A guest post from Ewan Hoyle the founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform and author of their new drug policy (debated here: bit.ly/LibDrugs) who is also their council candidate for Glasgow’s Anderston/City ward. There’s a Glasgow Skeptics meeting on this topic on the 14th of May
The people of London would undoubtedly be better served by their police force if cannabis users were not being arrested and charged. And for the vast majority of cannabis users a criminal record would be far more damaging to their prospects than using cannabis will ever be.There is nothing factually wrong with Brian Paddick’s “Police are wasted on cannabis” campaign.
So de facto, turning-a-blind-eye, decriminalisation is a step in the right direction. But as a policy end-point it is starkly illogical. If a drug is illegal, but no one is ever prosecuted for using it, then there can be no justification for its continued illegality. A trade that could be regulated and taxed and contribute greatly to the national economy should not be allowed to be dominated by organised crime. We might be able to save money in not prosecuting users, but we would still be spending money and time pursuing and prosecuting the producers and dealers. This endeavour has not had any success in restricting cannabis supply to any meaningful extent in the past, and is highly unlikely to do so in the future. If the act of using is no longer immoral to the extent that society deems it should be illegal, then the act of supplying can not be deemed immoral if the responsibility lies in the hands of a supplier who has only the best interests of the customer in heart. A policy of strictly controlled legal supply can create such a supplier and is the one that government should be investigating with great urgency.
The motion passed by Liberal Democrat conference last September was determinedly “tough on drugs” in its intent. Past policies that implied tolerance of drug use were swept aside in favour of policies targeted at the restriction of the ability of drugs to do harm. Paddick’s proposals sadly take us back to our old ways, and may even increase the potential for harm caused by the drug itself. If we exclude the obvious harms of a criminal record, arrest at least focuses the mind of the user and their family on their drug use and might cause them to re-evaluate their behaviour. By removing the chances of that happening, any problems users experience are more likely to develop further and have serious implications for their health and happiness.
So, on the scale of “tough” to “soft” on the ability of cannabis to do harm, de facto decriminalisation as proposed by Paddick is probably a step towards softness. If we want to get tough on the ability of cannabis to cause harm, then we have to deploy policies which are more likely to prevent problems emerging and which are more likely to facilitate early intervention in order to halt the progression of any problems which do occur.
The model of decriminalisation adopted in Portugal – where possession is still illegal but an administrative and not a criminal offence – takes us back in the direction of toughness. Rather than turning a blind eye to cannabis use, the police refer users to panels tasked with determining whether treatment is appropriate and delivering education on harms and available services. In a situation where contact with the police can only be positive for a drug user’s prospects, concerned family and friends need have no qualms about seeking help for a loved one. In Portugal, prospects for cannabis users are better, but again their de jure decriminalisation policy is starkly illogical for the same reasons as the de facto decriminalisation proposed by Paddick.
It is only with strict government control and regulation of a legal market that we can optimise our restriction of the ability of cannabis to cause harm. Rather than have information on the harms of cannabis delivered only after an unpredictable encounter with the police, this information can instead be provided in the environment of a pharmacy, by someone trained for the purpose, prior to the first time a customer uses the legally supplied drug. The ability to advise customers on the potency of strains and encourage safer modes of administration, means the customer is far less likely to come to harm. The undermining of the illegal market combined with age restrictions should hopefully reduce availability of cannabis for children, while reducing further the necessity to expend police resources against the black market suppliers. If it is decided to educate first-time users on the early warning signs of psychosis, then the increased number of people in society equipped to identify these signs means those developing psychosis are more likely to be helped regardless of their drug use history.
So Brian. It is time to move beyond liberalising our drug laws. De facto decriminalisation is not the best answer for the people of London or anywhere in Britain. The policy that is the toughest on drugs and crime is a plea to government for the strict government control and regulation of a legal cannabis market.
I have strong suspicions that if it is communicated properly, it will garner you far more support that your soft-on-drugs, baby-step, 4/20 announcement.
#1 by Barbarian on April 23, 2012 - 6:53 pm
While I agree with the general idea of legalising cannabis, there absolutely has to be safeguards.
To users, the level of the active chemicals has to be strictly controlled. Cannabis comes in many forms, some more potent than others, with some capable of causing an inexperienced user to “trip”.
Then there is the issue of employment. Employers must be allowed to decide whether using cannabis during work is acceptable or not. I would suspect – and recommend – that it is not. Health and Safety issues come to mind.
But with legalisation, where would it be able to be purchased? And what levels of tax would be applied?
Health education about the use of cannabis would have to be extensive. I know many people who have or do use cannabis. I’ve seen those who are so dependent on the drug it controls their lives.
There should also be great care given to what other drugs should be decriminalised. This could be the thin edge of the wedge. Crystal meth for example should never, ever be decriminalised.
Removing the illegal manufacture and distribution of drugs will never be eradicated. But some decriminalisation will help matters. But it must be strictly controlled.
#2 by James on April 23, 2012 - 7:39 pm
One key question is this: does criminalisation of any drug decrease risk or decrease consumption? I agree that crystal meth is Bad Stuff, but right now that means the crystal meth market is in the hands of unlicensed criminals and they are just as free to sell tainted poisonous adulterated crystal meth to kids as they are to sell the authentic product to anyone else.
Similarly, I would hate for anyone I know to get a heroin addiction, but if they did, I’d want them to be able to get a regulated supply from their GP, as used to be the case before a mid-20th century moral panic. At that point there were tiny numbers of heroin addicts because doctors didn’t want to expand the market. When it was taken away from them and given to the biker gangs and whatnot, we saw an explosion in harm and death.
Making something illegal, in short, doesn’t make it disappear, it may just make a bad situation far worse.
#3 by Don McC on April 23, 2012 - 10:04 pm
Not that I’m disagreeing with you, James, but the question does increasingly become one of boundaries. Where do you draw the line? Much of the same arguments could be made to support legalisation of, say, the sex-trade. Some health professionals have called for that to be decriminalised too. Is it just a question of morals or is something else behind it?
I would like to say I’m ambivalent about legalisation/decriminalisation but, I have to admit, I’ve never known anyone who has had a serious drug problem so I really can’t get that worked up about it. I suspect that, outside Daily Mail readers, most of the country care just as much.
A couple of things are guaranteed though. If young Geo really wants to balance the books, and using tax on cigarettes as a gauge, this would be a nice little earner for the treasury. And if big corporations like the drug companies moved into the production and distribution of Class A drugs, you would soon find more than a couple of Columbian drug lords out of business, a feat that the likes of the DEA have attempted for years.
So maybe a win, win after all. Going beyond straightforward decriminalisation, though, would be something that would need to happen not just in the UK. That, perhaps, is the biggest stumbling block to the whole idea.
#4 by Aidan on April 23, 2012 - 11:54 pm
Firstly, prostitution itself isn’t illegal in the UK. Secondly, that’s really a rather different argument and I don’t think it’s a particularly helpful comparison.
Certainly the leaders of the drug producing countries like Colombia, where much of the harm caused by criminalising drugs occurs, are broadly in favour of a radical change in status.
As for corporations I’m led to believe that’s what the “Special” in John Player Special was supposed to be 😉
#5 by James on April 24, 2012 - 12:11 am
The simple act of getting high is also undoubtedly a victimless crime. It sometimes comes with criminal consequences, although less frequently than the media might have us believe.
Having said which, I wouldn’t prosecute the act of swapping sex for money either, nor would I make it less safe. You only have to look at the variation in deaths of and assaults on prostitutes between liberal Edinburgh and illiberal Glasgow on that. I agree with Margo on this, which includes a view that far more effort needs to be made to crack down on the associated people trafficking, intimidation, violence etc.
#6 by Doug Daniel on April 24, 2012 - 12:14 pm
Yeah, there are arguments that while getting high is victimless, it can be linked to criminal behaviour (although so can getting drunk…) But there is absolutely no reason to put up barriers if a woman wants to make a career out of exploiting men’s desperation for sex. Pushing it out into the sidelines merely forces women to work in unsafe areas, hang out with shady people and rely on a customer base which is unconcerned with being involved in possibly illegal behaviour. I can’t for the life of me see how that helps people who decide to become sex workers. It’s just that society doesn’t like the fact that there are women out there who would choose to sell sex, just like society doesn’t like the idea that there are people who want to get high.
If we really cared about people who are involved in prostitution, drugs and the likes, we’d regulate rather than penalise. You would think the failure of the prohibition era might have taught people something…
#7 by Indy on April 24, 2012 - 8:07 am
The reason for the expansion in heroin is surely because of the situation in Afghanistan?
We went from a situation in the late 70s/early 80s where heroin was almost unheard of in Glasgow and Edinburgh to a situation where we were completely flooded by it and it was very cheap. It was a very strange and disturbing time.
I would be very much against making heroin legal due to the number of people I was at schooll with who are now dead because of it. But I agree doctors should be able to prescribe it.
#8 by James on April 24, 2012 - 9:40 am
The expansion I’m talking about came before that, in the late 1960s. Although yes, the mujahideen needed money to fight the Soviets and then the US/UK forces, and that did drive later expansions. That wasn’t just heroin either. I also remember a late 1980s pub chat where someone said they had bought enough hash to see the stamped crossed AK47s and the slogan – “Buy Afghan Hashish, support the mujahideen”.
#9 by Dan Vevers (@DanSmatterings) on April 23, 2012 - 9:40 pm
Very, very good piece.
The idea that a strictly regulated legal market for cannabis is not just practically sensible and safer, but also much tougher on crime than the status quo, needs to be driven home.
However, pertaining to the issue of safety, if I had to legalise and regulate one drug tomorrow, it would not be cannabis – it would be heroin. To be sure, I think all drugs should be properly regulated and taken out of the black market.
But the dangers of heroin overdose and resulting death loom larger than with any other drug (only one coming close would be alcohol), and are derived almost entirely from A) impurity of product, B) mixture with other substances and C) inaccessibility to medical care in sufficient time.
I cannot condone anyone’s choice to muck up their life with something like heroin. But neither can I condone a policy situation which actively and dramatically heightens the chance of their death. Impurity comes from the illegal market, pure and simple. Regulation of product could save countless lives. As for option B), well the effects of some stupidity sadly cannot always be prevented. But at the very least, the heroin would be clean, which would surely make any drugs cocktail slightly less deadly.
As for C), Vancouver tried out flagship safe injection sites, or “shooting galleries”, where heroin addicts could go to inject in a safe medical environment. Sure, it’s not pretty. But, having started it in 2003, by 2008 they’d had 7000 users registered, 400 overdoses, but not one death.
To repeat, not one death. I must admit to having found no new updates to confirm that this remains the case, but it’s impressive nonetheless – especially if you think drug policy priorities should be personal safety and the preservation of life, rather than the criminalisation of addicts and the perpetuation of a gangster-controlled black market.
Dan Vevers
#10 by Ewan Hoyle on April 23, 2012 - 10:06 pm
@Barbarian
Thanks for the comment. I agree that safeguards are essential. In first legalising cannabis it’s arguable that a completely nationalised industry might best ensure zero marketing and as few people as possible with a vested interest in increased use.
On the variety of strains and preparations, my ideal would be all strains being available from pharmacists, but with the level of education being delivered ensuring that any negative experiences can be avoided next time around by shifting to a less potent strain. I’d hope people could be encouraged to start with less potent strains and work they way to one they find pleasant but that does not impact negatively on their life. Excluding stronger strains from legal suppliers just leaves a gap for illegal dealers to exploit and so I would suggest be a bad idea.
I’d definitely expect smoking cannabis on the job to bring about the same disciplinary issues as drinking on the job now, or indeed taking cannabis, depending on the workplace of course.
I favour pharmacy sales. If the Home Office wants to send a message that cannabis is harmful, that message will be more effectively delivered by a pharmacist than by illegality allied with a discredited classification system.
I would hope taxation would be depoliticised and prices would be set by an independent panel tasked with minimising the illegal market and discouraging use also.
Legalisation allows that extensive health education to be appropriately targeted far more effectively than at present. Those who are dependent can hopefully be more open about their issues, or indeed you could even yourself raise concerns with services on their behalf without risking their resentment.
Decriminalisation of all drugs has happened in Portugal, and the impact has been most pronounced in reducing the number of injecting heroin users. Decriminalisation is about saying “this is a health and social problem and there are better ways to address it than locking people up or handing out criminal records”. All drugs should be decriminalised.
If you’re meaning meth should never be legally supplied, then that is a different debate. Certainly if more drugs are to be supplied legally in the future it would likely be a slow, step by step process with rigorous evaluation happening every step of the way. I would never want the next drug to be legalised if the evidence indicated greater net harm would result. Each drug has to be considered on its merits.
This is not an ideological position I have taken. I have come to the conclusions I have as the evidence and logic indicates to me that harm can be restricted more effectively with a state-controlled legal market.
#11 by Ewan Hoyle on April 23, 2012 - 10:14 pm
Cheers Dan,
Heroin is actually my number one priority too. But there isn’t really a need to legalise it in a ‘for sale’ sense. The ‘British System’ of supply that James alludes to was basically provision of pharmaceutical heroin to addicts. The modern gold standard equivalent is heroin maintenance clinics: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/news/2012/1
I am increasingly desperate for Scotland to benefit from the same kind of approach as our problem is far beyond the problems of all the European countries who have already gone down this road.
#12 by Ewan Hoyle on April 23, 2012 - 10:22 pm
James,
The WHO did a big multi-country comparative study and found that the strictness of drug laws did not correlate with levels of consumption. In Portugal levels of consumption have not increased any more than in their comparable neighbour states. The evidence indicates criminalising doesn’t matter to consumption. Legal availability would be a step into the unknown, but you can see how regulations can impact upon tobacco consumption in a legal market. We’ll hopefully see something similar with alcohol soon after minimum pricing happens. You can actually affect levels of use through policy when drugs are legal. You don’t tend to have that same influence over the illegal drugs, no matter how hard you try.
#13 by James on April 24, 2012 - 12:14 am
Absolutely. Thanks again for your thoughtful post, and do let us know if you have anything else you think you’d like to post here.
#14 by Doug Daniel on April 24, 2012 - 12:31 pm
The first step society needs to take is to admit that legality has no impact whatsoever on whether a person takes drugs or not. I’ve never even smoked a joint, but that’s not because of it being illegal, it’s because I hate smoke, I hate things going up my nose, I’m rubbish at swallowing pills, and I don’t like needles. Oh, and I just quite simply don’t want to do most drugs anyway. Cannabis being illegal didn’t stop me being the sole member of my social group never to get stoned (and seeing them in that state was also a contributing factor to my avoiding it).
People seem to think that if you legalise heroin, we’ll end up with kids taking it at the same levels that they drink alcohol. It’s a ridiculous notion, because the very nature of heroin usage is off-putting enough – I dare say alcohol usage would be dramatically lower than it is if it was an intravenous drug. The streets weren’t lined with junkies before it was criminalised, and it wouldn’t happen now if we decriminalised it.
#15 by Jamie on April 24, 2012 - 12:12 am
People might be interested in this: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm Transform Drug Policy foundation After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation.
#16 by Duncan Stott on April 24, 2012 - 2:16 am
I too had nagging doubts about that poster. The big cannabis leaf is usually symbolic of the personal liberty side of the drug policy reform argument, which I would suggest is on the ‘soft’ side of the debate. Then again I don’t know if I could design a better poster, so I’m not being too critical.
To be fair to Brian, the Mayor of London doesn’t have the power to create the legislation that would allow for a strictly controlled legal supply. What the Mayor can do under his remit of London’s police and crime commissioner is decide on the Met’s policing strategy around cannabis, which is what he’s campaigning on.
It annoys me when local election candidates (which the Mayor of London nominees are on a grand scale) make promises that they don’t have any legal authority to deliver. Our opponents are doing it here in Oxford and we’re calling them on it. It’s particularly annoying when we’ve gone to considerable efforts to campaign on a platform that is fully realisable.
I’m pleased Brian is campaigning on what he could actually deliver.
#17 by Ewan Hoyle on April 24, 2012 - 9:30 am
I think I am being fair to Brian. He’s campaigning to be the leader of the most important city in Europe. A Paddick victory would put cannabis laws firmly back on the political agenda if he took this stance. David Cameron couldn’t even deliver cannabis legalisation without defying UN conventions. But he can espouse an aspiration and a determination to persuade others to allow for it to take place. Paddick should do the same. The stance he’s taking is pretty lame, intellectualy and politically.