UK Goes Feral on Legal Highs

Image via Wikipedia

A range of former so called ‘legal highs’ including GBL, BZP and man-made chemicals sprayed on herbal smoking products such as ‘Spice’ are now illegal, Home Secretary Alan Johnson announced today.
As part of the government’s commitment to tackle the emerging threat of so called ‘legal highs’, the substances now banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 include:

– Chemical solvent GBL (Gamma-Butyrolactone) and a similar chemical – which are converted into GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) in the body and often used as ‘club drugs’ – are now controlled as Class C drugs when intended for human consumption;

– Synthetic cannabinoids – man-made chemicals sprayed on herbal smoking products such as ‘Spice’, which act on the body in a similar way to cannabis but can be far more potent, are now controlled as Class B drugs alongside cannabis; and

– BZP (Benzylpiperazine) and related piperazines, which are stimulants, similar to amphetamine, are now controlled as Class C drugs.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said:

“We are cracking down on so called ‘legal highs’ which are an emerging threat, particularly to young people. That is why we are making a range of these substances illegal from today with ground- breaking legislation which will also ban their related compounds.

“We are sending out a clear message to anyone who is thinking about experimenting with them, particularly over the festive period, that not only are they putting themselves in danger they will also be breaking the law.”

Tim Hollis, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) lead on drugs, said:

“Police are all too well aware of the harms caused in local communities, particularly to young people, by these drugs and we support the decision taken by the Home Office to clearly spell this out.

“Enforcement will be proportionate and will focus particular attention on those who traffic in drugs and put people at harm. Practical advice has already been circulated to forces to support them in this respect. We want people to enjoy the festive season without exposing themselves to unnecessary risk by taking what are potentially dangerous substances.”

The government continues to raise awareness of the dangers of psychoactive substances via the FRANK campaign.

In addition, 15 anabolic steroids, testosterone-like products often used by sports people and increasingly being used by the general public for their growth promoting properties, are to be controlled as Class C drugs, alongside two growth promoters.

The control of these substances follows advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Following receipt of their advice and after consulting with industry on those substances which have legitimate use, the government announced its intention to bring these substances under control using the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The ACMD continue to look at the use of so called ‘legal highs’ as a priority and will report back to the government on the cathinones in 2010.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and its like chemical 1,4-Butanediol (1,4-BD) are converted into GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) in the body. GBL is a colourless, oily liquid with a weak odour. Both substances can reduce inhibitions, cause nausea, reduced heart rate and even lead to death. Both are particularly dangerous when taken with alcohol and other depressant substances. Options for control of these substances were subject to public consultation which finished on 13 August. The government’s decision to control GBL and 1,4-BD for human consumption takes fully into account the wide use of these chemicals for legitimate purposes.The ACMD’s advice can be found at http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/

2. Benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related piperazines are man-made stimulants which have similar but less potent properties to amphetamine. They can cause a rush of energy, agitation, vomiting and headaches. They can come in many shapes and forms, including pills and powders. Control of these substances was subject to public consultation which finished on 13 August. The ACMD’s advice can be found at http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/

3. Synthetic cannabinoids are man-made chemicals that mimic the psychoactive effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in cannabis. They can be sprayed on herbal smoking products such as ‘Spice’. The ACMD advice, published on 12 August, can be found at http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/

4. Anabolic Steroids – details of the 15 steroids and two growth promoters and ACMD’s advice are available at http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/

5. Oripavine, an alkaloid found in poppy straw of the opium poppy which can be converted into thebaine and used in the production of semi-synthetic opiates, is also controlled under the 1971 Act as a Class C drug in accordance with our international obligations. There is presently no evidence of its misuse in the UK. The ACMD advice can be found at http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/

6. So called ‘legal highs’ are psychoactive substances that are taken to achieve an altered state of mind (a “high”), that are not currently controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, most of these substances are illegal to sell, supply or advertise for human consumption under medicines legislation because of their effects on the body. To view the March 2009 commissioning letter from the then Home Secretary to the ACMD on so called “legal highs” and other areas see http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/reports-research/

7. A drug is brought under control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by an Order made by the Privy Council following approval of the Order by both Houses of Parliament via the affirmative resolution procedure. Summaries of the public consultations completed earlier this year in relation to some of these drugs are available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/haveyoursay/closed-consultations/2008-cons-closed1/?version=15

8. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is a non-departmental public body established by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The ACMD provides independent expert advice to ministers on drug misuse – primarily to the Home Office, but also to other government departments. To view the ACMD’s advice to government visit http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/reports-research/

9. For details of the government’s drug strategy visit http://www.drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk

10. For further information please contact the Home Office Press Office on 020 7035 3535

Contacts
NDS Enquiries
Phone: For enquiries please contact the above department
ndsenquiries@coi.gsi.gov.uk
Related articles by Zemanta

• Britain’s War On Soft Drugs: A Turning Point? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Nutt: My views on drug classification (guardian.co.uk)
• After the drugs advice council collapses | Richard Garside (guardian.co.uk)
• Government to ban ‘legal high’ drugs (guardian.co.uk)
• An overhaul of drug policy? Politicians still just say no | Simon Jenkins (guardian.co.uk)

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Drug bans are bad economics – Nick Smith

By Nick Smith

(can be seen at http://www.whyprohibition.ca/blogs/ellis-worthington/drug-bans-are-bad-economics )

Originally published on Stuff, July 17, 2009

The most convincing evidence of the harm caused by the criminalisation of party pills in April last year comes from a recently convicted drug dealer. (actually it was quite the opposite, a four-fold increase in sales and no perceptable increase in harm, but then that’s MDMA for you. Millions of ‘E’ experiences in the UK, every week, problems at best are ‘associated with use’ while no benefits of displacement of other drugs, like alcohol, are measured)

This man, whose name is suppressed, admitted smuggling 100,000 ecstasy tablets in just three months. He told media that his small operation became massive almost overnight after the government banned party pills, which contain the active ingredient benzylpiperazine (BZP).

The ban was instituted despite an investigation showing BZP caused little harm to users. BZP is not like methamphetamine, which in its crystalised form is called P, and ecstasy. The criminal acts and damage caused by P addicts have filled news pages for months. Ecstasy, while less harmful, has been implicated in several deaths.

When the ban became law, people switched from taking safer party pills to the much more dangerous methamphetamine and ecstasy.

“I went from selling 5000 pills a month to 5000 pills a week,” the 52-year-old drug dealer explained to a weekend newspaper about the financial impact to his operation of the ban, which he estimated had generated up to $12 million in revenue.

Even the medical profession concedes the BZP ban is fanning greater recreational use of more dangerous drugs. There’s an argument that all drugs should be decriminalised because criminalisation generates more harm than good by handing control of a desirable commodity to organised crime. When criminal elements are involved, it is argued, the damaging effects of drug use are amplified.

Think of the growth in popularity of bootleg liquor during prohibition in the United States.

A regulated and restricted system of laws surrounding drug use would remove violent criminal elements and allow better access to treatment, is how the argument goes.

This contention is particularly compelling in the case of BZP because it was a proven safe drug servicing a large market, as evidenced by its ubiquitous presence on shelves in corner dairies and liquor stores.

People desire intoxicants. The history of alcohol, cannabis and drugs extends three millennia. Drugs are a commodity and are traded the world over. Supply is meeting demand and economic theory holds that when that demand is denied by a ban, it creates unintended consequences; in this case, a massive source of income for transnational crime organisations and gangs.

Some of the most alarming reportage on this subject of late comes from economists such as Loretta Napolioni, who writes about the massive global reach of criminal empires trading in drugs and people, two of the most pernicious and lucrative trades.

Lev Timofeev, a Russian expert on drug economies, believes drug prohibition gives transnational operations not just market-moving power, but the ability to influence whole societies and nations.

In his view, it is prohibition that enables such far-reaching power. New Zealand doesn’t suffer the predations of drugs, prostitution and people-smuggling to the same extent as eastern Europe, Russia and parts of the Middle East. Part of the reason is its geographical remoteness but also this country’s relative liberality to restrictive social legislation. (except for cannabis, which is all out war but mostly on unemployed, maori, and males)

But, as the BZP ban shows, authorities can and do make the same policy mistakes as their international equivalents. The Law Commission will soon deliver a report recommending a raft of changes to the sale of liquor. On the table are restrictions on age and even the number of outlets in any given area. If they follow through on the latter, you can bet shops will be restricted in poorer districts and not in more affluent suburbs. (as it is policed! 300 more cops for South Auckland will be doing what? We have already heard that ‘drug dealing’ will be a focus.)

Damning evidence from the US shows the prohibitive legislative hammer falls hardest on the poor and vulnerable. Leaving aside the interesting issue of why drug and alcohol use is higher in this socio-economic sector, the American experience suggests enforcement of bans cause greater social damage than the drugs themselves.

It was pleasing to see Roger Kerr, the Business Roundtable’s executive director, wade into the liquor debate recently, particularly his evisceration of the self-serving economic analysis of the economic cost from alcohol use. The commission will rely on a Business and Economic Research Ltd (Berl) report showing the net external cost to the country from drinking booze is $4.8 billion, a ludicrous sum. An independent university study reviewing Berl’s work puts it at $146.3 million, less than 5 per cent of the initial estimate.

Kerr also put in a word for the social benefit of drinking, a rarely heard view in these censorious times. He emphasises enforcement of existing regulation as a better mechanism for dealing with unwelcome social outcomes from boozing rather than more restrictive laws or a ban.

Banning drugs, whether BZP or alcohol, is bad economics; economists of the Right and Left agree a rare consensus. Hopefully, the Law Commission will see it the same way when it publishes its liquor law recommendations. (and deliberates on cannabis)

– ends –

(highlighting responsiblity of BJA)

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Drug ban will fuel gang black market – warning

Hon. Jim Anderton, former
Deputy Prime Minister
and current Associate Minister
of Health, popularily known as
NZ’s ‘Drug Czar’. The banning of BZP party pills was “a sham” based on unreliable research and will feed a black market headed by drug-running gangs, a criminal law professor says. (By KERRY WILLIAMSON – The Press Friday, 01 August 2008 )

In an article in the New Zealand Law Journal – titled The Great BZP Hoax – Otago University professor Kevin Dawkins accuses the Government of rushing through legislation to ban BZP, ignoring regulatory measures that could have curbed rampant use of the drug.
He calls the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Act, passed on April 1, “legislative folly” and writes that the BZP ban will push the drug underground and expose users to other drugs such as P and ecstasy.

“Since prohibition cannot repeal the law of supply and demand, those who prefer to continue using BZP will be forced into the black market and the arms of the gangs,” he says.

Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton – who dismissed Professor Dawkins’ article as “careless” – pushed through the BZP ban after a recommendation from an expert advisory committee on drugs. The research showed the pills caused migraines, hallucinations, vomiting, confusion, seizures and insomnia.

The ban came after regulatory measures were considered, including restrictions on dosages, labelling, points of sale, and advertising.

Professor Dawkins said those regulations were simply “a stalking horse” for prohibition.
“Not to have implemented the regulatory regime for BZP is a gross deception in itself,” he writes in the Law Journal. “But to have jettisoned regulation in favour of prohibition aggravates the hoax.”

He attacks the research used to support the ban, saying it was based on “unpublished, unreplicated and unreliable research, potentially compromised by conflicts of interest“.
Mr Anderton said the BZP ban was implemented after “carefully weighing all the evidence I could“. (that Anderton paid for and presented to the Expert Advisory Committee now overpopulated with justice, police, corrections, border control and other prohibitory vested interests, the very committe then Minister of Health, now Minister of Police, Hon Annette King said would ‘take the politics out of drug policy’. Yeah Right! /Blair)

He said Professsor Dawkins had a “long record” of advocating drug law liberalisation. (so what!)
“The evidence told me very clearly that the drug had enough potential to cause harm that it could be banned,” he said. (and alcohol doesnt?)

Mr Anderton said there was little evidence that banning BZP had turned users toward harder drugs.

Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said he had questions about “the quality of some of the research” used to support a ban but that Mr Anderton “played a pretty straight bat” over party pills.

“I think [Professor Dawkins] is trying to find a conspiracy where there isn’t one. I agree with him that there were a number of regulations put in place and they weren’t enforced, and I think that’s a real shame. But I disagree with his conclusion that there was a direct attempt by the minister to get his way.”

Pity that the Press didnt take the opportunity to inquire into the larger ‘legislative and public policy fraud’ simmering behind the banning of BZP; the ommision of any discussion around the legislative framework for controlled availability; Class D.

That would have been the acid test to determine any Anderton agenda, or indeed if Bell ‘s opinion that ‘this was about BZP’ held water. / Blair Anderson

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Drug Classification "Hot Topic"

TX goes to the Ashburton Guardian for at least getting the story pretty much straight.

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Flip-side to ban outlined

Drug law crusader Blair Anderson’s approach to lessening the harm of drugs, runs contrary to the mainstream.

Local News – The Timaru Herald – Printable

On Thursday afternoon a brief soap-box sermon in Stafford Street espoused less focus on drug prohibition and more on education and harm minimisation.

Putting benzylpiperazine (BZP) party pills in the same category as marijuana was the way to create a drug problem, he said.

The former Christchurch mayoral candidate is on a soap-box tour of the South Island, but Timaru citizens did not linger to get his message; they went heads-down about their business.

Mr Anderson’s campaign arose after party pill laws were to be in a new Class D, a controlled and legally regulated drug, this option was not taken.

He said this R18 approach was the best way to minimise harm.

Banning BZP would create more problems with fewer safety controls, greater illicit profits, more health issues and markets for dangerous alternatives.

He said cannabis prohibition in a country which smokes as much weed per capita as Jamaica was waste of time and money.

But even the offer of free copies of the latest NORMAL magazine with an article on drug laws was not taken up.

In fact the magazine offer increased pedestrians walking speed.

“BZP was not a good drug, but then nor is alcohol, but until we have the required conversation and civil society addresses itself to this issue we will continue to talk round in circles and fix diddly.”

Mr Anderson, a self-employed computer specialist, has taken it on himself to raise the issue of drug law because the Law Commission is to look at it.

“The first thing to understand is this methamphetamine, alcohol and BZP prevalence in New Zealand is a product of poor drug policy. This is true at both ends of the harms scale and for all points in between. We are, in our legislative response to drugs, our own worst enemy.”

Mr Anderson accepts his views have little public support and politicians see a clear line with drugs and crime as most popular.

When the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Act was passed last week it was supported 109 to 11. However, the Green, Maori and Act parties opposed it.

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

And this fixes diddly, Whats Next Jim?

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Big fat anti-drug NGO griftfest

Big fat anti-drug NGO griftfest
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

The UN drug policy consultation [BEYOND2008] in Wellington this week will be a big fat expert blowhard session say the ALCP,

see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0802/S00059.htm.

Notably it is expected rational observations – eg. that an ongoing cannabis ban is damaging, wrong, and in particular is counterproductive (it opened the gateway for NZ methamphetamine networks) – will be suppressed.

ALCP has little faith that the urgent stalled debate on cannabis will be brought out into the open. This was highlighted by the NZ Drug Foundation effort to promote debate last year, that went unheeded by both politicians and media.

This conference is all about confirming contacts and contracts first, with public good a very poor second. The UN and their band of grifters will ignore the elephant in the corner. By tackling only illicit drugs, minus any context with alcohol and tobacco, or rampant cannabis and BZP and other substance popularity, they will merely reinforce a dangerously unhealthy context of double standards.

Doubtless the failure of cannabis illegality may come up in the discussion but it will ultimately be omitted from the final report. This has happened many times before, eg. our National Drug Policy, and select committee Cannabis Law review.

The vast majority of normal pot-using Kiwis (an estimated half-million, based on the NZDF figure of 1 in 8 prevalence ) would be completely mystified at the concept of Drug Treatment Services for their use. They would laugh at it, and therein lies some insight that may benefit NGOs attending the consultation; the whole ridiculous policy is based on prohibition, double standards and vested interests. For those 5% who run into problems with their cannabis use, prohibition is no help whatsoever – in fact promoting furtive or paranoid behaviour. At every step prohibition is harm production, not harm reduction.

If our politicians want to look at a big fat ugly root cause of whats currently troubling NZ, it is a social policy mix underpinned by criminalisation and anti-cannabis prejudice. “The drug war is the single most destructive force loose in society” said ALCP deputy leader Mike Britnell.

“Prohibition has not only failed but it is the lynchpin that is maintaining all this chaos, mayhem and murder.”

In our Prime Minister’s own words, it is ‘poor public policy’ (1994 Great Marijuana Debate). ALCP say an apology anytime soon would be good.

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Drug Foundation Welcomes BZP Party Pill Ban

The New Zealand Drug Foundation is extremely pleased that BZP-party pills will be banned from the end of the year. see New Zealand Drug Foundation Welcomes BZP Party Pill Ban

(This is IMHO an inexplicable position by the NZDF and contrary in principle to its membership of international organisations ie: The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), a global network of 24 national and international NGOs that specialise in issues related to illegal drug use. )

Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton announced yesterday (26June?) that BZP will be reclassified as a C-class drug from Christmas, and will carry the same penalties as marijuana.

Users will be given a six month amnesty period after the law change to avoid criminalisation. “The introduction of party pills exposed the weaknesses of our current law. There was nowhere in the schedule to place party pills, and even though they’ll now be scheduled, we’re still left unable to deal with any new substances cooked up by clever chemists,” said Mr Bell. (Wrong, Jim A created Class-D, as advocated by the MildGreens as a non-punitive research, management and monitoring regulatory model)

The Government also announced a complete review of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Drug Foundation Executive Director Ross Bell said the review of this 30-plus-year old law is great news and overshadows the announcement to ban BZP-pills.

“The Misuse of Drugs Act is a patchwork of amendments, many of which were ad hoc responses to short-term public or political concerns. This has led to inconsistent legal treatment of substances, and has limited the options available for control, especially for emerging new substances,” Mr Bell said.

The Drug Foundation has long recommended a review of the drug law, saying that New Zealand’s current law is obsolete and should be replaced with a framework that can more effectively tackle existing and new drugs. (yes, but that is not the only or most significant reason the framework should be reviewed. THe writer agrees in a review of the ACT, not just the Law. Nor should it be reviewed without a full and unfettered resolution of the law, as it applies to cannabis as recommended by two select committees , including the completion of the ‘highly indicated’ cost benefit analysis. Anything else is perpetuating the sham. /Blair)

Jim Anderton, Associate Minister of Health said the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act had been advocated by many in the sector for some time. (including the MildGreens)

“This [review] is to be completed by December 2008 and will be aimed at providing a better, more coherent and rational legal framework for the law surrounding the implementation of, and penalties for, the misuse of drugs,” he said. (Wrong!!!, Its about health and harm reduction… not the law, penalties or pejoratively mischaracterising all use as misuse./Blair)

Party Pill Association spokesman Matt Bowden was the first person to import party pills and helped to establish the $35 million industry in New Zealand. He said party pills are a lot safer than alcohol.

“Nobody has died, there are no significant lasting injuries, it should not really be made illegal,” he said.
People found in possession of BZP after the six month amnesty ends will face a maximum of three months imprisonment and/or a maximum $500 fine

(The Gangs will be cheering this decision, all the way to the bank. More prohibition – like it will fix anything is handing control to criminal networks with all the contingent downsides. It is political expediency and obsfucation – fix what is really broken. The more dangerous a drug is, the less responsible it is of authority to abrogate control. We should aim to ring fence problems, where they occur, to those who do indulge. /Blair)

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Anderton should be embarrassed

Anderton should be embarrassed (or commited).

Czar Anderton’s call for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act purportedly to make manufacture, distribution and consumption of any non-approved chemical (or herb) punishable mocks common sense.

Elevating BZP into an illicit drug rather than improve a legally regulated regime abrogates his own duty ‘of care’. Passing control to criminal networks looses not only controlled manufacture and distribution chains, it entrenches failure. The guy is an idiot, and those who serve under him, including it seems his entire Ministry of Health are afflicted by his moral hysteria.

My letter to TV3 follows

Dear TV3 News Team

I have selected this cut and paste below to highlight our erroneous ABC drug classifications system – it is KEY to understanding why Jim Anderton’s BZP ‘classification’ move is destined to fail.

I have standing on this having researched drug policy now for over thirty years. I have given about 16 select committee presentations even arguing for the Expert Advisory Committee (on) Drugs [MDA amendment #4] as I considered such a mechanism a ‘safe pair of hands’ for evidence based policy development. The Committee was regrettably populated with status-quo thinking, and that is why Jim is ill-advised. Please pass this on to your investigative team. I know that Prof Nutt, Blakemore and others mentioned in this email (and others than I can provide you) would be happy to be interviewed should you and your team wish to explore this crucial issue. NZ’s ABC system only differs from the UK insofar Ecstasy and some other ‘drugs’ we vilify here (P) are treated as Class A. Resolving ‘for once and for all’ requires INFORMED debate. It is time some equity and balance was given to this issue and politicians made to answer “which part of the current classification system is, on evidence, working?”

Some of you at Tv3 may recall that it was I that brought out to New Zealand the retired head of the Met (and Scotland Yard Narcotics) Det. Chief Superintendent Eddie Ellison who presented to the Ministry of Justice and Associate Ministers of Health (including Jim Anderton) and Rotaries all over the North Island. (see http://leap.cc/Speakers/nztour.php )

The Highlights below are mine../Blair

Excerpt from UK Hansard, courtesy of Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat, and Chair of the Science and Technology Select Commiteee that reviewed the Drug Classification System)

If there is a lack of evidence to support the classification of particular drugs, does the classification system support other planks of Government drugs policy? It seems not. We found, for example, that there is no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, the idea being that there will be a deterrent effect if a drug is placed in a higher class. Our conclusion has since been echoed by the UK Drug Policy Commission, which says that the concept of a deterrent effect has “little or no support from the available research”.

To be fair, the Government accepted that there is an absence of conclusive evidence on the deterrent effect and agreed to consider ways in which the evidence base for such an effect could be strengthened. I would like to ask the Minister, first, what steps have been taken to strengthen the evidence base, and secondly, if new evidence were to undermine the principle of the deterrent effect, would that have an impact on the current policy on classification?
Linked to the idea of the deterrent effect is the notion that classification can be used to send out messages. We have a number of concerns about that notion. The purpose of classification should be to categorise a drug according to the comparative harm , be that physical dependence or social, that is associated with its misuse. That does not necessarily sit comfortably with the secondary aim of sending out messages. It must be one or the other.

In our report, we considered the example of methylamphetamine, or crystal meth. The Government kept it in class B because it was concerned that reclassification to class A might send out the message that crystal meth was a dangerous drug, thereby increasing interest in it and encouraging potential users. There was absolutely no evidence on which to base that conclusion. The ACMD told us that it was “a judgment call”. That example highlights the inconsistency of a classification system that at times relies on moving a drug to a higher class to deter potential users—the deterrent effect—as was the case with ecstasy.

It is worrying that a Government who claim to formulate evidence-based policies are content to use classification to send out signals to users without undertaking any research to establish the relationship between the class of the drug and the signal that is sent out. Given the inconsistencies in the classification system and the lack of evidence to support the principles on which it is founded, the Select Committee believes that it is not fit for purpose. We concluded in our report, and continue to maintain, that the current classification system is antiquated, arbitrary and ripe for revision .

Our findings are not surprising. We reiterated the findings of the *Runciman report, which proposed that the classification system be reviewed, and the Home Affairs Committee’s 2002 report on drug policy, which recommended that LSD and ecstasy be reclassified. Our conclusions have recently been echoed by the newly formed UK Drug Policy Commission and the report of the RSA—Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—commission on illegal drugs, “Drugs—facing facts”. The RSA calls the current classification system “arbitrary, confused and haphazard”

Despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, the Government assert that the classification system discharges its function fully and effectively, and that it has stood the test of time. There is little evidence to support that assertion, and I ask the Minister whether he can provide such evidence this afternoon. Perhaps he could also explain something that has confused me: how can the Government have so much confidence in the current classification system when the chairman of the ACMD technical committee, Professor David Nutt, told the Select Committee that he does not think that “all the drugs are correctly classified according to the current classification system”?

The very person who heads the technical committee of the Government’s ACMD says that the system is not fit for purpose. I look forward to the Minister’s response to Professor Nutt’s strong statement.

Having found the current classification system to be inadequate, we rightly turned our attention to possible improvements. We recommended that the Government establish a more scientifically based scale of harm. We believe that that would have much greater credibility than the current system, in which classification decisions seem quite arbitrary.

Our proposals have considerable support. In March, a paper by Professor Nutt, Professor Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council, William Saulsbury of the Police Foundation and Leslie King of the Forensic Science Service—hardly lightweights in the field—was published in The Lancet. The paper proposed a nine-category matrix of harm that took account of physical harm, dependence and social harms—the very things that are at the heart of the Government’s policy. Its main findings rejected the crude rank ordering of drugs and their segregation into groups under the ABC classification system. Significantly, it found that tobacco and alcohol were in the top 10 higher-harm groups.

Also in March, an RSA report recommended that the Government replace the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 with a misuse of substances Act that focuses on the harms that drugs cause. Like our report and the paper in The Lancet, the RSA report recommended that there should be an index of substance-related harms that is based on the best available evidence and modified in the light of new evidence. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether he is willing to explore how a more scientifically based scale of harm could be used.

One element of our proposal for classification to be based on the scale of harm is the question whether the classification system should continue to have a direct link to the criminal justice system, as it has had since 1971. During our inquiry, we heard from the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers drugs committee that the classification system was only “a rough guide for the police and…was pretty crude”. That was said by the deputy chief of the Met.

When we discussed the issue with police officers in the United States, we heard that the lack of a direct link between schedules and penalties gave the police the freedom to focus resources as they saw fit, rather than being tied in by the classification. We therefore recommended that the Government decouple the ranking of drugs on the basis of harm from the penalties for possession and trafficking. We believe that such decoupling would mean that harms could be assessed objectively without having practical implications for the criminal justice system. The ranking of drugs could be changed frequently within a scientifically based scale of harm in response to new evidence without directly impacting on the system of penalties.

If the scientific scale of harm were not linked to penalties, it would also be possible to include tobacco and alcohol in the scale and thereby give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved. We believe that the public would be interested to know, as was pointed out in the paper in The Lancet, that alcohol is rated as more harmful than ketamine, amphetamines and tobacco, and that tobacco is rated as more harmful than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy. That is quite a startling statement .

We did not use our report to recommend an alternative approach to determining penalties, as that was not in our remit, but we suggested that possibilities could include a greater emphasis on the link between the misuse of a drug and criminal activity, or a clearer distinction between possession and supply. The Select Committee was in no way trying to undermine the very real problems that the Home Office and the police have in dealing with drug-related crime. They need greater powers rather than fewer powers, but such powers must be very much directed at the problem.

The Government rejected our recommendation to decouple penalties and harm ranking. They said that a fundamental purpose of the classification system was to provide a framework within which penalties are set with reference to the harm caused by a drug. If the Government choose to pursue that line and insist that penalties are coupled with the harm rating of drugs, it is even more important that the classification system is reviewed to ensure that it is robust and evidence-based .

‹(•¿•)› Blair Anderson

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

*Police Foundation’s Runciman report on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Home Secretary screamed and cursed and tore it up. The report had suggested that the use of cannabis should no longer be an imprisonable offence and that drug classification be related more closely to harm.

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

New Drug Policy launched – pressure kept on

pressure… bah humbug!

Launch of the National Drug Policy 2007 – 2012, Grand Hall, Parliament

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/new+drug+policy+launched+-+pressure+kept

And all this is the result of a ‘due process’ found to be gravely wanting.
There were strong opinions within the EACD but the predominance of stake hold interests in status quo saw the health concerns and applied everything that has never been shown to work.

Some on the EACD seem to think, if you bang your head against the wall long enough it will stop hurting.

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion