Phil Stovell
2006-07-31 03:39:27 UTC
<http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1833890,00.html>
MPs savage government's 'ad hoc' drug policy
· More addicts than ever before, says chairman
· Dereliction of duty by advisory council alleged
James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday July 31, 2006
The Guardian
MPs have mounted a savage attack on the government's drugs policy,
denouncing it as "based on ad hockery", "riddled with anomalies" and "not
fit for purpose".
They have also challenged the basis for the ABC classification system,
saying that the harm caused by drugs should be separated from criminal
penalties.
The criticisms come in a report from the parliamentary science and
technology select committee published today as part of an inquiry into how
the government uses scientific evidence in policy making. It describes as
"dereliction of duty" the failure of the government's expert committee,
the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), to alert the Home Office
to serious doubts about the effectiveness of the system. "If the
government wants to hand out messages through the criminal justice system
then let it do so, but let's not pretend to do it on the back of
scientific levels of harm from drugs because clearly that isn't the case,"
said Phil Willis, chair of the science and technology committee. "The only
way to get an accurate and up-to-date classification system is to remove
the link with penalties and just focus on harm."
The investigation - entitled Drug Classification: Making a Hash of it? -
found no evidence that the sliding scale of classification deters users
from taking the more harmful drugs. "We have more drug addicts today than
we've ever had and we have more people using class A drugs than ever ...
the classification system as a device to reduce harm to individuals and
society has failed," Mr Willis said.
Even the police regarded the system as of "minor importance", he said.
When asked by the committee about anomalies in the system, Andy Hayman,
the chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs committee,
said the system was "pretty crude" but this was not a problem because
police could use their discretion.
The ABC system attaches higher penalties to more dangerous class A drugs
such as cocaine than to less dangerous drugs such as cannabis, which is in
class C.
Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, who gave evidence to
the inquiry, welcomed the report. "It's all very well to have good science
at one end of this equation, but if there's no evaluation and review of
the impact of the classification on key indicators the whole thing then
becomes a joke, really."
The report does not offer a detailed alternative to the current
arrangements but says criminal sanctions could be better linked to the
level of criminality surrounding particular drugs, and that penalties
could make a clearer distinction between individual use and dealing. The
report falls short of calling for personal drug use to be decriminalised.
It denounces the ACMD's use of political and social criteria in its
recommendations to the government. One example, according to the MPs, was
methamphetamine or "crystal meth". In November 2005 the committee reviewed
its class B status and concluded that although medical arguments warranted
raising it to class A with heroin and cocaine, this might make it more
desirable on the street.
"It is highly regrettable that the ACMD took it upon itself to make what
should have been a political judgment," says the report. "Invoking this
non-scientific judgment call as the primary justification for its position
has muddied the water with respect to its role." In May the ACMD
reconsidered its position and recommended moving the drug into class A.
The MPs also criticised the government's "opaque" approach to changes in
the system and the way in which the changes often appear to be a
"knee-jerk response to media storms". Neither the Home Office nor ACMD
chairman Sir Michael Rawlins was available to comment.
Criticisms
Methamphetamine
The decision to keep crystal meth in class B in 2005 was criticised as
"political" and the subsequent reversal looked "like the council either
realised it had made a mistake, or had succumbed to outside pressure".
Ecstasy
MPs critical of failure to review evidence for class A status, given its
profile and widespread use.
Magic mushrooms
The council's failure to speak out on government's decision to put fresh
magic mushrooms in class A in July 2005 "undermined its credibility".
Cannabis
The timing of the second review of cannabis classification in March 2005
gave the impression that a media outcry was enough to prompt a review.
Alcohol and tobacco
Should be included in a more scientific scale of drug-induced harm.
MPs savage government's 'ad hoc' drug policy
· More addicts than ever before, says chairman
· Dereliction of duty by advisory council alleged
James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday July 31, 2006
The Guardian
MPs have mounted a savage attack on the government's drugs policy,
denouncing it as "based on ad hockery", "riddled with anomalies" and "not
fit for purpose".
They have also challenged the basis for the ABC classification system,
saying that the harm caused by drugs should be separated from criminal
penalties.
The criticisms come in a report from the parliamentary science and
technology select committee published today as part of an inquiry into how
the government uses scientific evidence in policy making. It describes as
"dereliction of duty" the failure of the government's expert committee,
the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), to alert the Home Office
to serious doubts about the effectiveness of the system. "If the
government wants to hand out messages through the criminal justice system
then let it do so, but let's not pretend to do it on the back of
scientific levels of harm from drugs because clearly that isn't the case,"
said Phil Willis, chair of the science and technology committee. "The only
way to get an accurate and up-to-date classification system is to remove
the link with penalties and just focus on harm."
The investigation - entitled Drug Classification: Making a Hash of it? -
found no evidence that the sliding scale of classification deters users
from taking the more harmful drugs. "We have more drug addicts today than
we've ever had and we have more people using class A drugs than ever ...
the classification system as a device to reduce harm to individuals and
society has failed," Mr Willis said.
Even the police regarded the system as of "minor importance", he said.
When asked by the committee about anomalies in the system, Andy Hayman,
the chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs committee,
said the system was "pretty crude" but this was not a problem because
police could use their discretion.
The ABC system attaches higher penalties to more dangerous class A drugs
such as cocaine than to less dangerous drugs such as cannabis, which is in
class C.
Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, who gave evidence to
the inquiry, welcomed the report. "It's all very well to have good science
at one end of this equation, but if there's no evaluation and review of
the impact of the classification on key indicators the whole thing then
becomes a joke, really."
The report does not offer a detailed alternative to the current
arrangements but says criminal sanctions could be better linked to the
level of criminality surrounding particular drugs, and that penalties
could make a clearer distinction between individual use and dealing. The
report falls short of calling for personal drug use to be decriminalised.
It denounces the ACMD's use of political and social criteria in its
recommendations to the government. One example, according to the MPs, was
methamphetamine or "crystal meth". In November 2005 the committee reviewed
its class B status and concluded that although medical arguments warranted
raising it to class A with heroin and cocaine, this might make it more
desirable on the street.
"It is highly regrettable that the ACMD took it upon itself to make what
should have been a political judgment," says the report. "Invoking this
non-scientific judgment call as the primary justification for its position
has muddied the water with respect to its role." In May the ACMD
reconsidered its position and recommended moving the drug into class A.
The MPs also criticised the government's "opaque" approach to changes in
the system and the way in which the changes often appear to be a
"knee-jerk response to media storms". Neither the Home Office nor ACMD
chairman Sir Michael Rawlins was available to comment.
Criticisms
Methamphetamine
The decision to keep crystal meth in class B in 2005 was criticised as
"political" and the subsequent reversal looked "like the council either
realised it had made a mistake, or had succumbed to outside pressure".
Ecstasy
MPs critical of failure to review evidence for class A status, given its
profile and widespread use.
Magic mushrooms
The council's failure to speak out on government's decision to put fresh
magic mushrooms in class A in July 2005 "undermined its credibility".
Cannabis
The timing of the second review of cannabis classification in March 2005
gave the impression that a media outcry was enough to prompt a review.
Alcohol and tobacco
Should be included in a more scientific scale of drug-induced harm.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"