A focus on harm
The Home Office tells me that a "data lag" explains why ministers continue to quote hopelessly out-of-date figures to prove they are winning the war on drugs.
Not just a bit of a lag - they trumpet data which are four years old. Since that time, the government has spent more than £5bn on the drugs strategy in England and Wales.
And yet, only last February, Alan Campbell, Home Office minister responsible for crime reduction, used the ancient data to claim success in the House of Commons. He told Parliament:
"A key indicator of the effectiveness of measures to combat drug-related crime is the Drug Harm Index; since 2002 this has fallen 28%, representing a substantial fall in drug-related crime types."
What he didn't say is that that 28% fall reflects almost nothing that has happened since the last election.
His source (Measuring the harm from illegal drugs: the Drug Harm Index 2005 [94.3KB PDF]) is a graph published two years ago and which only incorporates data up to 2005. After that we simply have white space:
It is a small point, perhaps, but it leads me to what I really wanted to write about - the shift in emphasis from "crime reduction" to "harm reduction".
The Drug Harm Index (DHI) was introduced as a way of trying to measure how well the Home Office was doing in its key objective to "reduce the harm caused by drugs".
So it includes measures such as drug deaths, mental health problems stemming from drug misuse, HIV and hepatitis infections as well as figures on a range of crimes associated with drugs.
This table shows how it works - you can see how the picture of harm is dominated by crime, notably burglary and theft.
The index has its critics who argue that it conflates two different types of harm: the harms from using drugs and the harms from a policy of prohibition. The campaigning Transform Drug Policy Foundation puts it this way (A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of the Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs 2005 [444 KB PDF]):
"The failure to disaggregate drug use harms from drug policy harms or, specifically, prohibition harms, is a major obstacle to meaningful evaluation of existing policy and consequently, to the rational development of potentially more effective policy responses."
Nevertheless, the idea that we should focus on reducing "harm" rather than simply "crime" is increasingly embedded in Whitehall thinking - and the implications could be far-reaching.
This week's annual report from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) reveals that a Harm Framework "was used to underpin all SOCA operational and project-based work from November 2008". The Framework is attached as an Appendix to the report (Serious Organised Crime Agency annual report 2008/9 [6.10MB PDF]).
(You may recall that I referred to the agency's harm reduction "imperative" in a post earlier this week.)
Soca's definition of "harm" goes beyond illegal drug running and the economic costs of crime - this is a complex measure by which the agency pursues all its activities. Physical, social, environmental, economic and structural harms are considered at every level - from the personal to the international:
"SOCA's focus is not solely on the criminals and the offences they are committing" the agency explains, adding that their "operational business now focuses more sharply on the question of what will make a tangible and lasting difference for those who are being adversely affected".
Looking at crime through the harm prism may make us reconsider priorities.
An attempt by the Home Office to quantify the physical and emotional harms associated with violent offences took them on an interesting journey a few years ago (The economic and social costs of crime against individuals and households 2003/04 [337KB PDF]).
When they first put a financial cost on wounding for example, they assumed that the physical and emotional impact was equivalent to a sexual offence: calculated at £13,219. But after further research, they found that victims took far longer to recover from a rape or sexual assault while victims of a wounding were less affected than they had thought. The physical and emotional "cost" of a wounding was reduced to just £4,554 while a sexual offence "cost" was increased to £23,015.
We see this attempt to quantify "harm" in many areas. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recently went on a couple of "away days" to try to establish a new formula for weighing up the comparative harms of different illegal drugs.
You will remember how the home secretary rejected their advice on the classification of cannabis and ecstasy.
Well, I am told the ACMD were lectured by a man who works out the least harmful way to get rid of nuclear waste.
An interesting choice of speaker, I think, given the growing argument within criminology to weigh up "social harms" alongside the costs of crime. Consider this argument from an essay entitled Criminal obsessions: Why harm matters more than crime [1.5MB PDF].
"The police record the detail of over 1,000 different criminal events, most of which create little physical or even financial harm and often involve no victim", the authors argue. Meanwhile, "many events and incidents which cause serious harm are either not part of the criminal law or, if they could be dealt with by it, are either ignored or handled outside of it."
What do they mean? "For example, in the context of 'safety crimes', recorded occupational injury amounts to over one million workplace injuries per year in Britain; but restriction to the term 'crimes' means making reference to just 1,000 or so successfully prosecuted health and safety offences."
Suddenly the concept of "harm" takes on a political dimension. Academics, particularly on the left, use it to reflect on the impact of taxation and welfare policies. "Widening the notion of financial or economic harm would involve recognising the personal and social effects of poverty, unemployment, and so on."
The Home Office tells me the Drug Harm Index is not dead - the graph will be updated later this year. It will be interesting to see whether the methodology reflects an increasingly sophisticated debate about what "harm" actually means.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
If the home office wants to reduce the harm caused by drugs, legalise them. The most dangerous aspect of taking drugs is you may well get a criminal record, most drug takers commit no other crime than buying a bag of weed. A very small minority of heroin/cocaine users commit most of the drug related crime, if you take away the cannabis possession arrests, cautions. The law makes drug use dangerous, people that would be otherwise law abiding people, have to mingle with the criminal underworld, buy drugs mixed with dangerous chemicals, and fund criminal activity, because of someone else's moral righteousness.
Complain about this comment
"Well, I am told the ACMD were lectured by a man who works out the least harmful way to get rid of nuclear waste."
Interesting choice Mark, given Chernobyl and the use of hemp to "de-toxify" the site:
From http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/botany/botany_map/articles/article_10.html
In 1998, Phytotech, along with Consolidated Growers and Processors (CGP) and the Ukraine's Institute of Bast Crops, planted industrial hemp, Cannabis sp., for the purpose of removing contaminants near the Chernobyl site. Cannabis is in the Cannabidaceae family and is valuable for its fiber, which is used in ropes and other products. This industrial variety of hemp, incidentally, has only trace amounts of THC, the chemical that produces the "high" in a plant of the same genus commonly known as marijuana.
cheers
Complain about this comment
I'm overcome by the feeling "They're lying, they're lying again"
Complain about this comment
Trust in the Home office producing anything accurat hopeing for a lot there Mark, have to have an honest government for honest figures or maybe they will be drafted in the spirit of things.
Complain about this comment
It really irks me how druggies try to minimise the affects of their drug habit on society. How many people have been murdered? how many fatherless and motherless children? aunts? uncles? sisters? brothers? lawyers? judges? policemen? Entire families decimated over a powder snorted into someone's nose. Your addictions kill people you don't even know!
Complain about this comment
This is yet another bureaucratic method to try and relate inputs of taxpayer funds to desirable policy outcomes.
They then get caught up in the internal politics of the bureaucracy between those who seek to use it as an objective tool to measure success or failure and those who wish to employ it in the advancement of their careers.
I think the latter have won out on this battle for the time being. They have been doing a lot of that over the last few years but there is now considerable evidence to suggest that their time is over and we might just start to get some objective management back in the frame.
A case of watch this space, methinks
Complain about this comment
so does the government with its war on somthing joan
Complain about this comment
Thank you for bringing to our attention yet another hopelessly confusing swathe of statistical white noise from yet another 'agency'. This is the reason why nobody trusts the numbers any more. The media really don't help. In the scramble for 'good copy' we are subjected to data from survey after survey, telling us one thing one day, and something totally different the next. We, the public, are faced with a barrage of data from a multiplicity of sources, none of which is ever properly contextualised and none of which makes even a scrap of sense.
A more paranoid person might see this data overload as a form of censorship. A government can keep its citizens completely in the dark as the Communist regimes did, and never tell them anything. That way, they never know what is going on. Or, they can supply reams and reams of data, indices or performance indicators from all over the place, leaving them snowblinded and unable to tell the important data from the rubbish. Job's done either way.
All this analysis would be fine if it were simply academic spouting. But this insidious culture of data overload is deeply damaging. Our education system has been poisoned by the statistical disease to such an extent that few have any faith in it any more. Real parents and real children are suffering because there is so much confusion and so little real direction and progress.
As I've said, considering this as a form of dark conspiracy is probably paranoia. But we will get to a stage when we not only fail to understand what we are being told, we won't even care.
Complain about this comment
Our Ministers sound like yanks. "We're winning the war!"
You never win a guerrilla war. All you can do is contain the problem, and damage the "supply lines" of the enemy.
Complain about this comment
#5 Joan Olivares - "Your addictions kill people you don't even know!"
This is only true of some substances, not others. And if we legalised and regulated it could all stop.
A friend once said something quite amusing but eye-opening - If you want to buy something expensive, to show off your wealth, and something that absolutely guarantees someone in the third world has died to bring it to you, buy cocaine or diamonds.
Are you married Joan?
Complain about this comment
The drug harm index survey doesn't appear include the casualties resulting from gang violence (those arrested may not be addicts or in possession of drugs), yet most gang activity, and rivalries, are fuelled by drug trafficking and its profits. It would be interesting to see a survey attempt to estimate the amount of 'harm' gang activity is inflicting on our cities.
The drug harm index doesn't appear to include the costs, financial and human, of children taken into care away from addict parents or the trauma that families face when a member becomes addicted to drug use.
Nor the costs to the social security system of supporting and housing large numbers of multi drug users that are unlikely to either want or find employment, or of the costs to the prison service of housing those imprisoned as a result of involvement with drugs.
I can see a point in taking a more holistic look at the effects drug activity has on society; but there is still a need for crime figures (both reported to police and those resulting in convictions) and for the effectiveness (oe otherwise) of treatment programmes.
As for whether I think the government is being effective in tackling this issue, I doubt many people would say they are seeing visible signs of headway being made in the areas they live; I certainly don't.
It would also be interesting to see an attempt made to estimate the amount of harm to society caused by alcohol misuse.
Complain about this comment
More meaningless spin, why include the harm the addicts do to themselves in the calculations, it's their choice, the only important thing is the harm and cost they inflict on society. Forget about their problem, sort out society's problem and if the addicts break the law then lock them up where they belong till they change their lifestyle.
Complain about this comment
if you list the harms to sociaty then you list sociatys own failings to treat the problem pass the buck on and hide its head.
You have a chaotic addict that steals and burgles your home to pay for drugs. This is a symptom of failure to address the problem.
You have gang violance and street murders to control the supply of drugs. This is a symptom of failure to address the problem.
Parents who have addictions and neglect thier children in order to obtain the cost of thier next fix which is as SOCA and the government now tell us is getting weaker and cut with more dangeious substances thus increasing the need or demand to reach the same level of intoxication. This is a symptom of failure to address the problem.
The sooner we accept these problems and that we as humans will use drugs in all there forms then the sooner we can get on with coming up with a workable solution. As we currently stand destroying crops only leads to more human harm and a lot more crime to pay for weaker products.
Gothnet the diamonds comment is great and a good comparison of how one persons pleasure is another persons suffering.
Complain about this comment
It's simple.
If the data is good it will get quoted by M.P.'s ad nauseum. If it is bad thet say ''but this does not show recent effects of expenditure and policy''.
To generalise a crime like rape into an average cost is bizarre.
To even think about generalizing a crime like rape into an average costmay be a crime itself.
Motive,intention,execution.
Self-reporting ?
Well, how many see themselves as others do ?
Ask an M.P.. ...for what it is worth.
Complain about this comment
Dear Gothnet,
It's not that simple. Legalising it may do exactly what you say but it also covers up a lot of nefarious business dealings legally consolidating holdings that monopolize and profit in global markets. I don't think its right to profit from other people's misery then launder profits through legitimate companies then bankrupt the world over it.But then that's what the government and their crooked partners have been doing for centuries.
No, I'm not married. Though the Goth portion of your username is of some concern. What's your best proposal?
Complain about this comment
Joan can we add Fat parents to the list of useless parents or is unfair to pick on fat people who have addiction to fatty foods? these people are as bad as drug addicts as they are unable to interact with thier children in a healthy way? They also cost us millions in treatment on the NHS...
Complain about this comment
Joan,
It is that simple.
Doe we wish to reduce harm caused by the current illegal drug situation?
(in which I include users with no addiction, addicts and their families, profiteering criminal gangs in the UK, international smuggling rings, growers in the third world)
Then we cannot pretend that continuing with what we're doing now (proclaiming all drugs illegal and trying to stamp them out) going to change anything.
What's that old saying? It's a sure sign of madness to do the same thing twice and expect different outcomes.
It's time for a new approach and the only one I can see working is cutting the money out of it by legalisation (and strict regulation) and providing help to those people that are addicted.
Complain about this comment
Dear Gothnet,
It still doesn't change the equation. The same people who are currently prospering from the drug trade will continue to prosper and they will do so legally. The situation now is that these groups have made so much money that they've taken over entire political and economic systems. If you recently lost your entire life savings portfolio, reduction in pension benefits etc. its because of them. That does affect average citizens like you and me in a negative way. Do you think that a handful of people should be able to manipulate world economies, start wars, bomb women and children, inflate gas and food prices? I think it was newsspaceman1 who accused me of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I do see the forest, trees and the entire watershed. Drug addiction is wrong. It destroys brain cells and keeps people from realizing that their freedoms are being dissipated.
Complain about this comment
Dear Community Criminal,
If people really loved and cared for their kids they wouldn't be married to addictive substances. People don't help their children or grandchildren by showing them that they're not in control of their life whether that's food, drugs, sex, work or religion. The real message that addicts give to their children is that they're not good enough. No child should grow up thinking that they're not worth it.
Complain about this comment
Why is it that the buck always stops with it being the addicts fault. Most addicts are creations of a sociaty that has let people slip through the net.
What you talk about though is a small minority of adults who neglect thier children through drugs, this same group is also classed as chaotic users. This is the part that also causes the most crime but recive the least help. thes people are a one of the symptoms of a ill conceved drug policy that has no financial output, so has no methord to properly treat people.
SOCA burnt lots of high grade cocaine why was this done? millions of dollars of cocaine and they can think of nothing better to do with it than to burn it.
They had tested its purity and told the world this was very good cocaine. so they burnt it.. millions of dollars of high grade drugs that would have helped in the third world health systems would have eased suffering. But no the right thing is done and the evil illegal cocaine is destroyed saving humanity from itself.
Complain about this comment
Dear Gothnet,
What I mean to say to you is that the war we're fighting is not over drugs. You can legalize them or not legalize them. It makes no difference. The war we're fighting is over control of human kind. Its like the election of Obama over McCain. It makes little difference who won because the power behind the puppet never changes. Anyone who objects is either marginalised, dies from a disease or is murdered. Whenever citizens start asking the pertinent questions some made up catastrophe usually happens that takes people's attention away from the truth. The catastrophes are generally about making even more profit and consolidating more power. About six months before 911, I overheard two businessmen in bar. One of them greeted the other excitedly saying that they were trying to come up with a trillion dollars to implode the economy. Lo and Behold 6 years later, the American economy has nearly imploded. I spoke to a secretary from Beverly hills who was told the very same thing except in more graphic detail. In any case, my point is that all of these events like Anthrax, Swine flu etc. are all fabricated in order to sell more Tamiflu or the antidote to Anthrax. These events are being staged by an extremely powerful entity to profit or control people. If the world starts to wake up to the reality and fights back, they'll just release a virus that kills half of the world's population so they can better control them. Drugs just complicate and obscure what's really going on. I choose not to delude myself from the political reality of the world. The real issue is not giving up your power and freedom to the Mafia because they don't care about anyone or anything. Money and power are their God. That belief system hurts the world.
Complain about this comment
Joan,
I'm afraid you've descended into paranoia and fantasy now, so I shan't be able to continue our conversation. If you really believe any of that then I would suggest, quite seriously, that you seek psychological help.
Complain about this comment
Dear Gothnet,
If there is no shadow government then why is your government continually caught in a web of lies?
Complain about this comment
Dear Community Criminal,
At last we agree on something! You're so right about an ill conceived drug policy that doesn't treat people. I absolutely and whole heartedly agree on this point.
Complain about this comment
How many MPs does it take the screw in a light bulb ? None, MPs don't screw in lights bulbs, they screw taxpayers.
Like others have written, it's too easy to read "they're lying again" into this.
Complain about this comment
The obvious answer:
Legalise recreational drugs for adult consumption and then tax them in a similar way to alcohol.
Make Heroin, Crack etc free to addicts through a medical facility, such as a shooting gallery.
The year before Heroin was criminalised there were about 300 registered addicts in Britain, today there are over 40,000. Giving the drug to criminal organisations to produce & sell has been the key to its increased use.
Prohibition causes far more problems than it solves and the plain truth is that it has never & will never work.
While we should have laws to prevent people from driving, operating machinery etc while under the influence the time has come to accept that recreational drug use is not going to go away, people enjoy altering their state of mind and are going to use drugs if they want to.
It is time to implement a program of legalisation, taxation and regulation, it is time for common sense to prevail.
Complain about this comment
The data cannot tell us what would happen if policy changed.
To get an idea of that, we'd need to compare jurisdictions.
By looking abroad, we can see something these data omit- the positive use of cannabis in treating chronic ill- health.
Despite all the data, Labour-Tory Inc. are determined that drugs policy, (classifications and exemptions,) should be decided Prime Ministerial prejudice alone. This offends existing legislation (Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971.)
If a few people harm themselves with illegal drugs, all of us are harmed by political disaffiliation/ disenfranchisement, by the diminution of the moral authority of Law, by unchecked unlawful acts by Governments, and by complicity with the denial of pain relief to the chronically sick.
Complain about this comment
I've been following all these blogs regarding the drugs issue with great interest. It is all the people posting comments that should be in power, not the current line up of ineffective politicians.
At the end of the day, the only way to minimise the harm that drugs do, and prevent the associated crime is to legalise them. Overall i think that the arguments for legalisation far outweigh the arguments against.
This whole debate also highlights the fact that the political system in this country is just not working. It is victorian, ineffective and strangulated by religious morals and fear.
Although Guy Fawkes had his own religious agenda, i feel that it is a great pity that he did not succeed in blowing up Parliament.
Complain about this comment
Re comment on blog 28. "people posting comments that should be in power".
Yes,you're probably right,but most of us wouldn't lower ourselves to such a position and besides that,I for one do not have a degree and did not go the "right school" and will assume that most other bloggers are of the same ilk.
There is an "establishment" in this country that likes to keep things the way they are and they influence things from the top down,all the hereditary peers that used to inhabit the house of lords were only there because they were the ancestors of thugs,things have changed a bit recently with a position in the lords no longer being a birthright but I doubt if the sentiment has.
Take a look at the ex boss of RBS,no real qualifications for the job other than the fact that he went to the right school,the average man or woman on the street with the ability to live to a budget could have done a better job than he did,he gets a 7 million quid pension,the man on the street gets screwed.He's a perfect example of the establishment in operation,as is that that Thatcher woman,3 million unemployed within 2 years of her taking office,closed down all the coal mines (that we now need),introduced the most unpopular tax in modern times causing riots,sold off all "our" assets to finance tax cuts for the rich,squandered all the revenues from north sea oil and gas,again with tax cuts for the rich...and what did they do to her,gave her a peerage.
Certainly,the users of these drugs are better qualified to advise the government than even David Nutt,I myself have been smoking tobacco for 45 years,smoking cannabis for 40 years and had a brief period in the 70's when I drank a lot of alcohol and I can tell you which drugs do the most damage to your health from experience,not from research,but like I said,I dont have a degree,so this blog is the only place that real people get a say,provided by the BBC,who incidentally,you will need a degree to get a job with,but I wont push that one seeing as how they are providing this blog!!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS