Darryl Bickler

Good points and well meaning piece, but seriously marred by numerous errors (most of which are seemingly endemic at this time). Let's not fall into the legal and illegal drugs mistake, no drug can be illegal, drugs are controlled or not controlled which means that specific human activities pertaining to property rights in those drugs are illegal (not an object being itself illegal). Current policy does not truly focus on substances as the Times also suggests. It focuses on property interests, ie human activities in drugs. It is the failure to distinguish between peaceful exercise of such rights and the misuse of them by government which poses the problem. Classification of a drug does not equate to prohibition in law, only in flawed policy.

The Misuse of Drugs Act is from 1971, not 1979. There is nothing wrong with this law, just the administration of it.

Mephedrone cannot be described as a herbal high at all.

Martin Powell

Despite spending billions each year enforcing drug prohibition, evidence from around the globe (including the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit Drugs Report ) shows the current approach is consistently delivering the opposite of its stated goals.

Both internationally and domestically, we see drug supply and availability increasing; use of drugs that cause the most harm increasing; health harms increasing; and massive levels of crime leading to a crisis in our criminal justice systems. Illicit drug profits are enriching criminals, fuelling conflict and undermining security and development in producer and transit countries from Mexico and Guinea Bissau, to Afghanistan and Colombia, with the gravest impacts falling upon the poor and marginalised.

Yet particularly at a time of economic stricture, it is crucial that drugs expenditure is cost-effective and humane. Unfortunately, the debate around reforming drug policy is emotive, polarised and deadlocked. However, we can break that deadlock, and enable politicians to move beyond “tough on drugs” rhetoric, by finding a common evidence-based direction for all stakeholders to unite behind.

We should encourage the UK Government to lead the world by carrying out the first ever comprehensive Impact Assessment (IA) of our approach to drugs to assess its effectiveness and compare with alternative approaches. IA is now widely used in all spheres of public policy across the globe, and an IA of drug policy is long over due.

The first step would be an IA of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, involving an evidence-based scrutiny of the current approach, and modelling of all the alternatives including stepping up prohibition, Portuguese-style decriminalisation, and legal regulation. The Government should also call on the EC and UN to undertake similar exercises internationally to incorporate impacts on producer and transit countries.

By keeping all the options on the table in this way - with no preconceptions about outcomes - this call can be backed by every individual and group genuinely interested in developing the best drug policy possible.

This call already has the backing of a broad range of individuals and organisations including Transform Drug Policy Foundation, The Howard League for Penal Reform, the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, the International Drug Policy Consortium, the Green Party to name a few. The Liberal Democrats have also called for a Cost Benefit Analysis of drug policy.

(For more info See http://tdpf.org.uk/Impact%20Assessments%20PM%20briefing.pdf)

Derek Williams

Prohibition has only one way to go - ever more repression. You are absolutely right to say the proposal from Scotland should "should make any liberal or liberty-loving individual quiver with fear", it is indeed a vile and repugnant suggestion, but one which will find favour in some quarters.

The war on drugs is dressed up as being there to protect people from the harm drugs can cause, but it's real driving motivation is puritanical - it is "wrong" in the eyes of these people to get enjoyment of any form from drugs. The drug war needs to be exposed for what it is - a harmful, destructive failed concept built on lies not least of the fact that illegal drugs are not controlled drugs.

It was the 1971 misuse of drugs act though!

Ann Stoker

Martin Powell names 'but a few' organisations who want to carry out a suggested Impact Assessment. Of the five he names, at least three have, in the past, advocated relaxation of drug laws. This is just another tilt at the windmill - 'let's decide which drugs are the most dangerous and categorise them' - that fell by the wayside - so now 'let's have an Impact Assessment'.
The reality is that it is virtually impossible to have such a tool - how can you measure the emotional impact on an individual or a family of drug use? How can you measure the loss of potential from the use of drugs, how can you measure the damage years hence to the children of drug using mothers during pregnancy ?

The truth is that those of a liberal bent or those , like Transform, who are prepared to declare publicly their interests in wanting drugs legalised, will not stop trying to persuade politicians and the populace that this is a great idea. For the past 20 years they have
initiated so-called 'debates', produced reports, and set up new organisations with the declared intent to discuss drug policy, etc.
One man who has financed much of this is George Soros and his Open Society. No doubt Soros would be able to make even more money if drugs were legalised.

However, the majority of sensible people in the UK - most of whom are parents, do not want drugs more readily available. Those who proselytize that drugs should be legalised and controlled and not for the under l8's need to be reminded that most of the cannabis use now starts at the ages of 12-15. Thus providing a large black market for legal drugs to the under age group - as well as undercutting the price of governnment controlled substances. The largest growth in drug abuse worldwide is currently from the abuse of 'prescription only' drugs. These are controlled and supposedly only available with a prescription from a doctor for genuinely sick people..... so much for controlling supply.
As for the comment by Johnathan Birdwell that there is a 'fundamental desire for intoxication' who says so? I do not see this in Maslow's theory. That some cultures historically have used such substances cannot be denied - but these would mostly have been occasionally when the elders of a tribe controlled the use and ensured that no harm came to the individual or group. It is absolutely not necessary in 2010 for anyone to use mind altering drugs to 'enhance social interactions, to mark an occasion, or to stay awake at work.' Most people the world over manage to do these things without the help or hindrance of drugs.
Even today drugs are used by a minority of the population - the media will report that, for example '45% have used cannabis' - but dig deeper into the research and you will find this is ' ever used'. For those using drugs currently, regularly or addictively the numbers are less than 10%.
The reason drugs are as prevalent as they are is threefold - the addictive nature of the substances, the money to be made by producers and dealers and the lack of resources available to drug prevention groups to be able to rebut the nonsense dished out by
the vocal minority who want drugs to be freely available.
I can name some organisations who would certainly not want an Impact Assessment made - the National Drug Prevention Alliance,
Talking About Cannabis, Positive Prevention Plus and the Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy - to name but a few.

David Raynes

Birdwell's post only makes sense when examined against his history of proselytysing about drug legalisation and particularly his misrepresenting of the history of the dismissal of Professor Nutt.

Legalisation is now a dead issue in the UK though a few people are struggling to keep the idea alive. Legalisation died when cannabis was reclassified and though some keep calling for "debate" the truth is it (debate) has gone on ad nauseam for the last ten years or more. The main UK based pro legalisation organisation-Transform is further away from their nirvana than ever. They have lost the debate. Public opinion has moved substantially against the idea as shown here:
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010.01.20_Drugs_BRI.pdf

More than that, the two main parties have set positions with even David Cameron changing his position on cannabis . There is no going back for very long time. Birdwell should get over it.

There really is no intelectual case for legalisation, the evidence of the tobacco/alcohol model shows that legal drugs create far more total harm than illegal drugs. The hard evidence of the alcohol/tobacco model worldwide and the history of the illegal drug market worldwide, show there is plenty of scope for increases in addiction and increased total harm. it is simply not good enough for Transfom/ Brirdwell, or others, to put forward legalisation as an act of faith with no proper business case. It provides copy for juvenile researchers and journalists who have nothing better to do, but it is essentially worthless comment.

Drug usage in any society, of legal or illegal drugs is essentially one of culture and is subject to cyclical behaviour. If Birdwell really cares about the harm from drugs he would cut out his selling of a failed idea. Ten years of debate is surely enough?

Darryl Bickler

It's very depressing to read three commentators in a row all of whom make basic errors and get progressively more unpleasant in their discriminatory polemic as the thread goes on.

Derek knows my views on the use of language and should know better than to juxtapose two words the wrong way round deliberately. The law describes drugs as 'controlled drugs' and we all know that that reveals the paradox that there is no actual control on the ground over them, despite the 'control' exerted if you are caught even exercising peaceful rights with them. They are formally described as controlled, and that is the word we work with. They are absolutely NOT fairly described as illegal drugs - this is the trick of the prohibtionists to sell that lie and Derek should have no truck with it despite his complaints at the word 'controlled'.

Ann Stoker

Oh dear, a very worrying thought that Ann hasn't recognised that over 90% of the drug harm caused in society is caused by alcohol and tobacco - and the vast majority of the 4 million 'controlled drug' users do so without harm to thmeselves or others. The harm that is caused by controlled drug users is virtually ALL down to the policy of prohibition with all the ignorrance that creates and the well documented impurities, dirty needles, unknown stregnths, criminal market problems associated with that, and certainly the young persons access to drugs is through these channels. All dangerous drugs should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, no drugs are exempt as 'legal drugs' - alcohol and tobacco are not controlled as the government are biased in their administration and the=is is the root of all drug problems, bar none. People do abuse prescription drugs it is true, but only because these seem a better alternative than risking buying from criminals. All drug abuse is of concern, but sadly Ann has not taken any interest in the the fact that the law has no business getting into peaceful use of any drug, and it is the failure to distinguish types of use which creates the culture and ignorrance for drug misuse. I don't know who she is to say what is necessary in terms of drug using, personally I think a great deal of good could be done by the increased use of special drugs to improve the human condition.

David Raynes

Legalisation is a wrong word to use - no drug is illegal in the first place. Drugs are only controlled by law. There is no legal justification for prohibition, it is an affront to the primary law, and to human rights and entirely counter-productive. Given most of the country is using caffeine, tobacco, alcohol or prescription drugs I think there is much work to be done if he is a genuine prohibitionist - oh, I remember, David doesn't want to ban alcohol or tobacco, yet claims to be concerned with drug harms having quoted the truth about harm. Oh, are we stuck with these drugs now and can't do anything about it? Nonsense, alcohol and tobacco cause all that harm because firstly they are rubbish drugs, and then they enjoy the monopoly of the state-sponsorred drug protection racket - the thing you would support and maintain. What you are concerned with David is perpetuating the witch-hunt against some users of drugs and ignorring the vast majority. Don't these hapless folk being poisonned deserve the protection of criminal law?

Ann Stoker

Darryl,
Please provide evidence of '4 million users of controlled drugs'.
Your comments are typical of a drug user - you clearly regard yourself as a 'peaceful' drug user - and you cannot accept that the
use of mind altering drugs is harmful to so many - not only the user but those around the user. I have worked face to face with drug users - who came to our agency because they no longer wished to be
stuck in their addiction. I worked with the families of drug users too - and saw the misery that they experienced as their husband, wife, child, mother watched as a loved one disintegrated before their eyes. And I went to the funerals of some clients whose addiction killed them. Darryl - why do you think that many on a
heroin script in the past would still score on the street ? Because
the nature of the substance made them want more and more and more. John Stuart Mill wrote that 'the liberty of the individaul must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.' That is why the law has the right to prohibit any substance which can prove harmful to anyone.
The vast majority of people do not require 'special drugs to improve their human condition' - once again John Stuart Mill has the perfect response to this idea:
'I have learned to seek my happiness by limiting my desires, rather than attempting to satisfy them'.
ps I am too busy enjoying life (without drugs) to continue this
discussion !

Darryl Bickler

Ann - why ask for a reference and then say you are not coming back? For the benefit of others who think I just spout off untruths, the reference to my spoken comment that "around four million people use [controlled drugs] each year. Most of these people do not experience harm from their drug use, nor do they cause harm to others as a result of their habit" is a direct quote from the Third Report from the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Session 2001-2002. HC-318 The Government's Drug Policy; is it working? (Para 20).

I did not put myself forwards as one of these Ann and I think it is very poor form to accuse people who comment here of criminal offences, especially by assumptions - it is my business to help people who are in trouble with the law and I dislike it when people argue ideas that hinder these beautiful people stuck in prison being released now by seeking to justify this oppression. It is called freedom of speech though, but prohibtionists who know the consequences of the policy are the modern equivalent of racists. Racism now has no official support, but drug users are still persecuted.

I sincerely do believe that those problems you quote with heroin, which are the bad end of the drug misuse (as opposed to what this thread was about, a ecstasy subsitute), are greatly worsenned by prohibition - deaths are caused by overuse, impurities, HIV, over-purity and as we saw recently anthrax poisonning. Yes, there is a harmful and habitual aspect to opiate misuse, but this applies on a much much bigger scale with tobacco and indeed alcohol, and you have not addressed the point that the order of magnitude of these harms is much bigger compared with controlled drugs. I wouldn't encourage misuse of a drug - but even this drug can be used sensibly. I think misuse is linked to prohibtion and social problems. It looks like a rational choice to many and this is an economic problem.

Jonathan Birdwell

Thanks everyone for commenting on this blog -- I'm glad, though certainly not surprised, to see that it's provoked debate. I just want to respond with a couple points.

First, apologies on the error on the year the Misuse of Drugs Act was enacted!

Second, Mr. Raynes comment: "Birdwell's post only makes sense when examined against his history of proselytysing about drug legalisation and particularly his misrepresenting of the history of the dismissal of Professor Nutt".

This is really quite amusing as I've only ever posted one other blog on the topic of drugs and it could hardly be described as "proselytysing". In fact, I am by no means an advocate of legalisation or regulation, nor is that Demos' stated position. Demos has no stated position on drugs. The only thing we are arguing for is to consider what the consequences of a different approach to drugs would be. I think it's amazing and extremely disconcerting that adopting an inquisitive and consequentialist approach to policy making results in one being tarred a likely drug user and legalisation proselytizer.

Third, by claiming that the desire for intoxication is fundamentally human I do not mean to imply that it is OK for people to spend their days in a stupefied drug-induced haze. The comment about staying awake at work referred to coffee, not cocaine, which is still a drug because it induces a mild intoxication. The point I was making is that making it illegal to distribute drugs used for intoxication will require us to determine which forms of intoxication are good and which are harmful.

Ms. Stoker, you write: "That some cultures historically have used such substances cannot be denied - but these would mostly have been occasionally when the elders of a tribe controlled the use and ensured that no harm came to the individual or group".

But surely you realise that the system you just described -- elders controlling the use -- could be more akin to an approach based on regulation and not prohibition, right? The question is which model affords our "elders" the most control, but you seem to take the answer for granted. All I'm arguing for is giving that question greater consideration.

You continue with: "It is absolutely not necessary in 2010 for anyone to use mind altering drugs to 'enhance social interactions, to mark an occasion, or to stay awake at work.' Most people the world over manage to do these things without the help or hindrance of drugs."

I'm not saying that it is necessary -- of course it's not! Of course most people do these things without drugs, and that's the way it ought to be! But if some people do, and it doesn't harm anyone, what is the basis for being against it? You quoted Mill before, can Mill provide guidance here? I suspect so, but probably not the guidance you would wish for.

Simon Welsh

I thought it somewhat ironic Ann quoting JSM! To understand the importance of drugs to humans you don't need to be on drugs, but you do have to be truly human yourself.

The discrimination which causes so much death and suffering is official policy, we see young men go to the gallows weekly this year in many countries just for cannabis 'offences', yet these 'people' like Ann still support this war on some people who use some drugs - well that makes them inhuman by my defintion.

Doubtless I will be now labelled as a wrong-thinker too, because of the insidious effects of drugs have supposedly had on me too. Classic isn't it - because you disagree you must be on drugs (Ann knows what she is talking about you know because she has met loads of broken families). God help those poor people who foolishly came to that agency looking for help, how could anyone with a judgmental approach, profound ignorrance about drugs and incapability of sustaining a discussion help someone with drug problems?

David Raynes

Johnathan
I did not tar you as a likely (illegal) drug user.

If demos has the position you state one might ask- why?

I gave evidence to demos on drugs, you no doubt have the recording around the place somewhere. it is very long and would give you a lot of information.

Adopting a postion on drugs policy without understanding the history is what a lot of commentators have done. Demos is a respected research organisation. I was happy to help you. Demos has done lot of good work. By getting your facts wrong on drugs issues, you let the side down.

There has in fact been a very strident debate about drugs policy and about legalisation of use of the illegal drugs, for over ten years. Public opinion is against it and more so than it was. The debate has been lost. Keep picking at the sore will not change that and has a negative effect on users and more particularly, potential users. Why do it from a position of such profound ignorance and let down your organisation?

Simon Welsh

David Raynes- it was Ann who chastised Darryl Bickler as a drug user and lowered the tone of this conversation. It is hard to stoop any lower but I see you do try. By the way, what is an 'illegal drug'? I have searched through legal dictionaries and criminal law texts and cannot find this expression anywhere - I do understand that some drug users have their activities 'controlled' by law - but you are talking like someone who knows even less about law than he does about drugs.

Au Kwai Lam

It's not surprising to see David Raynes still banging the same old drum (even after being drummed out of the police force due to incompetence).

Since we all know that it's hard to convince someone to understand the truth when their salary depends upon them not understanding it.

Oh well.........