Media news > Latest news > Prime Minister's secret drugs report 09.02.06

PM’s Secret drugs report betrays cynicism and denial of failure says drugs charity

The Guardian today published a confidential report on drugs from the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. The report comprises the second phase of a reporting process that began with a report released in July of last year that showed that the so-called ‘war on drugs’, (particularly supply-side enforcement of the drug laws) was the cause of many of the problems associated with heroin and cocaine.

Click here to see the Guardian story and full report

Click here to see further Guardian coverage/analysis.

Transform claims the report is a denial of failure and cynical in the extreme. The second report, published today:

1. Steadfastly ignores the findings of the first report and fails to engage with the fact that it is prohibition that creates many drug harms in the first instance

2. Acknowledges that supply side interventions are ineffective at reducing harm but argues that they should be continued regardless

3. Calls for drug seizures to be ‘proclaimed’ despite acknowledging that seizures are ineffective at reducing availability or drug harms

4. Notes that increased drug availability does not increase problematic drug use - thereby torpedoing one of the central tenets of the UK drug strategy, and one of the major arguments against legalisation, control and regulation of drugs

5. Analyses current intervention programmes in detail and concludes they are ineffective at reducing crime harms because too many ‘High Harm Causing Users’ who come into contact with the CJS slip through the net. It suggests that planned changes (pre-Drugs Bill 2005) will only have a marginal impact

6. Recommends that heroin use be criminalised, and a register of addicts be
established - as a way to ‘capture and grip’ problematic users into treatment - and thus reduce offending

7. Calls for an expansion of heroin prescribing.

Transform Director Danny Kushlick said:
“This report exposes in detail the cynicism of a Government prepared to do almost anything to cover up its drugs strategy’s catastrophic failure. It demonstrates a litany of failures to engage with the overwhelming evidence of the counterproductive nature of prohibition.

He added: “The conclusion that ‘there is no causal relationship between availability and incidence’ torpedoes one of the Government’s main arguments against the legalisation, control and regulation of drugs.”

He concluded: “The decision to ‘proclaim’ drug seizures is particularly shocking. This is cynical in the extreme, given that the report acknowledges seizures are having little or no impact on reducing harm. However, this is exactly what has happened with the recent Home Office propaganda blitz to persuade us that the drug strategy is working."

ENDS

Notes for editors

for background please see Transform’s briefing on the Phase 1 report:

Transform will be providing a more detailed briefing on the Phase 2 report later this week.

The Phase 2 Report:

1. Acknowledges that supply side interventions are futile but argues that they should be continued anyway. Under the heading ‘Handling perception’(p.87) :

“The focus on drugs harms could lead to a perception that Government no longer cared about intercepting supply. The accusation might be made:

· that drugs would be allowed to run across borders
· that communities would become flooded with harmful drugs
· that lower prices would tempt recreational users into problem drug use, creating a surge in HHCUs

Strategy Unit analysis suggests that these risks are unlikely to materialise:

· there is already ample supply in the UK
· if prices did fall, harm caused by existing HHCUs would fall
· given that there is no causal relationship between availability and incidence, there is no evidence that there would be a surge in HHCUs causing an increase in overall harm
· Criminal networks involved in trafficking drugs would still be targeted, and drugs would be seized and proclaimed whenever the opportunity arose”

2. Calls for drug seizures to be ‘proclaimed’ despite acknowledging that seizures are ineffective at reducing availability or drug harms

“The scale of disruption required to reduce the supply of class A drugs sustainably is not achievable, even with more resources” (p.83)

“The balance of drug-related supply-side spend, £365m, does not produce any material payback in reducing drug harms and should be invested in other objectives, such as development, countering organised crime, failed states, drug treatment, or other public goods” (p.94)

“Intervention in the drug supply chain-from the producing countries, through trafficking, to wholesale and retail distribution-is expensive. Supply interruption has been ineffective world-wide in reducing the overall availability of drugs; and it has had little or no impact on reducing harms in the UK” (p.5)

“There is no reason not to seize drugs whenever the opportunity arises, but the drive of the police and other agencies should be to deal with the criminality of those who supply drugs, recognising that drug seizures in themselves are having little or no impact on reducing harms” (p.86)

“…drugs would be seized and proclaimed whenever the opportunity arose” (p.87)

3. Notes that increased drug availability does not increase problematic drug use - (thereby torpedoing one of the central tenets of the UK drug strategy)

“Supply-side interventions have a limited role to play in reducing harm - initiation into problematic drug use is not driven by changes in availability or price:

· risk factors -particularly relating to deprivation -are the prime determinant of initiation into problematic drug use; price and availability play a secondary role
· there is no causal relationship between availability and incidence; indeed, prices and incidence often fall or rise at the same time” (p.79)

“There is no causal relationship between drug availability and incidence” (p.81 heading)

4. Analyses current intervention programmes in detail and concludes they are ineffective at reducing crime harms because of poor treatment outcomes and too many HHCU who come into contact with the CJS slip through the net.

“The treatment regime in the UK, however has not overall had a substantial impact on reducing harms” (p.24)

“Most users reach the point, however, when the impact of drug-taking on their lives (the strain of committing crime; the pain of deteriorating partner and family relationships) creates a desire to lose their habits. BUT, whatever the intention, problem drug use is, unfortunately, a chronic relapsing condition
· most users experience a continuing cycle of treatment, followed by relapse, followed by a return to treatment
· nearly half of all HHCUs engage with treatment each year, but most do not stay for long
· even the minority of users who achieve long term abstinence have on average 4-5 treatment episodes before becoming abstinent
· long term abstinence rates world-wide are broadly similar to the UK rate of around 20%” (p.16)

5. Recommends that heroin use be criminalised, and a register of addicts be established - as a way to ‘capture and grip’ problematic users into treatment - and thus reduce offending.

“Heroin use would be made an offence on a par with heroin possession (which currently carries a maximum seven year sentence). HHCUs who test positive would be required to face an assessment from a National Drugs Service case worker; refusing the test or the assessment would be an offence”(p.45)

6. Calls for an expansion of heroin prescribing.

“In principle, there is a strong rationale for a more widespread use of heroin prescription in the treatment system
· around 260,000 heroin users have serious habits which are predominantly funded through crime
· it is better to draw those users into an environment where they can inject safely where they can be persuaded to move down the pathway towards abstinence
· it is also better to provide heroin freely to those users than to have them commit crime to buy it." (p.58)