Media/News > Press Releases > 30.08.07

Drug policy unspun – What the Government doesn't want you to know

News release
No Embargo
Date: 30 August 2007

Transform Drug Policy Foundation, the UK's leading campaign for effective drug policy, today published a briefing showing how the Government's consultation on drug policy distorts the evidence in order to show success where there is little or none.

The briefing ‘Drug policy 1997-2007 - The evidence un-spun' shows how:

• The UK's Policy has cost over £100 billion in crime over the last ten years
• Reported use of cocaine powder amongst 16-24 year olds has virtually doubled since 1997 (up from 3.1% in 1997 to 6.0% in 2006/07)
• 80-95% of street sex workers are involved in prostitution to feed a serious (and expensive) drug habit
• The proportion of people who are discharged from treatment ‘drug free' has fallen from 5.8% to 3.5%

The briefing concludes by saying:

It is imperative that the debate on the future of UK drug policy not be clouded by statistical misrepresentations and spin that dresses up failure as success. This is in no one's interest and will lead to the perpetuation of failure rather than meaningful engagement with evidence of what works and a rational and honest debate about the future direction of UK drug policy.

Danny Kushlick, Transform Director said:

“We have published this briefing to provide policy makers, the media and the public with the unspun facts about drug use and drug policy. Far from the success that the Government propaganda claims, the last ten years of the UK drug strategy has resulted in over a hundred billion pounds of crime costs and left the UK with the highest drug use in Europe. Far from fulfilling the Home Office slogan of ‘Tackling drugs, Changing lives', this briefing shows the outcome of the UK policy is ‘Taking drugs and ruining lives'.”

As part of its submission to the Government Consultation on the future of UK drugs strategy, Transform has put in an official complaint questioning whether the Government has complied with its own rules on conducting consultations. (See letter below)

Danny Kushlick said:

“After discussions with the Home Office Transform has decided to file a complaint with the Better Regulation Executive. We are deeply concerned that the Home Office is using the consultation as little more than an exercise in the dissemination of propaganda and that it has failed to operate its own guidelines in respect of consultations.”

“The document demonstrates the disdain with which Government treats drug policy, its contempt for the consultation process and its desperation to dress up as success, the miserable failure of the last ten years of the UK drug strategy.”

ENDS

Contact:

Danny Kushlick, Director 07970 174747
Steve Rolles, Information Officer 07980 213943

Notes for Editors:

The briefing ‘Drug policy 1997-2007 - The evidence un-spun' can be seen at: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_DrugPolicy.htm

The Government claims this is the largest consultation ever conducted. It can be seen at: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/drug-strategy/drug-strategy-consultation.pdf

The letter to the BRE is below:

Dear Ian

This is to formally complain about the Government's consultation document on the future of the UK drug strategy. The consultation:

1. falls short of the BRE Guidelines and
2. uses skewed statistics to show success where there is little or none.

This is misleading for the general public, which has little understanding of how statistics can be manipulated or drug policy as a whole. I have included a briefing with this letter that shows how Government has spun success and moved the goalposts over the last ten years.

First and foremost the document does not conform to guidelines or commonly understood ideas of what a consultation is. Namely:

1. It contains hardly any proposals. (The BRE's guidelines say "Be clear about what your proposals are" and "with no options ruled out")
2. It is candid in saying that supply side measures have not brought the wished for results. However, there are no questions relating to prohibition, (a policy that has been questioned by almost every review since 1998), but is explicitly the policy underlying the strategy. The updated strategy 2002 states that "we will maintain prohibition". If informal consultations did take place with those in favour of repeal of prohibition, they appear not to have informed the content of the document, despite the fact this is one of the key debates in the drug policy world.
3. It is predominantly propaganda to show the success of the strategy. The document extols the virtues of current policy, rather than seeking views or exposing failings. In essence it is totally one-sided.
4. It includes questions regarding cannabis classification, which is a matter for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, not the general public. It is disingenuous to imply that the public's views will contribute to their recommendation on classification.

It is to be contrasted with the NAO report into the Prevention of Drug Smuggling, 1998, which stated:

"the Department have been unable to assess how far increased seizures indicate success in inhibiting the illegal trade in drugs as a whole, or might instead reflect a general increase in that trade"; This is mirrored in the consultation document: "Changes in prices and purities would be expected to follow from strategic success against drugs markets. It has been difficult to discern a connection, which must exist to some extent, between the tactical successes (e.g. drugs seizures and arrests) and the shape of the market."

And is at odds with the Home Affairs Select Committee Report of 2002 that called for a debate on alternatives to prohibition:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm

And the PM's Strategy Unit Report on drugs from 2003, that shows that many of the harms related to heroin and cocaine are caused by supply side enforcement:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/downloads/work_areas/drugs/drugs_report.pdf

In 2004 Home Office memos revealed that HO officials were suggesting that legalisation and regulation be looked into:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2303024.ece

And the Science and Technology Select Committee Report of 2006 that called into question the entire scientific basis of the drug classification system:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf

This would lead us to believe that a substantive question on the efficacy of supply-side enforcement would be appropriate.

Three independent reports: The Police Foundation Enquiry, 2000, the RSA Commission into Illegal Drugs, 2007 and the UK Drug Policy Commission, 2007 all suggested significant problems with UK drug policy.

Please could you ask the appropriate Government Departments, including the PM's Office how this was signed off as the basis for a legitimate consultation?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Yours sincerely

Danny Kushlick

Director