The Argument » Public Law/Policy

Shunned, marginalised and criminalised: how the weaknesses of British drug policy are counterproductive to the issues at stake

Walker — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:55:40 +0000

New research questions the efficacy of the UK’s drug policy. So why is it being ignored?
In April 2007, the UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC), an independent and objective body was launched to research the use of drugs in Britain, the direct and indirect impact of their consumption on society and then to advise the government on the most effective policy to deal with any perceived problems. The commission was launched independently as a charity and limited company without any government funding or the involvement of government agencies. UKDPC did a considerable amount of research into the trends of drug consumption, the health risks involved with it and the criminal activities that are connected with drugs. In January of this year, however, the Prime Minister went against (and rejected) the advice of the Drugs Advisory Council and upgraded cannabis from a class C drug to a class B drug. The reasoning for the reclassification was that it was necessary as the use of cannabis results in mental health problems and ‘we don’t want to send out a message, just like with alcohol, to teenagers that we accept these things’.

Health risks
As it happens, the scientific research undertaken by UKDPC into the use of cannabis and the effect it has on mental health found that cannabis does, in fact, increase the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by one per cent. However, since few users of cannabis actually suffer long-term mental health issues, it effectively becomes ‘a moderate risk factor’ most relevant to those already at risk due to environmental and/or genetic influences. Alcohol and other forms of substance abuse are also well known to have a negative impact on mental health. In spite of such credible evidence, the government has insisted on ignoring it and has instead taken a puritanical stance on the use of cannabis. In 2007, it was estimated that over two million people in Britain smoked cannabis. With the change in the classification of the drug to class B, these two million people could face up to five years’ imprisonment if they are caught, draining the time and money of the police force, the courts and even the prison system. These figures are just for the consumption of cannabis. A report released this summer by the UN found that there are now over a million users of cocaine in Britain, the possession of which carries a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment.

Ineffective measures?
The UKDPC report found that in 2005-06, there were an estimated three quarters of a million cocaine users in Britain and the average price per gram was about £70, which has since dropped to £54 per gram. The recent drop in price and increase in usage is a surprise considering the government launched a crackdown on cocaine use last year, which the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) claimed resulted in ten tonnes of the class A drug being seized in the run-up to Christmas. Perhaps the increase in usage isn’t such a surprise when one considers that the crackdown is the reason the price per gram has dropped. Due to the increasing difficulty in bringing the drug into the country, career cocaine dealers have opted to import less cocaine but to mix what they do import with other chemicals, such as talcum powder, baby milk powder and local anaesthetic. One third of what is now being sold as cocaine at street level is actually only 5% cocaine. As the drug market is completely unregulated (due to the criminalisation of the substances), ‘cutting’ drugs with lookalike substances is relatively common. For example, heroin is usually cut with sleeping aids, plaster and brick dust and the street purity can range from 20 to 90%. The UKDPC report also found that, while heroin seizures had risen by 30%, death by drug misuse in England and Wales had risen by 25% – and in Scotland by 150%. Decriminalisation of such drugs would allow users to test the purity of their drugs at government or private health facilities without fear of prosecution.

Decriminalisation works
After the fall of Salazar’s dictatorship in Portugal in 1974, the Portuguese drug scene began to grow steadily until it exploded out of control in the mid-1980s. By 1999, unable to resolve the increasing problem of (predominantly) heroin addicts and the burden they put upon the criminal justice system, the Portuguese government invited a committee of experts to propose policy recommendations. One main recommendation was to decriminalise the personal use and possession of all drugs. In 2001, the Portuguese government followed this and most other advice and decriminalised drug use, meaning that, while drugs are still illegal, their consumption is not a criminal offence so users cannot be sent to jail, although dealing is still heavily punished. The argument for this centred around the idea that the government cannot stop people from using drugs, but what they can do is limit the harm caused and work with drug users to help tackle any problems they may have. To do this, the Commission for Drug Dissuasion was set up. The Commission acts in the same way as the criminal courts, but is chaired by a social worker, a judge and a medical expert, who assess each drug user, then decide what course of action would be best for them, from social work to rehabilitation. The main difference between the Commission and the criminal courts is that those before the Commission are treated as having a health issue rather than as criminals and thus are more co-operative with the system. The Portuguese police commissioner, Paulo Flor, applauds the policy, saying it gives them far more time looking for ‘the big fish’. Consumption of most drugs in Portugal has stabilised while consumption of others has fallen; there has been a decrease in drug-related deaths and the number of people in rehab has significantly increased.

Tabloid agenda
Latin America has begun to follow the Portuguese decriminalisation model – with Argentina and Mexico having decriminalised drug use and Brazil and Ecuador preparing to follow suit. Is it not time then that Britain also abandons the War on Drugs started by Richard Nixon in the 1960s and accepts that prohibition-enforced abstinence causes more harm than good, creating a niche in the British black market worth £7 billion? The only British political party to seriously consider the results of Portuguese drug policy is the Liberal Democrats, as I found when speaking to local LibDem candidate Guy Voizey: ‘Liberal Democrat policy is to end the use of imprisonment for possession of own use of illegal drugs of any class. Treatment and rehabilitation facilities should be made more widely available … Drugs policy in this country is driven by the tabloid agenda. Tabloids (and our political opponents) consider our policy of decriminalisation to be reckless by trying to suggest decriminalisation means something similar to handing out cannabis to school kids at break time. Until there’s a more mature approach, it will be difficult getting change.’ Change can only come about through mature discussion, and that can only be achieved by bringing the issue of drugs out of the taboo and into sensible dialogue. UKDPC is an independent registered charity that: provides authoritative and objective analysis of UK drug policies, furthers understanding of the evidence base and its implications for drug policies, and encourages policy makers to adopt evidence-based drug policies.

John Moreland is in the second year of a Law LLB

Is prison an effective form of punishment?

Walker — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:52:44 +0000

Is imprisonment really the most effective way to stop offenders from reoffending?
In 2007, over 81,000 people populated the United Kingdom’s prisons. These people had been sentenced according to the guidelines set out in section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The legislation proposed that the main purposes of sentencing are to rehabilitate offenders, punish offenders, reduce crime, protect the public and make amends to the people who have been affected by the crime. But has prison been effective in meeting these purposes?
Rehabilitation
Major longitudinal research revealed that 46% of prisoners in the sample had no qualifications when they entered prison, 50% were homeless the year before prison and nearly half had been unemployed. On top of this, 36% were heavy drinkers, most had taken illegal drugs and many had mental health problems. But how is prison tackling these problems to prevent them from reoffending when they are released from prison? The Ministry of Justice claims that it wants to ‘address the factors which have contributed to their offending’ and are offering education and prison jobs. They also have private employers offering practical work to offenders while in prison, which may make offenders more employable on the outside. Each prison also has an offender manager who ensures that there are programmes that deal with issues like substance abuse. Erwin James, an offender serving a life sentence, told The Guardian: ‘I have never been in a jail which did not have an education department, library, gymnasium, chapel, psychologists, probation officers and counsellors.’ He added: ‘17 years ago, I never dreamed how my life would be transformed. I could barely string two sentences together; now I sit here with an embarrassment of qualifications.’ It is fine trying to address these problems by offering education and a chance to make money inside prison, but could this not be encouraging people to come back to prison? The ITV documentary series Holloway questioned one girl who stated that she loved prison because she felt secure; she knew where she was sleeping at night, that she was getting food and that she was getting money – which is more than she expected outside prison. She soon found herself back inside prison after she was released for the first time. This suggests that some prisoners view prison as a safe haven. Erwin James told The Guardian that ‘only somebody who has been to prison would believe that jails are “soft places”’. If prisoners believe that they are getting an easier life inside prison, how can they be expected to change their ways? The Ministry of Justice takes a different viewpoint, stating that prison ‘removes the liberty of offenders, forcing them to comply with a structured, disciplined and tough regime’. But it matters little what the Ministry of Justice thinks, when prisoners see prison as a ‘soft’ place. While prisons try to increase offenders’ employability by offering work and education inside the prison, in reality, is there a chance of offenders receiving employment on the outside? This author initially posited that employers would not jump at the chance of having an ex-prisoner working for their firm. However, a charity called Nacro revealed that ‘a quarter of the working population has some kind of criminal record’. Perhaps offenders do, in fact, have a chance in the working world.
Reducing crime
While it appears that prison can rehabilitate some offenders, it is usually those serving longer sentences for more serious crimes. MP David Hanson believes that ‘putting offenders through tough community sentences can be more effective in reducing reoffending than a short spell in prison’. But despite knowing that short sentences do not work, most prisoners spend less than a year in prison. The general argument may be that incapacitation automatically means that these offenders can no longer commit crime, but it is possible that these offenders are committing crimes on the inside. While offenders cannot commit specific crimes such as child abuse, it is possible to batter an inmate. A crime committed behind bars does not equate to a reduction of crime, but at least it can be said that prison is protecting the general public. Prison does have a deterrent function because when people see their peers being imprisoned for crimes (particularly in exemplary and highprofile cases), they might stop and think about the consequences of their own actions (this is known as general deterrence). Specific deterrence, however – where offenders themselves are deterred from committing crime in the future – is dependent on whether prison has helped them to change. Statistics show that prison is preventing reoffending because only 39% of offenders had reoffended in 2007. But there is still room for improvement.
Protection
The prison service can offer victims the comfort of knowing that the offender is behind bars. The Ministry of Justice say that ‘prison is the right place for the most dangerous, serious and the most persistent offenders’. But this does not account for petty theft and other less serious crimes, where the punishment has been prison. There seems little logic in ‘protecting’ people from crimes that are not dangerous, especially as short-term prison sentences do not work, as evidenced earlier. Prison can be successful, but only for crimes that are of a serious nature. However, Erwin James has suggested that some prisoners may be full of resentment in the end. Prison will only work as a rehabilitative method for those who want to transform. It seems to offer first-time offenders a second chance upon leaving prison; with qualifications, plenty of work experience and support, as well as time to think their crimes over. But those convicted of less serious crimes should be given an alternative punishment, such as community service, as this appears to be more effective in changing behaviour. Perhaps prison should be combined with other punishments upon release, such as a curfew or community service. Ultimately, then, the effectiveness of the prison system will depend upon the length of incarceration and the opportunities afforded to the prisoners while in prison.
Sarah Ward is the second year of a Law LLB

Coca, not cocaine

Walker — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:43:21 +0000

What effect does western drug policy have on Latin American culture?
Several years ago, I was, for the first time, face to face with the origins of one of the greatest evils of contemporary society. I was in Latin America and staring at an evil responsible for the deaths of millions of people, the incarceration of millions more and the degradation of western society. Given its impressive record in destruction, it seemed rather strange that this evil was stewing in the bottom of my tea cup. The evil I am referring to is the coca leaf. While my leaves were providing a concoction that would aid my battle against altitude-sickness, elsewhere ton after ton was being put through a step-by-step process of chemical adjustment that would culminate in the crystallisation of a fine powder known to the world as cocaine.
Forgotten societies
Cocaine is one constituent in the wider dilemma of drug policy in society. The problems caused by both the drugs trade and the State’s response in countries such as the US and the UK are of the extent that it dominates contemporary thought and often makes front page news. While the prohibition/legalisation debate comprehensively examines the implications for our society, it does so at the expense of another neglected dimension to this problem: the implications for the societies that satisfy our insatiable thirst for intoxication.
Symbolic leaf
To the Andean societies who have cultivated the coca leaf for thousands of years, it is an integral part of their culture. It operates as a medium of social interaction. In much the same way that colleagues buy each other pints in a pub, Andean people share coca leaves. As a symbol, it represents the resistance of indigenous people against the Spanish Conquistadores’ colonisation of the region. Catholic missionaries, who arrived after the 200 Spanish soldiers and their muskets famously eradicated the entire Inca Empire, saw the coca leaf as symbolic of the indigenous people’s pagan ancestry and were the most vociferous in objecting to its continued use.
Exploiting demand
As mentioned previously, its alleged medicinal benefits are equally important. The pleas of the Catholic missionaries at the time were ignored by the Administration because the leaf’s perceived qualities as a stimulant, alongside its ability to suppress hunger, aided the exploitation of the indigenous workforce and allowed the Conquistadores to intensify their mining and seizure of the region’s huge gold reserves. But while colonisation caused shameful levels of damage to Latin America, it pales in comparison to that caused by the cocaine trade. The western demand for cocaine, coupled with its illegality, has caused the value of the product to inflate and, for millions of impoverished Latin Americans, has made the risk of death/prosecution one worth taking. Prohibition can only intensify this problem as the tougher it becomes to import a product, the rarer it becomes and so the more valuable. This exponentially increasing value for trafficking the product allowed drug barons at the top of the chain to exert unrivalled influence over the states they trafficked within, whether it was through bribing politicians or assassinating those standing in the way of their illegal activities – actions that left many more injured or massacred in the crossfire. Such was the extent of this problem that in 1986, the main cause of death for adult males in Colombia was murder. This kind of corruption, as well as tolerance towards the drugs trade, was on a number of occasions removed through CIA-sponsored coups such as the assassination of the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, who was replaced by the dictator Augusto Pinochet, one of many Latin leaders whose human rights abuses were tolerated by the western world, thanks to his equally oppressive approach to the drug trade.
Cultural destruction
The most shameful damage has been caused by the practise of coca eradication programmes. These have led to communities that have grown and harvested the coca leaf for at least a thousand years being forced to abandon their livelihood. Not only are they being forced to abandon a livelihood but the significance of the coca leaf within Andean cultures makes it the cultural equivalent of denying an Englishman his cup of tea! Furthermore, as a result, it has led to those that grow coca illicitly having to hide their plantations in the Amazon rainforest, a covert operation that has done irreparable and large scale damage to this complex ecosystem. Cocaine and its constituents weren’t always the scourge of the western world. Although cocaine was first isolated from coca leaves in 1855, it was not outlawed internationally until Peru and Bolivia finally signed the Single Geneva Convention Against Drugs in 1962. At the end of the 19th century, it had become the toast of the medical and pharmaceutical world following its successful use as an anaesthetic. At the peak of its popularity, it was being used to cure everything from hay fever to mental illness and was available to purchase over the counter. While most of the companies that prospered on the back of cocaine’s pre-prohibition success disappeared decades ago, one still remains. The Coca Cola Company removed cocaine from its products at the beginning of the 20th century, but it continues to import some 175,000 kilograms of coca leaves a year, the approximate 1.75 tons of cocaine this brings is extracted by a subsidiary, one of a minority of companies that has the privilege of a US-license to work with these illegal products. The US authorities are not quite so tolerant towards the more infamous reasons coca and its constituents are imported. During Reagan’s first term as president, the War on Drugs expanded from a domestic battle to an international one. An international war that has cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars, cost the lives of 56 DEAs, ruined the lives of millions more in Latin America, whether it be through interfering with a harmless ancient pastime, through US-sponsored coca-eradication programmes, or through the propping up of US-sponsored dictatorial regimes. Despite this bloodshed little has been achieved, drugs are still readily available. I am not disputing that cocaine, and especially crack cocaine, can be dreadful and damaging things but the hypocrisy of the West (the US especially) is equally damaging. Cocaine is one of the great testaments to the damage the vices of the ‘first world’ have inflicted on developing nations.
A western vice?
Take a harmless bag of coca leaves; add some western chemistry and you have the world’s favourite illicit powder. Yet, it is the very people that use coca responsibly that suffer the most at the hands of anti-drug policy, while the wealthy and the desperate drug-users of the West continue to indulge and sponsor this misery. So if, as an affluent lawyer or businessman, you should ever find yourself on the brink of dabbling in the ‘marching powder’, spare a thought for the millions that have suffered for that fix; think twice and remember the famous Latin mantra: ‘Coca not cocaine’!

Thomas Barker is in the second year of a Law LLB and President of the Debating Societyn(www.kentdebating.co.uk)