Parliament > HASC > Introduction/Conclusions

Home Affairs Select Committee report
The Government’s Drug Policy: is it working?
09.05.02

INTRODUCTION

1. There are few subjects more emotive than illegal drugs. It is widely recognised that existing efforts to deal with them have failed, but as to solutions there is an absolute difference of opinions among experts of every relevant profession—doctors, police and social workers. Opinions—all advanced with equal passion—range from those who argue that prohibition has failed and should, therefore, be abandoned to those who argue that all drugs are harmful and that existing bans and proscriptions should be maintained or indeed tightened. In between there are many shades of grey.

2. The same division of opinion is reflected internationally between, on the one hand, countries such as Sweden which maintain a hard line against all forms of drug abuse and countries such as Switzerland and The Netherlands where the emphasis is cautiously moving away from law enforcement towards regulation and harm reduction. All three countries maintain that their policies are successful.

3. With a handful of brave exceptions—Mr Paul Flynn and Mr Peter Lilley for example—drugs policy is an area where British politicians have feared to tread. To some extent, therefore, this report breaks new ground. Besides arriving at some conclusions, which we hope in due course to see reflected in government policy, we have also seen it as part of our function to give all sides of the argument a chance to set out their stall in the hope that their evidence will help to inform debate for some time to come. We hope to add to the "adult, intelligent debate" invited by the Home Secretary in July 2001.[1]

4. We have taken oral evidence from a wide range of expert witnesses covering the full range of views. These have included Messrs Keith Hellawell and Mike Trace, authors of the Government's original 1998 strategy, Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain, organisations representing all ranks of the police, members of the medical profession, and non-government agencies such as Transform—the Campaign for an Effective Drugs Policy, DrugScope and the National Drug Prevention Alliance, which have wide experience in this area.[2] We have also brought over experts from The Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden to discuss their countries' drugs programmes. We have examined Ministers and officials from the Home Office and the Department of Health with responsibility for the Government's drugs strategy. Finally, we have taken evidence from the families of drug addicts about the impact of drug use on their lives and the difficulties of accessing local services. Some of our evidence sessions—notably those with the Home Secretary and Brian Paddick, the Metropolitan Police Commander in Lambeth—have already attracted widespread attention. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for choosing to announce his proposed changes to drugs policy at a public evidence session with our committee rather than on the Today programme. We hope this is an example that other Ministers will emulate.

5. We have taken oral evidence from 45 witnesses over a total of 11 evidence sessions. We are also grateful to the more than 200 people and organisations who provided written submissions and to Manchester Drug and Alcohol Action Team, which hosted our very valuable and informative visit to drugs services in the area.

6. Our terms of reference were as follows:

"The Committee expects to address these issues among others:

 Does existing drugs policy work?

 What would be the effect of decriminalisation on
a) the availability of and demand for drugs
b) drug-related deaths and
c) crime?

 Is decriminalisation desirable and, if not, what are the practical alternatives?

The inquiry will also examine the effectiveness of the ten year National Strategy on drug misuse launched in 1998 and the preliminary results of the three year research programme costing £6 million started in 1999/2000. It will look at the revised role of the UK Anti-drugs Co-ordinator and assess the effectiveness of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs)".

CONCLUSIONS

There are no easy answers to the problems posed by drug abuse, but it seems to us that certain trends are unmistakable. If there is any single lesson from the experience of the last 30 years, it is that policies based wholly or mainly on enforcement are destined to fail. It remains an unhappy fact that the best efforts of police and Customs have had little, if any, impact on the availability of illegal drugs and this is reflected in the prices on the street which are as low as they have ever been. The best that can be said, and the evidence for this is shaky, is that we have succeeded in containing the problem.

What we do know is that the ready availability of illegal drugs is sustaining a vast criminal industry and that the need of addicts to fund their habit is responsible for an enormous amount of acquisitive crime. We also know that the harm caused by illegal drugs varies immensely from one drug to another and—since most users and potential users know this—there is no point in pretending otherwise.

It, therefore, seems to us that certain conclusions follow inexorably: First, that harm reduction rather than retribution should be the primary focus of policy towards users of illegal drugs. We are glad to note that the Government is making the first tentative steps in that direction. We believe it should go further and have offered some suggestions.

Second, that law enforcement should focus primarily on the criminal network responsible for manufacturing and importing the most harmful drugs—notably heroin and cocaine. We are glad to note that increasingly this is happening.

Three, that we should invest in a programme of education—addressing all forms of drug abuse, including cigarettes and alcohol—to make young people aware of the damage they can inflict upon themselves and others. To be effective, however, such programmes must be realistic, honest, targeted and preferably delivered by someone with "street credibility"—recovered addicts, for example.

Four, we have to recognise that, however much advice they are offered, many young people will continue to use drugs. In most cases this is a passing phase which they will grow out of and, while such use should never be condoned, it rarely results in any long term harm. It therefore makes sense to give priority to educating such young people in harm minimisation rather than prosecuting them. The Government's recent advice to users of so-called "recreational drugs", Safer Clubbing, is a welcome step in this direction.

Five, overwhelmingly we should focus on treating or reducing the harm caused by the 250,000 or so problematic users whose habit is damaging not only their own lives, but those of their families and the communities in which they live. Although there are recent signs of improvement, treatment facilities remain woefully inadequate.
Finally, many sensible and thoughtful people have argued that we should go a step further and embrace legalisation and regulation of all or most presently illegal drugs. We acknowledge there are some attractive arguments. However, those who urge this course upon us are inviting us to take a step into the unknown. To tread where no other society has yet trod. They are asking us to gamble the undoubted potential gains against the inevitability of a significant increase in the number of users, especially amongst the very young. They are overlooking the fact that the overwhelming majority of young people do not use drugs and that many are deterred by the prospect of breaking the law. We, therefore, decline to support legalisation and regulation.

It may well be that in years to come a future generation will take a different view. Drugs policy should not be set in stone. It will evolve like any other. For the foreseeable future, however, we believe the path is clear.

SUMMARY of RECOMMENDATIONS

1. We believe that drugs policy should primarily be addressed to dealing with the 250,000 problematic drug users (paragraph 38).

2. While acknowledging that there may come a day when the balance may tip in favour of legalising and regulating some types of presently illegal drugs, we decline to recommend this drastic step (paragraph 66).

3. We accept that to decriminalise possession of drugs for personal use would send the wrong message to the majority of young people...and that it would inevitably lead to an increase in drug abuse. We, therefore, reject decriminalisation (paragraph 74).

4. We are not persuaded that an intent to supply should be presumed on the basis of amounts of drugs found; we therefore recommend that the offences of simple possession and possession with intent to supply should be retained without alteration (paragraph 77).

5. We recommend that a new offence is created of "supply for gain", which would be used to prosecute large scale commercial suppliers (paragraph 83).

6. We support...the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C (paragraph 121).
7. We...recommend that ecstasy is reclassified as a Class B drug (paragraph 135).

8. We recommend that the number of treatment places for cocaine users is substantially increased. We recommend that resources are channelled into researching and piloting innovative treatment interventions for cocaine users (paragraph 140).

9. We consider that the risks posed by cocaine to the user and to other people merit it remaining a Class A drug (paragraph 141).

10. We recommend that more treatment places are created for crack users and that resources be channelled into researching and piloting more effective treatments. We further recommend that in the meantime efforts are redoubled to extinguish supply of crack cocaine (paragraph 147).

11. We recommend that the Government substantially increases the funding for treatment for heroin addicts and ensure that methadone treatments and complementary therapies are universally available to those who need them (paragraph 160).

12. We recommend that appropriate treatment forms a mandatory part of custodial sentences and that offenders have access to consistent treatment approaches within the prison estate as well as outside it. This should include strictly supervised methadone treatment in the first instance (paragraph 169).

13. We recommend that a proper evaluation is conducted of diamorphine prescribing for heroin addiction in the UK...as compared with methadone prescribing regimes (paragraph 178).

14. We recommend that the guidance and training provided to practitioners prescribing diamorphine to heroin addicts is strengthened (paragraph 179).

15. We recommend that an evaluated pilot programme of safe injecting houses for heroin users is established without delay and that if...this is successful, the programme is extended across the country (paragraph 186).

16. We conclude that the Dutch and Swiss evidence provides a strong basis on which to conduct a pilot here in Britain of highly structured heroin prescribing to addicts. We recommend that a pilot along the lines of the Swiss or Dutch model is conducted in the UK. Should such a pilot generate the positive results which one would expect...we recommend that such a system should supersede the little-used "British system" of licencing (paragraph 190).

17. We believe that all drugs education material should be based on the premise that any drug use can be harmful, and should be discouraged (paragraph 201).

18. We conclude that General Practitioners are, for the most part, inadequately trained to deal with drug misuse. We recommend that training in substance misuse is embedded in the undergraduate medical curriculum and postgraduate General Practice curriculum...We recommend that the Department of Health funds more training courses in substance misuse for existing General Practitioners (paragraph 218).

19. We recommend that a target is added to the National Strategy explicitly aimed at harm reduction and public health (paragraph 245).

20. We recommend that the Government reviews Section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, with a view to repealing it, to allow for the provision of drugs paraphernalia which reduces the harm caused by drugs (paragraph 252).

21. We recommend that Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is amended to ensure that drugs agencies can conduct harm reduction work and provide safe injecting areas for users without fear of being prosecuted (paragraph 257).

22. We recommend that the Home Office and the Department of Health urgently review the current legal framework on the dispensation of controlled drugs by community pharmacists (paragraph 260).

23. We recommend that Drug Abstinence Orders are amended to carry the requirement of access to treatment (paragraph 264).

24. We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma (paragraph 267).

Reproduced in full from:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31814.htm
and
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31815.htm