Who is driving Tory drug policy?
"With a few brave exceptions...drugs policy is an area where British politicians have feared to tread."
Home Affairs Select Committee, 2002
"I feel extremely strongly about this subject and desperately want to see a reduction in drug abuse and better paths to enable people to get out of it. If one takes a slightly progressive - or, as I like to think of it, thoughtful - view, one can sometimes be accused of being soft. I reject that utterly."
David Cameron MP, 2002
The phrase 'a week is a long time in politics' is a truism. Given the fast moving, uncertain and increasingly surreal times we live in, 'at the time of writing' is a helpful proviso for any prediction of the outcome of the next general election. Despite a recent boost in approval ratings for the Prime Minister, the Conservative Party maintains a healthy lead in the opinion polls - so what might drug policy look like under a Conservative government with David Cameron as Prime Minister?
Within weeks of becoming an MP in June 2001, Cameron joined the influential Home Affairs Select Committee. A month later, the committee announced an inquiry into the effectiveness of drug policy and the government's ten-year drug strategy.
Published in 2002, the committee's report concluded that drugs policy should primarily deal with problematic heroin and crack users, 'rather than towards the large numbers whose drug use poses no serious threat either to their own well being or to that of others'.
The committee's recommendations included support for the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C, ecstasy from Class A to a Class B drug and a review of Section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act ('with a view to repealing it, to allow for the provision of drug paraphernalia which reduces the harm caused by drugs'). On drug treatment the report declared that 'all treatments and therapies should have abstinence as their goal', but also called for a substantial increase in spending, an expansion of methadone so that it became universally available and stated that 'there is still an urgent need for harm reduction actions...both a treatment strategy and harm reduction strategy are necessary...' The report concluded by recommending that the government discuss with the United Nation's Commission on Narcotic Drugs alternative ways of tackling drugs globally 'including the possibility of legalisation and regulation'
Cameron did not vote against any of the recommendations in the report - indeed, he voted against several amendments proposed by another Conservative Party member. In a parliamentary debate on drugs policy in December 2002, he spoke specifically in support of heroin prescribing and the use of safe injecting rooms. His comments on drug treatment are particularly pertinent in light of the recent polarisation of the debate between 'harm reduction' and 'abstinence': "I understand that there is no single method of treatment that always works. we need to have a variety of methods....Although residential places are not the only answer...I support the proposal to increase the number, while retaining all the existing treatment options."
In October 2004 the then shadow home secretary, David Davis MP, announced to his annual party conference that a Conservative government would make the fight against drugs a 'top priority'. Accusing the Labour Government of presiding over an 'epidemic' of drug use and of 'standing aside' from the problem he said: "Some people say we have lost the war on drugs, I say we have not begun to fight it." The Conservatives pledged to "accelerate" random drug testing in schools, increase drug rehabilitation places ten-fold (from 2,000 to 20,000) and reclassify cannabis from Class C to Class B. The speech alarmed advisers in Downing Street.
It was probably no co-incidence that a few weeks later - with an eye to the general election expected the following year - Tony Blair announced new measures to 'crack down' on those who "peddle the misery of drugs". What became the Drugs Act 2005 was born. To many, the 'tougher than thou' stances on drugs underlined the crude politics of the issue.
Has Cameron kept faith with his progressive and open approach since becoming party leader in December 2005? One of his first acts as leader was to commission a number of policy reviews. A Social Justice Policy Group was established, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith MP. It established a separate 'addictions working group', chaired by Kathy Gyngell, to look specifically at drug and alcohol policy.
In light of Cameron's publicly stated support for a more 'progressive' approach to drugs policy there was the possibility that the policy review would nudge party policy closer to the views of the party leader. Cameron's response to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on drug consumption rooms, published in May 2006, echoed his previous stance. While the Government barely blinked before saying no to consumption room pilots, Cameron did not rule them out: "...because anything that helps get users off the streets and in touch with agencies that can provide treatment is worth looking at." The issue was to be looked at as part of the party's policy review.
The addictions working group report was published in July 2007 - and delivered a damning verdict on the Government's drug policy: 'Under ten years of Labour's drug strategy, policy itself has become an intrinsic part of the problem. It has been a costly investment in failure.' Both barrels were fired: "Spending is often wasteful, unwise and misdirected...bureaucracy has grown dramatically...has further entrenched addiction...[Treatment is a] misguided system of social control [with] counterproductive targets...Enforcement appears weak...drug education in schools...could be doing more harm than good." And so on. Although the report accepted that methadone has a "useful and positive role in the treatment of addiction", methadone prescribing was branded as a "harm reduction" measure and harm reduction approaches were attacked. A criticism was that the rapid expansion of methadone prescribing has been politically and target driven rather than need driven, and that abstinence-oriented treatment had been intentionally marginalised. What could have been a measured call for an expansion in residential rehabilitation and a greater focus on abstinence got caught up in the polarised and 'either/or' tone of the report and its presentation.
The addictions working group report has not been formally adopted as party policy, but by filling a vacuum its headline theme of 'abstinence-versus-harm reduction' has continued to gain traction. It has set the mood music for the Conservative Party's responses to critical media reports on the drug treatment system over the past 12 months, notably by the BBC's Home Affairs editor Mark Easton, on the relatively small proportion of people leaving treatment 'drug free'. In October 2007 David Davis wrote as shadow home secretary to the chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee asking for an investigation into drug treatment, describing the investment as “massive failed expenditure" - "This is an absolutely shocking revelation which speaks volumes about the Government’s incompetence and distorted priorities. It is yet more evidence why we should focus spending on getting addicts off drugs, and not just spend money managing their addiction.” In response to more recent drug treatment figures (October 2008) shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, said: "the Government's entire approach of simply trying to manage addiction is wrong...these figures show that despite a significant increase in investment there has been a paltry increase in the number of addicts going clean. This failing approach is compounded by Labour's mixed and confused messages on the dangers posed by cannabis and ecstasy."
The latest official Conservative Party statement on drugs policy can be found in Repair - Plan for social reform published in October 2008. It accuses Labour of an approach of "maintenance and management, which has failed" and promises to introduce an abstinence-based Drug Rehabilitation Order and "residential-abstinence orientated programs" including day-care programs. There is no further detail.
As to what the commitment to increase abstinence based treatment may cost, the Scottish Conservative Party pledged in its manifesto for the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary Election that it would spend an additional £100 million a year on drug rehabilitation (saving, it claimed, £1 billion a year on policing, prisons and healthcare services). If the commitment were replicated in England - assuming an additional spend rather than a reallocation within existing budgets and matched on a population basis - the drug treatment budget would have to increase by up to £1 billion a year.That is, of course, extremely unlikely.
To date, the only recommendation in the Select Committee report Cameron has stepped away from is on the classification of cannabis, justified on the grounds that the drug "is so much more powerful than it use to be." The government's decision to go against the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and reclassify cannabis back to B has neutralised Conservative Party attacks on the issue.
When Cameron talks about "compassionate Conservatism" and the need to fix "broken Britain", he usually refers to the problems caused by drug and alcohol misuse - but stops short of specific pronouncements on drug policy. In a recently published book, Cameron on Cameron, when challenged on cannabis classification he said: "...I think the whole classification system is in need of a major overhaul because it seems to me that the ABC method does not really get it right...These evaluations are all based on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, and a lot has changed since then. And I think without in anyway weakening the illegality of drugs that the classification system needs a major overhaul." An interesting return perhaps to the backbencher who supported "thoughtful" drug policy reform.
There are both punitive and progressive strands within Conservative Party drug policy, to some extent embodied, respectively, by successive Conservative shadow home secretaries on the one hand, and the party leader, David Cameron, on the other. Just as 'only Nixon could go to China', a right-of-centre government may adopt a progressive approach to drugs policy, but to date there are few signs of Conservative drug policy moving closer to the views of its leader. It will be interesting to see how this contradiction plays out over the coming months. Unless Cameron changes his views, he could be leading a government with a drug policy he does not believe in.
Author: Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope
This is an extended version of an article published in the November/December edition of DrugScope's Druglink magazine.
14 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Martin, I am bemused, you must get those instructing you to get their act together.
Cameron has explicitly said (after the Tory policy review) he has changed his mind. Here is my earlier message on that.
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:26 +0100 (BST)
Subject: UK Cannabis Debate. Opposition Leader David Cameron goes on the record-Reclassify cannabis now.
*Background*
David Cameron was a junior member of the Parliamentary Home Affairs
Select Committee which several years ago recommended amongst other
things, re-classifying Cannabis downwards to Class C under the UK A to C
system. That committee was Chaired by Chris Mullen MP now with the
Senlis Council "Committee de Sages" drug liberalisation pressure group.
Cameron was a non-dissenting member. Angela Watkinson MP another member
of his party was a dissenting member then and disagreed with his position.
Cameron is now the Leader of the UK main Opposition Party currently
leading in the polls and likely to form the next government.
*TODAY*
Cameron appeared live on Sky News TV-interviewed by Adam Boulton he was
asked some questions posed by viewers. The first question was about his views NOW on Cannabis. He was emphatically FOR re classification and
in response to the point that he was a member of the ACMD he says he believes now that Committee got things wrong.
This is an important on-the-record quote from Cameron. It ought to
guarantee that cannabis does eventually get re-classified. Cameron
called on Prime Minister Brown to make the decision now and signalled
opposition support.
Even among the Lib Dems there are signs of concern, with major members including their highly thought of Deputy Leader Vince Cable attending a
meeting of the "Talking about Cannabis", mothers campaign group.
http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com/
Attached to this e-mail is a copy of my summary note about the
proceedings in February of the Uk Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs. The ACMD is very badly managed and is infiltrated and is being
manipulated by the international drug leglisation/liberalisation lobby.
***************************************************
David Raynes.
Member. International Task force on Strategic Drug Policy
http://www.itfsdp.org/members.php
There is certainly a split within the Tories on drug policy between the more moral-authoritarian leaning on drug policy issues, like David Davies and Anne Widdicombe, and those whose views are formed more by libertarian or free market philosophies like Alan Duncan, who has written a chapter of his book on drug legalisation which you can read on his web page, whilst still enjoying a role in the shadow cabinet.
Cameron clearly takes fairly progressive pragmatic view - his experience on the select committee being informative. He has presumably also been influenced more recently by the IDS work, but more obviously has had to modify his publicly held views as he has risen up the ranks, understandably mindful of maintaining a party consensus between the two viewpoints and the need to please key audiences in the media (echoed with positioning on other 'third rail' social policy issues).
Drug policy is horribly entangled within a wider populist law and order agenda, and the 'tough on drugs and crime' bidding war between the two main parties is nothing new - nor is its distorting effect on rational policy development, scientific discourse or public understanding of risk. The embarrassing shenanigans with the classification system over the last few years (fairly irrelevant in practical terms but immensely politically potent) have been a graphic example.
Cameron's views that heroin should be prescribed to heroin addicts, displays an appalling lack of knowledge of the scientific evidence which over the past 15 years has established beyond all argument, that the continued use of toxic addictive substances, by those who are addicted, serve only to increase the severity of the addiction to the extent that the free will of the user is eventually eroded
Anyone who is aware of that evidence, and still advocates prescribing of either heroin to heroin addicts, or cocaine to cocaine addicts, can hardly claim to be doing so in the name of harm reduction.
Correcting what I said earlier. Of course Cameron was answering Bolton on his having been a member of the HASC (Home Affairs Select Committee) that originally reccomended downgrading cannabis. He has made a complete volte face and he justifies it because of the Tory review of policy.
Martin’s blog was greeted with sighs all round from the Prisons and Addictions forum at the CPS. From Darren Worthington (CEO, Smart Drugs Service) came:
“This statement seems like a very convenient way of dismissing any criticisms of the current system. Am I the only one who also reads this with the sense that those responsible for making this statement believe they have the balance in policy right?”
No, he was not:
“Reactionary and ill informed”, was the response of Andrew Horwood (former DAT Coordinator, drugs counsellor and member of the Addictions Working Group of the Social Justice Policy Review) “the author appears to be personalising the debate and seeking to make party political points when the cross-party consensus has already shifted. The fact is Breakthrough Britain’s and PandA’s advocacy for holistic treatment to address addiction has already been taken up in principle by this government in their latest strategy document . Those who persist in maintaining the harm reduction versus treatment dichotomy are the dinosaurs and need to catch up with the conversation!”
And Professor Neil McKeganey commented:
“Martin's article betrays the fear that he and others have of a shift away from the harm reduction policy that has enjoyed such unwavering support from government despite its miserable record of underachievement and an escalating drug problem. The accusation that those who dare to question the status quo are responsible for a polarised debate conveniently ignores the fact that what we have increasingly seen over the years is a polarised world of drug treatment provision in which methadone is the only treatment on offer and abstinence the preserve of the few.”
Darren added:
“In all my time (as a drugs worker) I have never met an entrenched user who didn't aspire to being drug free. The problem is that once they are in a system that doesn't promote this their aspirations quickly fade. The ‘experts'’ claim that those wanting to be drug free are in the minority amazes me as, as far as I can see, the system isn't equipped to make assessments of motivation to change from a clinical perspective. It prefers instead to focus on the harms they cause as the key measure of how their needs are met!”
The reaction of Huseyin Djemil (former Drug Treatment Strategy Coordinator for London Prisons, now independent drugs consultant) was:
“What we see at present is skewed policy which provides a liquid cosh to reduce crime and a cul de sac as a final destination for those in treatment. The final result is a body of state maintained addicts afraid of life or continuing in their re-offending.
If we want more of the same then let’s stick with the system we have as it delivers the above scenario all day long. However, if what we want is people to get better, to get jobs or go into training, to look after their families (and god knows the children of drug using parents need this), to live in healthy communities and so on....then we desperately need a change - a treatment system that gets people better”.
He also pointed out:
“Many organisations that have supported the drug policy developments under this government have benefited from and thrived on the increased drugs policy spending. Of course a shift away from current policy threatens this and I am afraid that an ‘in my self interest / preservation’ becomes the driver. This is not for the good of the addict, the family or the community. Policy must shift, in order to provide a healthy balance which moves people through treatment and back into life and that is just what is not happening at the moment.”
Darren summed it up: “Denial is part of the process of recovery – but I'm beginning to believe this is also true for those protecting the past strategy and ensuring it stays implemented at all costs.”
So in conclusion we are all saddened that Martin Barnes has chosen to present himself so retrogressively. We are also disappointed that he appears so determined to interpret advocacy for the need for the humane and socially responsible reform of drug treatment in such a negative way, reform that is essential whatever political party takes office next time around. However we live in hope that he will take off his blinkers, see the light, move forward and get onto his next step soon!
Kathy Gyngell
Prisons and Addiction Forum
Centre for Policy Studies
Have these usual suspects actually read the article in question? Or have they all just been wheeled out to repeat the usual blinkered, unsupportable and naive mantra that abstinence is the only solution. Surely we should be told...
My that's obviously touched a nerve - and its made me for one feel very hopeful. From Gyngell et als reaction it would appear that the Tory hierarchy may not be as wedded to the peculiar aberration that passed for serious policy work in their "Breakthrough Britain" report on Addiction. Hurrah! At no point does the report make a genuine call for holistic drug treatment, instead through a series of ill founded assertions the authors call for a return to a drug strategy pre harm reduction. Theirs is without doubt an approach which if implemented would result in greater levels of drug related harm, more communities affected by the awfulness of open and growing drug markets, rising levels of disorder and crime, massive increases in drug related death and health problems and a refocus on criminalising, excluding and victimising people affected by drugs and the drugs trade. If blinkers are being worn it is no doubt by the PANDA - Gyngells "pet" drug policy organisation - for whom we can only wish rapid progress to extinction.
I do love conspiracies - could someone please tell me which one is the best to join? Is there more money to be had from Task Forces (do I get a uniform?)or will the international legalisation lobby be able to enrich me? Which if any are following the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Who are the gang with the most members? Mind you would either actually have any clue to help stop people being damaged by drug use? Does legislation actually have any impact on drug use? (thats a real question). Only been in and around drug issues for 25 years on three continents so I have seen little evidence to suggest it makes any difference. How legislation is used might - I guess - but there are so many other variable. However I have seen people benefit from many types of treatment, rehab, abstinence, CBT, prescribing, and things nothing to do with any form of treatment (even in its broadest definition). And also some let down by bad practice and broader things - like not having somewhere safe to sleep. But I dont see much room for those debates with some of those here - so I am back off to my version of reality. Thanks for letting me visit.
hard hitting facts and this is because of the drug policy.
Post a Comment