AN INGENIOUS PLAN TO REMOVE DRUG USERS FROM UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE JACKBOOT

What Is So Welcome Is That the Commission's Proposals Are Eminently Do-Able

I do like a really good sort-out - piling into that messy cupboard,
preferably armed with a few excitingly practical storage boxes and
some satisfyingly suitable folders, and applying a little logic. Order
out of chaos. Lovely.

In its report Drugs - Facing Facts, the RSA Commission on Illegal
Drugs, Communities and Public Policy has piled into the messy cupboard
that is government drugs policy and come up with some ingenious
suggestions as to how, when the Government's National Drugs Strategy
comes up for review next year, it could be arranged in a more tidy and
accessible manner.

The heartening news is that while the cupboard is indeed in much need
of remedial attention, it contains very little that is of no use at
all, and quite a lot that could work quite well if it was a bit more
easy to access. Even better, there's not even a pressing need to make
space for too big a load of New Stuff. A lot of the necessary bits and
bobs are strewn about the place already, and only need some boldly
marked new labels on some more elegantly fit-for-purpose box files.

Much of this is dictated by the nature of the exercise. The RSA
Commission has done no new research. It has simply spent a couple of
years studying the mass of material already available, and consulting
"a range of experts in the drugs field". By definition, it has looked
at the issue through the lens of its own remit to focus on society's
most intractable problems, and find ways of reducing that
intractability.

Rather neatly, it has first and foremost come up with an excellent way
of tackling that supremely illogical anomaly whereby such substances
as alcohol, tobacco, solvents, over-the-counter and prescription drugs
are treated in an entirely different way to "illegal drugs", even
though the challenges and the attractions they offer are pretty much
the same.

We know what absurdities these largely historical differentiations can
lead us to. Only this week, a 68-year-old woman, Patricia Tabram, was
warned that her eccentric fondness for styling herself as a
cooking-with-cannabis martyr, and the criminal convictions this has
attracted, could trigger her eviction from her housing association
bungalow. Conversely, we are now quite used to seeing those wealthy
enough to afford it popping into rehab again and again because they
are hopelessly addicted to "prescription drugs". The method of
procurement may be legitimate, but the consequences of problematic use
are just the same.

As for alcohol, its endless citation as a drug whose prohibition has
been demonstrated as unworkable, and as a drug whose social costs are
far higher than a whole range of illegal substances, can in itself
become a barrier to, rather than a motor of, reasonable debate. Even a
limited arena for discussion that does not involve someone piping up
with "But what about booze then?" will add light instead of heat to
many arguments.

The Commission advocates the creation of such a welcome space by the
repeal of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) and its replacement with a
Misuse of Substances Act which would incorporate all those
psychoactive products, including alcohol, that can be abused as well
as used.

There's no point in minimising the symbolic power of the 1971 act.
Ostensibly just a boring old list that classifies certain substances
and defines the penalties attached to their possession and supply, it
is viewed by many as the point at which drug use in Britain began to
be treated primarily as a crime, intimately linked to the declaration
of the "war on drugs", and firmly placed under the auspices of the
Home Office. It is credited with bringing to an end what used to be
known as "the British System", which allowed the prescription by
doctors of heroin.

It's no coincidence, therefore, that the Commission's vision of how a
future drugs policy may look specifically embraces such changes of
emphasis and practice as a move away from a criminal justice approach
to a harms-based approach, the diminishment of the Home Office's
involvement through the establishment of the Department for
Communities and Local Government as the lead policy-making government
agency, and the reintroduction of the British Method, along with a
range of other models, into general prescription policy.

To many, including dear old David Blunkett, who railed yesterday on
the radio about the need to keep drug users under the criminal justice
jackboot, presumably under the misapprehension that it was all working
marvellously well, this all sounds scarily non-punitive. But, as the
Commission points out, defining drug users by their criminality rather
than their need has spawned bizarre results. Tragically, for example,
a problematic drug user who goes to his doctor seeking help in getting
off drugs is in many parts of the country, or at the GPs' surgeries
that have exercised their right to opt out of providing drug
treatment, unlikely to receive any, at least in the short term.

Meanwhile, a non-problematic drug user with no wish whatsoever to curb
her recreational use, but who has racked up a possession conviction,
can find herself lavished with expensive mandatory treatment that is
not likely to work because the patient is indifferent or hostile to
it, and would have minimal benefit to anyone even if it did.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that Blunkett is wrong to express
fearfulness about the implications of a move away from the criminal
justice approach (though it is important also to stress that the
Commission is clear that "the fight against the supply of illegal
drugs should not stop"). The RSA points out that the population is
broadly speaking more sympathetic about drug use than the nation's
institutions might convey. But in communities that are really damaged
and blighted by drug use, attitudes are much more robust.

This is why it is important to emphasise that it is these areas, under
the Commission's recommendation of an index of harm that would
incorporate the physical, social and economic aspects, which would be
the focus of the most help. Such suggestions as the move away from the
Home Office to the Department for Communities and Local Government,
and the emphasis on hugely beefing up of the role of local Drug Action
teams, are entirely concerned with improving delivery of services to
the communities most in need.

Above all, what is so welcome is that the Commission's recommendations
are eminently do-able. Wisely, its report does not press for
legalisation in any but medical forms; on the contrary, it requests
that we all become a bit less hung up on legalities and illegalities,
and concentrate instead on "the key principles of rationality and
consistency and the desire to minimise harm". This is a very tidy
piece of work, and a welcome affirmation that the drugs policy
cupboard is far from bare.