War on Drugs and the DMZ
Since the last Druglink blog, DrugScope has been accused on live radio of 'taking government money to promote drug use', 'downplaying the effects of drugs' and generally being responsible for the level of drug use in the UK. This is both ludicrous and illuminating.
Back in the early seventies, DrugScope's predecessor, ISDD was accused by the underground press of being a front organisation for Big Tobacco because we had (perhaps unwisely) Sir Harry Greenfield of British American Tobacco as our chair. More recently as DrugScope, we were the subject of a hoax memo sent to MPs and journalists purporting to minute a secret meeting between DrugScope and Big Pharmaceuticals at which allegedly we plotted jointly to lobby for the legalisation of drugs. We have also been accused of exerting undue influence on David Blunkett to reclassify cannabis. But there are those who berate us for not being radical enough, for being too close to government. It seems either we are in the pockets of the prohibitionists or we are the lackeys of legalisation.
All of whch serves to demonstrate that drugs is one of the most contentious and polarised areas of public discourse. In the War against Drugs, if you're not for us, you're 'agin' us. So to extend the metaphor, occupying the Demilitarised Zone is not easy, but it is where the many thousands of people who access our services every year expect us to be - continuing to provide non-judgemental, up to date and evidence-based information.
4 comments:
It is an exageration to say DrugScope pushes drugs, nevertheless, the perception one forms when reading it's announcements is that of an organisation who is pro drug legislation.
The influence of Drugscope is undeniable, and the fact that they, together with a number of simiilar minded organisations, pressed for the downgrading of cannabis, desite the existence of worldwide evidence of the problems it can cause, only serves to strengthen such perceptions.
A further point of concern is the seeming unwillingness of Drugscope to concede that in cases of clinically diagnosed addiction, which meets the criteria specified in DSM-1V and ICD-10,abstinence as the foundation stone of recovery, is the safest form of harm reduction.
Unless and until Drugscope acknowledge that addiction is an irreversible condition, and that attempts to reduce harm by reduction in use, either by quantity or frequency,is transient, and that no empirical evidence exists to the contrary, the assumption that Drugscope is pro drug is likely to continue.
Peter - i assume you mean drug 'legalisation'?
My understanding is that Drugscope, as a membership organisation, tries to reflect the views of its memebership, based on regular questionaires. Their members, unsurprisingly, hold a range of views, from supporting moves towards legalisation and regulation, through to a punitive hardline on prohibition and enforcement - and everything in between as you would expect. Drugscope itself does not support legalisation, and I should know: Ive been trying to get them to for years, without success. If you want to have a go at evil drug-promoting legalisers, please aim your fire at me. www.tdpf.org.uk
Ofcourse cannabis reclassification, a relatively insignificnat tweak to enforcement policy, has nothing to do with legalisation or even decriminalisation, since the drug is still very much illegal - possession can still get you a criminal record and two years in prison. If you support the idea of a classification system that fits penalties to a ranking of relative harms, then the move was a rational a scientifically based one. The criminal justice system exists to prevent crime and punish criminals, not send out public health messages - for which we have public education in its various forms. Neither Government, Drugscope and the ACMD claimed cannabis was harmless or safe, only that it was not, overall, as dangerous as drugs in A or B.
Ironically enough, it has been the incessant whinging about this small change from the naysayers claiming that 'the government is sending out the message that cannabis is safe' that has done more to promote that view. AND Despite the apparent hopes of the critics, classification has been entirely irrelevant to patterns of use - which have continued there slow decline unbothered by this minor reduction in penalties. Young people neither know about, nor care about this pointless political debate. And for the record, I am aware of no credible figures in the reform movement who claim cannabis ,or infact any drug, is safe.
Your personal views on addiction and abstinence, as we have discussed on the Transform blog, are just that - your views. The way you assume to be the keeper of some absolute truth or ultimate knowledge on the subject of addiction, despite the fact there are clearly a range of views on the subject and an active and ongoing debate taking place in the field and its many vibrant academic journals, is both unscientific and does a great diservice to rational and informed debate.
Personally I don't think that Drugscope is pro drug legalisation, I think its doing quite well in the middle ground.
What I think they do well however is to present evidence based approaches covering a wide range of drug use. While I think Peter is right that abstinence is really a import form of harm reduction, I do think that focusing ONLY on it will cause far more harms for both people still using and connected societies.
But saying that I don't think Peter would agree with me because I'm one of those evil harm reduction people that give out clean needles and the such. Harm reduction has many levels.
Peter O'Loughlin said...
"A further point of concern is the seeming unwillingness of Drugscope to concede that in cases of clinically diagnosed addiction, which meets the criteria specified in DSM-1V and ICD-10,abstinence as the foundation stone of recovery, is the safest form of harm reduction."
Rubbish. DSM-1V and ICD-10 are diagnostic markers to make sure that everyone uses the same criteria. It makes no mention of what is the most effective treatment, nor should it.
You are entitled to your view that "abstinence is the foundation stone of recovery" but it is only the "safest form of harm reduction" if it works, which for huge numbers of people is patently false.
Applying this to a cannabis or alcohol argument is quite simply breathtaking.
Post a Comment