Q. You have just been appointed the new drug csar and your first task is to complete a 3000 word manifesto setting out your proposal for future drug policy...
National Drugs Strategy.. Looking to the future
The emergence of 'Tackling Drugs Together' (1995) and 'Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain' (1998) clearly indicates a recent recognition by the British government of an overwhelming increase in the prevalence of drugs in contemporary society. As we enter a new century we, as a government, must acknowledge the changes in society surrounding drug use, the changes in attitude, opinions and perceptions. We must look at the policies of our European neighbours and learn from their successes and failures, but above all we must never lose sight of the fact that the protection of the public is the number one priority of any government with regards to any crime related issue.
The past objectives of British drug policies have been to 'reduce both the supply of and demand for drugs through control of importation, improved policing, control of prescribed drugs, strengthened deterrence, and improved treatment, rehabilitation and prevention. (Pompidou Group 1994)
The present view of the government towards illegal drug use remains largely unaltered from past governments, they pose many dangers and risks and those caught either in possession or supplying drugs will be punished. However, since the passing of the 1972 Misuse of Drugs Act we accept that some questionable draconian measures have been taken by past governments in response to the increasing availability and consumption of drugs in this country. Furthermore we accept that Britain has the toughest drug laws of any major western country (Jenkins 2001),but at the same time we also have the worst addiction and consumption rates.
My predecessor, Keith Halliwell, stated that 'Drugs are more widely available than ever' and that more and more young people are taking them (BBC News online 2001). Such a statement is an accurate picture of modern Britain, with research indicating that we are in the grips of a heroin epidemic (Halliwell 2000) and there is further evidence to suggest that cocaine is once again becoming a prevalent drug in major cities (McGibbon 2001). Past legislation has aimed to arrest such trends, but its misguided objectives, ad hoc creation and drug misconceptions has meant that such measures were born to fail.
To simply produce a strategy on drugs per se will fail. Drug taking is strongly linked to other factors such as unemployment, educational failure, boredom, low self esteem and misinformation. To effectively combat the alarming rises in drug use we must address these other areas. Take unemployment, under the Labour Government the number of people unemployed has dropped to below 1 million (February 2001), as a result of the drive adopted by the government to get people off benefits and into work. We must not stop here, we must look towards further reforms in the welfare state, education, health and the criminal justice system.
In producing this drug manifesto it is important to acknowledge the recommendations of the Runciman Inquiry, which will be addressed throughout this report. Furthermore it must be acknowledged that the changes which are to be implemented in the near future are based on the relative success and failures of the drug policies adopted by our European counterparts. It is my belief that the British Drug Policy can learn a great deal from the accomplishments and inadequacies of other existing policies. The aim of the intended strategy is not in achieving total abstinence from drugs (i.e.Denmark), nor are we looking for extreme social control in terms of creating a repressive system (i.e. Finland). We acknowledge the fact that these are neither realistic nor practical solutions. We are looking for a middle ground, a drug policy that is neither strongly repressive nor unduly liberal.
Law Enforcement
At present British legislation distinguishes drugs according to their perceived harmfulness and according to whether the offence involves trafficking/supplying or only possession. I myself, with the backing of the government, work on principles of common sense. Completely legalising substances like cannabis is not an option, primarily because significant health risks are associated with drugs, and cannabis is no different. Vast research has also confirmed strong links between cannabis and hard drugs, in other words cannabis can be described as a gateway drug. Lastly the International Human Treaty (1961) prevents even the more liberal nations such as Holland from completely legalising drugs.
One of the recommendations of the Runciman enquiry was that cannabis and its derivatives should be downgraded to a class C drug, and that its possession should no longer be an imprisonable offence. In recent years there has been a marked trend towards cautioning rather than prosecuting people for possessing small amounts (Pompidou Group 1994), and I would be willing to suggest a change in the law regarding possession. It is my belief that convictions should not cause more harm than the consumption of the drug B and that repression should be targeted towards the traffickers and dealers rather than the consumers.
From May 2002 the new drug strategy for England and Wales will look to introduce automatic fines for individuals arrested by the police for possession of illicit substances in classes's B and below. Ecstasy, which is a class A drug, will also carry a financial penalty for possession of small amounts. However an individual caught with any other substances such as heroin or cocaine will be dealt with under the current legal framework. The rates of the fines, and the amounts that may be deemed as 'personal use' will be determined by an Independant Drug Committee, which will be chaired by representatives from the law enforcement, social service and treatment/prevention fields amongst others. If the fines are not paid within 28 days the individual will attend court and sentenced for non payment of fines. The discretion of the Judge with regard to the circumstances that surrounds each individual case is a key factor in such circumstances.
Cannabis will also be used, primarily in pilot studies, on the :NHS in tablet form. It will be prescribed at the discretion of doctors, and aimed at people who suffer with cancer, multiple sclerosis and other disabling medical conditions. We recognise that when taken under the right condition cannabis does have positive medicinal benefits. Doctors not registered on the NHS will not be able to prescribe cannabis as they cannot be effectively monitored. The British medical association will overlook this scheme and findings will be relayed at six monthly intervals.
This alternate direction is not to give the impression that the government condones drug use, more that it is the traffickers who need to be targeted rather than the users. At the moment the current legal framework we have in place sucks all low level offenders into the criminal justice system B but by removing the unnecessary burden of drug users the amount of resources that would become available as a result could be directed into combating the source of the problem...drug traffickers and pushers. Furthermore possession dominate the operation of the law against drugs, constituting around 90% of the total of misuse of drugs act offences and they take up a very large slice of time and resources. Indeed in the last 1990s around three quarters of the fifteen billion pounds committed to tackling drug misuse in Britain was spent on law enforcement (Howard 2001), with the other quarter invested in the areas of treatment (13%), Prevention (11%) and Research (Less than 1%). This is a serious maladjustment in the investing of funds, and if we are to effectively address the dangers of drugs we need to distribute them more evenly.
Lastly, in terms of law enforcement, comes the issue of how to effectively curb drug trafficking. The drug trade is an international multi billion pound industry, with turnover amounting to approximately the turnover created by world tourism and oil (UN Drug Control Program 1997). The threat is ever present and growing, and part of the forthcoming drug strategy will look at ways to counteract this detrimental trade, including....
1. The questioning of the commitment and effectiveness of drug control in drug producing countries (Pakistan and Turkey) with inept measures leading to the added threat of imposing sanctions on those countries.
2. The increased aim to identify and dismantle internal drug networks through increased resources directed to drug enforcement agencies, including the National Crime Squad and Customs and Excise.
In 2000 the 'American government urged the Columbian government to destroy its cocoa and opium fields through aerial defoliation and by use of fusarium oxysporum fungus. This had strong support from President Clinton and the American Drug chief General Barry McCaffrey. Perhaps Britain and other European nations should look to similar actions in order to stamp out the majority of drug trafficking. We must look to take action in countries where the governments are unable to do so themselves. What we must never lose sight of is that if supply is effectively stopped, demand is no longer such an issue.
Treatment
In the early 1990s there was a need to get a clear picture of where the vast array of drug services were and what they were offering. The picture that emerged was that some areas had nothing and other areas had several agencies competing for the same funds. A disorganisation in treatment services not only loses efficiency in treating those who need it, there successes are also hard to measure. In response to these findings Jack Straw proposed a national treatment service with national standards and effective coordination. I fully adhere to such an idea, and so plans for its implementation will begin from today.
Currently there are over 500 drug treatment agencies in England and Wales, over half of which are in the voluntary sector. These include the needle exchange schemes, which have the intention of reducing the transmission of blood related diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. Britain can claim to have one of the lowest prevalence rates of HIV in Europe (Runciman 1997) and I would put this down to the success of such schemes implemented. Furthermore I believe that treatment is predominantly effective in reducing drug use, and the criminal activity related to it, based on supporting evidence from the US and UK. . However we can further learn from treatment programmers in the US, and in particular drug treatment facilities for adolescents. This is where increased funding in research can be utilised.
Presently in Britain the facilities we have do not seem to work. The National Treatment Outcome Perspective Study carried out research into residential treatment programmes based around methadone maintenance and reduction, with results indicating impressive improvements in drug taking and other behaviour, as well as in psychological and physical health. Such treatments are also believed to be cost effective, saving the community three pounds for every one pound invested (Runciman 1997). At the one year mark abstinence rates for the use of heroin and non prescribed methadone had doubled and injecting had dropped by 50%. After 2 years the results were largely unchanged. These are encouraging signs.
The arrest referral schemes implemented will also aid those with drug problems, as well as keeping them out of the criminal justice system. They are in place to help encourage the offender to seek help B either through the custody officer handing out information of through the support of a drug counseller on hand at every police station in the country. The CJA 1991 also allows the attachment to probation orders of a requirement for the offender to undergo drug treatment. Of the 5149 people found guilty of drug offences and sentenced to probation in 1997 only 1970 of them were required to undergo drug/alcohol treatment as part of the Order. I believe that due to the success of these programmes the requirement should be made compulsory. Furthermore one of teething problems of this order was the fact that a large number of people failed to attend the programmes, and in future a breach of the order will result in the offender going back to court. Creating visible guidelines on when breach proceedings are applicable will attain a greater consistency. These will be drawn up by an independent committee to be selected at a later date.
Our European neighbours have shown us the way forward. In Barcelona there are 14 outpatient centres, four detoxification units and ten rehabilitative units. Other countries have shown similar efforts in a bid to provide treatment and rehabilitation to their drug users. In Britain the county of Lincolnshire has only one detoxification unit. Treatment and rehabilitation can be, and has proven to be, successful in tackling drugs. We need to invest more than 13% of the annual drug budget on building new treatment facilities and rehabilitation centres, with a particular aim for providing for adolescents. The voluntary sector needs more government support, and the Outreach project needs to be developed into community based groups within an established framework. I have personally witnessed a decline in the outreach projects, and in one town in Lincolnshire it has disappeared. Feedback from drug users suggests that Outreach is a valuable part of assisting them in dealing with their problems.
According to Kushlick third of the prison population is there for committing crime to support an illegal habit. Although help does exist in prisons, there is much evidence to suggest that there are vast amounts of drugs that enter prisons, and even those offenders who go to prison without drug problems, often leave with one. Specialist drug free wings will be set up at all prisons, if the pilot studies are successful, with tight restrictions and specialist workers, and only then will national implementation become a reality. There is an aim to reduce the number of people with drug problems in our prisons so that on release they have a better chance of leading a normal , healthy, law abiding life.
Alternatives to prison will carry a stronger emphasis in the drive to reduce increasing rates of drug use. Treatment, rehabilitation, Community Orders and fines will all be used.
Prevention
Prevention policies have altered massively in the last thirty years. In the 1970s they were local, ad hoc and relied on scare tactic. In the 1980s the government promoted a series of high profile mass media campaigns, against the use of drugs along with the distribution of information leaflets and funding for drug prevention workers in the local authorities. More recently the emphasis has changed to local multi agency community prevention with regards to both drug use and HIV.
Prevention strategies are intended to reduce the damage caused by drug misuse ranging from regulation and low enforcement, to education programmes, treatment and rehabilitation. However as previously mentioned, the significant differences in the level of public finances and resources allocated to these activities need to be readdressed. The 12% of the 1.4 billion spent in 1997/8 needs to become in my view more like 30% if we are to see positive results from prevention strategies.
The preventative programme this government wound have in mind would look to achieve three fundamental aims...
1. To reduce the initial use of a drug (Primary prevention)
2. To reduce the negative effects of occasional use (secondary prevention)
3. To reduce the harm caused by those who have become dependant on drugs, both to themselves and other people (Tertiary prevention).
The multi agency approach we have currently adopted seems to be making little impact in terms of reducing the prevalence of drugs. The Spanish prevention policy sees prevention programmes initiated at school, the community and even the workplace. Furthermore it includes the training of teachers, parents associations and other professionals, a distribution of information and incorporation of health education into the curriculum. It is widely acknowledged that drug education in society, and most notably in schools, is of a very poor standard. It is on this basis that I believe that educating people about drugs is vital to society, in terms of eradicating misconceptions and allowing people to make informed decisions regarding the consumption of drugs. Gone are the days of the policeman visiting schools with the 'just say no' slogan, we must allow children to make their own informed decisions. Pressure and enforcement leads many children to take drugs simply to rebel.
The establishment of a Drug Education Team (DET) in each country will work closely with other agencies in creating prevention programmes for all groups in society B workplaces, community groups, prisons and most importantly schools. Members of each team will include representatives form law enforcement, social services, health and educational departments, along with ex and current drug users. The groups will be set up using lottery funds, and subsequent funding will be added to by local authority agencies, which will be responsible for its own DET. Its aim and purpose will be to 'inform' its audience of issues surrounding drug abuse.
As well as education in the workplace and at schools we are also looking at pilot schemes to introduce random drug tests both at work and school environment.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2025. All rights reserved.