What would happen, do you think, if THE respected organisation in the country which advises the government on drugs policy were to warn that THE key aim of prohibition - reducing the availability of illegal drugs - was counter productive in that it caused a shift of drug use to more dangerous substances and resulted in more deaths?

It’s reasonable to expect there would be outrage in the media, especially if such a report had followed on the heels of another authoritative report which warned of similar “unintended consequences”.

Well, that is just what happened last week, but far from outrage what we got was reporting which deflected all eyes away from the issue and managed to bury the criticism. Worse, the report was twisted into another warning about “skunk” by this countries gutter press.

The “respected organisation” that dropped this week’s bombshell was Drugscope:

Drugscope’s website describes itself as:

DrugScope is the UK’s leading independent centre of expertise on drugs and the national membership organisation for the drug field. Our aim is to inform policy development and reduce drug-related harms - to individuals, families and communities. We provide quality drug information, promote effective responses to drug taking, undertake research, advise on policy-making, encourage informed debate - particularly in the media - and speak for our member organisations working on the ground.

Notice there their role of informing policy development and “promoting informed debate - particularly in the media”, they are a very respected organisation and any warnings they issue about the effect of policy should be taken very seriously indeed.

This years “Street Drug Trends Survey” (there’s a link to this at the end of the blog)  carried a serious warning that goes right to the heart of UK drugs policy, but you’d never have guessed it from the reports in the media. Let’s use as an example the most absurd take on the situation as provided by - of course - the Daily Mail, never a paper to allow facts to cloud a story, but bear in mind the Mail wasn’t the only guilty party.

Reporting on the Drugscope story, the Mail carried the screaming headline:

Cannabis users warned as high-strength skunk floods market

The report goes on to actually say:

Cannabis users are increasingly opting for high-strength skunk because weaker varieties of the drug have been frozen out of the market, campaigners warned today.

A report by charity DrugScope says that in some areas, skunk is so dominant it is almost impossible to obtain herbal cannabis or resin.

So, let’s de-Mailify this report a bit and get to the true story.

What it’s really reporting is that the policy of prohibition and crop eradication in the producer countries has proven so successful that the only forms of cannabis usually available in the UK now are the “skunk”varieties grown in this country - in large part by organised crime based here.

Also, the quality of “skunk” is so much higher than the imported cannabis products that do make it through - again due to the efforts of prohibition - that consumers are opting for the home made product in preference to the imported stuff even when it’s available. Now UKCIA has issues with this given the many reports we’re getting of contamination these days. but let it pass for now.

Let’s be clear about what’s happened to bring this change about. the situation we see out there has been created by the long running UN backed prohibition policy which our government subscribes to of course. This has resulted in a mass move of the commercial cannabis trade away from the traditional imported product which we are told was so much safer to the apparently stronger and allegedly more dangerous product grown hydroponically under lights.

This is an example of what the recent report from The UK Drug Policy Commission report “Tackling Drug Markets and Distribution Networks in the UK” terms “the unintended consequences” of prohibition (read UKCIA’s coments here).

This move from good old hippy hash to “killer skunk” hasn’t just happened for no reason, it’s been brought about by government policy distorting the economics of the trade. The Mail didn’t put it like that of course because to have done so would have undermined so much of the anti cannabis law reform campaign they have invested in over the past few years. The noticeable thing was though, non of the other reports anywhere in the media did so and Drugscope didn’t go into this root cause either.

All in all this whole story is part 1 of a good example of how to release bad, critical news without being noticed and without stirring up a debate the politicians and media don’t want.

There was far, far worse news in the Drugscope report however, indeed the “skunk” issue wasn’t even the main story of the Drugscope report, as, to be fair, most other media reports highlighted. Staying with the Mail report, the item went on to say:

The annual assessment, DrugScope’s Street Drug Trends Survey, also highlighted the increasing use of diazepam as an alternative to heroin.

Having mentioned that little snippet, after two short paragraphs describing what the survey actually was and that prices for illegal drugs have remained largely unchanged in the past year, the Mail then devoted another seven paragraphs to the skunk issue and how the dominance of “skunk” is claimed to be a serious and growing health issue.

Only now, getting near the end of the the article, do we return to the issue of Heroin users, which is the very serious development mentioned above that should be ringing those alarm bells and creating the headlines and which actually formed the main item in Drugscopes report.

DrugScope also brought attention to the vast increase in (the use of) diazepam.

Known also as Valium or, formerly, ‘mother’s little helper’, Drugscope said the tranquilliser is growing in popularity among drug addicts because of the shortage of heroin on the domestic market. Now quite why there’s a shortage of heroin isn’t known, given the huge amounts apparently available but of course it is the aim of the present policy of prohibition to bring about just such a shortage. Indeed, we are, as a nation, spending millions of pounds a year in order to achieve just this result, so a shortage on the street is “good news”, or so you would think. So what gets reported next from Martin Barnes is actually dynamite:

Usage was up in 15 of the 20 towns surveyed and Mr Barnes said: ‘The rise in the use of illicitly imported diazepam is concerning, particularly as drug users face a high risk of overdose when using the drug in combination with other drugs such as methadone and alcohol.
‘With the proliferation of counterfeit diazepam comes unpredictable quality and strength.’

So this development has serious implications for the policy of methadone maintenance, which is central to the treatment of heroin addicts. It’s also increasing the use of a drug which reacts badly with alcohol, a drug which just about every drug user will be using.

He added: ‘A heroin shortage might instinctively appear a positive development, especially as it can lead to more people entering treatment but it can bring its own problems.

‘Users may be more inclined to inject rather than smoke the drug during times of shortage or poor quality.

‘And there is a higher risk of overdose when the heroin market readjusts to more normal levels of supply.’

So there we have the Chief Executive of Drugscope, the leading organisation on drug advice in the country warning that a “successful” outcome for the main aim of the present drugs policy will lead to more dangerous methods of consumption, a move in the drugs market to more dangerous substances (which in the case of Valium react badly with legal drugs) and ultimately cause more harm and even deaths. That is a long way from a ringing endorsement of the present policy, but not one report in any of the media picked it up.

Drugscope accept, apparently, that the present policy increases harm and managed to say so in such a way as not to cause any problems for the government. Does this warning from Drugscope form a part of their advice to government? If so, what do they propose is done about it, or do they accept it as a part of the price to be paid for supporting prohibition?

This was reported throughout the British media this week without critical comment. It is indeed mind boggling a statement like this can be made by such a respected organisation and yet be missed by everyone reporting it, but that’s what happened.

Read the actual Drugscope press release here

Read the Drugscope report “Peaking Vallies” here

Guardian report - here - although not as twisted as the Mail report again it carries the warning about increased risk, but doesn’t make the connection with the aims of prohibition.

BBC report here -  again fails to make the link between prohibition and the changes in the market.

BBC “Today” interview with Martin Barnes (audio)  here. Again. doesn’t discuss the role of prohibition.

Life’s just much too hard today,
I hear every mother say
The pursuit of happiness just seems a bore
And if you take more of those, you will get an overdose
No more running for the shelter of a mothers little helper
They just helped you on your way, through your busy dying day

Rolling Stones - “Mother’s little helper”.

——————————————–

Footnote: Today’s Observer (Sunday 7th September) carries an interesting article which is not unrelated to the above: Legal chemicals sold to fuel heroin profits

Legal chemicals imported from such countries as China and mixed with pure cocaine and heroin include the anaesthetics benzocaine, lignocaine and phenacetin. Other substances used include caffeine and tetramisole, which is given to pets to expel tape worms.

And they call Prohibition “drug control”…

The “softening up” process leading up to reclassification of cannabis to class B has started. The BBC played its usual role of government messenger again, this time with a  programme broadcast on the digital station 1xtra last week entitled “Home Grown” supported by a website page, the documentary is online here for the next few days at least. This is probably a taste of what we can expect over the coming months.

The programme  did carry a range of opinions, but gave over a large proportion of the content to the claims of a causal link to mental illness, consisting in large part of the testimony of one person who blamed his heavy use of cannabis to the onset of his illness. This claimed causal link was then used as a justification for the proposed move to B.

Although some views were aired to the effect that the law change will make no difference, no critical examination of the effectiveness of prohibition was made, much less any credence given to the role of prohibition in creating the situation we see around us. Of course, subtle use of background music was made throughout.

The programme carried comments from Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister responsible for the proposed upgrade. Of course in typical BBC style these were carried without comment, let alone any critical examination.

Now, at the risk of being accused of “digging dirt”, it is important to remember that Vernon Coaker has himself used cannabis, this was before the downgrading and so he knows from personal experience that the law - with cannabis as a class B drug - doesn’t prevent its use.  So here we have a government minister justifying a legal measure on the basis it will “send out a message” to young people, a message he personally ignored.

But it goes further than that. The BBC allowed Coaker to make several claims for the measure which simply cannot be sustained:

Coaker said:

Cannabis is a very serious drug - its the most prevalent drug amongst young people

Actually alcohol is, followed by tobacco, but never mind. The fact that cannabis use is very prevalent amongst the very group of people the policy for the past 30 years has claimed to be protecting surely shows that policy has failed in it’s key aim? He ignores the (government) claims that use has fallen since classification to C and that use increased massively when it was a class B drug and of course, wasn’t picked up for it by the programme

It’s a very dangerous drug, particularly in the “skunk” form, that’s why were taking the action we are

Oh dear, where to start? In the beginning there was nice, safe imported hash. Then we had the policy Coaker is promoting which  has seen the imported product virtually eradicated to be replaced a “home grown” product. Is it any surprise that the forces of a supply and demand made the option of home growing so much more attractive? With that of course came the huge profits gifted to organised crime which set about providing the public with the product it demanded. What on earth did he expect would happen? Does he not understand the basics of supply and demand?

In truth the government doesn’t have a clue what’s going on with the cannabis market, with the latest evidence (which they haven’t been keen to shout about) indicating there’s actually been a fall in potency over the past few years as reported last week in the Guardian and elsewhere. It doesn’t have a clue because prohibition prevents any study of the market using valid statistical sampling.

There are concerns about other drugs, but alongside alcohol cannabis is the one that’s of real concern to us

So he has two drugs of concern, alcohol and cannabis. One - the addictive drug that kills on overdose and is associated with high levels of violence -  he supports a regime of control and regulation, the other which despite being supplied by organised crime and being totally unregulated has only a weak link to possible problems, he supports outright hard line prohibition. Being consistent isn’t Coaker’s main failing.

If you’re getting evidence as we are that the potency is increasing and the availability of those stronger strains has increased I think you’d be silly not to reflect on that and change the classification

Well, a bit of reflection is indeed called for. It could of course be argued that if the regime you support has meant the potency has increased without you knowing about it there might be something wrong with your regime. Indeed, as we’ve said so many times here illegal cannabis is not a controlled drug, changing the classification of illegalness isn’t going to change that reality.

But it’s also important to note that there is no evidence at all that increasing penalties for drug use leads to lower levels of use. Has he deliberately ignored the reports from the government’s own strategy unit, the RSA and more recently the UK Drug Policy Commission? Coaker’s whole case isn’t built on evidence, but on some faith-like belief as we all know.

After a gentle and non-critical question about the move to class C leading some to think cannabis had been legalised, he went on:

There’s been increasing concern that cannabis on the streets - so called  skunk - we now believe that accounts for 80% of the market compared to  30% a few years ago, that’s a hugely significant increase

Which you had no idea was going on, did you Mr Coaker? If your law is so effective and cannabis is “controlled” as you claim, how is it possible this could halve happened? Simple answer, you’re not in control, are you? That’s the truth about prohibition really.

He continued:

… and something the government would be - you know - if we didn’t take action it’s  something we could rightly be criticised about. It’s something we need to demonstrate to people that its something the government takes even more seriously than it has done and that’s why it’s going to be reclassified to a B.

Of course, the move to class C had no impact on dealing (as, to be fair the programme pointed out) which carries a maximum of 14 years inside, a draconian penalty which has not deterred the growth of the “skunk” industry. Moving it back to B won’t affect that at all of course,  the programme pointed this out - but before Coaker’s contribution and again, he wasn’t challenged on it.

So why reclassify? Coaker justified it thus:

Reclassification from C to B will mean the police will take a tougher  line with respect to it, er, they’ll have some flexibility with it as every police officer does on the street,

A tougher line with what? Not dealing, not cannabis farms, not organised crime, the only difference the change will make is with how small time users are treated - who, incidentally, are almost never if ever given the full two years sentence the present Class C allows for. What he skated around there was the fact that the police have said, despite asking for the move back to B, they will continue to enforce the cannabis laws as present.

A possession offence for a class C drug is two years, obviously if you reclassify to class B it means for a possession offence it can be up to five years so that’s a significant change. That doesn’t mean in every case the courts will use that maximum but it is available to them should they chose to do so. So we’ve toughened the law and you can expect tough police action and tougher court action alongside that.

Actually a bigger risk for the government is that the law will fall into even greater disrepute than it has already. Is he really threatening to put people down for 5 years for possession of a bit of weed? If so he’d better get building these Titan prisons pretty damn quick if he is. It’s a hollow threat and he knows it.

As a side note the BBC documentary made great play of the claim that cannabis causes severe mental illness yet offered no real proof (probably because there isn’t any)  and relied largely on one persons claim that his heavy use had caused the illness, the issue of cannabis and mental health is far more complex than this would suggest of course. The role of prohibition and the resulting unregulated trade was not explored and the false impression given was that more repressive laws were the only option. This falls way below the standard of reporting we have a right to expect from the BBC and sadly is yet another example of the corporation meekly putting out the government line. Gone it seems are the days of good, critical investigative journalism.

Two footnotes:

When the ACMD reported on the classification of cannabis earlier this year, it was reported they had evidence to show that rates of severe mental illness had actually dropped over the past few years. This was research conducted for the home Office by the ACMD. We were told it would be published “in the summer”, but it never was. How odd.

Second, as of Sunday August 31st, the BBC 1Xtra webpage mentioned above ends with a section asking for feedback

Where do you stand on penalties for using, dealing or growing weed? Will reclassification make any difference? Why?

E-mail us using the form below and we’ll publish a selection of the best comments here.

Strangely, no-one has commented. Again, how odd.

The highlight of the week was without doubt the contribution to the law reform debate by Dr Ian Oliver; former Chief Constable of Grampian police,  author and an independent consultant to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Now with credentials like that, Dr Oliver certainly sounds like someone to listened to, so perhaps it’s a good idea to set a  few things straight:

Ian Oliver is a doctor, yes, he does indeed have a PhD. But that PhD is not in anything related to medicine, but in “Public Administration” which he gained from Strathclyde University. His use of the title “Doctor” is of course strictly speaking legitimate, but let’s say “unusual” for people not qualified in medicine.

He is indeed a former Chief Constable of Grampian police, he resigned in 1998 in order to avoid being sacked. As the BBC reported at the time:

The police chief who ignored widespread demands for his resignation has bowed to growing pressure and quit his job.

Dr Ian Oliver had been under pressure to step down as chief constable of Grampian Police since Monday when an independent report condemned his force’s handling of a child murder inquiry.

His role in the police was described as “controversial” by many reporters as he also had an extra marital affair which had previously lead to calls for his resignation.

He is an author and has a book for sale which you can buy from Amazon

There are three reviews for this book, two giving it the lowest rating of one star, the other the highest rating of 5. The glowing review is worth a closer look because it was written by - you’ll never guess - Dr Ian Oliver himself. Yes, he reviewed his own book and gave it 5 stars. If you want to buy the book apparently there’s plenty left and it’s been reduced from £18 to £11.88, what a bargain.

“Doctor” Ian Oliver is  also an adviser to “Talking about cannabis” (a prohibition campaign dressed up as a health awareness campaign). He is also as it happens an evangelical Christian, which makes his extra marital affair perhaps a little hard to understand.

The reason for “digging the dirt” like this is to highlight the fact that, despite the apparently glowing CV of Ian Oliver, the man has little of no real qualification to speak on the issue of drugs, he does not have the reputation he is credited with (actually which he credited himself with) and he can rightfully be accused of blatant self promotion.

If you want Dr Ian Oliver (drugs expert) to come and speak at some meeting or other you can hire him, a snip at between £1000 and £3000 a session.

This is enough, apparently, to not only get (more or less) the same article printed in not one but two quality newspapers last week (Independent and Guardian). He also seems to have the ear of government, who support his line and base the case for prohibition on his flawed logic - or at least, something very similar. He clearly has some good friends in high places.

So far it’s been down to Transform to give a proper critique of Oliver’s article(s), I suspect it wasn’t actually very hard for Transform’s Steve Rolles to do and if you haven’t read it yet, I can’t recommend it more highly.

As Steve of Transform wrote:

You would hope that Dr Oliver, with his undoubtedly distinguished police career would have a pretty sophisticated and nuanced understanding of drugs policy, but if so it is not evident in his Independent comment piece, titled ‘legalising drugs would only make matters worse’ . Instead we are presented with a string of credibility-straining unreferenced ‘facts’ and a case against the legal regulation of drugs seemingly based largely on his own invented reality, bizarre inferences, and what I can only describe as a ‘quirky’ take on economics, maths and logic. A curiously distilled version of the Oliver’s arguments can be seen in the BMJ discussion forums here.

So rather than repeat Transforms rebuttal (do read it), let’s have a look at Dr Oliver’s stated reason for opposing law reform as printed in the BMJ, November 2007, in response to the “should drugs be decriminalised” debate mentioned in Transform’s blog.

Here, point by point, is Dr Oliver’s case entitled ” Drugs Cannot be Legalised” (Cannot note - no room for doubt there):

Legalisation/decriminalisation creates a particular risk among young persons

He doesn’t expand on that statement,  but presumably means that by regulating the dealers, imposing conditions such as age limits for sales and so on, young people will be exposed to a greater danger than they are through an unregulated street market. As Paxman might say, “Yeeees…”

Prohibition is successful

Again, it’s a bit hard to see his logic there given the utter failure we see all around us.

Legalisation would lead to increased use, addiction and associated medical costs

Ah now some meat. Legalisation may well increase use, in the way that legal alcohol has allowed many thousands to enjoy that drug socially. The huge number of social beer drinkers for example aren’t a problem after all. The problem is the relatively small number of problematic users - abusers if you like.  Would anyone seriously propose the way to deal with alcoholics is to prevent social beer drinking?

Legalisation sends the message of acceptability and harmlessness

It could if we did what we did with tobacco in days gone by for sure, but leglaisation of course offers the opportunity for proper regulation, restrictions on marketing and all the rest - things that prohibition denies us.

The economic arguments of savings in the criminal justice system and tax revenues offsetting costs are flawed

He doesn’t say how, just states it as a fact.

Crime, drugs and violence go together and so dealers who are engaged in criminal activity will continue; drug testing of persons arrested for crime indicates a significantly high proportion of positive results

The trade in legal drugs Alcohol and Tobacco don’t lead to violence as the trade in illegal drugs all to often does and their use doesn’t lead to acquisitive crime as we see with some illegal drugs - although both these substances of course are addictive. Few illegal drugs cause the sort of crimes associated with intoxication we see with alcohol.

Those who are dependent upon drugs and who have turned to crime to support themselves and their habit will continue to engage in criminal activity to pay for legalised drugs; the alternative is government subsidy of such people with a consequential increase in taxes

The black market has caused heroin to be worth more than gold weight for weight. As most of the criminal activity is caused by the need to fund this illegal trade, of course leglalisation would clearly reduce such crime. Legalisation can mean a range of options and heroin maintenance on the NHS is certainly one of those options. As to it causing a rise in taxation, of course we would be saving the huge costs of prohibition.

There is no justification for the medicinal use of cannabis or heroin

Yes there is. What a daft comment. Well sorry, but honestly diamorphine doesn’t have medical uses? Cannabis doesn’t help with MS?

Insufficient information is available to justify legalisation

It should be remembered that prohibition is the unnatural state which needs to be justified, where is the evidence to justify prohibition’s success?

There is sufficient known to show that drugs are harmful and addictive

Well, yes, some more than others of course. But it’s precisely. because they are dangerous they need to be properly controlled.

The whole purpose of drugs is to alter the mind

Sure, what’s wrong with that? This is something many people chose to do and always have done. Ian Oliver is making a moral statement here, one which is perhaps compatible with his evangelical faith.

It is nonsense to claim that private use does not produce harm to the individual and to society

It may harm the individual yes many things do that, especially things that are fun,  but society? How?

Legalisation would produce a huge administrative bureaucracy

Unlike the huge (and highly ineffective) bureaucracy we have thanks to the war on drugs.

Legalisation would not take the profit out of drugs

Yes it would, of course it would.

Other legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol are traded in the black economy

Produced from legal sources though, and this only happens because the government tries to tax them at higher rates than other countries where they are freely available. This is all about supply and demand after all.

Legalising drugs will not alter their adverse effects such as irrational and violent behaviour; legal drugs would have the same effects as illegal ones

Actually that isn’t true. Legal drugs would be consistent and of known strengths. Illegal drugs are very unpredictable.

There is no single answer to the drug problem certainly not legalisation

In his opinion, no more than that of course, although he does promote the simple answer of prohibition.

Scientific research is continually identifying serious problems arising from drug misuse

Dangerous activities should be properly controlled and regulated. This is an argument for legialisation, not against it.

The compassionate approach to drugs is to do everything possible to reduce addiction not to make it easier

Totally agree, another argument for legalisation and against prohibition.

There is International agreement that there must be unity against illicit drugs

There are international agreements which need revision for sure, but even so what exists allows a range of options as  is demonstrated by many contries in Europe.

Scientific research is continually identifying the dangers associated with illicit drug misuse

You said that once

The health and wellbeing of the world is dependent upon illicit drug control

Indeed it is, drug control is just what we need and is the very thing prohibition prevents.

“Dr” Ian Oliver no doubt believes he is right, you can tell that from the way he writes - all his claims are certainties,  there is never any doubt in his mind.

With luck Ian Oliver will  keep writing his articles in support of prohibition, because every time he does he exposes the whole regime to ridicule.

Oh dear, another bad week for the defenders of prohibition. First someone who worked in a senior position in the government anti drug unit spills the beans, then the latest drug use figures came out.

First, of course, it was Julian Critchley who did the bean spilling which even the Daily Mail managed to report fairly accurately, despite wheeling out a few prohibition quotes from the usual suspects at the end.

Julian was the director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit around the time of the widely discredited so-called “Drug Tsar” Keith Hellawell. To summarise his position I hope fairly; the present policy simply doesn’t work, it’s failed, in his words “it’s pointless”. He claims that most people involved in the execution of the policy know it doesn’t work, but for whatever reason are reluctant to speak out.

It is now clear that enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They haven’t worked. There is evidence that this (legalisation) works.

and on the subject of cannabis classification he was quite blunt:

Unfortunately, evidence is still not a major component in our policy. Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever.

As regards the law being a deterrent, which is central to the idea of moving cannabis to a class B drug

The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is simply ridiculous

It’s times like this one could almost (but not quite) start to feel sorry for Gordon Brown. When he decided to announce his “crack down” on cannabis he judged it was going to be a vote winner, plain and simple he had the Daily Mail on his side, so it was a sure fire winner. It’s starting to look a little less certain now, with the steady trickle of criticism that had been coming from apparently (according to rags like The Daily Mail) “marginalised” sources like the Chief Constable of North Wales slowly turning into a steady stream of official reports and highly critical admissions from people centrally involved in the workings of the policy.

At one time it was only organisations like Transform (along with UKCIA and a few others) making these claims but slowly, step by step, it’s becoming common knowledge that  our drugs policy is in crisis. How much longer can the dam of ignorance promoted by politicians like Brown continue?

The case for real drugs law reform isn’t coming from people who want to get high though, it’s coming from people who know and understand that prohibition not only fails to contain or deter drug use it and is totally unable to control or restrict the trade. Demands for law reform are coming from people who want to reduce the damaging effects of illegal drug use and to protect society. Up to very recently, this law and order platform has been the ground claimed by prohibitionists. We are seeing a very real sea change at last, long may it continue.

So what of the actual achievements of the present drugs policy then? Remember  we are now at the end of the last 10 year strategy, a strategy which focused the enforcement effort on the “drugs that cause most harm” - heroin and cocaine and in particular their use by children and young people. Remember how the prohibition lobby criticised it for “going soft” on cannabis. If prohibition worked and the strategy had been a success, we would now see big falls in the use of class A drugs, especially amongst the young and critics would be lampooning the increase in cannabis use due to the lack of enforcement.

Away from the real world and any consideration of reporting actual facts as usual, this is how the Sun reported things on 15th August 2008

THE terrible toll on Britain’s youngsters of mind-bending drugs is exposed in a shocking NHS report today.
Far more kids are needing help for drug-related mental disorders.
One in four secondary pupils - 700,000 children - has tried drugs.
The message could not be clearer.
Drugs are a deadly menace. The Government is right to reverse its policy of being soft on cannabis.
The police and courts MUST stop pussyfooting around the likes of Kate Moss, Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse.
Junkie celebs send out the message that drugs are cool. They are NOT.
Drugs ruin lives. Young lives most of all.

The actual NHS report, which got the Sun so excited, “Statistics of drugs misuse: England 2008″ can be found here, a ringing endorsement of success it is not.

 The main findings summary:

Overall drug use has fallen in recent years for both adults and children. Hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of a drug related mental health and behavioural disorder have decreased, while admissions with a primary diagnosis of poisoning by drugs have increased. The number in contact with structured drug treatment services have also increased while the number of drug related deaths shows no overall trend.
More men than women had used drugs in the last year, been in contact with structured drug treatment services and died as a result of drug misuse.

But, of course, that’s not the full story and perhaps the fact that admissions for poisoning by drugs have gone up gives a clue to what’s happened.

Class A drug use in the year prior to interview increased from 2.7% in survey year 1998 to 3.4% in 2006/07. This is mainly due to a comparatively large increase in cocaine powder use between survey years 1998 and 2000. Between survey year 2000 and 2006/07 the use of Class A drugs overall remained stable

So a policy which set out to focus its efforts specifically on cocaine and heroin saw an increase in the use of cocaine and at best can claim overall use of these substances has remained stable in recent years. How much of the apparently “stable” heroin use is due to existing addicts being moved off heroin and onto Methadone whilst being replaced by new users isn’t mentioned.

Remember the need to crack down on cannabis in order to send a message to young people?

Pupils were most likely to have taken cannabis; 9% had done so in the last year, an overall decrease from 13% in 2001.

but

Four per cent of pupils reported using any Class A drug in the last year, a figure that has remained stable since 2001.

So to summarise: During the period of the last drugs strategy which set out to significantly reduce the use of class A drugs especially by children, the use of class C cannabis decreased and the use of class A’s at best stayed about the same. In fact the observed decrease in drugs use is pretty well all explained by the decrease in the use of cannabis and is partly offset by the increase in cocaine use.

Overall this survey - which it has to be said suffers from not being able to properly sample the population due to the workings of prohibition and is thus built on suspect data - makes it quite clear that the drugs policy we’re spending such huge sums of money on is indeed ineffective, and that’s being polite. No wonder people are beginning to speak out.

Politicians are probably the reason most people don’t vote. They have a very bad reputation which is well deserved and no-where is this more apparent than when politicians talk about drugs. Whereas most  people who try drugs enjoy them  - even if they don’t end as hopeless addicts - the politicians who dabble  almost never do. Almost uniquely amongst the population politicans are persuaded by the law never to touch them again and worse are grateful for that. They are mostly hypercritical of course and few of us really believe their piety. Perhaps a dislike of drugs is a premorbid indication* of an emerging political career?

So we have a dire situation in the UK where both the major parties, Labour and Conservative are trying to “out tough” each other when it comes to drug laws, with both of them believing in and promoting a system of prohibition despite all the evidence showing it doesn’t work (see last weeks blog). Drugs policy for the two main parties is a matter of faith, not of evidence. With a few notable exceptions come hell or high water - or even the most compelling of studies - it looks like politicians will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into some kind of law reform.

So it has always been a relief to know that at least one fairly major party  - the Lib Dems - have a more enlightened view regarding drugs law reform and of cannabis law reform in particular.  A quick google for “libdems drugs” takes you to a document on the libdem national website entitled “Honesty, Realism, Responsibility” which reads like a breath of fresh air. Here we have major UK political party facing up to the realities of drug law prohibition and suggesting new ways forward.

• Maintaining the classification of cannabis as a Class C drug in the short term, but issuing policy guidance that it is not in the public interest to prosecute individuals for possession of cannabis for their own use, cultivation of small numbers of cannabis plants for their own use, or social supply of cannabis.

and

• In the longer term, seeking to put the supply of cannabis on a legal, regulated basis,
subject to securing necessary renegotiation of the UN Conventions.

Note the bolded text about home growing of a small number of plants. Notonly that, but in 2001 the national conference voted in favour of cannabis legalisation, as the BBC reported at the time

The Liberal Democrats have voted in favour of the legalisation of cannabis - the first main UK party to support such a radical move.
The party’s leadership had recommended decriminalising the drug but delegates went a step further and chose legalisation, at the spring conference in Manchester.
They also voted for an end to imprisonment for the possession of any illegal drug - including heroin and cocaine - and backed the downgrading of ecstasy from a Class A to a Class B drug.

So for a party that supports drug law reform vote Libdem then? Well, no, not now it seems.

Sadly the Libdems have politicians and as with all politicians it seems that when it comes to drug law reform,  despite the evidence, despite the parties stated intentions, they can’t be trusted. At least one Libdem politician sees brownie points in being “tough on drugs”. So it was that the Libdem Tom Brake - MP for Carshalton in Surrey - has introduced a 10 minute rule bill in Parliament to try to ban the sale of Cannabis seeds, which just proves that the Libdems are not to be trusted in that they say one thing and do something completely different.

This is all a part of  MP Tom Brake’s personal campaign against his local headshop, to which end he’s set up a facebook page to promote this bit of non-libdem policy. You can find this grubby little page for yourself, UKCIA isn’t going to link to it because it doesn’t give you the opportunity to be critical.

So what is the problem with banning seeds? well, if, as the Libdems claim, they want to build a policy based on harm reduction and proper control of the drugs market (especially for cannabis) then controlling the seed trade is the way to do it. If you are seriously concerned about the availability of certain strains (remember the skunk panic) then you need to control what strains are available and you do that by controlling the seed trade. Forcing it underground won’t stop seeds being available and certainly won’t affect major crim-ops who grow from cuttings anyway, all it’ll do is make it harder for small scale home growers to buy seeds of known type. The internet will ensure the trade continues, but banning will simply remove one of the few options for control that still exist and will make it all just a bit more risky and uncertain. Remember, the libdems claim they don’t want to target home growers of small numbers of plants.

Interestingly one of the most outspoken supporters of Brake’s idea is Chief Constable Tim Hollis, who we quoted in last weeks blog as saying:

One way of freeing up much-needed cash is to divert funds away from the prosecution of small-time users – indeed, once young people enter the criminal justice system, there is strong evidence to suggest that their risk of descent into serious drug use is greatly increased.

Only to add

That doesn’t mean we should ignore the softer, so-called “gateway” drugs such as cannabis. I fervently believe that because of its detrimental effect on mental health – particularly that of young people – cannabis should be reclassified as a class B drug

Belief overriding evidence as always with these people, as well as logic being in short supply. Tim Hollis being one of the leading voices calling for reclassification to B, the only effect of which is to increase the rate of prosecution of small-time users.

But probably and most importantly what, we ask, is the point of a national party membership voting quite clearly for a certain policy, the party publishing intelligent documents like “Honesty, Realism, Responsibility” if nasty bits of work like Brake can go off and do something totally different in the name of the party? Do the Libdems not stand for anything or do they allow their MP’s to make things up as they go along?

There’s probably no point in mailing the MP himself, he’s unlikely to take any such representation seriously, but if you’re bored you can tell him what you think of him here

Probably better is to contact the party itself nationally by e-mail,   or phone them on 020 7222 7999. Let them know that you support drug law reform and oppose Brakes personal campaign. Ask them why, if they allow their MP’s to do this sort of thing, should you ever vote Libdem again?

———————–

*A “Premorbid indication” is a term used by doctors to describe a symptom or trait which shows before the illness develops.