Media News > Latest news > 2004 seminar series > Options for control: Managing Demand

Transform seminar ‘Options for control: managing demand’
Discussion and Presentation Notes

The following text based on notes from presentations and notes made during seminar discussions. It is not a briefing and does not necessarily reflect the views of Transform.

Presentation 1: Lessons from history

1. Prohibition distorts the shape of demand

 Pre prohibition cocaine was available either a) pure or b) patent/mild
 ‘soft drink’. The milder versions were more popular than the ‘hard drug’ despite irresponsible advertising.
 This suggests a natural level of cocaine content demanded more like coffee, red bull
 Under prohibition - the strongest/most profitable/most dangerous forms thrive e.g. crack - product of prohibition – (there is no caffeine equivalent)

2. It didn’t take prohibition to make drugs dangerous

 Users realised before doctors/govt (1870s)
 DeQuincey (1821) stressed craving/tolerance/withdrawal – model of addiction
 To the medical profession - ‘addiction’ was side effect of valuable med - more concerned by overdose.

3. Most people want to avoid harming themselves

 Patient pressure 1880s blaming doctors for addiction (cf Prozac today)
 Drug use negotiated socially not constructed by legislation
 Most effective intervention - 1868 Pharmacy Act & info campaign -
 Drug use fell from 1870 to when it was banned in 1920

4. High prevalence can exist with low problematic use

 At least, it did in 19th century
 People chose manageable/socially acceptable forms of drug behaviours and took the initiative in harm reduction (cf. contemporary coca chewing in Andes / opium use in Laos)
 This phenomenon is less likely under prohibition/more likely the more choice is available

5. The most dangerous drug is alcohol

 Drug prohibition was side-effect of the Temperance movement (alcohol)
 Aspirational middle class crusade against intoxication - doctors/church/women
 ‘moral insanity’ / ‘opium inebriety’
 Ironically alcohol prohibition collapsed because use was widespread whilst drug prohibition remained because they were comparatively little used at the time.

6. We can’t turn back the clock

 Whilst this is a general caveat with history, specifically regards prohibition:
 It has transformed our traditional relationship with drugs
 In the past the medicinal/recreational divide or feeling better/feeling good divide was more blurred
 Drugs are now sub cultural / initiatory
 Because drug use is now intrinsically criminal / the distinction is blurred between drug use and other antisocial behaviour
 Cult of intensity (of drug use) as response to intense black market forms of drugs
 (cf. alcohol model)
 Drug use will not disappear overnight but history suggests natural level
 Patterns of drug use are not imposed top-down, but negotiated from the bottom up

Discussion points

 Drugs on their own aren’t dangerous, but become disastrous when coupled with a chaotic social backdrop. Clear link between problematic use and social deprivation, i.e. mining villages, fishing ports.

 Improvements in quality of life reduced chaotic gin use.

 Whisky and syphilis arrived in Glasgow in the 1560’s and reduced the population by 10% in 10 years, as did Heroin and aids in the 1980s.

 We can’t remove social deprivation, but can remove prohibition relatively easily.

 People take substances chaotically at both ends of the socio-economic spectrum. The rich, however, have the means and inclination to conceal their habits.

 Alcoholism is rife amongst high-ranking Saudis.

 In UK the only section of society not to reduce levels of smoking is the poorest.

 How reliable are 19th century figures on use and production? – Evidence from taxes consistent and reliable.

 Alcohol is more toxic than heroin, but this never gets shown in media - tends to portray heroin problems that are actually caused by prohibition.

 Alcohol is still considered one of the most dangerous drugs: BMA (2002) said alcohol is class A and tobacco class B.

 Impact of advertising before prohibition was significant although pre regulation wild claims were made which now seem absurd.

Presentation 2: The Politics of Demand

See also: Transform seminar briefing

Prohibition: Setting the scene

 Global prohibition since 1961
 Rhetorical / Ideological commitment to ‘a drug free world’
 Demonisation of all drug use
 Religious / moral basis of abstinence / prohibition

Current opposition to law reform

 Opposition centres on predicted rise in use:

“Drugs are controlled because of their harm potential and the law and its sanctions help to limit experimentation”

(Home Office submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee drugs inquiry 2001)

Policy issues – easy

 Overarching aim of reducing harm to users and their communities
 Policy developed based on evidence of effectiveness on key indicators
 Various regulatory models already exist for currently legal drugs (of varying harm potential)

Political issues - complex

 Ingrained historical misunderstandings
 Vested interests (departmental budgets, careers etc)
 Political beneficiaries of prohibition
 Public / media opinion
 Complex arguments for reform
 International pressures (UN, US etc)

Looking forward

 Overplaying fears around increasing use when prohibition ends is the strongest rhetorical weapon politicians have to stave off the inevitable.
 Crisis, not Transform, has put us on the road to reform

Presentation 3: Education for demand reduction?

"Drugs: Guidance for Schools" has been issued to all schools in England by the Department for Education and Skills. It contains details about what constitutes officially established good practice:

 Drug education is an integral part of the Personal Social and Health Education curriculum
 It should start at age 5
 Its content should start where young people are
 It should address skills and attitudes as well as knowledge
 Issues dealt with need to be relevant, and use active and interactive learning techniques to explore them
 Drug information must be accurate, balanced, reliable and credible
 Successful teaching should not be judged solely with reference to young people¹s drug use

However, there are still many concerns, not least those raised by Tony Blair’s unhelpful references to Random drug testing in a newspaper interview. Reported increases in recent use of dogs in schools is worrying.

Other worries include:

 Schools' apparent over-readiness to permanently exclude pupils who share their cannabis with friends, because technically it constitutes dealing. This is one of the outcomes of a society that has turned a war waged on drugs to a war waged on pupils. We need a much calmer approach, which judges any incidents involving illegal drugs individually against a wide range of factors.

 Despite drug education now being placed in PSHE (personal social and health education) which is supportive and developmental, so 'drugs' is still seen principally as a behaviour issue, a stance which undermines the provision of PSHE - a subject so reliant on mutual trust.

 It is rare for schools to have in place a systematic process for assessing the needs of young people involved with drugs. This means schools may unwittingly treat some traumatised pupils with serious needs as merely 'naughty'. Generally, schools have little idea that they are part of a 4-tier model that is needs-based, so referral for formal assessment, treatment, counselling or other intervention may not even occur to them. This model, established by the Health Advisory Service in their document The Substance of Young Needs¹ sets schools in a central position as a universal provider of drugs information to pupils and parents.

Drug law reform and drug education

Significant relaxation of the laws on drugs would have little material effect on what schools are advised to teach, as they are already recommended to ensure that the nature of laws, school rules and social restrictions are well explored and thoroughly understood. However, a change to legal restrictions might throw into sharp focus the need for schools to educate young people more fully about the health and other issues raised by the availability and use of drugs in society if condemnation could no longer masquerade as the fulcrum for drug education.

Thus, a predominantly authoritarian approach to drugs as 'forbidden fruit', might then be replaced, through pressure of circumstances, by more comprehensive treatment of the subject of drugs in the context of young people's growing responsibilities and changing needs. Of course, such a change in the style and stance underpinning supportive, developmental drug education in schools is not dependent upon changes in the law. It could happen tomorrow if schools were less keen to condemn young drug users, and keener to provide a stable and secure environment in which to foster a better understanding of their personal value, and their responsibility for their own health, within a climate where making mistakes was a trigger for focused input, rather than outright rejection.

Afternoon workshop exercise: Press conference questions

The following questions were asked at a mock press conference at which the Home Secretary and Minister of Health were to announce a green paper on moves toward legalisation and regulation of currently illegal drugs. The idea was to confront the ministers with questions that reflect popular concerns about reform, focusing on the on the health dangers of drugs and the impact of policy change on levels of demand and use.

 Given the growing evidence of the dangers of using cannabis, including addiction schizophrenia, psychosis and a range of other serious mental health problems how can you justify legalising the drug when such a move will inevitably lead to more people using it.

 Legalising drugs will lead to multinationals aggressively advertising their products to whole new audiences. Given what has happened with tobacco use how can you ever justify the promotion of such risky behaviours.

 Is it not the role of the government to protect people from the dangers of drugs by showing strong moral leadership? Will removing criminal sanctions from drug use send out the message that drug use is normal and acceptable, and even has state approval?

 The law is the ultimate barrier between young people and the evils of drugs, and removing this barrier would open the floodgates of addiction and misery. What responsible government could ever even try and justify such negligence?

 We are able to see some merit in legalising and regulating cannabis but how can you ever give the green light to the legal sale of drugs that kill like ecstasy and heroin?

 Public opinion does not support the changes you are now advocating, and never has. Is it right for you to be risking so much against the will of the vast majority of people?

 Legalisation has been a disaster in Holland whish has seen cannabis use treble and organised crime run rife. Similarly In Alaska cannabis decriminalisation was reversed after a massive leap in young peoples drug abuse. Sweden has the lowest drug use in Europe and very strongly enforced drug laws. Surely we should follow the Swedes and not the Dutch?

 What message are parents and teachers supposed to give to young people when the government is saying that drugs are OK?

 I understand some of the intellectual arguments for drug law reform but it has never been tried and is it not therefore a huge leap into the dark - in effect gambling with the health of an entire generation?

 The drug laws share the support and consensus of 146 countries under the UN conventions. Ending drug prohibition would contravene international law and make the UK a pariah state in the world community, alienating us from our closest allies and lowering are international standing and influence. Is such a move not sheer folly?

 If drugs like heroin and cocaine become as cheap and available alcohol and tobacco is not reasonable to imagine that there use to a comparable level as the currently legal drugs, with consequences too shocking to comprehend?