Drugs debate needs to have different frames of reference.
Earlier I was reading Hopi Sen’s blog at Liberal Conspiracy about Bob Ainsworth’s intervention on the drug debate. There was some stuff I agreed with, parties have to win elections and Hopi was right to say that the position espoused by Ainsworth is massively unpopular with the public. And in that sense Ed Miliband absolutely had to distance himself, and official front bench policy, from what Bob Ainsworth said.
But, for me one of the reasons I am political is that I want to change the world, I want to make it better, and sometimes that means trying to change and challenge prevalent attitude. I believe that the Labour party is capable of being a campaigning and transformational force for good in British society, and that is why I am a Labour supporter. The social reforms of the 64-70 Wilson government pushed through by Roy Jenkins didn’t have overwhelming popular support at the time (in many quarters out right hostility) but few now argue they were not the right thing to do.
And it is for that reason that I personally am hoping for a more nuanced drug policy from the Labour front bench moving forward than simply chasing Daily Heil approval. And whilst I understand why Ed has taken the stance he has I hope this can evolve over his period of time as leader.
See for me the essential problem is that we talk about drugs very much in the wrong terms. It is always talked about, as Peter Hitchens does here in the Guardian, in terms of harm to individual users. And for me this is profoundly disingenuous. I don’t know anyone apart from a few crazy pro weed hippies, who claim that drugs are not harmful to the people who use them.
What the debate ought to be about is how best do we as a society, as a matter of public policy, deal with the harm that drugs do. And for me this harm ought to include the wider harm that drug use causes us all. In terms of petty crime, cost of incarceration of criminals, policing, gang violence, organised crime, and international drug trafficking.
I hope that if nothing else we can start to debate the issue of the problems of drugs not just in terms of the atomised harm to an individual drug user, but in terms of the wider harm that is caused the by the issue generally.
I agree with the pressure group “Transform Drugs policy Foundation” in their call for an impact assessment to be carried out into the totality of the cost of our drugs policy. For me it is entirely unrealistic in the short term for the Labour party to campaign for a more sensible and workable drugs policy. So for me the incremental step of campaigning to change the terms of reference of the whole debate might be the way we get a better drugs policy in the future. I really hope that in time the Labour party can adopt the idea of an impact assessment to inform future drug police as official party stance.
But for me one thing is for sure, Bob Ainsworth is right that our current policy isn’t working. Lives are being wrecked all across the world by drugs, and what we are doing now is not in any way arresting this. Something needs to change and if small incremental steps is all we can get right now then that is better than nothing.
I disagree with Hopi Sen on all three of his points on “Why Labour was right to reject Bob’s drug policy”.
1) Aren’t Labour having a full policy review? That “what Bob has said is not, and will not be, the policy of the Labour party” does not even deserve a response.
2) A more recent poll (http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-poll-shows-70-support-for-legal.html) has shown that when possible legal, regulatory models are described to people, rather than letting their imaginations run lose as to what ‘legalisation’ could mean, only 25% supported prohibition of cannabis. Light or strict regulation won out over prohibition for several other drugs too. I’m sure Portuguese-style decriminalisation would also be popular if it were described to people.
3) He deliberately misleads with regards to Portugal. He points out that the progress against HIV was also seen in Spain but fails to mention that so too was the small increase in [adult] drug use. The main outcomes (according to the paper he refers to) have been:
“
– small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults;
– reduced illicit drug use among problematic drug users and adolescents, at least since 2003;
– reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system;
– increased uptake of drug treatment;
– reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases;
– increases in the amounts of drugs seized by the authorities;
– reductions in the retail prices of drugs.
By comparing the trends in Portugal and neighbouring Spain and Italy, we can say that while some trends clearly reflect regional shifts (e.g. the increase in use amongst adults) and/or the expansion of services throughout Portugal, some effects do appear to be specific to Portugal. Indeed, the reduction in problematic drug users and reduction in burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system were in direct contrast to those trends observed in neighbouring Spain and Italy. Moreover, there are no signs of mass expansion of the drug market in Portugal. This is in contrast with apparent market expansions in neighbouring Spain.”
And really, the main policy ‘Bob’ was proposing – for now – was that we have an evidence-based, independent assessment. Your suggestion that the Labour party adopt the idea of such an assessment is a brilliant one! It would surely help to attract support (particularly from the LibDems) and shouldn’t deter anyone, particularly as it would in part be simply an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of counternarcotics expenditure (and at a time of police/justice cuts!).
Hi Adam,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. A lot of what I had to say about what is “realistic” I will admit come from anecdotal evidence about what my pals and work colleagues think. I am sure you are right about how explaining the facts could change some peoples perspectives.
I do worry though about the climate in which that explaining would need to take place, hence why I think the reference needs to change. Still a long and arduos road to getting a more sensible policy I reckon.