening our enforcement response - to ensure that repeat offenders know that we are serious about tackling the danger that the drug poses to individuals and in turn communities. We need to act now to protect future generations.”
In stark contrast to the rather depressing tale of political posturing taking place in the UK, the Dutch continue to lead the way in rational thinking towards drugs. This week an article in The Independent reported that the Dutch are planning to set up a cannabis plantation to supply cannabis to coffee shops throughout The Netherlands. This is an attempt to solve the ’back door’ problem (it is legal to buy up to 5g of cannabis, but the cultivation and supply of cannabis to the coffee shop remains illegal), which has resulted in an illicit industry worth around 2billion Euros.
Rob de Gijzel the Mayor of Eindhoven commented: “It's time that we experimented with a system of regulated plantations so we can have strict guidelines and controls on the quality and price… Authorities must get a grip on the supply of drugs to coffee shops”
How this will work in practice regards international law remains to be seen, and the plantation plan will now go to the Dutch cabinet, and undoubtedly faces bureaucratic and political hurdles. Illustrating some of these tensions, elsewhere in the Netherlands the Amsterdam city council announced last weekend that 43 of 228 coffee shops must close by the end of 2011 because they are within 250m of a school. This tightening of the coffee shop system does not, however, threaten the general approach of tolerance and regulation of cannabis supply, which maintains a broad consensus of support from local and national politicians as well as the public, despite vocal dissent from some.
Switzerland is preparing to take a step further with a national referendum next week to move to a system of legally regulated production and supply of cannabis.
It all seems some way away from the UK where we are still obsessing over whether the sentence for cannabis users for should be 2 or 5 years.
for more on cannabis and classification see previous post
After a little over two years, four hundred and fifty three blog posts and over 225,000 page views (10,000 unique visitors a month and a regular spot in the Wikio top 100 UK political blogs really isn't bad for a non-commercial super-niche policy blog like this one) we thought it was time to assemble a Transform blog best-of list. And here it is.
There is obviously an enormous amount more material that has not been included; much of it press releases, published articles and straight news reporting - so it's definitely worth going for a browse through the archive menu down there on the right.
I've gamely tried to divide the list up into various categories but there is inevitably a lot of cross over so don't pay them too much attention. If the bad science, bad politics and bad journalism headings all seem a bit negative, that's partly because the good news blogs tend to be 'this is good *point*' and as such just aren't as interesting, and partly because at this stage of the campaign, there's sadly still a lot more bad stuff to critique than there is good stuff to celebrate. There's other categories: cannabis gets its own one, as does alcohol and tobacco, international news, a small one for scoops, and finally a miscellaneous category for all the best-of blogs that didn't easily slot in elsewhere.
A big thanks to our bloggers, readers, and all those who have posted comments (even the trolls).
CANNABIS
In many ways a distraction from more pressing drug policy issues but, particularly with the whole sorry reclassification saga unfolding over the last few years, it has obsessed the media and correspondingly provided a rich vein of bad reporting, bad science and political idiocy that is hard for a critical drug policy blog to ignore.The Daily Mail and Independent on Sunday in particular have distinguished themselves, but they have been far from alone.
Daily Mail, Bad Science Drugs Deaths and Reclassification Aug 06. The first blog to really critique bad science and misreporting of drug statistics. On this occasion linking cannabis reclassification with a rise in opiate deaths (that took place before cannabis was reclassified - Doh!). More Daily Mail silliness here and here.
Brown on cannabis - it gets worse Sept 07. The cannabis reclassification saga comes to a head, the new PM makes a fool of himself, and any vague pretense of evidence based policy making goes out the window once and for all
More Independent on Sunday reefer madness exposed Oct 07. A case of grotesquely misrepresented research and shock headline-mongering. The authors of the research question thanked us for this one, the IOS have failed to apologize or print a correction (also belongs under bad science)
There's been lots going on around the world - from crazy drug war excesses to inspiring reform news, with the US often at the center of the vortex. But increasingly it is the UN drug control agency’s struggle to come to terms with half a century of failure and a legal infrastructure no longer even remotely relevant to the challenges of the modern world in particular that has made for a particular brand of hard to ignore bureaucratic drama.
What Darwin Teaches Us About the Drug War Dec 07. Brilliant analysis from guest blogger Sanho Tree, on how enforcement acts as natural selection in the illicit drug trade, making the criminals ever more sophisticated and violent.
There's plenty out there with old-school prohibition clearly requiring a monumental propaganda effort of it to keep itself propped up in the face of overwhelming failure, and sustained critique. A number of these blogs ended up featuring, occasionally starring in the Guardian’s regular bad science column (as did some of the cannabis stuff above).
Watching the Government attempt to argue its way past sustained parliamentary critique of the classification system has been a bizarre and depressing spectacle - warranting its own bad science sub-category. It's an issue that shows no sign of let up with the upcoming miserable show down over ecstasy.
Classification and Deterrence - where's the evidence? Oct 06. A detailed deconstruction of the Governement’s preposterous response to the Sci-Tech select committees suggestion that the deterrent effect of classification is un-evidenced.
The Lancet and drug harms: missing the bigger picture Mar 07. Nutt et al spell out their methodology for assessing drug harms – a step forward,but key conceptual errors mean they have missed the point: drug use harms and drug prohibition harms are not the same.
Playing SOCA with drug policy? Jan 07. Discussion of why the Government’s new serious crime agencies drug brief is doomed from the outset, and the politics of why it was set up in the first
Home Office refuses to release strategy evaluation research Sept 07. An ongoing disgrace as the Home Office, in the spirit of informed debate, refuses to release independent analysis that might make it look bad. The FOI appeals on this are still rumbling on.
For some reason illegal drugs are like a magnet for bad journalism. Beyond the reefer madness silliness above there has been no shortage daft drug panics, shoddy reporting or utterly pointless make-up-a-story-from-nothing journalism.
The anatomy of a drug panic April 07. Even the Guardian are not immune from a good drug panic story. This time its BZP.
The Thai government announced last week that they are launching a new crackdown on drugs . According to the Bangkok Post;
‘Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat has ordered a new crackdown on drug peddlers…. This has raised concerns, particularly on the civil rights front.’
Wongsawat: Thailand's new drug warrior
In fact the Thai authorities appear to issue statements about ‘new’ crackdowns with some regularity – the last one, due to last 6 months, started in February. Announcing such crackdowns is in many respects the sort of populist posturing seen the world over (not least in the UK); if the policy outcomes from your drug policy are all terrible, just announce some tough sounding new stuff to show you are doing something (evidence of effectiveness not required). Thai newspaper The Nation notes;
‘Normally, a move like this is perfect for frustrated Thai politicians looking to win quick political points in times of desperation.’
In 2003 then Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra instituted his now notorious ‘war on drugs’ that resulted in over 2500 extra-judicial killings - the reason that Thai drug crackdown announcements send a chill through human rights observers. The new Prime Minister (and brother-in-law of Thaksin), Somchai Wongsawat, has defended the ex-premier’s part in it saying,
'It was not extra-judicial killing by police. They were killed by drugs dealers.'
This follows Thaksin’s line whilst in power that the deaths were simply,
‘…the result of bad guys killing bad guys.’
An official investigation in 2007 found that over half of those killed had no connection whatsoever so drugs - that's over 1000 individuals murdered. A devastating report on the atrocities was published in 2004: 'Not Enough Graves: Thailand’s War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Violations of Human Rights'. As recently as February 2008 Human Rights Watch reported that a Thai police captain and seven other members of the Border Patrol Police (BPP) had been arrested on suspicion of human rights abuses and corruption after 61 people filed complaints ranging from abduction to torture by the BPP.
In 2005 the UN Human Rights Committee raised concerns over the number of executions and since then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called for increased protection for the health and human rights of people living with HIV, sex workers, men who have sex with men, and young people who inject drugs. Even the director of the UNODC has said that,
“It stands to reason, then, that drug control, and the implementation of the drug Conventions, must proceed with due regard to health and human rights.”
PM Somchai has tried to placate concerned observers by claiming that,
‘Implementing extra-judicial killings to solve the drugs problem is absolutely banned.'
However despite this statement and the reaffirmation of Thailand’s commitment to the UN Human Rights declaration on the 60th anniversary of its signing, there is concern that the crackdown will again lead to more human rights abuses.
In related news, the British government has revoked the visa of Thaksin Shinawatra who has been sentenced (in absentia) by a Thai court to three years in prison for corruption. The fact that he instigated and approved a program of 2500 largely indiscriminate and entirely illegal extra-judical civilian murders seemed not the bother UK immigration officials (or for that matter Man City Football club) but corruption is obviously a bigger issue for Britain’s government and its much lauded ‘ethical foreign policy’.
Despite being used widely in humans and numerous other animals, describing the drug ketamine as 'horse tranquilizer' or 'horse drug' has now become almost universal across the media. From the tabloids to the broadsheets, the BBC to the leading news agencies, it is now unusual that ketamine is referred to as anything else*. Such is the hold of the 'ketamine is a horse drug' idea that a recent Mixmag cover-story on the drug actually pictured a 'clubber' wearing a pantomime horse head on the dance floor. Today even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime got in on the act with a report about how: 'A drug used to tranquillize horses has taken the world's dance scene by storm'.
Now, ketamine is indeed used as an anesthetic for horses, but it should also be pointed out that:
1. Ketamine is used extensively in humans Ketamine is a dissociative and is a particularly useful anesthetic for the elderly, very young, and in emergencies as it does not suppress the respiratory system (although the powerful hallucinogenic effects - why it is used non-medically - are an unwanted occasional side effect). The UNODC report notes half-truthfully that it is 'used as a general anesthetic in developing countries' ; in fact it is used far more widely than that. Some of my anaesthetist friends inform me, for example, that it is widely used in the UK.
2. Ketamine is not just used in horses.
Ketamine is also used amongst a veritable Noah's ark of animals, including - in roughly descending size order: elephants, camels, gorillas, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, rabbits, snakes, guinea pigs, birds, gerbils and mice. Oh, and badgers.
So whats with the horse thing? Why do we never hear about the 'gerbil tranquilizer ketamine', or the 'badger tranquilizer ketamine'? Horses are obviously quite large (except those little shetland pony ones) and you can see why horse tranquilizer provides a more potent scary-drug narrative for the headline writers, than say, guinea-pig tranquilizer. But then why not go for gorillas or elephants?
Indeed why does ketamine get the animal/horsey treatment at all, given that many drugs, (including morphine and diazepam for example) that are used medically and non-medically in humans, are also used for animals, including horses. None are routinely referred to in the context of their animal use like ketamine. When did you last hear about the the 'sheep drug diazepam' or the 'dog drug morphine'?
To be honest I have no conclusive answer, having been unable to dig up a definitive first pop-cultural appearance of the horse tranquilizers / ketamine meme (submissions in the comment section please). The popularisation of a substance being strong enough to “knock out a horse” may hark back to the the legendary Groucho Marx dishing out horse pills to humans and himself to comic effect in the classic A Day At the Races. But I suspect that the modern link to ketamine specifically probably stems from media reporting in the mid 90s of the drug being stolen from vets and misused. If the first media reporting of the drug was of stolen veterinary tranquilizers (from a stables) it probably then just stuck with our lazy journalist friends - even though subsequently most of the drug was supplied from larger scale illicit or grey market imports from India and elsewhere. If the first thefts had taken place from a badger hospital, who knows?
Its not a massively big deal either, just rather a peculiar and irritating reflection on the curious sheep-like laziness of drug reporting in the media generally. And this sort of entrenched semantic misunderstanding is hardly going to help rational policy development, or for that matter educating young people about ketamine harms or other drugs' relative risks.
Remembrance Sunday, a tradition that seemed to be waning in its national importance, has assumed a new meaning and relevance for the younger generations with the event of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The day is still marked by the wearing of poppies, a tradition that grew out of the emergence of the flowers on the battlefields in the Flanders and Picardy regions of Belgium and Northern France at the end of World War I.
It is hard to escape the dual-symbolism of the poppy in relation to the Afghanistan conflict. Over 800 coalition soldiers have died in Afghanistan, over a hundred of them British - at least some of which have been as a direct result of anti-drug operations aimed at eradicating the poppy harvest that provides the raw opium that in turn feeds over 90% the West's demand for illicit heroin. Many more Afghans have also died, both combatants and civilians. The symbolic historical links of the poppy with death are not just the blood red from battle fields but also the opium connection; the poppy being used as a traditional tombstone emblem to symbolise eternal sleep.
The Afghan conflict is, of course, more complex than merely a war on drugs, but the massive illicit profits that flow from the poppy fields are fueling the violence, and helping destabilize the entire region. Eradication of the illicit trade is a key element of the coalition and now NATO strategies into which billions of pounds has been poured, and for which no let up is on the horizon. Yet there is nothing from the experience of the past 7 years to suggest it is even remotely possible, as recent bumper harvests and stockpiling demonstrate.
It also needs to be repeated that it is the prohibition of opiates for non medical use that creates the illicit trade in the first instance. There is no violence, criminal profiteering or terrorism associated with the 50% of global poppy production (for medical use) that is entirely legal and regulated. It is prohibition that creates the link between drugs and terror, and prohibition that is responsible for the nexus of their respective wars - which become increasingly difficult to disentangle as each year passes.
If we do make the terrible decision to send soldiers to war, with all the consequences and bloodshed that entails, then we should have a damn good reason for doing it. An unwinnable and counterproductive war against drugs comes nowhere close. Whilst we remember our fallen soldiers with poppies, we should not forget that their fellow soldiers continue to die in a pointless fight against poppies.
We may not know yet how to solve the complex issues of international terrorism, but we do know how to solve the problems created by the drug war.
Below are some new anti-drug ads from the US drug Czar's office, that spoof newspaper job ads of the past (click to see full size pdf - 1meg). I actually think these are quite amusing, and saying that being stoned all the time is a pretty lame may well have more impact than 'just say no' type messages, or shock horror scare tactics (In Austrialia they tried an even more direct approach with the 'pot could turn you into a dick head' campaign) . That said, I suspect these new posters are a bit too clever-cloggsy-ad-agency-ironic for there own good and may well actually end up above the sofa in student flats as the subject of much postmodern stoner hilarity.
Below is a summary table of drug policy ballot initiatives that took place alongside last nights US presidential vote (provided by the Marijuana Policy Project). All except California's ambitious Prop 5 (and the retrograde drug war prop 6) were concerned with cannabis/marijuana, and most are basically expanding local and state level medical cannabis access. More significantly perhaps de facto cannabis decriminalisation measures were passed in the state of Massachusetts - expanding the number of decrim states to 13 - and Fayetteville Arkansas.
The failure of Prop 5 was a big set back (although the failure of prop 6 provides some consolation), but the scale of the successes elsewhere - with the cannabis measures all notably winning by far bigger margins of support that did Obama himself - points towards something more important. Even though the actual changes achieved are modest and not hugely relevant to more pressing debates in the UK, the fact remains that they have won large majorities due to grass roots NGO campaigning winning over popular support despite being fiercely opposed by the US drug agencies (who have fought against them with considerable propaganda resources). It suggests the public no longer unquestionably accept the Governments drug war posturing, and the scale of the wins bodes well for more ambitious reform in the future.
State
Initiative
Sponsored by
MPP supports?
Results
Massachusetts
Question 2: Remove the threat of arrest or jail for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing it with a $100 fine, which could be paid through the mail without lawyers or court appearances, just like a speeding ticket.
Proposition 5: Expand the number of drug offenders diverted from prison into treatment and decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, among other things.
Proposition 6: Among other things (such as increasing spending on prisons and law enforcement and increasing penalties for gang crimes and methamphetamine distribution), require the expulsion from public housing of anyone convicted of a recent drug offense.
Measure JJ: Expand the non-residential zones where dispensaries can locate, create an oversight commission to create standards and determine whether relocating or future operators are in compliance, issue zoning certificates, and bring Berkeley marijuana possession limits in line with recent court rulings determining that such limits are unconstitutional in the state.
Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, and Townsend, Massachusetts
Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.
Medfield, Needham, and precincts 1 and 2 of Dover, Massachusetts
Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.
Bedford, Burlington, precinct 3 of Wilmington, Massachusetts
Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.
Hanson, Pembroke, precincts 2,3,4,5 of Duxbury, precinct 2 of Halifax, Massachusetts
Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.
In the States medical cannabis is a massive issue (far more politically potent than its marginal status in the UK), being entwined with a raft of other political and cultural battles; the bigger recreational cannabis issue, tensions between federal and state power, various medical prescribing politics and more besides. It can all get quite rather confused and often real issues about the future of drug policy seem to get lost in the mix as emotions run high on both sides of the various debates. Personally I have mixed feelings about the issue, in particular a concern that conflating the medical and recreational debates potentially threatens to undermine progress on both. That said, I certainly don't want to see medical users criminalised*.
None of this, however, should get in the way straight reporting of facts and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) , the most ferocious opponent of medical cannabis, or 'medical cannabis' as they like to mockingly call it, has made some bold and seemingly inaccurate claims about San Francisco dispensaries in its latest blog post. I say 'blog' despite it not really warranting the moniker, being one of those prohibitionist 'blogs' that does not publish comments, presumably afraid of the roasting they would get if they opened themselves up to that strange concept of democratic engagement and free debate (to my knowledge there are no official prohibitionist blogs that publish comments, and many, like Costas Corner, don't even let you make them) .
"As we've noted previously, state "medical" marijuana laws breed confusion, abuse, and violence in neighborhoods and communities.
Here's our latest analysis of this phenomenon. In downtown San Francisco alone, there are 98 marijuana dispensaries, compared to 71 Starbucks Coffee shops"
And then there's a map of their analysis to prove it.
'over a hundred' Starbucks in downtown SF
One of 'less than 30' cannabis dispensaries in Down town San Franscisco
Various SF based medical cannabis practitioners and activists have been quick to point out the claims appear to be incorrect:
This response was posted on the ONDCP 'blog' by a representative of NORML (not that you will be able to read it because ...democracy...etc.) ;
This is total bunkum. The number of cannabis clubs in SF is limited by city ordinance and has never exceeded 40. A listing of currently active clubs may be found at our website http://www.canorml.org/prop/cbclist.html#sf. It shows 22 clubs and 5 delivery services. There is also one other unlisted club registered with the city. By contrast, there are 3,500 licensed liquor outlets in SF.
Dale Gieringer, Director, California NORML, Co-sponsor, California Compassionate Use Act of 1996
The information contained in the Czar's blog is not even close to resembling truth...in fact SF Gate (the e-version of the Chronicle) noted in a recent article (Aug 27) about the AG guidelines that SF only has about 26 MCDs currently in operation. Even at the height of 'unregulated' access in SF, there was no where near that many MCDs!
The local ASA chapter is tracking MCD permits in SF with painstaking attention to detail. At present, 28 collectives have submitted applications for permits. A few have been denied and there are 4 collectives that have permits to operate under local law. There are another 20 or so collectives in operation, and these collectives have until Jan 19, 2009 to acquire their permits (part of the grandfather provision we included in the legislation). Obviously not all collectives will survive the permit process, and a few of these collectives are in the process of sorting out some legal battles. But, with absolute confidence, I can tell you that there is no where near 100 collectives operating in SF.
And, finally, not to beat a dead horse, but some of the locations of the info provided on the Drug Czars so-called "map" includes places where dispensaries are absolutely prohibited by local land-use law from operating. The map below, is the current map that details "green-zones" or those places where MCDs may be permitted by the SF government to operate once they have obtained a permit http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/Applications/MCD_Map.pdf
and a local medical cannabis group that:
As far as we know, there are now a little fewer than 30 dispensaries or so, so this is more misinformation from the drug czar.
I'm happy to be corrected on this (comments welcome here - all published un-moderated), but if, as the above information would suggests the ONDCP's claim is substantially non-congruent with reality (less than a third does not constitute 'more than') and has been playing silly statistical propaganda games again, let's hope they are similarly willing to publish a correction.
Drug use and misuse is a hugely important issue, agreed?
Then I have a challenge for you. All of you.
First though, a question.
Do you know for a fact…;
Option A:
… that prohibition is keeping a lid on dangerous drugs, and any alternative would be a disaster?
Option B:
…that prohibition is a disaster, for the world’s poor and rich alike?
Option C:
…that the truth is somewhere in between A and B?
Do you have enough confidence in your position to actually put it to the test? Do you want to prove the other side is wrong?
Of course you do.
At Transform we also think that whatever position you take in the drug policy debate, all rational people can agree policy should be evidence-based. That of course means carrying out the research needed to settle the arguments, but that work has not been done yet. For example there has been no audit of the cost effectiveness of drug enforcement measures in the UK, let alone a systematic comparison of the health, economic and social implications of current policies and alternatives.
So I invite everyone from the Legalise Cannabis Alliance to supporters of European Cities Against Drugs and most importantly, all the individuals reading this, to call on the government to commission a comprehensive and independent cost-benefit analysis (CBA) comparing current UK drug policies with other options, including a health-led legal regulation and control approach. Then, whatever the outcome, future policy can be based on fact not ideology.
To help you, we have written a template letter to send to your MP, or to amend and send to the Home Office if you prefer. Of course, feel free to write your own letter calling for a CBA if you don't like our text. Please also link to this page from your websites, and circulate it to your friends, colleagues and supporters.
Go on, take the Transform challenge.
Unless that is, which ever side of the debate you are on, you are afraid that filling in the gaps in the evidence would prove you wrong...?
Tobacco products have had a long and inglorious history of largely unfettered marketing built around pseudoscience, false and misleading claims, and appeals to medical authority. The situation has improved today with tighter regulation of advertising and marketing in much of the developed world, even if tobacco companies have redirected their thoroughly unpleasant energies towards more sneaky marketing practices and less well regulated emerging markets in the developing world.
But for those of use who live in the new era of the tobacco advertising ban it is easy to forget the cynicism and shamelessness of tobacco marketing in the golden era of the 30's 40's and 50's. Below is a selection of some of the very worst, taken from the extensive collection lovingly archived by the Stanford School of Medicine. Click the images below to see full size.
The Chesterfield brand has the scientist actually smoking as he looks down the microscope. He has apparently 'discovered' that there is 'no unpleasant aftertaste'.
Chesterfield again: "Scientific Evidence on the Effects of Smoking! After 10 months, the medical specialist reports that he observed no adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses of the group smoking Chesterfield."
Chesterfield now combining pseudoscience with the more familiar celebrity endorsement, here from Perry Como, apparently suggesting that you can smoke two packs a day for fifteen years with 'no adverse effects'. A medical specialist says it, so it must be true.
Lucky Strike this time, in one of a long series of celebrity endorsement pseudoscience ads about the 'mildness' of their product relative to others. All proved by 'scientific experiments' done by and unnamed 'independent consulting laboratory' . Using stage, screen and recording stars of the day, such ads frequently suggested that their product had actual benefits for the throat and voice.
Nicotine is a stimulant and this ad isn't a world away from advertising of stimulant drinks like Red Bull today, but interestingly the tobacco marketers managed to simultaneously run numerous similar sciencey-ads that describe tobacco's calming and relaxing effects.
'"Its Toasted" Your Throat Protection—Against irritation—Against Cough' - as endorsed by 'August Heckscher, President Child Welfare Committee of America'. Apparently 'Everyone knows that heat purifies and so toasting removed harmful irritants that cause throat irritation and coughing. No wonder 20,679 physicians have stated Luckies to be less irritating!'
And how do we know Lucky Strike's science is so spot on? Well, they have a big imposing building with 'RESEARCH LABORATORY' written on the outside, staffed by clever looking people in lab coats, wearing glasses and using test tubes and machines with lots of dials and nobs (Laboratoire Garnier being the modern day equivalent) . 'Prove to yourself Luckies are finer - get a carton today!'
The Truth About Irritation of the Nose and Throat Due To Smoking.' ....'Their tests proved conclusively that on changing to Philip Morris, every case of irritation due to smoking clearly up completely or definitely improved.'.... 'These facts have been accepted by eminent medical authorities.'
Camel ran a long series of ads based around their research that 'More Doctors smoke Camels'. This may or may not have been true, but was shamelessly appealing to the reassuring authority of medical practitioners (arguably far higher then than it is today). Often portraying doctors and surgeons (in the mandatory white coats) actually smoking, this one above is particularly awful, featuring a five year old girl proclaiming to her paternal looking doctor figure and radiant young mother that 'I'm going to grow a hundred years old'. It then goes on to inform us that 'and possibly she may - for the amazing strides of medical science have added years to life expectancy' You can 'thank your doctor and thousands like him - toiling ceaselessly - that you and yours may enjoy a longer better life' . THIS IS A CIGARETTE AD.
This bizarre ad plays the medical authority card along with the pseudoscience claims but uses Side-show entrepreneur Robert Ripley of 'believe it or not' fame to back it up (answer: Not).
When not using doctors as reassuring authority figures, Nurses were a solid second choice. Especially beautiful ones surrounded by hunky soldiers.
Dentists were also used, sometimes 38,381 of them. In this ad we laughably learn that the tar caught in the filter 'cannot stain your teeth!'. Filters did not remove any more tar etc. than the equivalent length in tobacco - but were cheaper. Just another ingeniously dishonest marketing wheeze.
"More scientists and educators smoke Kent." - again promoting the healthy cigarette / filter myth. Kent's Micronite Filter (Lorillard Tobacco Company) for at least 5 years in the 1950s contained crocidolite asbestos, one of the deadliest forms of this fibrous mineral. Smokers inhaled millions of deadly fibers per year and were never told of the hazard. Filtered brands nonetheless have been massive success, growing in market share from 2 % in 1950 to 50 % in 1960, and 99% today.
This Phillip Morris classic appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1946. It encourages 'physicians who smoke a pipe' to use the new 'country doctor pipe mixture' . Also one of the only such ads to feature a journal reference.
A long running and highly successful series from Lucky Strike played on the slimming power of tobacco - suggesting that if you didn't smoke, you would eat sweets instead and become obese instead of, in this case. a strapping hurdler. Similar ads in the series played on women's insecurities about their weight. They were eventually stopped when the tobacco companies were sued by candy manufacturers, although candy flavoured cigarettes were to follow. The marketing of 'slim' cigarettes to women (using images of slim women) continues to this day in the US and elsewhere where a total ban has yet to be enforced.
Here's an old UK ad for Greys cigarettes (ten for sixpence) that plays on the all to common parental fears of losing your children because the cigarettes provided at your cocktail parties were causing the completely invented problem of 'smoke-dyspepsia' (indigestion). 'These specially prepared cigarettes are invaluable for preventing smoke dyspepsia. And if you don't believe this—Well, what on earth will you believe?' . Having introduced the new brand to her social events, with children reclaimed, one of the guests proclaims to the delighted Mother: 'These topping Greys are the making of your cocktail parties Mrs Scholfield!'
Another earlier UK ad (1918) for Ricoro cigars has a doctor telling his patient he can smoke 'as many as you wish', the patient replying 'Ricoro is the pleasantest prescription a doctor ever ordered'
Finally, towards the end of the 50's as public health science was catching up on tobacco companies and the era of pseudoscience health claims was drawing to a close, an ad for Old Gold that says 'we don't try to scare you with health claims' before displaying the almost unbelievably in-your-face hypocrisy of immediately then making scary health claims.
Tobacco company marketing, it is safe to say, cannot be trusted. At all. Ever. Tobacco is not a conventional product and needs to be regulated and controlled differently to other consumer goods, as do all potentially harmful and addictive psychoactive drugs. Tobacco provides a valuable lesson in what happens when such controls are not put in place and profiteering is prioritized over public health.
Update 07.09.11 : On advice from a comment poster below, I have removed one of the ads - for 'Dr Batty's Asthma cigarettes' - which although featuring in the Stamford collection at the time of writing, appears to be a fake (from analysis of the Fonts among other things). Asthma cigarettes did, however, once exist - as this paper reveals.
There is a powerful set of images by the brilliant photographer Aaron Huey taken the front line of the war on drugs; Afghanistan. It not only shows the the futile eradication efforts and the very real conflict the drug war involves - with victims on both sides - but also the emerging domestic opiate misuse issues that rarely enter the Western discourse. A small selection are copied below (click to see full size) but you can see the complete set as a slide show here (click on the 'Features 1' menu , then 'Afghanistan war on drugs') .
Last night (Wed 29 October) BBC Radio 4 broadcast the first of three episodes of 'Iconoclasts'. Produced by the Radio 4's religion and ethics programming department (who also produce the moral maze) it is a 'series of live, thought provoking discussions' that each week invites 'an 'Iconoclast' challenges our opinions and perceptions about an issue and listeners are invited to send in their comments via text and emails during the programme'. The opening episode featured as its iconoclast Transform Patron Dr Sue Blackmore. Axel Klein, a Transform trustee was also one of the panel questioning her. The title of the discussion was 'Illegal drugs can be good for you' , with Sue's premise summarised on the Radio 4 site thus:
The scientist and writer Dr Susan Blackmore argues that drugs can be good for you. She says most of the problems of drug abuse are really caused by drug prohibition. It would be much better if we decriminalised drugs and taught young people how to use them properly and safely instead. She says that our society doesn't take the "dangerous wonder" of mind-altering chemicals seriously. As a psychologist Susan wants to understand the mind. She has experimented with hallucinogenic drugs because she wanted to learn "how to face demons and terrors, how to let go of self, how to explore the further reaches of human experience." She wants a society in which adults are free to take drugs for their own reasons: for comfort and delight, to ease pain, to inspire insight or creativity, and even to face death. Just as we can distinguish between alcohol use and alcohol abuse, so should we accept that there's a place for positive drug use.
It is an obviously controversial position to argue and is worth reading her complete introductory paper, that usefully expands on the above, and which is copied below, you can also listen to the complete program online here, which was overall a positive contribution to an often difficult debate. Sue also had a blog published on the Guardian's Comment is Free: 'Hang-gliders of the mind' which is taking comments for a couple more days.
The three members of the panel were:
Dr Axel Klein A lecturer in the study of addictive behaviour at the University of Kent, Dr Klein has a particular interest in the cultural contexts of drug use, the interplay of drugs and crime, and the development of drug policy at national and international level.
Dr Ken Checinski A psychiatrist and senior lecturer in addictive behaviour at St George's University Hospital, Dr Checinski has both clinical and academic expertise in the effects of drug abuse.
Sarah Graham Sarah Graham has a Priory Professional Diploma in Addictions Therapy. She works for the charity In-volve – counselling children in schools. Previously, Sarah worked in the media. She faced her addictions in 2001 and is an expert in holistic treatment models and communicating with young people. She advises Frank – the government drugs service and The Recovery Network.
Dr Sue Blackmore argues that illegal drugs can be good
Why do people use mind-altering drugs? They use them for comfort and delight, to ease pain, to inspire insight or creativity, and even to face death. There are lots of good uses for mind-altering drugs, yet what do we see all around us – drug abuse.
Why do people abuse drugs? Because they’ve never been taught to use them properly, because their lives are so tough they have to escape into addiction, because the only drugs they can find are filthy, adulterated, unreliable mixtures. In a word, because of prohibition.
Mind-altering drugs are both dangerous and wonderful. As a society we should be treating them with respect, encouraging their positive uses and discouraging abuse, but instead we have made them illegal – handing control over to criminals and ensuring that they are widely abused. One in five of secondary school children have taken illegal drugs, and in what circumstances? In ignorance of the power and potential of what they are taking, at far too young an age, in loud scary clubs, in unknown doses and in completely irresponsible mixtures. This is a tragedy, caused by our complete inability to treat these drugs seriously.
We manage much better with other dangerous wonders. We have flying lessons, and sailing schools, pilots licenses and skippers exams, apprenticeships in engineering and degrees in pharmacy. With all these things we weigh up the advantages of using something against the danger of accidents or abuse.
But the most dangerous and wondrous of all we shove into the corner and try to ignore. It won’t do. It’s a disgrace to us all.
Our ill-considered classification system includes drugs ranging from the highly addictive and dangerous to the relatively harmless, but I want to pick out from this mixture the most special, the most mind-opening, the drugs with the greatest potential.
These include the major hallucinogens, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, also known as psychedelics or “entheogens” meaning “releasing the God within”. Indeed many of them derive from plants and have been used for millennia. What distinguishes this traditional use from ours is that those cultures had long experience, social controls, training for users, and very specific conditions for use. A good example is DMT, the active ingredient in Ayahuasca, a complex brew of psychoactive plants used by Amazonian Indians. They treat their “spirit vine” with great respect, carefully training the people who take it, culminating in rituals for spiritual and mental healing.
I first took this short-acting hallucinogen twenty years ago or so and was told, by my experienced guide, that it would be like an eight hour LSD trip condensed into 15 minutes. That it might be horrific, and that one of his friends had said it was the worst experience he’d ever had. Hmm. That sounds fun! So why did I take it? Because then, like now, I was obsessed with understanding the mind. I wanted to learn how to face demons and terrors, how to let go of self, how to explore the further reaches of human experience.
As the drug took hold the world disintegrated in a roaring chaos of green and orange. I can say little that does it justice now, except that I sat there with a beatific smile on my face, shaking my head and saying “terrible, terrible”. I learned much from this difficult drug, as from other easier ones. I have found peace and deep tranquillity, had visions and mystical insights, been enveloped in empathy with others, and laughed at the cosmic joke. Not everyone shares my enthusiasm for exploring weird states, and nor should they, just as not everyone wants to go hang-gliding or horse-riding. Yet there’s something wrong with a society that actively blocks people’s natural desire to explore their own minds.
We cannot take over the old traditions of those ancient societies, but we should create our own ways of using drugs for good not harm. Such as what good? you might ask.
A young woman I know well has been anorexic for ten years – a horrible condition of self-starvation and misery. She first took LSD two years ago and found it deep and interesting, so decided to take it again. On a glorious sunny day she walked miles to a beautiful beach and sat for many hours, watching the sea, listening to the birds and letting the whole of her anorexic life out of its bag. She progressed through what she called “growing mental torture” and then – as she kept just sitting and looking into it – to a deep pleasure in total presence. “The greatest revelation” she wrote later “was of the possibility of being, totally, without any fear or any desire; and, as the devastating counterpart, the knowledge that the way I have lived this past decade has precluded precisely this.” I can’t say, and nor would she, that one acid trip cured her of anorexia, but it certainly contributed to her now beginning to eat. With this knowledge she doesn’t need to take the drug again. It has done its work.
This, I suggest, is use not abuse.
And finally there is death. Many profound drug experiences include thoughts about dying and images of death, and this can, paradoxically, destroy the fear of death. With so many of us facing old age, disease and dying, this possibility of inner transformation should be encouraged, not banned. I hope that before I die I may live in a better society, one that has learned to respect and appreciate the most powerful of mind-changing drugs, one that knows how to use drugs, not abuse them.
Transform relies on our supporters to maintain and develop our unique program of work. Please support us by signing up for a small regular donation at our secure CAF givng page.
