Debate

DRUGS AND THE LAW

Roger Howard, director of DrugScope, the UKs leading centre of expertise on
drugs, answers your questions

What is DrugScope's position on the Government's cannabis policy? Is it
really sending "mixed messages", as some people believe? Catherine Wilby,
Dorchester

DrugScope welcomes the reclassification of cannabis and feels that
government, far from giving out mixed messages, is in many ways beginning
to give a clearer message than before.

That cannabis can be potentially harmful nobody doubts. However, the issue
is whether cannabis is really as harmful as other Class B drugs such as
amphetamines, or indeed, harmful enough to justify a classification only
one grade below the most harmful drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine.

The previous classification sent out a message that young people did not
trust. At least now there is a message with sound medical and scientific
backing.

What we are more worried about is the caveats attached to the
reclassification, such as the retention of arrest in "aggravated cases".
This is, certainly in our view, a confusion, and an unnecessary one at that.

How far should the authorities go towards legalising all drugs? If people
are going to take drugs they will. Wouldn't it be better to have drug
distribution legalised, cutting out the crooks and helping to keep these
substances pure and far less toxic than they are now?

Jayne Finterman, Canterbury

Legalisation can certainly be intellectually attractive. It has none of the
ambiguities or illogicalities of other more nuanced positions. However,
DrugScope prides itself on being an evidence-based organisation and as
there is no country yet to go down the path of full-scale legalisation,
there is no real evidence base to suggest that this would eliminate crime
or health problems. What evidence there is from partial legalisation (which
can be an open market or strictly regulated) suggests there may be a risk
of commercialisation, which could lead to increased consumption (eg,
tobacco and alcohol).

For DrugScope, an increase in use would have to be offset by very strong
harm reduction gains in order to justify legalisation. Presently there is
not the available evidence to prove such gains and DrugScope believes that,
on balance, moves towards ending the criminalisation of the personal
possession of drugs — coupled with initiatives such as safe injecting rooms
and heroin prescribing — as practised elsewhere in Europe, would secure
significant harm reduction without running the risk of increasing prevalence.

International conventions, which are no doubt in need of an overhaul,
provide some degree of flexibility as to how countries respond to drugs.

Does DrugScope offer advice to the Government, and in the event of Keith
Hallawell's resignation, would you like a closer relationship with the
Government?

Mark Higson-Smith, West Kirby, Wirral

DrugScope works closely with the Government both in providing evidenced
information to underpin advice on good practice for professionals, for
example in education and treatment, and in presenting evidence to the
Government on key contemporary issues. DrugScope would welcome any
opportunity to help the Government to ensure that future policy is based on
and backed by all the available evidence.

DrugScope does not represent any one vested interest — whether it be from a
health, educational or indeed criminal justice perspective. We simply use
the available evidence to formulate advice and the evidence is beginning to
speak for itself.

As an independent body we will continue presenting our evidence and hope
that the Government will build on it wherever possible.

How much do you think children should know about drugs, and from what age?

Karl Gleeson, Woking, Surrey

The evidence suggests that children may begin to come into contact with
illegal drugs and, in some cases, begin experimenting with them from about
age 10 or 11. Use of tobacco, solvents and alcohol frequently occurs before
this age and children will come into contact with medicines and household
substances at an early age. Therefore it is necessary that all aspects of
education about harmful substances starts from age five — but is
age-relevant. Indeed, the national curriculum now requires this.

One of the most important things in proactive substance misuse education is
to enable children to explore issues and for them to be helped in
developing skills in response to risk situations. Children themselves often
raise drugs issues and then it's vital that their questions are met with
informed and honest answers that satisfy rather than frustrate and
stimulate natural inquisitiveness.

How much of an impact has your organisation had on drug use and education
in this country? What action has been taken as a result of the advice you give?

Fiona Cole, Dundee

DrugScope and our founder organisations have a long history of building
expert and public knowledge around drugs and drugs policy. We have also
developed the guidance that is used to deliver drugs education in our
schools, improving it for thousands of children. We have been working over
the past few years with the support of government and BT to support school
managers in delivering drugs education and respond to drug-related incidents.

We have also facilitated the work that our 1,000-plus member bodies do in
every part of the UK; from youth offending teams and police forces, to drug
treatment professionals and academics. In particular, we pioneered the
setting of standards for drug treatment, thereby improving the quality of
care for vulnerable people.

More recently we have advised on several policy changes, from the
reclassification of cannabis and the extension of heroin prescribing, to
the changes in rules that can reduce the spread of infectious diseases
through injecting and the need for more crack cocaine research and
treatment. There is, of course, much further to go and there are many more
recommendations we would like see adopted. We are, however, at last moving
in the right direction and I believe DrugScope has played a role in that.

What is your relationship with the police? Or does an organisation devoted
to giving objective information about drugs conflict with what the police
are doing in this area?

Melanie Klein, Cardiff

DrugScope generally has a very positive relationship with the police.
Indeed many police forces are members of DrugScope. We have also worked
closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and numerous
individuals from police forces to investigate enforcement policy based on
the evidence. The evidence shows the impact of measures to disrupt local
drug markets along with the effectiveness of recovering assets from dealers
and the referral of people arrested with drug problems to treatment
services. But it is much less clear about some other enforcement interventions.

Naturally, there will be individuals and sections of the police we will
disagree with on some issues at times. Nevertheless, as recent events have
shown, sometimes the police can be bolder and more sensitive to evidence
than our legislators.

Is DrugScope an independent body or does the Government offer any funding?

Paul Rich, Brighton

DrugScope is an independent charity that gains income from its members,
from publications, from services and from contract work.

We also receive some money from government, in particular for developing
good practice guidance for drugs treatment and for maintaining our drug
information library, which is the most extensive drug information resource
in Western Europe.

DrugScope has a broad funding base, but having said that, we certainly
welcome individual donations.

Have you ever used any drugs yourself?

Keith Lipsey, North London

It's amazing how little I get asked that. As a ten-year-old I tried tobacco
but didn't get on with it. I still use alcohol and being at university in
the late Sixties I came into contact with my fair share of cannabis.
Fortunately, I never developed a problem with any of these drugs, legal or
illegal. I do, however, know many people both personally and professionally
who, for whatever reason, have developed drugs problems and even died as a
result.

My own use or non-use of drugs was never a motive for my work, or indeed
for joining DrugScope. The harm that some drugs can cause to individuals
and communities is apparent to all of us, whether or not you have direct
experience of trying them.

It is this harm that we need to minimise and I believe the work of
DrugScope goes some way towards this.

Readers' views

YOUR correspondent E. Housley (Debate, July 12) correctly points out that
heroin addicts steal to feed their addiction whereas alcohol addicts do not
— because a day's dose of heroin costs far more than a day's dose of alcohol.

The reason for the cost differential is that heroin is illegal. As its
suppliers risk long jail terms, they understandably seek large — and
untaxed — profits. If the supply of heroin were legalised its cost would
fall, eliminating the thefts that worry most of the population far more
than the fate of the addicts. But the addicts, too, would benefit, from a
supply of a properly prepared drug of known concentration. Most overdoses,
often fatal, are caused by unwitting use of drugs with a lower than usual
level of adulteration. Many people will consider legalising heroin supply
an inconceivable step, but attitudes change, as witness the origin of this
debate. The job of government frequently is to choose the least bad of a
range of options. Is the status quo, with 90 per cent of thefts
drug-related, really the best choice?

Stephen L. Phillips, Preston

ONE of the great ironies about this debate, and there are many, is that the
most confused thinking comes from those who don't consume cannabis. Drug
use is, and always has been, a fact of life. British culture revolves
around it and very probably thrives because of it. Alcohol is our social
lubricant, tobacco our indulgence. The only difference between these and
cannabis is that they are morally acceptable. The fundamental hypocrisy of
sanctioning highly addictive and dangerous drugs, while banning less
harmful substances undermines drug information and creates confusion.
Either we ban all drugs and be done with it, or we allow people to choose a
substance whose greatest threat to society is through its unlocked biscuit
tins.

David Crane, London N19

The message is clear: cannabis is a soft drug similar to alcohol;
prohibition has never achieved anything other than create a criminal
fraternity; legalising cannabis would net much tax and free up police to
deal with priorities. Even better would be to ensure that dealers pay VAT.

P. E. Robin, ernie@robinp.freeserve.