UK - Drugs policy needs overhaul, says German (Wales)

[Lunar Loops]

Always so good to see labour making wild allegations of the opposition

Any attempt to even talk about a policy shift on drugs is leapt upon as being soft on criminals.

This from ICWales.co.uk:

Drugs policy needs overhaul, says German

Apr 22 2008 by David Williamson, Western Mail

WELSH Liberal Democrat leader Mike German has called for an overhaul of drug and prison policy.
His call came as the party launched an attack on Labour’s record on crime – an issue at the centre of Labour’s local government election campaign.
It provoked a furious reaction from Labour with one MP accusing the Lib-Dems of “letting criminals run free” and of voting against Labour’s tough legislation to crack down on antisocial behaviour”.
Mr German said he wants “ruthless” action against drug dealers but has called for a new approach to dealing with users.
Mr German claimed 75% of young adults and juveniles are convicted of another offence within two years of release from prison.
He said: “It is not a solution to simply send people to prison when you can’t do anything about them when they come out the other end.”
The Lib-Dem leader argues that Labour is guilty of “trying to look tough on crime” without tackling the causes of crime.
More than six out of 10 of all adult offenders (65%) are also convicted again within two years of release, he said, adding that more than half of all offenders do not have the skills required to enter the vast majority of jobs and that only one in five was able to fill out an applications form.
Mr German said that while the number of people “being banged up” had increased, so had the fear of crime.
He also condemned that “things like stones being thrown at car windows, litter, dogs being left free to roam in places where they are a danger to children, has got greater”.
Calling for an increase in community policing, he also demanded new thinking about drugs.
Insisting that the current policy isn’t working, he said: “I think we need to distinguish between those who are selling drugs and those who are using drugs. We come down like a ton of bricks on people who are selling drugs – we just need to be ruthless. We can’t do anything else. But I think you have to look very carefully at each individual user of drugs to see whether or not they could be helped to get out of that drug habit.”
The party claims 70% of prisoners suffer from two or more mental health disorders. It wants more drug treatment facilities and mental health beds.
The party is also demanding a nationwide roll-out of the 101 non-emergency telephone service used to report antisocial behaviour.
Jenny Willott, the Lib-Dem Cardiff Central MP, also hit out at Labour’s record on crime, saying: “They’ve created hundreds of new offences, filled our prisons to breaking point, embarked on a police merger programme which wasted thousands of police hours and hundreds of thousands of pounds.”
Mr German said: “Labour’s record on crime is shocking. From short-sighted policy decisions to blatant bad management, Labour have had little impact on tackling crime and anti-social behaviour in our communities since coming to power in 1997.”
The Lib-Dem comments sparked a furious reaction from Labour.
Huw Irranca-Davies, Labour MP for Ogmore, said: “Their record in charge of councils in Wales is one of letting criminals run free. Nationally the Liberal Democrats want to lower the drinking age to 16.
“And they voted against Labour’s tough legislation to crack down on antisocial behaviour in our neighbourhoods.
“In local councils across Wales the Lib-Dems have given criminals a free ride.”
Attacking the party’s record in the Welsh capital, he said: “They had to be forced by Labour to establish a dedicated team to tackle graffiti and to impose alcohol-free zones in the city.
“In Wrexham, the Liberal Democrats failed to introduce crucial council-employed community safety wardens. . .
“We are on the side of the law-abiding majority. The Liberal Democrats have, and always will, be on the side of criminals.”

[Lunar Loops]

Although this is talking about drug policy change in the UK as a whole, I have placed it here as it comes from Dr Paul Walker who is head of the Welsh Public Health Association.

This from ICWales.co.uk:

Discredited drugs policy must change

Apr 21 2008 by Dr Paul Walker, Western Mail

I SUGGESTED, three years ago, that the public health community should be pressing for an open and mature debate on the subject of drug misuse.
In fact, I went further than this in stating that we should be advocating the regulated legalisation of drug use and supply on the grounds that the direct impact on health and wellbeing would be positive and that the indirect effect through reducing crime might be even greater.
Having just re-elected the present Westminster Government, it seemed that the time was right to push for reform of the current policy, which is based on prohibition and delivered through the criminal justice system.
So what has happened in the three years since I made these suggestions? At Government level, precisely nothing.
In fact, worse than this, because in March it published its long awaited new 10-year drug strategy, which seems to set the current prohibitionist policy framework in stone for another decade.
It was the US which pushed for the adoption of the United Nations Drug Convention in 1961 which required all UN member states to incorporate a prohibitionist policy into their own domestic criminal legislation.
Whereas most member states have fulfilled the letter of the convention, not all – for example Portugal and the Netherlands – have fulfilled its spirit.
The UK response was the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, replacing a liberal policy based on a tolerant medical model with a punitive regime, which slavishly followed both the letter and spirit of the Convention.
The aim of prohibition is to reduce drug availability. In fact, drugs are cheaper and more available than ever before. Over the past decade inflation-adjusted prices in Western Europe have fallen by 45% for cocaine and 60% for heroin. In the UK the upward trend in drug use has been especially marked in the past two decades for the most problematic drugs, heroin and crack cocaine.
There were approximately 6,000 to 15,000 problematic illegal drug users in 1971 – in 2002 there were estimated to be between 161,000 and 266,000.
The effects of the 1971 Act and subsequent related legislation have been the subject of considerable high-level attention over the past decade but, perhaps most significantly, by the Prime Minister’s own strategy unit.
In 2003 it produced a detailed economic and social analysis of international and domestic drugs policy that showed that supply-side enforcement interventions are positively counter-productive.
In particular it revealed:
Prohibition does not prevent drug production. Efforts to reduce crop production have failed historically and will continue to do so;
prohibition does not prevent trafficking. Attempts to do this and to reduce the associated money laundering have failed historically and will continue to do so;
prohibition does not prevent drug use. It has failed to reduce the most problematic drug use in this country since the Misuse of Drugs Act became law in 1971;
prohibition gives rise to acquisitive crime. In particular, problematic users of heroin and cocaine commit high levels of property crime.
Prohibition of alcohol did not work in the US in the 1920s and prohibition of drugs does not work in the countries which have signed up to the UN Convention. So what is the answer?
Three years ago I suggested that the only sensible approach would be to decriminalise the supply and use of drugs and to permit their legal provision within a framework of regulations that assures an adequate supply and its purity, and which generates enough taxation income to both support comprehensive health education programmes aimed at discouraging use and to provide specific treatment and rehabilitation when needed.
There are, no doubt, other options of varying degrees of liberalisation which should be considered as well.
So, before promoting any particular reform of the current policy, the way forward, I now believe, must be to subject the current prohibitionist policy and the available alternatives to a formal evaluation in terms of their health and wellbeing impact and cost.
I am confident that this would demonstrate the huge cost and harm done by current policy.
Which alternative policy would fare best from such an assessment remains to be seen. But such an evaluation would not only demonstrate a way forward to the government, based on reasoned analysis of impact, rather than a slavish following of an outdated and discredited UN Convention.
It would also provide the ammunition it would need to sell any new policy framework to the general public.
It is my perception that, since my last piece in 2005, the tide is beginning to turn and that it would not be that difficult to sell reform to the general public.

Dr Paul Walker is chair of PHA Cymru, the Welsh Public Health Association