On Friday I was invited to comment on BBC1 TV News following Nick Clegg's announcement on drug law reform. I of course accepted. His suggestion is that we decriminalize certain drugs and thereby free up resources to focus on treating addiction as an illness instead of as a crime. I couldn't agree more with his intention, it is his method I wholeheartedly challenge.
Earlier in the week David Cameron had announced his position on the subject, which is to promote drug treatment, mentoring, and financial consequences for those on benefits who refuse treatment. On this subject, my vote is with Cameron.
I think to decriminalize drugs is a massive mistake, and one that is impossible to come back from. It focuses at the wrong end of the problem and will create a culture of drug abuse that the next generation will pay for with their lives.
Please do not be so naive as to believe that in decriminalizing certain drugs you will be able to regulate them. All it will do is endorse the market place and generate growth in the drug industry, creating opportunity for low cost and black market goods, synthetic evolutions and copies.
Perhaps I am being cynical, but clearly decriminalizing certain drugs will have a positive impact on crime figures, as well as the tax coffers, and it sure makes headline news. But to me it doesn't make sense and I am tempted to invite Nick Clegg to experiment on his own kids first as for me the law has a duty to represent a line in the sand that reflects a moral code. It's what we in the therapy business call an ethical code, or 'best practice.' As a parent I appreciate the law's support in indentifying and providing clear boundaries around practices that are unhealthy, damaging or dangerous to my young, whether that's related to e.g. guns, knives, theft, bullying, drugs, drink driving etc.
Addiction is an illness and should absolutely be treated as such but to focus on the drugs as if they represent addiction is the first mistake. They are simply ONE manifestation of this devastating condition as Addiction is in people not in packages. Of course if you take enough of an addictive substance you are likely to become addicted, and adolescents are high risk as they are curious and often feel invincible. But it is generally more about the person and their emotional experience that causes the addiction: the obsession, the compulsion, the loss of moral value, the shame and fear, resentment and isolation. The clue lies in the word 'using'... there is a payoff, a reason, a motivation and I have seen many get into serious trouble using skunk alone, though in my experience it doesn't remain only skunk for long.
I believe the government should focus on such impenetrable areas to reform relating to education of emotional intelligence, building a valuable sense of self, creating and encouraging practical opportunities, challenging poverty through motivation and experience, creating communities through supporting families. I believe in a grass roots approach that will take time but that is sustainable as it fosters a healthy culture. It would mean cooperation and collaboration between the political parties for the greater good. I want a miracle.
There are many unsung heroes working tirelessly in places like schools where there is an unparalleled opportunity for intervention, where eg a charity like The Place2Be would welcome the government shoulder supporting the kind of work they provide: listening, making children feel safe and heard, emotional education, intervention, parental training and support. This is where the focus ought to be invested rather than in the eye-catching quick-fix posited political reform of decriminalization.
When we look around the world we compare our own drug policies with that of other countries and seek to follow. Perhaps the blind leading the blind? Why not pay attention to what we do already know instead?
In this country we have seen smoking go from socially acceptable, 'cool' and widespread to being recognised as the greatest single cause of illness and premature death in the UK, with about half of all smokers dying from smoking-related diseases. About two in three smokers want to stop smoking but really struggle to do so as they are addicted. Controlling where people can/can't smoke helps as it actively reduces opportunity, and regulation relating to sales reduces promotion. But it's far too little too late for many. Treating smoking related disease costs the NHS upwards of £5billion p.a. (conservatively estimated in 2009) and many have lost their lives. How did this habit gain such powerful and widespread hold I wonder...? If we knew then what we know now would we have done the same...?
Perhaps thanks to the regulatory controls now being introduced the right message is at last being transmitted to our own children, and our children's children, who I hope can grow up in a world where cigarettes do not inhabit such a central part of society...
Alcohol too has its pernicious grip. Readily available, or should I say widely promoted, alcohol takes its place as our society's lubricant without which we apparently fail to enjoy ourselves, interact nor escape the stresses and pressures brought to bear by our ambition. Such is its apparent import that despite statistics that illustrate the damage it can cause, the laws changed to allow 24hr drinking. See us now in 2012 fighting a binge drinking and alcohol dependent population costing the NHS £3 billion pa for disease, transplants and consequences of drunk driving car crashes. The Department of Health acknowledges this crisis and admits to working hard to find ways of regulating alcohol consumption including offering advice and minimum pricing. A drop in the ocean...
Smoking and alcohol are another two primary manifestations of addiction. They have got out of control and we are paying a heavy price - nationally and individually. Where is the wisdom is adding drugs to this list? Surely we should rather focus our attention on supporting the extraordinary dedication, insight, vision and experience of those on the ground who know what needs to be done.
We need to accept there is no quick fix and to work together, political parties and nation, to create a sustainable solution where people know and value who they are, and achieve. It's simply not good enough to throw in the towel because a law or rule doesn't seem to be working even if it is under the guise of bold reform. Think again. Look hard at the causes. Our society is unhappy, impoverished, with little opportunity nor future, literally willingly throwing each day away. Drugging them as if to keep them off your backs is not the answer. Instead meet them with a challenge, a boundary, support, education and opportunity - give them treatment, mentoring and tough love, and invite them to stand up and live.
James Bloodworth: Is Junk Food the New Tobacco? No, Not Really
Dr Sania Nishtar: Drug Regulatory Authority: A Case for Hope?
Professor Ian Robertson: What 3 E's of New York Changed My Brain?
Nick Clegg and David Cameron clash over drug law reforms ...
Nick Clegg says the war on drugs is being lost on industrial scale ...
Now PM slaps down Clegg over his call to relax drugs laws after he ...
Drugs war is lost, says Nick Clegg in direct challenge to Cameron ...
Nick Clegg: Time to rethink drugs | The Sun |News|Politics
Letters: Clegg's welcome words on drugs
Nick Clegg and David Cameron clash over drug law reforms | Politics | guardian ...
Nick Clegg: Time to rethink drugs
Charities give Clegg backing in call for overhaul of drug laws - UK Politics ...
'We're losing the war on drugs': Nick Clegg looks within himself and ...
The author of this piece falls into the latter. Google Cognitive Dissonance & It'll explain why people like this author and a minority of my co-workers hold that 2nd belief. I'll break it down as best I can but please still google it.
Basically these people hold two or more conflicting beliefs. Usually they involve these two. A) Drugs are bad and B) Our drug policies are not working. Now the problem comes in when the individual in question has built their life around one of the beliefs with out any empirical evidence to support it. Mandy here, like many of my older co-workers, has built her life around the Drugs Are Bad belief. The problem that arises from this is when someone believes with out a doubt that Drugs Are Bad but then attempts to come up with ways to better our approach to dealing with drug abuse and addiction, they can't. Because the solution that is obvious to anyone who is willing to listen to logic and reason cannot be obvious to them because it would require them to abandon a belief they have built themselves around.
When a person tries cannabis for the first time, they are likely to wonder what all the fuss was about and are very unlikely to become addicted. By keeping these lesser drugs illegal, we send the message that they are dangerous. If you personally don't come to any harm from using them, or meet anyone who has, you may think 'if the governement were wrong about this, I wonder what other drugs they were wrong about?', therefore lessening the strength of the message when it comes to truly life-destroying drugs. This is part of the reason it is considered a 'gate-way' drug.
. Isn’t there a lesson there for other drugs? Even if the starting point is somewhat different - both are inadequately regulated. And of course there is some way to go with alcohol regulation - but it is perfectly consistent to call for tighter more effective regulation of currently legal drugs (as we do), and the legalisation and effective regulation of currently illegal drugs (which we also do). The goal is the same - the optimum level of regulation that minimises social and health harms. Violent unregulated markets controlled by criminals don’t fit into this equation for any product - however risky it may be.
In no sense would legalisation/regulation be 'adding other drugs to that list'. Illegal drug use is already with us on a large scale - the choice we face is whether governments or gangsters control the market - there's no third option in which these substances magically disappear.
I agree with most of your final paragraph - but disagree that any part of the solution will be found in a criminal justice approach based on primarily on punishment of already marginalised and vulnerable populations - which is what you are advocating, even if by default support of the status quo. It’s expensive and it hasn’t worked historically here or anywhere else - on that basis looking at alternative public health based approaches rooted in evidence - rather than populist law and order politics or misplaced 'drug free world' ideologies - seems entirely rational and responsible.
But you then fail to explain how you think criminalisation and the stigma of a criminal record will help a young person, or one of your clients, already likely to be subject to multiple forms of social disadvantage - to realise their potential. Infact criminalisation creates obstacles to employment, personal finance, and housing - all factors we know can negatively impact on the likelihood of young person making progress in life, or a dependent user on their path to recovery.
You then flag up the success of cigarette regulation but fail to see the contradiction with your earlier statements. These successes have been achieved without resorting to mass criminalisation of users, young people are addicts, or by gifting the market to gangsters. Indeed the controls on tobacco (price, packaging, public consumption, display bans, advertising controls etc) are *exactly* what is being advocated for the currently unregulated criminal trade for drugs (see above) the use of which has often been rising as tobacco use has been falling. Criminality has not been used to establish healthier social norms around smoking - instead we have used better market regulation and effective public education.
cont...
It is not the role of the law to educate young people about healthy lifestyle choices or morality. The law is there to prevent crime. Even if we feel it is reckless and foolish (of course it is sometimes but its not useful to generalise), consenting drug use is not (or should not be) a crime in the classic sense of some of the other examples you use where direct harm to others is involved -guns, knives, theft, drink driving etc (the mala in se, mala prohibitum distinction). If we want to educate young people about health and morality - threats and mass criminalisation are not the way to do it; it is expensive, unethical and ineffective. We should use established mechanisms of private and public education, not the blunt instrument of criminal law. The underlying drivers of drug use, particularly problematic drug use are a complex interplay of social, cultural and economic factors - not some weakness in the law or its enforcement.
You seem to acknowledge this when you say, and Id agree wholeheartedly, that "I believe the government should focus on such impenetrable areas to reform relating to education of emotional intelligence, building a valuable sense of self, creating and encouraging practical opportunities, challenging poverty through motivation and experience, creating communities through supporting families".
cont...
After acknowledging some potential benefits from legalisation/regulation you then suggest that "I am tempted to invite Nick Clegg to experiment on his own kids first as for me the law". This is strange argument to make - most obviously because his kids, as with all kids are already subject to the experiment with prohibition - one that has clearly failed. Whilst there has been a welcome drop in use of some illegal drugs in the last decade, this ignores the parallel rise in use of diverted prescription drugs and unregulated 'legal highs', and the trend over the past 50 years of prohibition a distinctly upward one. It hasn't protected them from drug related harms - it has made the drugs many of them still use more risky, exposed them to the harms and violence of the criminal trade it has created, and directed resources away from proven interventions: risk education, prevention, and wider investment in social capital and young people - into futile and counterproductive enforcement. We spend 2-4 billion of enforcing the drug laws - at a time when drug education spending is being cut and treatment budgets are under threat.
cont
You say: "Please do not be so naive as to believe that in decriminalizing certain drugs you will be able to regulate them". This again appears to confuse decriminalisation and legalisation/regulation. You can't regulate drugs with decriminalisation as the market remains in the hands of criminal profiteers, but under a legal regulated market model (see 2nd link above) responsible state authorities can regulated the products (price, packaging, dosage), vendors (licensing and training, marketing and promotions), sales outlets (location, appearance, hours of opening), availability (age controls, licensed user models), use (where and when it is allowed). None of these interventions are possible under prohibition. the illegal trade is controlled by criminal profiteers and totally unregulated.
You then say "All it will do is endorse the market place and generate growth in the drug industry, creating opportunity for low cost and black market goods, synthetic evolutions and copies". The market place exists already - it is worth around 5billion a year in the UK. Regulation of the market will not get rid of the criminal element completely - but it would get rid of much or most of it; with undoubted social benefits for all of us. There is a % of the tobacco and alcohol market that is illegal or quasi-legal, but 70-90% legal, regulated and taxed is far better than 100% gangster - which is what we have currently with prohibited drugs.
cont....
Firstly you need to be clear about the difference between decriminalisation of drugs (removal of criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use - although civil penalties, like fines can remain), and legalisation/regulation of drugs (which is where the production and supply of drugs moves from criminal to state control). For more detail see here: http://bit.ly/T48kuL (defines decrim and explains the harms of criminalisation) and here: http://bit.ly/7d6n56 (explains what legalisation means and how regulation could function).
If you are advocating 'financial consequences for those on benefits who refuse treatment' - you need to provide evidence that this is an effective strategy - We have not seen any, indeed most people in the drugs field argue that it will be counterproductive, on both crime and criminal justice outcomes, and harm the most vulnerable the most. There is however a growing body of evidence to show that financial incentives can be effective in incentivising uptake, and keeping people in treatment. You don’t mention this.
cont...
That paragraph is a good example of why you have an inherent misunderstanding of the drugs market/trade.
The fact is that the new legal synthetic drugs are only on the market because the two main drugs, Cannabis and MDMA are illegal.
Because they are illegal the price is falsely inflated, thus causing a large and lucrative market for the organised criminal element.
I suggest it is you that is being naive here, I mean, one does not see shootouts between rival gangs over Tobacco or Alcohol? And with good public campaigns drink driving being a prime example, their could be a time when less people take drugs.
Pro reform is anti gang/anti drugs, Cameron and this Government needs to get some responsibility, because the only people in control of the drug market right now is the criminal element, the effects of this are felt right through society. I do not want my four young boys growing up in the kind of environment that this false illegality causes.