As a non-user of recreational drugs I look on the drugs world as a fairly independent observer. Internationally, government policy on recreational drug use is as mess. It is a mess because the policies of almost all governments are based on a head-in-the-sand attitude and a fundamental belief that the further application of a policy of prohibition, a policy that has had an undiluted, unmitigated, robust, well-documented record of complete failure, will ultimately be successful. In some ways it is touching that so many politicians are ready to plough on with a policy in spite of the continuing record of abject failure. Of course, it can be argued that such a track record has seldom been sufficient to deflect most politicians from any policy. It didn't during WWI in spite of slaughter on the Western Front. Fundamentally, the majority of politicians are gutless and will not take on the international establishment to fight for the application of a policy on recreational drugs that may in some way be connected to reality. Another problem is that politicians are not prepared to admit to Joe Public that an objective of totally eliminating recreational drugs is for ever doomed to failure.
The failures of international drugs policies is becoming demonstrated ever more forcefully all around the world. The slaughter of drug gang members in many countries - particularly in Latin America - the devastating effects on the lives of ordinary people in these countries and the sometimes almost total collapse of law and order, are now becoming matters so serious that new policies will have to be introduced. To a great extent the international policy on drugs has been dictated by the USA and Europe - the leading consumers of the drugs - but now it is the presidents and prime ministers of these Latin American countries who are coming together to formulate new policies for regulation of drugs, which will finally be close to legalisation. In the last 50 years the international spending on the war on drugs has been collosal yet the achievements have been so little. Of course they tell us about every massive drugs haul yet the street price of drugs does not increase. Consumption goes up but price does not, so we have to conclude that an ever decreasing percentage is being intercepted. It has been estimated by some that the international market for drugs amounts to $300 billion at street prices.
The UK has, of course, a confused policy that has its origins in the Labour and Tory governments of the 1960s and 1970s signing up to Richard Nixon's war on drugs. Nowhere has this been more ridiculous than in the matter of cannabis. First they downgraded it from Class B to Class C and then a couple of years later re-classified it back up to Class B. This was done during the watch of Home Secretary, Jacquii Smith - she of the box room in Bermondsey and the five bedroom second home - when she completely rejected the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Quite what is the purpose of an advisory council of experts paid for out of the public purse if the advice is going to be rejected, is well beyond my comprehension. The world of Whitehall is cluttered with civil servants who, apparently, need lots of advisory quangos to allow them to function; one wonders how many others provide advice that is routinely ignored?
The head of the Advisory Council was Professor David Nutt who has said publicly that the government was wrong to re-classify cannabis as a Class B substance. He accused ministers of devaluing and distorting evidence and that drugs policy was now becoming a matter of politics I say that Professor Nutt was head of the Council because today he has been sacked by the present Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, who said that he had lost confidence in David Nutt's advice. Of course, it has been a common failing of this dead-leg government that the only information and advice they want is that which fully supports the preconceived ideas of the government. Professor Nutt said that his sacking was a serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government. He said also that he was not prepared to distort evidence in order to provide the government with a moral message. I can see that. Governments are for ever intent on "sending the right message". Usually, this cop-out is used when they have no proper concrete evidence to support their case and finally fall back on moral exhortations.
Drugs policy needs a fundamental overhaul but I see precious evidence that it will happen.
\
No comments:
Post a Comment