A poisoned spliff for the Tories?

Pot Head

Legalize drugs now.. Humans like to get high, always have done always will..Prohibition has never worked and will never work. Stop criminalizing NORMAL human behaviour.. California has woken up, time we did too.

David

"Both these propositions are as ignorant as they are false."

Empirical evidence suggests not. I suggest you look at real world examples. They don't support your statement.

David in Canada

"its no worse than tobacco or alcohol." damning with faint praise don't you think?

Chris

What an absolutely superb article, do our politicians understand this? The clearest exposition yet of the international "war on drug policy" I have yet seen.

Manu field

I don't know enough about any global pro-liberalisation lobby to comment either way, nor have I performed an exhaustive literature search on the evidence for/against the toxicity profile of cannabis. However, from a libertarian perspective it would appear to me to be grossly hippocritical (for society) to allow unfetered alcohol sales while simultaneously restricting use of cannabis.

A consistent and completely evidence-based drugs policy would be a nice thing to see in any of the parties' election manifestos; however, I will not be holding my breath...

James Murphy

Surely, pothead, the challenge is to get high without turning into a zombie in the process - love and art the drugs - and I need to score....

James

when are these so called journalists going to wake up and smell the pot smoke, they insist on spouting utter bollocks and im sick of reading it.Melanie Phillips do some research next time or stop making up stories.

jakonthestak

its so sad to see there are people like you, there are people dying from crack coke heroin and even alcohol, and what do you do....nothing, surely your time would be better spent on the drugs that actually kill, and not a plant that never has, i hate drink and think you should stop it its proved to make people stupid.....and it can kill you!!!

Matthew Blott

As usual on this one, Phillips has her typical shrill tone. As usual with this one, there are the sweeping generalisations without the facts to back them up.

Dave Cross

Melanie, you are simply repeating the same tired old nonsense without any evidence to back it up.

The vast majority of the problems with drugs are caused by the simple fact that they are illegal and therefore uncontrolled.

http://blog.dave.org.uk/2009/11/good-drugs-vs-bad-drugs.html

Sam Armstrong

There is no doubt that drugs cause paranoia, depression, suicidal feelings and lethargy. In certain cases you can find people who get on with drugs just fine without the above effects. Pot Head is clearly one of these people.

Whilst it is true that since time immemorial humans and certain species of animals like to get high, we have to remember our civilisation. A great civilisation is not built on chilling out.

To maintain our civilisation we have to remain alert, we have to educate ourselves, we have to remain thoughtful of others and we have to discipline ourselves. None of these things can be achieved whilst high.

Finally, to take issue with Pot Head about regulation: s/he is wrong about drug prohibition not working. It doesn't work properly in the West because the West doesn't really care if it lives or dies any more.

But, I do understand that the Chinese have ways and means of making drug prohibition work. I salute them.

Grainne Kenny

Melanie Phillips is quite correct in judging the UK Home Secretary as a 'know -nothing politician.' That a politician of such influence should put at risk the mental and physical health and well being of Brittan's youth for his own political advancement in the coming elections is beyond understanding. Could it be that Soros money channelled though sinister drug liberal NGO's has played a role in Prof Iverson's promotion to his present position as Chairman of the ACMD. Thus following in the footsteps of hispredecesser the disgraced Prof.Nutt. The buck and responsibility for this most terrible appointment stops at the door of the Prime Minister. It's now time for Mr Brown to axe this dangerous committee. The Labout Party will pay dearly in the polls for this appointment. British parents..the voters, will vote with their conscience. Something clearly absent from the Home Secretary.

Ray

Pot Head - if drug-taking is 'normal' then, my, does that make me proud to be a freak.

Take a good long walk and get high on sound of birds singing in the trees, or sensing the awesome power of waves breaking on a beach; or just get high by saying something nice to another human being and brightening up their day.

C. Gee

No society which prides itself on it decency should be afraid of the harmful effects of legalizing drugs. It can widen the "safety net" which is already in place to mitigate the effects of alcohol abuse, smoking and food addiction. More of what the right-wing call "Nanny" bureaucracies will be needed, for sure. More outreach and education, social work, foster care, rehab centres, abortion clinics. More awareness raising of the perils of junk-food (especially for those suffering the "munchies" side-effect of marijuana) and of alternative methods of drug delivery (avoid tabacco spliffs, use hookahs, no sharing of needles etc.). Schools should be given pamphlets on how the buddy system can save people from accidents by fire or overdose. The current pamphlets should be updated to include the importance of condom use during sex while high on the now legal drugs. The NHS must be expanded, with training for personnel to avoid blaming the victimless patient drug user. Employers should pay for rehab.

Harm reduction is the compassionate way. A decent society must allow the individual to make lifestyle choices (except for certain carbon excessive ones) but be ready to step in if they are not appropriate.

Molotov

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Legalisation in Portugal hasn't been all that catastrophic.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

dominic lennon

I can see your intelligent, well argued post has attracted attention from the same bunch of ignorant self obsessed potheads that are probably driving government policy on the subject, Mel.

Daniel Maris

There are various policy options:

Heavy prohibition (also targetting users)

Light prohibition (what we have now)

Decriminalisation

Legalisation

I actually favour a range of established recreational drugs with the state becoming involved in quality control and production.

At the same time we need a positive policy designed to prevent drug use by young people - which could well include testing.

What we have now - light prohibition coupled with the laissez faire "Frank" approach in terms of education - is probably encouraging drug use, (and of course ensuring that the drugs that do get distributed are often more dangerous than they need be and do not carry any health warnings).

bobcat

To the author, I ask, "Do you have any statistics showing Cannabis more dangerous than alcohol"? Tell us the deaths' connected to cannabis vs those of drink.
I'll help you with the American numbers, approximately 50,000 deaths connected to alcohol per year and ZERO connected to cannabis, unless you count those killed by the police, working to "save them" from the alleged evils of its use.
The truth is when you show an increase in use of cannabis when legal, what you are really seeing is the ACCURATE number of users prior to legalization, but now open to admit use.
Your "reefer madness" antiquated opinion devoid of fact is what is truly the danger. I suggest you do research within the real world and not at the prosecuting attorneys office, to find what reality looks like.

Rob

"On the contrary – the effects of liberalisation in the Netherlands have been so severe, not least in terms of increased crime with more high-level drugs-linked criminality per head than anywhere else in Europe, and with a near tripling of cannabis use amongst 18-20 year-olds"

Actually, the Dutch have one of the lowest rates of cannabis use in Europe:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5730185

Glasgow statistically has more cannabis users than the whole of Holland.

Gary Wintle

An alcoholic is far, far more dangerous to society than a cannabis smoker.

Roger K

Great article Melanie. Wow, do you stir up the loony left! The illogical, irrational and vicious attacks from the liokes of Pot Head, Dave cross, Mathew Bott, James jakonthestak poves your point. While the denial of facts and wishful thinking of C.Gee and Molotov illustrate useful idiots being lead by other agendas.
Isn't it peculiar how western countries which never never had these drugs to any extent untill the last 75 to 100 years are liberalising while eastern countries which have had them for centuries have draconian laws against them? Until the western markets created such a profitable demand these eastern countries had it under control.

Kevyn Bodman

1)It is none of your business what substances people put into their bodies.

2) Most of the problems associated with drugs are because they are illegal, not because of the drugs themselves.

3) Do the people currently involved in the drug trade want drugs to be legalised? Of course they don't.

DG

Perhaps Ms.Philips can set aside her predictable rhetoric long enough to explain how her position can
logically coexist with the evidence from Portugal, where decrimalisation of all illicit drugs in 2001 - including heroin and cocaine - resulted in a decrease in levels of use, overdoses and HIV infections.

Jeff Tyler

If all things could be fixed by passing a law you could get rid of the current cold weather overnight. Prohibition does not prevent drug use as you can see clearly now by the easy availability of drugs on the streets. Prohibition makes drug use more dangerous and builds huge criminal empires - remember Al Capone.

C. Gee

Roger K:

Before I deny being a "useful idiot", I would like to know what you think I was wishing for in my last comment.
If my attempt at irony was misunderstood, I must with shame accept that I am a useless idiot.

Jan Pompe

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1774168.ece

http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/Cannabis-blamed-for-wicked-Jodi.2602508.jp

I work at the coal face with people like Luke Mitchell, Marc Middlebrook and more Here in Australia. Pot smoking is not as harmless as some people around here think deaths connected with cannabis use is NOT ZERO in England or Australia and is quite unlikely to be zero in the United states or any other country where it is used legally or otherwise.

It's not always the people who use (drugs or alcohol) that die but others who become the victims of their behaviour.

Chris R

Contrary to Melanie's assertions, it's not drugs that are the problem - well certainly not the major problem; it's the lifestyle that goes with it. The criminality, the hugger mugger hanging around on street corners 'waiting for my man', the tainting and corrupting of the drug itself.

Who remembers all the fuss about 'raves' back in the eighties? Where E was freely available and caused major tabloid outrage. And yet where are the casualties of that time?

What happened was that the drinks industry, anxious about a future where young people took Ecstasy rather than drank, changed their marketing strategy. Hence the rise of the alcopop. Hence our city streets now being befouled by drunken youth on a Saturday night.

Oh for the days of raves held in fields where no one puked up, where there were no fights, where everyone had a good time and then went home.

Pot Head

The Streets "The irony of it all"

http://is.gd/6f00H

Rachael

Evideince!

Still they scream for the evidence!

No matter how many teenagers end up in pychiatric wards or committing suicide after they've gone on the puff, no matter how many distraught parents and siblings - they say there's no evidence.

Have they been smoking something?

Roger K

C. Gee
I apologise unreservedly for not picking up on your irony. My only excuse is that over the years I have seen a number of otherwise talented friends slide into oblivion while nanny state incubates more of the problems.

AF

DG
Portugal also have cheaper more available booze, but you dont witness the weekly high street booze fuelled antics that you do in the UK,unless the Brits are at the centre of it,turning "cafe culture" into
"no go"Perhaps its a culture thing.Incidently street crime and burglaries are still on the increase.

Rory Green

Whilst Melanie is correct to say that there is a growing international movement wanting drug law reform, there is little esle of accuracy in this article. I consider myself a part of this movement, but I have never met George Soros, let alone received payment of any kind from him.

One could always start by giving Melanie a lesson in the free market economy of supply and demand. Maybe freedom, liberty and personal responsibility is another lesson that she needs to learn, or are these values now found wanting on the modern centre-right?

One is tempted to give her a historical lesson on how long prohibition has been in place for, and the decades long failures, no matter which party is power, and no matter how tough their drug policies are. For sure the USA locks up more of its citizens, for longer, on drug charges than the whole of Western Europe does for everything. But some are happy for their taxes to be wasted on futile government efforts at reforming human behaviour.

The simple fact is that drug prohibition has not reduced the harm drugs can cause, but made them worse.

We can do so much better than we are currently. But the principal reason we should end prohibition is that we need to keep our children safer.
Drug dealers dont ask for i.d. There is something wrong with our drug policies when kids find it easier to get drugs, rather than alchol.

The time has come. It time to end prohibition.

Greystead

I am amazed by the many of the responses to this post. I would ask those who favour legalising drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin what attitude they have to the regulation of medicinal pharmaceuticals. Before a product that is developed with the aim of alleviating, preventing or curing illness is permitted to be sold, years of research are undertaken. Goverment agencies require extensive data to prove not just efficacy but also safety. In fact, safety is probably more important in many ways as the balance between benefit and potential harm underlies all decisions on whether to approve a new medication or remove existing products from public use. We have agencies who monitor and investigate all aspects of the production and development of pharmaceuticals. There are systems to monitor adverse events and the data is used to control the usage of such products. Not to mention form part of the evidence for criminal prosections and civil claims for compensation. Here we see people arguing that anyone should be able to buy pharmacologically active substances just because they are for recreational use. If it's OK to sell anything because it may give someone a chemically induced high, why bother controlling any pharmaceutical? The irrationality of the position that I have seen adopted by some (not saying that anyone who has so far commented here is taking this position) that cannabis should be freely available, but the MMR vaccine should be banned is staggering.

So if you want to make these currently illeagal products "legimate" regulate them as pharmaceuticals. Let's see if they can pass the safeguards in place for other pharmacologically active products, especially the risk;benefit analyses. Oh, and by the way, also identfy who can you sue when the adverse events occur.

Neil Craig

I accept that legalising would probably increase their use (though not certainly - look at CB radio). But it would greatly reduce the ill effects - impurity & dose variation which cause most of the harm; crimes caused to buty the stuff; the funding of organised crime. There are no side effect free choices but on balance I think legalisation would be beneficial as with Prohibition & that as a general rule individual freedom should be supported.

Diesel Fitter

For the attention of Pot Head:

The term 'Coffee House' should not be taken as condoning the use of addictive drugs. Drinks containing caffeine should be used with care and moderation. Alternatively, stay on the grass!

Anders Ulstein, Europe against Drugs-EURAD

Some of the most alarming recent findings about the association between cannabis and certain mental illnesses come from the UK. The latest in a series of bad news about the UK drug problem is the recent NHS report that says more young people have been seeking treatment for cannabis related problems than for alcohol (with today’s record levels of binge drinking). At a time when many call for more restrictions on alcohol, who would wish to increase availability of cannabis and play down its dangers? Health promotion is not about calculating the relative risk on the brain.
Prof Iversen is probably no libertarian. In fact the bigger issue is that he is a specialist on brain research. As was his predecessor. Understanding how drugs affect the brain is of course important, but more important is to understand the social dimension of causes, harm, spread, treatment, rehabilitation and recovery – that are all indefinitely more important than neuroscience when advising on public policies.
Interestingly, the UK government drug strategy for this decade highlights “protecting communities”, “tackling anti-social behaviour”, “preventing harm to children, young people and families” and “social re-integration”. The question to ask is whether this very sound agenda would have been better supported by an ACMD chair with a background different than neuroscience?

Mike

The state has no say in what an individual chooses to ingest as long as it doesn't infringe upon the liberty of others.

While all the usual people with vested interests bicker about classification, millions of people continue to smoke pot and lead normal productive balanced lives.

Augustus

@ Rob - The Dutch may well have the lowest rate of cannabis use in Europe, but contrary to common belief, cannabis is not actually legal in Holland. Retail sale of up to five grams in so called coffee shops is tolerated. However, recently it was announced that because of the nuisance of so-called coffee shop tourists, especially in border towns, as well as illegal street dealers, many coffee shops have been closing, and those that remain open will only serve the local trade. It will be up to local authorities there to regulate these establishments and they will be empowered to close them down for five years if they do not follow rules. Most shops will now introduce a pass system
and foreign day-trippers trying to buy cannabis without a pass will be turned away. The tide is turning even in this liberal country.

Di Fryin

"Glasgow statistically has more cannabis users than the whole of Holland."

Glasgow, statistically, holds many world records. Why stop at cannabis?

Dixon

Legalisation would effectively make heroin, etc, vastly more accessible and therefore cheap. Cheap enough to buy on benefits. It would thereby remove the need for users to prey on third parties by way of theft to support a habit.

The example of alcohol prohibition in the US is glaringly obvious.

Why should I care how many people wreck their lives by taking these substances, as long as it doesnt affect me? They are warned virtually from birth against doing it. If they still do, thats their obvious mistake.

I make one exception for cannabis, which can affect me directly through passive inhalation ( believe me, I know from experience ). And I thought Nutt had to go, not because of his views but his attitude. But aside from these matters, I support legalisation. Not least because I perceive that at present we have a frightening creep towards the criminalisation of those other habits, tobacco and alcohol.

Dixon

Sam Armstrong:
"Finally, to take issue with Pot Head about regulation: s/he is wrong about drug prohibition not working. It doesn't work properly in the West because the West doesn't really care if it lives or dies any more."

Iran has the death penalty...plus arbitrary extra-judicial killings more or less broadcast on our news before our very eyes. But Iran also has the biggest heroin use per-capita of any country on Earth. I think you underestimate the power of addiction.

Frank P

Jan Pompee.

You have raised one of the most important issues: the utter selfishness of arrogant idiots who use and peddle the stuff (almost always both); not only during their hallucinogenic trances but in the aftermath. The welfare and peace of mind of spouses; parents; siblings - and most disastrously, children - all disregarded - trashed in fact - in the desire to get high ('not addictive'- my foot!). Also significant in societal importance is the added strain on already overstretched hospitals and PCT services, etc.

The deep encroachment into innocent childhood by the noxious monsters who propagate the habit among children should warrant the death penalty in my opinion. For most of my life I was against capital punishment on the grounds that it diminishes society to the level of the beast. I have changed my mind recently. Some elements of society can hardly be more beastly and depraved than the current descent into the abyss and it should fight the pernicious evil of drug abuse and trafficking by any means necessary to curb it.

The cry of "we should be able to do what we like with our own bodies - even to the point of self destruction" is the most selfishly evil sentiment I have ever heard expressed. It is also absolute bunkum! Imagine what the cry would be at an A&E Dept., if the duty quack refused treatment to a doped-up idiot, with the following words, “As you have claimed the right to do whatever you like with your body because it is your own business, I exercise the right to tell you to mind your own business, because it is not mine, so f-f-fade away!

Johnnyjackhammer

Mel - I love a beer and glass or several of wine. I also love to smoke - but I gave up some 10 years ago because I was smoking too much and it was doing me obvious harm. As for POT, LSD etc - to be honest my tobacco consumption was so high in the 60s and 70s (when I was a student) that the wacky baccy had little or no effect. I consequently didn't bother. The point, however, is that many drugs are enjoyable. They can add to the quality of life. They can also destroy it too - and the psychiatric problems associated with young people and cannabis are well known. But please don't do a Donaldson or a bossy "we know best" Nanny State on me. Life is full of danger. Driving too fast, eating too much, taking too little exercise, drinking too much etc etc. By all means put up a road sign to point out the dangerous bend ahead. But don't ban the car. Your article was not very convincing and neither were your arguments. Yes we know Cannabis is a drug. Yes we know it is not risk free. And - although I would not be happy if my children or grand children smoked (or baked it in a cake) the stuff - and would advise strongly against - I wouldn't ban it. Mel - on this one I think you need to stand back - take a deep breathe - and exhale.

RA

Frank P

You are inhuman. You condone the deaths of other human beings and obviously have no awareness of individual human rights.

Ruhull Alam

I understand that you only published one of my comments. For which the reasoning for I am not aware of. Nonetheless could you please make sure that Ms Phillips does recieve my first comment which asks her to research the Transform Drug Policy Foundation website. Please contact me with your reply with the supplied email address.

Thank you.

Dixon

"RA
January 14th, 2010 6:03pm
Frank P

You are inhuman. You condone the deaths of other human beings and obviously have no awareness of individual human rights."

well, Oh Ra, Ruler of the firmamnent, for what its worth, if you are referring to his last paragraph, then I think you have misunderstood it. If you are referrring to his endorsement of the death penalty, then most of us would have to be deemed "inhuman" by that measure. And your concept of "rights2 must be really peurile if it entails no accomodation of the right to protection under the law.

For what its worth, Frank, the problem with your last parafraph is that it could be applied to anything we do. Even what we eat. Indeed this is the trend in the NHS where some patients are refused treatment until they lose weight!

Steve Rolles

Ruhull - I posted a detailed and polite response to Melanies' piece at lunchtime which has not been accepted. I don't understand why as it it is far less confrontational that many of the posts here.

I will try and repost it. Apologies if this is a technical issue and it appears twice

Steve Rolles. Transform Drug Policy Foundation
www.tdpf.org.uk

Hugh Brett

Thank you Melanie. I know 26 families whose quality of life (including some 2 suicides) have been devastated by skunk. Throughout the country at large the numbers of desperate families must be overwhelming. Please Prof Iverson update your evidence - there is an emergency out there.

Bill Cameron

Can't speak for every parent in Britain but Melanie Phillips has recorded in public what most parents are unable to explain. Thank you Melanie.
Reading through the obnoxious comments and childish banter of a seeming pro-drug company to anything which suggests control of dangerous substances - illegal because they are dangerous - as a parent of a young person addicted for 17 years, my first reaction to the evident "huffed" attitude and pure polemic is that I am glad that there exists an anti-drug group in this country. Beware to all legalisers in Scotland. Our sad number of 50,000 addicted kids means at least one million affected family members - that's about a quarter of our electorate. And you will not be surprised to hear that citizens elect the law-makers.That is, the buck stops with government! - and that might just be ready to change. How many of these liberal comments have been written by parents - a veritable bastion of awareness.
The time is now for parents to speak out with experience and concern. Do not tell me that legalising drugs will solve anything. I can prove that it will not. Remember also that if your polemic embarasses or moves government to legalise - then on your heads and through your arguememnts will this hellish situation come to pass. Does your experience merit that? Are you prepared to admit that you might have been wrong? Too late -people will have died!
And concerning the lack of evidence - it seems that there are many detractors who have not read the current volumes of evidence. And who said that prohibition did not work in USA?

Ruhull Alam

Dixon - I'm glad you responded as I believe debate and discussion is key to doing what is right here.

On the point of human rights, Mexico over the last years has been going through obscene amounts of violence created by current drug policy. Do they not deserve protection too?

Roger K

O.K. all you dope advocates, you've had your outing, now
BACK TO REHAB!

M. Simon

"The point, however, is that many drugs are enjoyable. They can add to the quality of life. They can also destroy it too - and the psychiatric problems associated with young people and cannabis are well known."

And what about the psychiatric problems associated with the overindulgence of alcohol?

Not to mention fetal alcohol syndrome. If you really care about the children Melanie work to prohibit alcohol. Destroyer of the unborn.

OTOH the American Republic did quite well with cannabis legal until 1937. You have to wonder why in America no one noticed the problem with cannabis until alcohol prohibition ended.

And cannabis was in the American pharmacopoeia until 1941 IIRC. And what was one of its chief indications? It was suggested as an alternative to the more harmful alcohol.

As to the association with mental illness. In America, psychological intake nurses tell relatives of those in the hospital for mental problems that cannabis is a form of self medication. In fact the NIDA in America agrees. They also say that drug addiction is at least 50% genetic.

And the Israelis (love them boys and girls) are studying the use of cannabis for PTSD.

Look up the work of an Israeli: Dr. Raphael Mechoulam.

EC

Dixon: "For what its worth, Frank, the problem with your last parafraph is that it could be applied to anything we do. Even what we eat. Indeed this is the trend in the NHS where some patients are refused treatment until they lose weight!"

After his success on, and his ringing endorsement of, 'The Atkins Diet,' I think that Frank P has got the weight issue covered.

Why should doctors treat any condition that is self inflicted? In addition to smoking, boozing and over eating, there are some doctors with religious beliefs who refuse to treat patients with conditions that they consider are the result of immoral behaviour.

Also, every Sat/Sun hospital A&E departments are packed out with people with sports injuries. Why should we be expected to pay for their folly?

Who decides?

Steve Rolles

Melanie, there are several massive holes in your analysis here which, as ever on this issue, appears informed by your personal moral views rather than evidence. Whilst your concern for the harms drugs cause is understandable, basing policy on indignation rather than evidence of effectiveness is never likely to lead to good policy - the outcomes of the criminal justice driven drug war over the last 40 years - here and around the world - providing ample evidence . It is an approach that has consistently delivered the opposite outcomes to its stated goal (a 'drug free world'), for over 50 years, and created a vast and hugely destructive criminal market controlled by violent gangsters. It has made all aspects of the drug problem worse not better. At what point do you think it is appropriate to start exploring approaches built on public health principles and regulation of markets rather than punishment; evidence rather than temperance era ideology?

On your specific points: Transform Drug Policy Foundation (www.tdpf.org.uk) whom I work for, are the highest profile NGO advocates for drug law reform in the UK. We are not funded by Soros and never have been. We are not part of any sinister cabal attempting to enslave the youth of Britain - we are seeking to find better solutions to the evident failures of the drug war. Please stick to the issues rather than name calling and silly conspiracies.

You make the classic error of cherry picking evidence that fits your world view (indicating highest levels of drug risk), and condemn as immoral and not fit for office those who differ from that by considering the broader body of research more objectively. That research suggests a range of conclusions which scientists and policy makers must form a balanced view - this is the whole concept of a thematic/literature review or meta analysis - something that the ACMD did extremely well if you take time to read there actual reports rather than hysterical headlines that tended to follow them. The Ecstasy and cannabis reviews considered 1000s of separate published studies - and were clear on the respective drug harms, but were also clear about contradictions and ambiguities in the total body of research. It would serve you well to actually read them. It is just as easy to scour the research and portray these drugs as less harmful than they really are by cherry picking from a different perspective - indeed we do see this, from some of the more tedious cannabis evangelists for example. they are no less unscientific and wrong than you are.

For the record the ACMD has never even considered or discussed legalisation despite our repeated requests, and criticisms of them not doing so. To suggest they are a liberalising lobby outfit is ridiculous. Indeed they have over the past 10 years made a raft of previously legal drugs illegal. They have also increased the classification of certain drugs to reflect new understandings of risks - such as methamphetamine moved to A in 2006. How does this fit with your wicked liberalisation conspiracy? They either review evidence and rank harms accordingly or they don't. If they do this will inevitably involve sometimes moving drugs down the rankings as well as up (note: no drugs have ever been removed from the act). If drugs can only be moved up this defeats the committees' whole purpose and would be scientifically absurd.

derangedpotsmokingzombie

I'm sure Melanie enjoys a good glass of Medoc now and then. Others get plastered on cheap six packs and alcopops and beat each other up...and even murder under the influence. In other words, different degrees of responsibility. It is the lack of self control and moderation that is the problem, not the substance.

Jonathan

I suggest the author goes for a walk in any British city at night. The problems, and mass anti-social behaviour she will undoubtedly encounter are caused by alcohol, not cannabis. Cannabis users stay in their house and paint, write poetry, compose/listen to music etc. Please tell me why this is socially destructive and damaging? Studies have consistantly concluded Cannabis to be benign, and realtively unproblamatic for the vast majority of its users who aren't predisposed to serious mental illness. Why should cannabis users be treated as criminals, when other individuals can take a much more lethal substance and be treated as law-abiding citizens?

The mandatory maximum sentence for cannabis possession is 5 years; for a knife its 4. I think that says a lot about this countrty.

Baron

Steve Rolles @ 11.15:

the large and growing criminal market indeed exists but only in those countries that cannot make their mind whether to punish or rehabilitate, and who should be the target. I assure you that we hanged a couple or more of those who peddle the stuff, the market would shrink between your very eyes fast. A smaller reduction would follow an NHS refusal to treat drug addicts.

Any report on drug use will be contradictory because every one of us responds to drugs differently. These scribblings are of little use. The only thing that should matter is this: does the enjoyment, calming or rousing effect of illicit drugs for an individual outweigh their non-user consequences for the society at large. If the answer in the negative, the ban should be enforced to the extreme. Unlikely to ever happen in the pseudo-liberal Western societies, I reckon.

Your reviewing and re-classifying may feel worthwhile, noble and helpful, but has it achieved anything in terms of a clear policy. I don’t think so.

Dr. John Coleman

This is a brilliant piece, evidenced-based and scientific. Well worth reading and heeding. It's time that public leaders represent the interests of the public not those of their financial supporters and lobbyists who stand to gain from the chaos of drug abuse.

Steve Rolles

Baron

you say that

'the large and growing criminal market indeed exists but only in those countries that cannot make their mind whether to punish or rehabilitate, and who should be the target.'

this is essentially the point that Melanie also makes. But the suggestion that less punitive drug laws lead to increased use (or vice versa) is simply not supported by the evidence. The evidence for a deterrent effect of punitive sanctions on users is marginal at best - all pointing to social economic and cultural factors as the key drivers for use/misuse, not levels of enforcement or harshness of punishments. Comparative analysis between countries/or regions finds no correlation between harshness of enforcement and levels of use. I have explored these in more detail in this paper (p.29) if anyone is interested http://bit.ly/8dz08Y.

With regards the death sentence specifically there is no link between use of the death penalty and levels of drug offences - nor longtitudinal studies to show drug use/offences have risen where it has been repealed or fallen where it has been introduced. Moreover -if as Melanie certainly does, we choose to be guided by the UN, the general assembly has called for a moratorium of use of the death penalty for any offences, and international law is very clear that under no circumstances do any drug offences (including trafficking) meet the criteria of 'most serious crimes' for which the death penalty is permitted.

Dutch cannabis policy has not been a disaster by any stretch. Yes use has risen since 1976 but it has risen everywhere, and notably it has risen slower than in its neighboring countries that do not share its tolerant coffee shop system. Holland is not without its problems but it has a dramatically lower level of drug use than we do, or the US does, despite its non-punitive policies for users. the system has been tightened and adapted in response to failings but overall has had consistently growing levels of public, police and political support.

"A smaller reduction would follow an NHS refusal to treat drug addicts."

As others have said - follow this logic to any burden on the NHS related to personal choices and we would move into impossible ethical territory. It is clear that treating chaotic/dependent drug users is far cheaper for tax payers than leaving them in the grip of an illicit trade, with all the secondary costs of offending that entails. It makes sense even from a selfish perspective.

'Any report on drug use will be contradictory because every one of us responds to drugs differently.'

I agree with taht and have made the same point in various publications (see chapter on harms here for example: http://bit.ly/5QhrD )

'These scribblings are of little use. The only thing that should matter is this: does the enjoyment, calming or rousing effect of illicit drugs for an individual outweigh their non-user consequences for the society at large.'

This is an interesting argument. But my point would be that the non user negative consequences are largely crime related, and thus related the illicit trade created by prohibition. Even direct harms to users and their dependents are increased when drugs are produced and supplied thorugh illicit channels. i have explored these relative costs and benefits in this paper: http://bit.ly/8dz08Y

'Your reviewing and re-classifying may feel worthwhile, noble and helpful, but has it achieved anything in terms of a clear policy. I don’t think so.'

Im not involved with the ACMD and think most of the classification debates are a waste of time. They are discussing the wrong issue. The debate should be over whether using a criminal justice enforcement response to a public health problem is still a rational and tenable way forward given its expense and horrendous failure over generations, and across the world. Public health problems require evidence guided public health solutions - not police and military interventions.

Sparafucile

"Liberalising or legalising drug use means more drug use, not less..."

This is pretty unconvincing. I have never heard of anyone of any age who wanted drugs who had the slightest difficulty getting them. Paying for them is another matter, especially when heroin is involved. And therein lies the rub: only the wealthiest heroin addicts can avoid descending into destructive criminal behaviour.

Of course, the great majority of drug users are ordinary folk, just like most people who drink. There is no reason why they should be made into criminals for doing something which affects no one but themselves. Yes, they support a criminal underworld that causes a lot of collateral damage, but whose fault is that? Prohibition of alcohol in the US created a huge criminal underworld, but at least they had the sense to understand that there is no way that you can stop people from drinking. Now, there are 14 states in the US where cannabis is legal for 'medicinal' purposes: what more evidence do you need that common sense is at last beginning to prevail?

Legalising drugs is unlikely to have a significant effect--one way or the other--on self-destructive excesses. Let's face it: the war on drugs was lost a long, long time ago. up.

Baron

Steve Rolles @ 3.27:

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience on things connected to the specifics of drug use/abuse, and I mean it, no irony here.

The one thing you're never likely to convince me on is that harsher, or rather truly harsh policies, applied strictly to those who make money from drugs and not casual or habitual users, would not help in the war on drugs. And no, I’m not going to quote the examples of Singapore, or China.

Rather, conduct a simple experiment. If you are in a group of people in a ground floor room tell them that as they leave they’ll have a choice. Exit through the door where they’ll be sprinkled with water, or leave via a window. Note the number that will opt for the former. Then tell those who would risk getting abit wet that they’ll be kicked rather than sprinkled. Note the number of those who have the courage to suffer from getting kicked, and then tell them they won’t be just physically abused, but shot dead.

How many, do you reckon, will risk it then?

In 1723, this country passed what became known as the ‘Black Act’. A large number of statutes aimed mainly at stopping people stealing any combustible stuff (the country was gripped of a mini ice-age). Max penalty for every of the offences was death by hanging. The hungry masses opted for dying from cold rather than risking getting hanged. I refuse to believe that human DNA has changed that much in less than 300 years what with humans plodding around for tens of thousands.

On the NHS - I regard the institution as nothing else but a smaller replica of the now defunct communist regimes of the East. It cannot but implode as they have. One cannot run a societal system in which each of us pays a fixed amount towards its maintenance yet has the right to demands an unlimited access to it. Squaring a circle has yet eluded the mankind.

Eric Taylor

I disagree strongly with the thrust of this article - drug prohibition has been an expensive failure, and drug policy has failed to keep pace with the realities of the drugs scene in the 21st century.

However, it was not all bad - The part about the existence of some well funded, slick, evil drug legalisation movement is highly amusing.

Polly Gamma

I know many Dutch people who are sick and tired of the ‘Coffee Shop’ culture in Amsterdam and avoid the city as much as possible because of it. Their opinion is not a minority opinion in Holland apparently and there is a belief that disgust for the zone contributes to the low appeal of using or being associated with the drug in their country.

Polly Gamma

It’s a human survival instinct to be wary of slowing down your own central nervous system.

It’s a soppy and weak society that endorses self-abuse.

Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads.
And recks not his own rede.

Latte Sipper

Rather than there being a sinister international conspiracy, isn't it more likely that the experts mentioned have come their views based on a rational assessment of the available evidence?

http://www.lattesippers.com/the-latte-sippers/

daniel maris

Yes look at Glasgae if you want a record of our "success" compared with the Dutch.

Really, there's no point in being "tough on drugs" .But there's a lot of point in being tough on the causes of street drug usage.

Look at those God-awful estates we expect human beings to live in for a start. And look at the "sofa incentivised" welfare system we have.

Polly Gamma

Chicken/Egg Daniel?

Occasional Ostrich

Melanie:
How about: we remove the hand of government from all aspects of the legality of all drugs.
Then: Give all employers an absolute right to demand that their employees are at all times drug free, that said employees provide, annually, a set of doctor authenticated tests to confirm that they are maintaining their drug free status and finally, that the employer has an absolute right to hire a drug testing company to carry out drug tests on all personnel at random intervals
(not to exceed one year).
That is what, working in the USA, I had to comply with for the last 15 years of my working life.

Horace

Maybe you should research something, kinda' important called the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...

Frank P

Occasional Ostrich (8.7pm)

Yes, that is a valid observation which has even wider implications. Government 'law enforcement' agencies throughout the whole Western World have become so lax, that the job they should routinely performing has largely been devolved to myriad 'security departments' throughout private companies, institutions, hospitals, and, yes, even governmental agencies. In some cases even the police are employing 'security' to guard their own functions. The constabulary function has now also been devolved to CSOs with less power and inferior training.

Some time ago in America a statistic was once published that for every police officer, ten 'security officers' existed. The ratio must now be much wider.

Certainly that is true in the UK, particularly since the government's gigantic investment in CCTV camera's ( many of which are not kept operational, or at best manned by dozy or complacent operatives).

That has always been true to a greater degree in the US anyway; they have an innate trust of big government, but in the UK the work that was once discharged so comprehensively by the Met. and other City Police Forces/County Constabularies has been widely privatised over the past few years.

On the other hand prosecutorial powers of the police have been usurped by a Central Government agency - the CPS, the most insidious step yet and the main reason for inefficiency and injustice.

In terms of socialism and the counter-culture, there is a perverse logic to all this, of course.

John Thomas

Political leaders, of all parties, care first and foremost about getting elected or re-elected. Don't ever expect them to risk their own position in order to help people/society. If their was popularity, power/wealth to come from bannin, they would; if otherwise, otherwise. Not true? I wish it were not true.

Auntie

I have a nephew with bi polar disease ( or dsomething akin to it) from using cannabis. I have tlaked to numerous heroin addicts and asked if cannabis should be legalise. ' No miss, it's how I started drug use' is invariably the answer. I rest my case

Frank P

Apologies - emendation to my comment(1.09pm 18/1) a typo - I suggested that in the US there is an innate 'trust' of big government when of course I should have typed 'mistrust'.

Ky Purnell

There seems to be more paranoia present in the non-pot smokers, and indeed Mel herself, in this article and in the comments, than anyone I've ever met who smokes!
Global conspiracy to legalise pot, funded by George Soros. Genius.

Gwp

Drug use has grown more under repressive regimes than it ever has under regimes that seek to engage with drug users, and offer treatment. Witness America; one of the most repressive regimes with some of the strictest drug laws in the Western world. And a massive, massive, massive failure by all sane or rational means.

Melanie makes an excellent point regarding the harms of drugs, and the potential damage that they may cause. Her wholesale logical dysjunction is in assuming that the level of potential harm offers a valid reason for illegalisation - and further punishing, excluding, harming, disowning those who are often some of the most vulnerable in society already. Just to reiterate - as the American example spectacularly shows, punishment is neither a valid, nor a sane response to dependent or problematic drug use.

What Melanie makes an outstanding case for is a holistic, welfare-centred approach to engaging with and supporting people who have serious difficulties with emotional coping. Diamorphine is prescribed on a daily basis in our hospitals; it's heroin that's gone through customs. Yet those who are given it in hospital for physical (not emotional) pain do not risk having to sell their bodies, commit acquisitive offences, walk all over their partners, families, friends, lose everything - if the doctors believe that diamorphine is the only thing that will alleviate their pain.

Others without the emotional, intellectual, social resources to deal with the world often end up using dependently. Heroin is outstanding - absolutely outstanding - at making nothing matter. Everything's gone, everything's a mess, I have no hope; so what? It doesn't matter, when someone's responding to their pain, their distress, their discomfort by squashing it down, suppressing it, holding it in, shutting it off.

OK, so there are deeply broken people who lack the resources to cope. Some / many of them have spectacular levels of difficulty and pain to deal with, and tremendously difficult childhoods.

What is the most appropriate response to that? Criminalise them? Punish them? Lock them up, depriving them of their already-limited experience and coping tools by putting them in a 'secure' (drug-filled) institution? Exclude them some more?

No, no, no, no, no.

Criminalisation is a painfully ill-thought-out reflex response. An 'I don't like this and don't want to engage with it, so want to stamp on it instead' response. An 'I don't want to look at this' or 'I can't stand complexity' response.

Drug misuse is not ok. It's not alright. It's a sign of a deeply unwell human being. In pain, and unable to cope.

There are many ways of alleviating the social, health and criminal justice costs of dependent heroin (and other drug) use, in ways that engage, support and habilitate offenders and drug users.

Heck, if you REALLY want to go down a hard line, then why not advocate coercive or semi-coercive treatment? The UK has the Drug Interventions Programme, and a raft of other measures set up to deliver drug treatment in conjunction with (and preferably as an alternative to) criminal sanctions, and the utter pointlessness of prison. Research seems to indicate that criminal justice and semi-coercive referrals are having a very positive effect.

Fantastic. OK, there's one option. That involves a level of complexity. Diversion, treatment, support; with a coercive / legal backing.

Anyone who is calling out for more, who is shouting in the darkness, calling for oppression, for stamping down, for exclusion, for adding pain... is offering an understandable response. An all-too understandable response. To a horrible phenomenon that is incredibly difficult to understand.

But it's an approach that's wreathed in ignorance, and doomed to failure. And will only exacerbate the problem it seeks to 'address'.

Sensible

"Isn't it peculiar how western countries which never never had these drugs to any extent untill the last 75 to 100 years are liberalising while eastern countries which have had them for centuries have draconian laws against them? Until the western markets created such a profitable demand these eastern countries had it under control."

I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. This is the type of person supporting Melanie on this issue, one whom knows nothing of historical facts apart from an imaginary glamourised ideal of the past where no narcotics existed and everyone was morally pure. Infact before narcotic laws where created, drug were sold freely in chemist including heroin and cocaine, Opium and Hashish were also readily available from every port in the country. The initial reason pot became illegal in the US is because hemp threatened the paper industry. What kind of bigoted moron thinks drugs didn't exist in Europe until 75 years ago!

Erique

Average use of Cannabis in the EU is 7%.The Netherlands which has coffeeshops for persons 18 yrs and older the average use is 5%

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2009

Max Freakout

every one of the claims about the Netherlands in this article are false, in fact the Netherlands has the lowest rate of teenage cannabis use in europe, despite being the only country where cannabis can be sold legally

jon

I agree with David

OK so Amsterdam didn't work out first time, so the UK should learn from there mistakes and decriminalise cannabis but;

1)Implement the necessary drug rehabilitation and support for drug users
2)Inform users of dangers (i.e.high THC levels, contamination ect)
3)Use the money saved from enforcing minor drug offences (i.e. smoking pot, first, fund points 1&2, second, to treat crack and heroin addicts who bring actual misery to the society).

STOO

I Have been a cannabis smoker for 20 years now & have to disagree with wot has been said about my belloved mary jane.Over the years cannabis has been getting more potent & phsycoactive. I have not had any problems with mental or physical problems, if anything cannabis has helped me through many of hard times. I do agree that these days if you smoke enough weed from a young age it can contribute to underlying mental health issues but to say it does so with out any evidence is just clear propaganda against the closet grower & afterwork smokers. to say that its so bad for you with little evidence & have tobacco & alchol legal is just another with for the goverment to tell us how live. Why would they want another revolution of the 60's. Keep that weed blazin

Tom

Drug prohibition is an insane attempt by a bunch of moralising prudes to regulate a fundamental aspect of human behaviour. Open your eyes. Drugs aren't going anywhere.