Should drugs policy be based on facts or opinion?
Should Britain's strategy to reduce the harm from drugs be based on scientific evidence or public opinion? When the issue came up during the course of a Parliamentary debate on "legal highs" last week, there was an interesting insight into how the previous Labour administration viewed matters.
Click on the image to watch the debate at the Parliament website
"I seek reassurance that when sound, factual evidence is produced to show what is effective in tackling drug crime and addressing health issues, the hon. Gentleman will sign up to that."
Mr Campbell, who was, until the election, the Labour government's voice on drugs and crime, thought he detected a trap.
"I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks because he is sending me along a route he knows I cannot go down."
The route, of course, was towards decriminalisation or legalisation of currently illicit drugs.
Mr Brake, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, recently travelled to Spain and Portugal where the possession of drugs is no longer a criminal offence. The question behind the question was "if it works there, would he support doing the same here?" (I blogged from Portugal last year.)
"It is no bad thing to learn lessons from abroad," Mr Campbell replied, "but we need a drugs policy for this country that reflects the evidence and takes into account the views of the public."
What happens, though, if the "evidence" and "public views" are in opposition? Mr Brake went in for the kill.
"Will the hon. Gentleman go on the record and confirm that if a policy is backed by clear, evidence-based research that shows the most effective way of tackling drugs to be something that the public do not support, he will back the public rather than scientific fact?"
It is the question that lies behind so many of the arguments about current drugs policy in Britain. The former home secretary's dismissal of Professor David Nutt as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last autumn prompted a public battle between scientists and politicians over exactly this point. (See previous posts.)
"Politicians always think that they back the public because they hope the public will back them," Mr Campbell replied.
"We can take the evidence, but we must also take into account what the public think about such matters. There is an argument to say that scientific evidence alone can be collected on the harm that a drug would do to someone's health, and that the judgment can be made entirely from that. However, that is not the basis on which the advisory council is set up. Other factors must be taken into account, not least the attitude of the public, which I hope is informed by the evidence, as the hon. Gentleman suggests it will be."
Mr Campbell's hope that the public's attitude "is informed by the evidence" will have had many experts in the drugs field shaking their heads, however.
When the new drugs minister, James Brokenshire stood up to speak at the end of the debate, he was adamant that the coalition had no intention of going down the Portuguese route.
"The Government are opposed to the legalisation of drugs and to decriminalisation for personal use" because "illegal drugs are harmful and no one should take them".
"To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people, who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, and, alongside that, it would increase the risk of drug use and abuse. On the specific point about the Portuguese model, we are against that proposal."
Interestingly, the new head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Yury Fedotov, took up his post only three days ago, promising to "place a strong emphasis on safeguarding health, human rights and justice in drugs and crime policy".
Calling for a period of consolidation at the body which polices the international treaties underpinning global drugs policy, Mr Fedotov appears supportive of his predecessor's view that "people who take drugs need medical help, not criminal retribution".
Also this week, the former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez called for global action to legalise drugs. He acknowledged that "no country can take this decision (to legalise drugs) unilaterally without an extremely serious (political) cost for its leaders.
"What is needed therefore is an international treaty that is respected by all," he said.
It is also worth recalling that, as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, David Cameron voted in favour of a recommendation that "the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways - including the possibility of legalisation and regulation - to tackle the global drugs dilemma".
However, this is clearly not where the coalition is heading. When it comes to the question of evidence-based drugs policy and public opinion, it would appear that the new British government has carried on precisely where the old one left off.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It's not about what the public thinks it's about politicians running scared of what the Daily Mail and the Sun will do to them if they propose a rational policy. The latest estimates show that in the USA the annual expenditure on the "war on drugs" is $15 billion. That's an awful lot of vested interests and peoples' jobs resting on the status quo. It is not just the drug lords who are profiting from the present situation, the forces of "law enforcement" are too!
Complain about this comment
Based on fact or opinion, who cares? Just decide on a policy direction and don't look back. If the British military and every other government weren't involved in the drug trade maybe young people would have had a better chance of a life of sobriety. Help your children so they don't turn out like you, get SOBER!
Complain about this comment
I agree with No. 1. Perhaps those in favour of thinking out of the box should spend more time addressing the campaign for how such a change can be accepted by the public rather than concentrating on the arguments for change. Political resistance is inevitable whilst there are so many opinion formers totally opposed to any change. I suspect there is a growing proportion of the public amenable to a different approach but there is little discussion of how legalised drug usage would be regulated (alcohol is regulated) - what would it look like in practice. What would ensure limitations on usage - age, outlets, distinctions of classes of drugs etc.
Complain about this comment
The general public are split fairly evenly between the keep everything illegal no matter what camp, the do what the experts tell us camp, the do what we're told in the press camp and the don't care/know camp.
The politicians are firmly in the first camp, no matter what their own experts tell them and that's where all the problems lie.
None will listen to medical or police evidence, none will ever even listen to economical reasons for a policy change, even if these are the most convincing reasons for policy change, especially in a recession.
By decriminalising drugs, the police would save a fair percentage of resources, as would the NHS, because many controlled substances are better and far cheaper than medicine they are forced into buying simply because it's very difficult to buy or even test anything on the controlled list.
Regulation would make any illicit drug safer to use for those that want to use them, which would also save the NHS a lot of money and would raise billions of pounds per year in taxes, money that currently goes stright into the pockets of people who think little of killing their competitors, or smuggling weapons and people.
...but when do politicians ever think things through and make the correct decisions?
Complain about this comment
All policy should be based on facts.
A policy not based on fact can surely not be defended.
As with all moral issues where does religion fit in with facts?
Complain about this comment
If voting changed anything, it would be illegal!
Complain about this comment
Regrettably, I'm not surprised by what this article reveals. James Brokenshire is carving out an appalling reputation at the Home Office advocating policies that are out of date even by Alan Johnson's standards. You have to go back to Ronald Reagan before you find such inane, badly informed ideas.
Barely a week goes past now without headlines calling for a new approach to drugs policy. All the experts agree that reform is long overdue and controls on cannabis in particular must be relaxed. For the last 10 years both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have consistently declared themselves in favour of drug law reform as well. Why are they both now so resolutely silent on the subject?
The UK's war on drugs now costs £19 billion each year with cannabis accounting for at least half of that. Studies prove that a further £4-6 billion could be raised annually under a “regulate and tax” regime. Politicians must realise that they can no longer afford to listen to the health scare stories and propaganda. Six million UK citizens use cannabis regularly. Compared with drinkers they face minimal health risks. The ludicrous waste of police resources on closing down cannabis farms can no longer be tolerated.
On the government's Your Freedom website there was a massive outcry for drug law reform and legalisation of cannabis. Nick Clegg will have to respond shortly or face criticisms of a whitewash or cover up.
The government's Drugs Strategy consultation ends this month. Although the Home Office is presently talking tough, it would be astonishing if there was not real change when the new Drugs Strategy is published in December.
I have prepared a detailed response to the Drug Strategy consultation document. I encourage anyone who wants to use all or part of it to present their own submission to do so.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/home-office-drugs-strategy-consultation-my-response/
Complain about this comment
4: "...but when do politicians ever think things through and make the correct decisions?"
- True, as shown in the linked response to John Ellis' email to the government under the blog "Drugs Policy - The British System", point 148, which contains the usual trite untruths and excuses. I've seen a few of these official government answers and in effect they always say the same thing, "We're just going to hide behind our standard response and not engage because we know we're going to lose any reasoned argument" (for proof of this see ANY of the drug debates in Mark Easton's site).
Like I've said before, all we need to do is to keep arguing the point whenever and wherever the chance arises, preferably in public debate - once that's happened a few times in the open it's "Prohibition game over".
It just seems a bit sad that the government are going to have to be shamed into changing these laws by its own people, they are going to lose the opportunity to take the moral high ground.
Complain about this comment
It saddens me that politicians fail to grasp the real life realities of the drug trade.
How they fail to understand that by influencing the price of some drugs through tougher sentences and stronger stances they merely move the affordable drug base, this in turn means that in the underlying layers of society that the wrong drugs fill the inevitable voids as pressure is put on cannabis. In the recent reply I got from the home office about the current status of cannabis within society they make insubstantial claims about mental health of young cannabis users put it down to a plant that was developed and smoked from the 1970's 'Skunk' which when compared with a lot of natural land based strains is very weak its real strong point was a very rapid flowering cycle shortening to as little as 7 weeks, putting it in a financially stronger position as a crop over traditional cannabis crops, the Dutch have now moved these techniques further with auto flowering plants.
What will a continuation of the current policy mean for the UK in general??
More Addicts more crime..
Its down to choice
Not Law
Complain about this comment
Forgot to Say Thank You for another wonderful blog Mark
Thank You.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Fedotov: "People who take drugs need medical help, not criminal retribution".
Drug policy should be based on the fact that too much money is being wasted trying to enforce the "war on drugs". Are we closer to winning this war?
Our jails and prisons are running over-capacity much of this due to crimes associated with drugs.
Policing is sufffering.
If the politicians are really keen on keeping drugs illegal, how about we add tobacco and alcohol.
Fact says these are not good for your health.
So, let's make them illegal.
Complain about this comment
The fundamental reform that is required is for drug policy, regulation, education and information to be FACT AND EVIDENCE-BASED.
Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have already criticised government for basing drugs policy on opinion rather than evidence.
Will the new strategy to be published in December be any different?
I would propose a five point drugs strategy aimed at reducing harms as follows:
1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least six million citizens)
2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/home-office-drugs-strategy-consultation-my-response/
Complain about this comment
Seedsman Seeds Indian Skunk comes from South Indian Kerala and was bred by Sacred Seeds in the late 1970s and is one of the finest sensimillas to be found anywhere in the world.
It was crossed with Skunk #1 by Sacred Seeds to give an earlier maturation and bigger yield. Indian Skunk can be harvested in late October and her cannabis seeds flower in 10 weeks. Indian Skunk THC is 13-15%.
if this strain was created in the late 70's and crossed with skunk... oh the lies of propaganda...
Complain about this comment
Mark, thank you for your consistent postings on this topic.
I do however request that you call attention to the fact, so obvious it is forgotten, that it is people, not drugs, being controlled by arbitrary drug policy decisions. Hence one cannot legalise a substance but only activities, i.e. possession, supply, producition, cultivation, importation, exportation, etc with respect to a drug.
Shortly, the SSHD and the ACMD will be judicially reviewed with respect to their political exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They exclude these drugs because they think the Act means prohibition, which it does not, and that the Act classifies 'illegal drugs', which it also does not, it is for this reason the SSHD thinks she has the power to exclude the so-called 'legal-highs' alcohol and tobacco and thus those concerned with them from the Act's regulatory principles. Were alcohol and tobacco classified under the Act, the public would get a sense of the relative risks of harm from the other classified drugs and they would see that it is possible under the Act to create a lawfully regulated commerce in any classified drug.
The judicial review process has started with preaction letters, the full papers will be filed in the Administrative Court before 13 October by Casey Hardison of http://www.freecasey.org Casey is also co-founder of the Drug Equality Alliance http://www.drugequality.org where you can find the preaction letters and other relevant information, including the 2006 Review of the Drugs Classification System consultation paper released under the Freedom of Information Act you blogged about in July.
Complain about this comment
Regulation is absolutely the least bad option but as we see from alcohol and tabacco, it is still no gaurantee of evidence-based policy in terms of the finer details.
For instance the single most effective policy to reduce alcohol-related harm would be minimum pricing - instead successive governments remain in bed with the drinks (tobacco and fast food) industries. The alcohol industry has donw rather well at keeping the public mood against minimum pricing, leading them to believe it would 'punish the sensible majority'.
Complain about this comment
'Recovery March' Glasgow, 25th September.
Come along to show people it is possible to recover from addiction and to show the government that more support is needed for recovery services.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton.
so, James Brokenshire [a singularly appropriate name!!] and his mates are set to continue to discriminate against people because "no one should take" drugs which the government does not approve of.
I cannot say I'm surprised, however, I am pleased to read that government ministers finally concede that they have no rational argument to justify their position -- it's a beginning.
Complain about this comment
The politicos drive me crazy. They talk as if legal drugs are safe...nothing could be further from the truth. The young generation are not fooled by this either and I believe that this leads to an increase in drug use.
Personally, I'd legalise/regulate the lot as prohibition didn't work, does not work and never will.
Complain about this comment
The excellent recent show "Our Drugs War" on C4/4OD illustrates the problem in shocking and upsetting detail. Ultimately, it showed in no uncertain terms:
If you want to reduce the harm caused to users/addicts by drugs, legalise them.
If you want to stop the turning of third world/middle eastern countries such as Afghanistan to narco states, legalise drugs.
If you want to save police money and use police resources in a more effective manner, legalise drugs.
If you want to substantially reduce crime, legalise drugs.
If you want to be a grown up and accept/tackle that there is a culture of drug taking, from boarding school to city workers, then legalising drugs will help.
There is no moral excuse for following a policy that demonstrably harms people, from the council estates of the poppy fields in Afghanistan.
Scientifically, there is compelling evidence that drug legalisation reduces harm from drug taking.
Financially, drug law enforcement and waste revenue from drugs is an unforgivable error in these hard economic times.
If you're unsure of this, or don't believe me, find the shows and watch them. They will challenge your beliefs in an intelligent and well researched way.
Complain about this comment
Facts vs. opinion... in arriving at what's 'best' for the public good.
What facts? Whose opinion? Rather depends on where the choice get made before the information is shared.
Pandora, OK if I open this box?
With luck, before any precedents get set, that's one genie that can be quickly stuffed back where it belongs.
The public may get a taste.
Complain about this comment
It's interesting how public opinion must be listened to when it involves the continuation of a moribund policy and the potential loss of politicians' face. The same public opinion is conveniently ignored when it comes to, say, public spending cuts and taking us into wars no-one wants. Perhaps if the public were given the true facts about drugs (i.e. they're no more harmful than those we already take legally) instead of hysteria and lies then opinion would be different.
Out of all the stupid reasons for not reviewing drugs policy this must count as one of the more idiotic and cowardly. In future we might be best asking Murdoch, Dacre and the US Government what they think as they are clearly running the show here. What really annoys me here is not only the continuation of a policy that obviously doesn't work but also a prohibition on debate. Every time someone makes a suggestion they are either closed down with the same old hackneyed drug warrior rhetoric or smeared by the government's friends in the right wing press. If any of them gave a toss about blighted lives they'd address the huge inequalities in our society. That's a bit difficult though and will involve upsetting the government's rich mates (especially the ones in law enforcement who are doing very nicely out of this thank you very much). Therefore we're stuck with the status quo regardless of how completely ridiculous and harmful to society it is.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
grounation
They said I can't get no bail and have to stay in jail
and on the day in court what you charge this man for for ganja
what you charge him for marijuana
but I man done no wrong to go in jail
... let I go
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It seems a compromise is in order.
I'd suggest decriminalising the recreational drugs that are less dangerous than (say) tobacco.
That's nearly all of them of course, but ...
Complain about this comment
When California legals weed a natural herb you can bet your bottom dollar western governments will follow like sheep and start taxing sales and will set up head shops, licenses and cafes like Amsterdam.. but they would still be scared of dealing with the Jamaicans
Complain about this comment
It is difficult to say anything about James Brokenshire without it, apparently, breaking the house rules.
Perhaps that in itself says it all!
Complain about this comment
The biggest problem with the drugs culture is the popular misconception that drug addicts are ill. They are not ill, they are indulgent, a drain on society and should be left to dig themselves out of their self chosen hole. The cost of treating, councelling and policing them is an enormous drain on public services. Legalise the sale of these drugs, let them have as much as they can afford to consume, and the problem will die off.
Complain about this comment
Just in ..
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/no-bad-drug-info/
http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=no-bad-drug-info
same old same old.
Complain about this comment
MPs are calling for an early day motion on drugs policy.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41669&SESSION=905
2010 DRUG STRATEGY CONSULTATION09.09.2010
Lucas, Caroline
That this House is concerned at the duration of the Home Office's consultation on the Government's drug strategy 2010 published on 20 August 2010 which closes to submissions on 30 September 2010; considers the length, lack of policy detail and inaccessibility of this consultation to contravene the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on public consultation; further believes that organisations working in the field of drug and alcohol treatment will be unable to use this consultation to meaningfully contribute to thedevelopment of effective Government policy in this complex and important area; and calls on the Government to extend the duration and scope of this consultation, in compliance with the existing Code of Practice.
get writing to your MP
Complain about this comment
For all but the very best of us, most of our decisions and opinions are based on emotions, notably and most unfortunately fear and hate. We go searching for evidence and facts in order to support our decisions not to influence them.
It is now a well proven fact that the use of drugs is increased by classing them as illegal.
I suspect that the only way of making this fact impact on government decisions to make politicians afraid of being branded as the ones who are
- producing more addicts
- killing people through drug abuse
- forcing people into crime and prostitution to support their addiction
- making the criminals who traffic drugs super rich
- incapable of an opinion independent of the lowest type of newspaper editors and the American establishment.
And, for the moment, all these points appear to be true.
As for the public opinion argument: if the political decision is to follow public opinion of the moment, we don't need politicians: we can decide everything by referenda. We elect them in part to know better, to find and weigh the evidence, present a case and act on it for the good of all.
Congratulations again Mark on putting well considered facts to the fore.
Complain about this comment
Being one of the politically unaware, I'd never heard of Mr James Brokenshire, so I 'Googled' his name. It seems that he used to practise in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, corporate finance, public fund-raisings, and debt finance.
Given this background, he should be experienced in making decisions to optimise financial profit (or minimise loss). If he employs those methods (they are well established in management and engineering project textbooks) to the question of the legality of harmful substances, he will discover that he can save the UK a lot of money and a lot of lives by the simple means of removing the drug laws.
However, if his objectives are not saving the UK money and lives, he may well not do that.
Complain about this comment
"For all but the very best of us, most of our decisions and opinions are based on emotions, notably and most unfortunately fear and hate. We go searching for evidence and facts in order to support our decisions not to influence them."
I'm not sure I could agree with the idea that it's the 'best' whose reactions aren't based on fear, hate and other emotions. I suspect, actually, that those who believe their ability to suppress their emotions and pretend (to themselves in the first instance) to be able to divorce emotion from their reactions and consequent decisions are actually deceiving themselves for the sake of their feelings of insecurity. I'm not quite sure how readily I'd agree with the popular notion that fear and hate, for example, can only be negative emotions. It seems to me that if you don't fear and hate the people who have been responsible for harming (some of the) people they have been employed to protect, e.g. like politicians hurt users of officially bad drugs, then either: a) there's something perverse about the way you react to people who cause fear and harm; or b)... Well, there is no 'b)' actually. If you don't hate and fear these people, there's something wrong with you. Consequently, I would expect any healthy person to "go searching for evidence and facts in order to support [their] decisions" until they have successfully removed the object of their fear and hate.
Surely, that must be why fear and hate developed. It would be silly to pretend they haven't played an essential role in the success of humanity's evolution. Fear and hate have an essential role to play in the progress of social development and, judging by the way civil servants responsible for drug policy have handled the matter for the past several decades, I personally believe fear and hate of them is being most constructively utilised. We can see how they work now with the increasing pressure to eliminate these objects of fear and hate - the current increase in pressure to discuss drug policy.
No, Mr/s Peters, you may be right about you, whoever you are: the 'best of you' may (believe you do) not base your decisions on fear and hate, but for the rest of us fear and hate are essential, accessible tools in our armoury of emotions. I would suggest it healthier to learn to recognise, accept and utilise them, rather than trying to demonise, suppress them and pretend they don't exist. In this case - on this subject - in particular, because that's what this is really all about: prohibition is really just denial and repression. If civil servants can deny and suppress their nature on their way up the greasy pole, then they insist you must as well.
Complain about this comment
To McD @33
We may have misunderstood one another. I’ll try to explain my point better.
We make decisions all the time, most are trivial, but a few have great consequence. Evolution has given us a lot of skills in order to survive, fear of things that are unknown or different, an ability to anticipate potential danger and so on. They serve well in the wild, but may lead us into trouble in the complexity of human society. Worse still, there are always individuals who, for their own political or other advantage, are too ready to take advantage of these qualities, using them to inflame racial hatred, for example.
In the case of drugs and their prohibition, it’s a simple paralogism. Drugs are bad for us; they generate a lot of crime; therefore, they should be illegal. It might all seem sensible, but it isn’t. The final conclusion of making drugs illegal is based on our rational fear of suffering and hatred for crime. However, it’s an emotional response that only seems to make sense. As we have learnt, in my case from Mark Easton’s blogs, it doesn’t solve the problem, it actually makes it worse. The rational way to make a decision about a best course of action is to list out the different possible actions together with the expected consequences (based on our best knowledge) and select the one that gives the best result. It has nothing to do with suppressing emotions: it has to do with recognising what is important. Where that includes emotions, then emotions should be accounted for.
What I’ve called ‘the rational way to make a decision’ isn’t something that comes naturally to us, not even in financial or technical contexts. We have to force ourselves to go through the process. You were astute to quote and pick up my use of ‘for all but the very best of us’. I originally made no exception for ‘the very best.’ I changed my text to avoid the accusation of excessive cynicism if I failed to allow the possibility of some humans being wiser and nobler than the majority, in which I certainly include myself.
For fear and hatred: it may be wise to be afraid of walking with a heavy suitcase and an expensive look at night in a street where criminalised drug users congregate. However, it is not reasonable to hate those drug users as some would have us. On that, I'm sure that we agree.
Complain about this comment
#14 Mafficker
All credit to Casey for continuing his campaign (this is a campaign that affects us all and needs our full support).
I had hoped that with the new coalition government and new leaders that the futile 'War on Drugs' would at last be brought to an end and a reasonable settlement could be achieved.
With the appointment of James Brokenshire that hope was obviously in vain.
The 'War on Drugs' is still on, the government, despite changing colours has not changed policy
Mr Cameron talked about new beginnings and new approaches, his actions in the appointment of Mr. Brokenshire demonstrate that the reality is very much business as usual.
Mr. Brokenshire, according to TheyWorkForYou has voted Strongly Against Equal Gay Rights . This means that David Cameron is also against Equality in Gay Rights (Cameron appointed Brokenshire).
It doesn't matter what they say it is what they do that counts.
The Lib/Dems have campaigned for reform in this area for years, they hold the balance of power, it will be to their shame if they do not hold the government to ransom over this issue, Cuts for Drugs.
£16bn will be spent this year on the 'War on Drugs' plus £4bn in lost potential tax revenue.
It's not like the country can afford to throw away £20bn
Legalise,Regulate and Tax (how difficult is that?)
Complain about this comment
This issue is becoming apparent and crystal clear the UK is going to become a refuge for narco countries we already interfere in the current policies of Afghanistan. our leaders share the same common values as the Narco states.
All current rhetoric on drugs will merely flood the UK with heroin and cocaine, Mr Brokenshire's continuation of current thought and direction will tear our communities apart. I see it each and every day growing like an infection through my community, the cannabis is all but dried up and were it is available its poor quality and expensive, I was offered 1.2 grams for £20 the other day. This was of a person i have known for many years and used to be very good with weight even at the start of the B period we are now in, they were one of the last to drop to a 2 gram bag of herbal cannabis for £20.
I talk with the local law providers who want to get more involved in our work with the community. But they make the problems worse for us in enforcing the governments whims.
After our recent meeting as a community the whole of the community complained about problems in a certain road, a few hours later we get the minutes from the local force of their action /knowledge in communities, they report a continued fall in calls about anti social behaviour in the said street and that the road was not considered to be a problem.. however if they had checked the road at the time of the meeting they would find that many of the good people have moved out that the street now has many empty houses, that the few trouble makers/addicts had caused such problems that close neighbours moved and the addicts and trouble makers moved their friends in..
We are tired of unqualified people making decisions on how our community is affected by drugs. They always get it wrong, they always cause harms beyond what is normal for a balanced base of drug use.
I hope that over the next few years that the rest of the EU who has already moved to more liberal drug policy begin sanctions against the UK on the grounds of human rights and civil rights. As we will become a problematic state who like other countries around the world fall into lawlessness through drug corruption at top levels of government, if it does not already exist within our own government.
The next thing is a little more out of the box but is looking just as relevant, GW pharmaceuticals, medical cannabis and the DEA.
Cant have another Cali going on in the UK so extra pressure is added from DEA sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3e9zLLQQ7E
a quote from a friend of mine who teaches cannabis cultivation and production techniques in the US
'Joseph R. Pietri(king of Nepal)' Awhile back it looked like things were loosening up in UK, cannabis rescheduled, and it looked as medical use would gain acceptance. This scared GW Pharma, who feared a Cali med scene starting in UK, which would harm their Sativex market. They went to Hortapharm and Dr Frankenbean Stein. At Hortapharm they created a strain that gives 1st time users psychosis and paranoid delusions, they called it Skunk. 1st time users sometimes ended up in hospitals and soon the tabloids were full of the new dangers of this skunk weed. All chances for medical scene and loosening up of cannabis laws went out the window..., and the UK went backwards. Thank Dr Frankenbean Stein David Watson. Cannabis War Criminal.
I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at the truth of it but... who knows.
Complain about this comment
John Ellis #36.
"our leaders share the same common values as the Narco states."
yes, corruption and illiberal policies; there appears little difference between the Karzai's and Cameron's of this world -- they're all just the well-groomed henchmen representing the interests of their repective establishments. reminds me of a punk song from 1979 which touches on this reality: 'Dope for Guns' by The Ruts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zElkA9zbz60
Complain about this comment
'Crazy chemist' drugs campaign criticised by scientists...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11330173
How much did this cost?
I thought this country had a shortage of qualified scientists and thus import such people from abroad...
Complain about this comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/18/police-chief-decriminalise-cannabis
Tim Hollis, chief constable of Humberside police think's the same as mostof the general public seems its only politicians that have yet to catch up....
Complain about this comment
Should drugs policy be based on facts or opinion?
_______________________________________________________________________
imho s/b Facts and Opinion.
-------------------------------
Re: Hard Drugs
Who introduced Crack Cocaine, Heroin, Ice into the US, UK, EU ghetto communities?
Was it the CIA, Mafia, Businesses, Government Agencies, Chemists, Terrorists, Individuals, Air Line Staff, Armies, Customs, ..., ...,
or a mixture
of the
above?
_______________________________________________________________________
Let I Go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auuSHZ5E6uM
Complain about this comment
You are a wine head man and wine head man don't stand firm
☓☓☓☓ ☓☓☓☓
The Tidals - Stand Firm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvzGUit55us
Complain about this comment
Answer to Mark Easton
Sir,
Drug decriminalization in Portugal is a failure, despite of various reports published recently all over the world pretending the opposite.
There is a complete and absurd campaign of manipulation of Portuguese drug policy facts and figures, which Mark Easton appears to have fallen for. This is not the standard of unbiased and critical reporting that we expect from the BBC.
The number of new cases of HIV / AIDS and Hepatitis C in Portugal recorded among drug users is eight times the average found in other member states of the European Union.
“Portugal keeps on being the country with the most cases of injected drug related AIDS (85 new cases per one million of citizens in 2005, while the majority of other EU countries do not exceed 5 cases per million) and the only one registering a recent increase. 36 more cases per one million of citizens were estimated in 2005 comparatively to 2004, when only 30 were referred ” (EMCDDA - November 2007).
- Since the implementation of decriminalization in Portugal, the number of homicides related to drug use has increased 40%. "Portugal was the only European country to show a significant increase in homicides between 2001 and 2006."
(WDR - World Drug Report, 2009)
"With 219 deaths by drug 'overdose' a year, Portugal has one of the worst records, reporting more than one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal is one of the countries that recorded an increase in drug overdose by over 30% in 2005".
(EMCDDA – November 2007)
The number of deceased individuals that tested positive results for drugs (314) at the Portuguese Institute of Forensic Medicine in 2007 registered a 45% raise climbing fiercely after 2006 (216). This represents the highest numbers since 2001 – roughly one death per day - therefore reinforcing the growth of the drug trend since 2005.
(Portuguese IDT – November 2008)
- “Behind Luxembourg, Portugal is the European country with the highest rate of consistent drug users and IV heroin dependents”.
(Portuguese Drug Situation Annual Report, 2006)
- Between 2001 and 2007, drug use increased 4.2%, while the percentage of people who have used drugs (at least once) in life, multiplied from 7.8% to 12%. The following statistics are reported:
Cannabis: from 12.4% to 17%
Cocaine: from 1.3% to 2.8%
Heroine: from 0.7% to 1.1%
Ecstasy: from 0.7% to 1.3%.
(Report of Portuguese IDT 2008)
- “There remains a notorious growing consumption of cocaine in Portugal, although not as severe as that which is verifiable in Spain. The increase in consumption of cocaine is extremely problematic.”
(Wolfgang Gotz, EMCDDA Director - Lisbon, May 2009)
- “While amphetamines and cocaine consumption rates have doubled in Portugal, cocaine drug seizures have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, the sixth highest in the world”.
(WDR - World Drug Report, June 2009)
- “It is difficult to assess trends in intensive cannabis use in Europe, but among the countries that participated in both field trials between 2004 and 2007 (France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Portugal), there was an average increase of approximately 20%”.
(EMCDDA - November 2008)
The reality of Portuguese drug addiction has been blatantly tampered with. The statistical results have been insidiously manipulated by institutions controlled by the government. The Portuguese IDT go on distorting the numbers and manipulating minds.
The problem is serious and deserves consistent answers. The banner of "harm reduction" cannot be an ideology and an end in itself. It is extremely disturbing to promote the correct use of drugs "safely" (sic) integrating consumption into the habits (about 70% of Portuguese addicts scrutinized in the country are not in drug-free programs but in programs that, while called treatments, are actually "replacements" because these “treatments” substitute one drug for another) that is being made possible by public institutions (such as the Portuguese IDT), who submits with the support (sic) from the State, countless numbers of addicts to a life of dependency.
“Resounding success”? Glance at the results!
If facts are important, the Portuguese model is a mistake. Britain should not make the same mistakes..
We agree with minister Alan Campbell: “We need a drugs policy for this country that reflects the evidence and takes into account the views of the public. It is no bad thing to learn lessons from abroad”.
Supported by Portuguese experience we can say peremptorily that we agree with drugs minister James Brokenshire when he says: “The Government are opposed to the legalisation of drugs and to decriminalisation for personal use” because “ illegal drugs are harmful and no one should take them” … “On the specific point about the Portuguese model, we are against that proposal”.
He wisely refuses to follow the example of Czech Republic, Mexico and Argentina that adopted the sadly famous Portuguese drug decriminalization model.
Manuel Pinto Coelho
(Chairman of APLD - Association for a Drug Free Portugal and member of International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy)
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmLC3Ofs_Aw
One big smoke
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11381608
Minimum pricing alcohol plan defeated
OMG what numpties run this country what civil morons are in control.
We really are in a sad state of affairs when government members deem its own policies illegal....
We need all drugs grouping under one law the distribution under one law with all control removed from random government officials that have no experience or training in such matters.
As I have said a few times before on here we suffer from serious alcohol and heroin/class A drug problems, the latest episode this afternoon as 20 or so neighbours some alcohol users some heroin/meth users just have a large brawl in the street while countless children are running about. 5 police vehicles and the accompanying offices were unable to do a thing about it. How much did that just cost us? with no results to show for it. The road is riddled with drugs and the area is sliding down hill so fast...
All this government is doing is making our problems worse day by day week by week, with senior ministers still talking rubbish about drugs still ignoring the problems we face with age old Regan rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
Manuel Pinto Coelho
you dont include the most commonly used drug with the most wide spread problems Ethanol.
but as that is natural and used the world over by many foundations like the one you belong to Im not at all surprised by your railing of an alternate message. The world will never be drug free so accept the responsibility and stop brushing it under the carpet.
Does the portuguese government own and distribute its own drugs or is that still left in the hands of profiteering criminal organisations ?
If so then you really have no room to voice an opinion on failure.
Drugs only became a problem in any country once they decided that they would no longer supply clean drugs to addicts (see the British system)
your voice adds to this voice of refusal and acceptance.
Anyone that stands for illegal drugs stands for sufferance.
Can you find fault with The British System?
Complain about this comment
On facts and things that work.
Prohibition does not work - start doing something that does.
Legalisation is probably the only way out.
Police dont like that as it takes away a lot of their "business"
Complain about this comment
further more Manuel Pinto Coelho
You claim the policy is a failure were would Portugal now be taking that Russia has 44 times the addicts it did in 2001. What would the figures be for Portugal is they had not adopted such a liberal and socially acceptable policy?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-finally-admits-to-its-hidden-heroin-epidemic-1642103.html
Complain about this comment
Re: 42
Hi Manuel,
Since you've been to a lot of trouble to promote your organisation's aims I feel it only fair that I spend a little time to respond. So I'll answer you point by point:
"Drug decriminalization in Portugal is a failure, despite of various reports published recently all over the world pretending the opposite."
- Drug PROHIBITION in Portugal was a total failure, hence the need to try something different.
"The number of new cases of HIV / AIDS and Hepatitis C in Portugal recorded among drug users is eight times the average found in other member states of the European Union."
- Isn't that why Portugal were the first to realise they had to do something in order to stem their drug problem? BTW which member states are we comparing them to (I suspect whichever conveniently has the greatest difference and in any case, where does this information come from)? I ask because it simply makes no sense that you should think that hiding a drug problem will make the use of clean needles more likely. If you have the option, you'd rather it be legal and use the clean needles. If it's illegal you'd probably want to lie low by avoiding buying them. For this aspect, simple logic dictates that legalisation has got to be the safer option.
“Portugal keeps on being the country with the most cases of injected drug related AIDS (85 new cases per one million of citizens in 2005, while the majority of other EU countries do not exceed 5 cases per million) and the only one registering a recent increase. 36 more cases per one million of citizens were estimated in 2005 comparatively to 2004, when only 30 were referred ” (EMCDDA - November 2007).
- You'd be more convincing if you gave us some links as to where these figures are coming from, it looks to me like a classic case of "pick-the-figures-you-like-most". And what is the "EMCDDA" and who sponsors them?
"Since the implementation of decriminalization in Portugal, the number of homicides related to drug use has increased 40%. "Portugal was the only European country to show a significant increase in homicides between 2001 and 2006."
(WDR - World Drug Report, 2009)"
- Again a link would allow closer inspection and why the missing three years since 2006? And why would there be homicides if crime were taken out of the equation?
"With 219 deaths by drug 'overdose' a year, Portugal has one of the worst records, reporting more than one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal is one of the countries that recorded an increase in drug overdose by over 30% in 2005".
(EMCDDA – November 2007)
- Yet again, from a high starting position of more illegal drug takers, and what does "over 30% in 2005" mean? Why the single year? What special thing happened? Why not 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007?
"- Between 2001 and 2007, drug use increased 4.2%, while the percentage of people who have used drugs (at least once) in life, multiplied from 7.8% to 12%. The following statistics are reported:
Cannabis: from 12.4% to 17%
Cocaine: from 1.3% to 2.8%
Heroine: from 0.7% to 1.1%
Ecstasy: from 0.7% to 1.3%.
(Report of Portuguese IDT 2008)"
- This against a background of rapidly rising drug use around the continent, 4.2% is very low and the second statistic is what mathematicians would call the result of the "area under the curve" i.e. the effects of a very old non-drug-taking generation dying off and therefore skewing the figures.
The real point I'm making here is that you appear to have deliberately cherry-picked the figures that suit your position. I'm bound to assume that of course, so my advice to you is to send us links to all the statistics, not a cherry-picked report.
We have a phrase in the UK, "There's lies, damn lies and statistics" and it means exactly this. Just to compare, here's a link regarding the Portuguese position with a rather different viewpoint:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
Personally I'd advise people to look at Wikipedia's "Drug liberalization" page where these approaches are more evenly reported and there are links to full statistics. My own feeling is that the Portuguese model is still pandering to a prohibitionist stance, there is no GENUINE reason why cannabis cannot just be legalised with a range of quality controlled products, those that have been quoting nonsensical statistics regarding cannabis strength would be able to see those figures for real, AND if they were so important they could be controlled (i.e. REAL control, not handing over business to organised crime). To reduce harmful drug demand I still think that fully legalising less harmful ones such as cannabis is the best approach, whoever risks losing profits.
The one drug policy that is known over the long term to fail is called prohibition.
Euforiater
Civilian taxpayer who is fed up of vested interests trying to manipulate public opinion to their own ends.
Complain about this comment
Here's something interesting.
Very well writen to missinform.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/hallucinogen-seized
Packages of a powerful hallucinogenic drug have been intercepted in Coventry by UK Border Agency officers based at the city's postal hub.
Fifteen separate packages of DMT, totalling over 125 kilos and worth around £13m, have been seized in the past few months.
What is DMT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca
oh its a plant that needs refining 125 kilos soon becomes next to nothing....
Complain about this comment
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/khat-review
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/11/black-prison-population-increase-england
got a real drug warrior here...
or is he just getting alcohol as the one and only source of drug use. after all its the only one taxable!!!
Complain about this comment
Good stuff this soon we will be free to medicate legaly..
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/update-on-legal-medicinal-cannabis-in-britain/
Complain about this comment
http://www.mirror.co.uk/video/news/2010/10/22/celebs-endorse-prop-19-115875-22650108/
bit of celebrity sence for a change and now for somthing a litttle more haunting.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3195318/Anthrax-toll-reaches-13-in-Scotland.html
Realy aint good enough.
Treatment is the only way forward.
Complain about this comment
Drug law does not work because it is fundamentally illiberal. It therefore only receives active support from a small minority of state authorities and population. The active minority of drug users are therefore protected by the vast majority of liberal thinking people who may themselves have once been casual users - or still are.
What matters is setting valuable objectives such as protecting the young from drugs and making it an adult decision. Also removing as far as possible the crime that surrounds the drug market. The current drug policies succeed on neither of these.
Complain about this comment
since a number of comments above make reference to the fact that prohibition actually increases drug consumption, the question must be who stands to lose most from legalisation? the answer is: government employees (with pension plan!!), acting as traffickers and dealers.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2488
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/fifty.html
it is safe to say that the cost in human lives is not being considered at all (we only need to look at Mexico or Afghanistan) since the very same people also trade in weapons.
Complain about this comment
RE post 51 the homeoffice is now running out of time to grant Mr Starr his licence, if by november the 1st they have failed to grant the licence needed they are breaking the law. Many many people have now applied to go down this LEGAL route but the home office will not answer properly or correctly as they know once they do that they have lost the rights to prosecute medical cannabis users.
Still the netherlands will do well out of the sale of this medical cannabis... 600 euros a script..
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vp9np
November the 1st
Mark Jordan investigates how medical users of cannabis are testing a legal loophole by getting Dutch GPs to prescribe the drug
Complain about this comment
I find it curious that the BBC should call medical cannabis users transporting medicine across Europe to be a 'legal loophole' since we are bound by European Law to allow the free movement across EU borders of medication.
Under the United Nations Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs, the UN International Narcotics Control Board determines the documentation required for the transport of such medicines across international borders as, simply, “a valid medical prescription”.
Under article 23 of the Geneva Convention (which specifically applies to all parties even outside time of war), protection is provided for the transport of medicines across borders.
Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement also provides protection for persons to carry their medicine throughout the EU. The UK has been bound by this since 1st January 2005. The European Parliament on 1st December 2009 on the Right To Freedom Of Movement In The EU, the European Commission Advocate stated unequivocally that article 75 of Schengen is “binding” on the UK.
Medical cannabis users, under European Law are entitled to transport substances that are recognised as medicine. By saying it is a loophole the BBC are implying our Government can close it...they cannot it is binding.
Are the UK Government going to continue to prosecute sick and disabled users of cannabis if they cannot afford or are too ill to make the trip to the Netherlands and obtain a prescription?
But if they can afford to go and have the relevant papers they won't be humiliated by being branded a criminal and hauled through the courts?
How does that sit with our civil rights and the Human Rights Law?
Complain about this comment
iNotHere #57.
"Medical cannabis users, under European Law are entitled to transport substances that are recognised as medicine. By saying it is a loophole the BBC are implying our Government can close it...they cannot it is binding."
not only that, by doing so the BBC is insinuating that the use of cannabis for medical reasons, and the legality of it, is questionable.
talk about mindlessly 'toeing the party line'. dreadful.
Complain about this comment
more twists than a dickens novel!! but what is the truth?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/29/home-office-import-medicinal-cannabis
Of to euro courts ?
home office to make disabled people travel to the EU to get a court ruling on how the UK must adhere to its own laws and conventions...
Complain about this comment
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=w4990690
Study: Alcohol is the most lethal drug, outranking heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana
October 31, 2010 - 15:06
Maria Cheng, The Associated Press
LONDON - Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
British Medical Cannabis Register anounces its council
The BMCR will be governed by a council comprised of patients, doctors, scientists, health professionals and representatives from bona fide interest groups.
The founder council members are:
Matthew Atha, IDMU
Chris Baldwin, Legalise Cannabis Alliance
Jeff Ditchfield, UK420
Jayelle Farmer, Pro-Legislate Cannabis UK
Paul Flynn MP, House Of Commons
Victor Hamilton, Medicinal user
Prof. Les Iversen, Oxford University
Baroness Molly Meacher, House Of Lords
Colin Preece, Campaigner
Jason Reed, Medicinal user
Peter Reynolds, Writer
Jim "Pinky" Starr, Medicinal user
Edwin Stratton, Drug Equality Alliance
Dr Michael Vandenburg, Consulting Physician
Derek Williams, UK Cannabis Internet Activists
facts or opinion?
http://bmcrorguk.wordpress.com/
Complain about this comment
Why are we not allowed to judge what we put into our own bodies?
People are allowed to smoke, drink and shovell all sorts of heart destroying foods into their mouths.
Why not be allowed smoke Cannabis?
Complain about this comment
Q: Should drugs policy be based on facts or opinion?
A: Opinion every time, why change things?
In my opinion heroin sellers and takers should be charged with treason for funding the people we are fighting in Afghanistan.
That's my two pence worth
next subject?
Complain about this comment
tezza777 wrote....In my opinion heroin sellers and takers should be charged with treason for funding the people we are fighting in Afghanistan.
Start in the USA and UK goverments then!!!
Also may I suggest you get your information correct.
Afghanistan produced NO heroin untill the USA got involved, then a few years later 2001 the Taliban had enough and hunted down and killed all farmers working for the USA and the EU( see production licences ) a few days lateer the USA and the UK invaded to RESTORE the heroin trade, now as we apraoch the end of 2010 USA controled Afghanistan produces 90% of the heroin found on our streets. Within this the USA have been accused of using bio agents on the rest of the insurgent held lands that have destroyed the opium crops which leave our supplies as the only credible supplies of street heroin.
So tezza777 who do we shoot first for treason?
Complain about this comment
While on the subject of heroin supplies... I notice the story of the heroin found on the army transport plane on a British base was suppressed heavily. Nothing more in the news......
Complain about this comment
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/european-parliament-public-hearing-on-cannabis-regulation/
Complain about this comment
Professor Les Iversen to be guest Speaker at British Pharmacological Society in favour of 'Bringing Cannabis back into the Medicine Cabinet.!
Current Chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs, supporting cannabis as medicine, this totally goes against all current drug propaganda by the UK gov.inc.
In accordance to protocol he should now be sacked by the Gov.inc for spreading damaging anti government propaganda.!
Im sure Shaunie Babes will totally agree with this line.
Still the ACMD was just written out of future drug laws so cant blame the man for telling the truth !
Complain about this comment
http://www.bps.ac.uk/details/meeting/854871/Inaugural-BPS-Presidents-Public-Lecture.html
forgot the link :D
Complain about this comment
This is what happens when the economic facts of cannabis gets to Washington BIG BUSSINESS.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/big-pharma-big-oil-big-marijuana/
Seems the UK will be keeping out of this new world market because our leaders are to economically backwards to move forwards. Especially in the time of the private sector boom across the EU and the USA in this new multi billion pound industry.
But its good to know our kids are still safe from street dealers now we have a more rigorous anti economic policy in place.
Time to give up UK gov.inc
Before we become an economic scab in the new markets.
Complain about this comment
Does the title 'Crime reduction minister' actually bear any relation to the undermining of the criminal justice system that James Brokenitfurtherthantheshire is now implementing.?.
As the ability to pursue crime is fast diminishing in the UK so in a round about way he is reducing crime's burden to society.!!!
Hmmm what next ? under the mantra of 'Science has no place in law'
Complain about this comment
Also why is it okay for soft drinks to rise in price by 10.1% and not alcoholic drinks?
Drug monolpoly?
Complain about this comment
http://markhaden.blogspot.com/2010/12/fw-press-release-legalise-and-regulate.html
FW: Press release: "Legalise and regulate drugs" says UK's former drugs and defence Minister #drugpolicy #uk
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 | Posted by Mark |
Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day in UK drug policy...!
Complain about this comment
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7198
Westminster Hall
Meeting starts on Thursday 16 December at 2.30pm
General Debate
Drugs policy
Complain about this comment
I was the European Commission's drug policy coordinator from 2003 until July this year. Since the EU can only act on the basis of the EU treaties, which give little attention to drugs, I had to stretch the legal basis for the Commission's action to the limit. Evidence based policies and respect for human rights were - and remain - our guideline. As such I agree entirely with Julian Critchley's views. That is one of the reasons why I am on the advisory board of LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition). Unfortunately, the political obstacles Mr Critchley describes for the UK apply to the EU as a whole: no politician is going to stand up and say "stop, let's look at the evidence and really think about this", because the tabloids would skin them alive. What people like him (and me, and many others) could contribute is to give politicians the narrative or formula that they can use that gets through to the general public but without wrecking their careers. This story will run and run, as have previous attempts at prohibition. Drugs will be regulated sooner or later. By doing it sooner we will save a great deal of money, which could be spent on health or education. By the way, app. 100 million people in the EU take - or have taken - drugs. That's an awfully big prison if we keep up the present approach.
Complain about this comment
FACTS OF COURSE !!!
I wonder why mps are so reluctant to accept the facts
They drone on about an excellent bottle of wine but won't let us have a joint without being criminalized
Complain about this comment
The facts are clear. Drugs cost lives but also give legal public sector employment to lots of people from the armed forces through HMRC and the police.
As drugs are illegal with huge profit to organisaed criminal gangs the revenue is untaxed. As a result there is no way government can recover any of the costs involved in prohibition. Locking people up creates another huge cost over 50% in prison are on drug related offences at £5000/week each. Great value - not.
Despite years and billions of pounds spent on prohibition the affect has been neglible. Drug prices fall year on year and addicts still die.
Is the real reason MPs do not want a sensible drugs policy because they have so much power by influence on commitees, and control over spending etc? Do MPs think theft caused by drugs takers are useful economic stimulus for families, insurance companies and shops who re-supply the stolen goods? These are the same people who have bars in their workplace, extended holidays and vote for something by walking into a room!
It is utterly disgusting that drugs policy relies upon uninformed MPs who fear for their own position rather thanh having an open and sensible debate on the harm and risks done to society by the current policy that simply does not work.
Complain about this comment
the news today about 33 people being done for 80 million over 2 years of drug running and money laundering is very misleading, makes an excellent quick flash story, but once you step back you realise its not even a pinprick in the drugs market.
to put it into perspective..
the drugs market is a box of 60 tea bags these guys represent a single fibre running along the edge of the perforation on one tea bag.
Complain about this comment
cannabis based medicines may become schedule 4 what will this mean for cannabis whole?. going to be interesting to see how this goes as it gives cannabis a medical status, which in turn would give a lot of weight to all cases concerning medical cannabis.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/acmd1/sativex-letter?view=Binary
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS