A drugs policy for the 21st century
by Jonathan Birdwell
We are pleased to announce the launch of our new project, Taking Drugs Seriously: ‘Legal Highs’, in partnership with the UK Drug Policy Commission. The project is being kindly supported by the A B Charitable Trust.
With the furore over mephedrone and ‘legal highs’, the time is right for a fundamental review of drugs policy and the system of controlling harmful substances. Together, Demos and UKDPC will review international approaches to controlling harmful substances and bring together experts from drug treatment, enforcement, regulation, medicine control, trading standards and the public to work through the unintended consequences of drugs policy frameworks.
The Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society of Arts and the UK Drug Policy Commission have all argued over the past four years for a reappraisal of the drug classification system. Growing concern about the current system has been amplified by the government’s rejection of recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs over the past few years on cannabis and ecstasy, resulting last year in the sacking of its Chair and the resignation of more than a quarter of its members (most scientists).
The emergence of ‘legal highs’ such as mephedrone shows that the current system is completely inadequate to face the demands of the future. With legal highs, research chemists can manufacture drugs that allow them to continuously circumvent proscription. According to the Home Office, there are now over 600 compounds controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971. With legal highs we could now see this number increase drastically, placing a completely untenable burden on law enforcement officials and further squeezing the resources that can be devoted to drug treatment. There is already a new drug (MDAI) set to replace the now banned mephedrone.
What is needed now is a return to first principles. We must ask, what specifically is the objective of drugs policy? What levels of harm are acceptable, and what is the best way to control the use of harmful substances among young people?
Drugs policy is one of the most entrenched and polarised areas of policy. This project will seek to use systems-theory methodology to break through the perennial impasse and forge a new consensus on the objectives of drugs policy and how they can be best achieved.
Denny
Andrew: You seem to have proposed (a) that people should be arrested for something which will be legal, and (b) that people should be arrested for being ill. Am I missing something, or is that what you meant to suggest?
andrew amesbury
Hi Denny,
There is no inconsistency here.
Part 2 poisons for instance are "legal" but cannot be purchased willy nilly without serious enquiry into where they are going (and if they are purchased for illicit use then you will be arrested).
You can substitute the word detained if you don't like "arrested". Individuals who are self-harming themselves through drug abuse obviously need intervention. The key is to make the behaviour unacceptable not the drugs.
andrew
Mafficker
Thank you all for
undertaking this timely programme. The Misuse of
Drugs Act 1971 can regulate
a perfectly legal commerce
in all dangerous or otherwise
harmful drugs, above all
alcohol and tobacco. This can
be accomplished via sections
7(1)-7(2), 22(a)(i) and 31(1)
(a). Including alcohol and
tobacco in the control
scheme of the MDAct would
end the hypocrisy of a
'seperate but equal' drug
policy and allow for an
honest debate about the
risks and benefits of all
drugs. Rather than pursuing
some pipe dream of 'a drug
free world' we can start to
prevent, minimise, and
eliminate the risk of harm
from the use of drugs that
people want to use: clean
supplies, regulated access,
safe places for consumption
and supply, etc. We would
also end the harms caused
by Government's 'policy of
prohibition' that really
amounts to a 'War on some
people who use some Drugs'.
And, to be clear, the MDAct
regulates human behaviour
and cannot make any drug
'illegal'. Thus, it is human
liberties that are trod on by
the policy of prohibition. And
whilst the Act does not
effectively control drugs,
they won't behave, it does
provide a very smart
mechanism by which a
properly regulated drug
commerce can manage both
harms and benefits. It's a
shame that the Secretary of
State is not aware of the
flexible possibility of ss7(1)-
(2), 22(a)(i) and 31(1)(a)
when read together. If by
s31(1)(a) re 'General
provisions as to regulations'
the Secretary of State 'may
make different provisions in
relation to different
controlled drugs, different
classes of persons, different
provisions of this Act or
other different cases or
circumstances' and by s7(1)
re 'Authorisation of activities
otherwise unlawful under
foregoing provisions' the
Secretary of State, may make
'provision as (s)he thinks fit
for the purpose of making it
lawful for persons to do
things under which any of
the following provisions of
this Act, that is to say
sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1), it
would otherwise be unlawful
for them to do', then i should
be able to buy a clean
unadulterated MDMA tablet
or three from Boots for my
weekend if the Secretary of
State, the ACMD and the
Parliament thought that
would reduce or eliminate
'Ecstasy' fatalities and other
'harmful effects sufficient to
constitute a social problem',
s1(2), more effectively than a
blanket prohibition of some
but not all 'dangerous or
otherwise harmful drugs'.
The Act drafters foresaw the
possibility of a completely
and wisely regulated
controlled drug commerce,
so let's get on it and establish
meaningful control of the 20 or so most commonly used drugs.
Darryl Bickler
I am glad that this initiative will dig back to first principles, because that is necessary to see where we have gone wrong with policies aiming to protect the public against the harm caused by drug misuse. Firstly we must get our defintions right and declare the terms of reference. Some people are now using the words 'legal' and 'illegal' with respect to drugs in quotation marks, this is presumably because we are starting to recognise that their is something very wrong at the heart of these definitions. These expressions are legal fictions which form the basis of the problem of irrational administration of the law. I say at the outset that we do not need any new primary law to create a rational system of drug property regulation.
It is entirely incorrect for the UKDPC to define their area of concern as 'illegal drugs'. It is pointless in my view for this project to consider that 'legal highs' are just some new chemicals of concern and not to recognise that this category must include abuse of pharmaceuticals (prescription & over-the-counter), herbal medicines and natural remedies, research chemicals, various solvents, plant-based products such as 'kratom' and most importantly alcohol and tobacco. Given that the last two drugs cause many thousands of times more harm to society than all other 'legal highs' combined, to exclude them is to fatally undermine the value and credability of this work.
PS Andrew - the being under the influence of drugs is not currently an offence, and for good reason. Your desire to see persons who are apprently under the influence of drugs detained for intrusive screening and punishment strikes me as far too widely drafted and dystopian. The focus for intervention should only be considerred for cases where the behaviour is obviously problematic, this is where the government make their key error by believing that all or any use of drugs (other than alcohol or tobacco) is misuse.
John Johnson
As a former poly-drug user of 20 years duration (having now been illicit drug-free for 15 years) and as a professional working within an NHS complex needs drug service my mind continues to boggle at the nonsensical, ill-informed, politicised approach and attitudes perpetuated toward psychotropic substances and the use thereof. I won't bore readers with an exposition of the reasons that we need to review our whole conceptualisation of the 'problem', some of which are touched upon in earlier posts. I welcome the launch of 'Taking Drugs Seriously' but like Daryl I would suggest that it makes little sense to consider certain substances whilst excluding others. In the 21st century isn't it high time that we developed a considered, evidence based and humane policy which doesn't alienate, exclude and trample on the civil liberties of our fellow citizens?
andrew amesbury
My view is that supply of all harmful substances should be legalised and taxed (which would remove the incentive for criminal suppliers), but personal use of harmful substances should be controlled via amendments to mental health legislation (as addiction can be seen as a form of mental illness).
Therefore anyone found under the influence of drugs can be arrested, fined (which would pay for the processing of drugs offenders), and be subjected to a range of escalating sentences from attendance on education courses to incarceration in new high-security hospitals.