Ending Drug Prohibition with a Hangover? Global Perspectives (original) (raw)

Abstract

We have not had a War on Drugs, nor has the use of drugs for pleasure been prohibited. The 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs imposed strict controls and punishments on particular substances while other dangerous drugs (alcohol and tobacco in particular) were granted a privileged and promoted status. This socially constructed bifurcation of substances established a Drugs Apartheid that outlawed particular drugs so what we have is a 'War between Drugs' that ultimately became a war on people who used substances that didn't have government approval. Black and Minority Ethnic groups and the discarded working class have been major casualties in this war. Radical drug law reform rooted in scientific evidence and human rights is needed to end the oppressive and unjust drug laws that have caused more harm than good. To follow the PREZI presentation while listening to the Podcast go to: http://www.cjp.org.uk/events/cjp-lectures/cjp-lecture-2014/cjp-lecture-2014-presentation/

Figures (4)

STATE AND FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION, 1925-2010 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoner Series,

STATE AND FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION, 1925-2010 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoner Series,

A photograph of delegates signing the UN Single Convention on Narcotics back in 1961 (Fig. 2) typically reflects middle-aged men, and in that period most were tobacco smokers, caffeine users and people who enjoyed a drink. The convention brought together different reports and thinking from the 1950s, into a new ‘single’ convention (Bewley-Taylor, 2013) and effectively established a global ‘drug apartheid’ privileging certain drugs which were excluded and promoted, while seeking to prevent and punish possession and supply of other drugs. ‘Narcotics’ as they were called, were not widely understood, nor indeed were they a particular social problem at that time. The Convention incorrectly asserts that cannabis is particularly harmful and has extremely limited medical or therapeutic value (Gupta, 2013). It’s hard to fathom how the guidelines enshrined in a culturally and scientifically out-dated document more than fifty years old continues to inform drug law and policy in the twenty-first century. Imagine if law, policy and practice on race, gender, sexuality and disability remained rooted in 1950s knowledge, culture and beliefs here in the UK. Thankfully, attitudes, values and knowledge have improved considerably for these groups since the 1950s, and while discrimination in respect of race, gender, sexuality and disability still exists, laws and institutional practices can no longer be seen to discriminate; sadly we cannot say the same for people who use illegal ‘drugs’, where thinking, culture and beliefs have been stuck in a time warp. Looking beyond the negative impact upon communities, attempts to eradicate drug- supplying countries has destabilised entire countries, particularly Afghanistan and Mexico. The illicit drug trade is a billion dollar business managed by gangsters and militarised cartels, and in poverty stricken countries poor farmers with little legitimate means to earn a living wage inevitably grow coca plants and opium poppies as a means of economic survival (Redmond, 2013).

A photograph of delegates signing the UN Single Convention on Narcotics back in 1961 (Fig. 2) typically reflects middle-aged men, and in that period most were tobacco smokers, caffeine users and people who enjoyed a drink. The convention brought together different reports and thinking from the 1950s, into a new ‘single’ convention (Bewley-Taylor, 2013) and effectively established a global ‘drug apartheid’ privileging certain drugs which were excluded and promoted, while seeking to prevent and punish possession and supply of other drugs. ‘Narcotics’ as they were called, were not widely understood, nor indeed were they a particular social problem at that time. The Convention incorrectly asserts that cannabis is particularly harmful and has extremely limited medical or therapeutic value (Gupta, 2013). It’s hard to fathom how the guidelines enshrined in a culturally and scientifically out-dated document more than fifty years old continues to inform drug law and policy in the twenty-first century. Imagine if law, policy and practice on race, gender, sexuality and disability remained rooted in 1950s knowledge, culture and beliefs here in the UK. Thankfully, attitudes, values and knowledge have improved considerably for these groups since the 1950s, and while discrimination in respect of race, gender, sexuality and disability still exists, laws and institutional practices can no longer be seen to discriminate; sadly we cannot say the same for people who use illegal ‘drugs’, where thinking, culture and beliefs have been stuck in a time warp. Looking beyond the negative impact upon communities, attempts to eradicate drug- supplying countries has destabilised entire countries, particularly Afghanistan and Mexico. The illicit drug trade is a billion dollar business managed by gangsters and militarised cartels, and in poverty stricken countries poor farmers with little legitimate means to earn a living wage inevitably grow coca plants and opium poppies as a means of economic survival (Redmond, 2013).

If we want a more accurate assessment of drugs, not rooted in a 1950s cultural construct, research done by Profession Nutt et al. (2010) provides a scientifically based rational assessment of the harm posed by different drugs, with an overall rating combining potential harm to the user and to others. The graph displays a league table of harm with In a drug apartheid there is no outcry with greeting cards promoting use of the depressant drug alcohol, or a mini car adapted to look like a rocket to promote the use of a stimulant drug caffeine, but it would be considered abhorrent if any greeting card displayed a line of cocaine on a mirror, or the a mini-car was adapted to display not a can of Red Bull but a cannabis spliff. I’m not here arguing for the promotion of cocaine or cannabis, rather, | am challenging the illogical position of the cultural accommodation of some drugs and the cultural rejection of other drugs. We have to reassess our social construction of ‘drugs’, and we need an inclusive framework.

If we want a more accurate assessment of drugs, not rooted in a 1950s cultural construct, research done by Profession Nutt et al. (2010) provides a scientifically based rational assessment of the harm posed by different drugs, with an overall rating combining potential harm to the user and to others. The graph displays a league table of harm with In a drug apartheid there is no outcry with greeting cards promoting use of the depressant drug alcohol, or a mini car adapted to look like a rocket to promote the use of a stimulant drug caffeine, but it would be considered abhorrent if any greeting card displayed a line of cocaine on a mirror, or the a mini-car was adapted to display not a can of Red Bull but a cannabis spliff. I’m not here arguing for the promotion of cocaine or cannabis, rather, | am challenging the illogical position of the cultural accommodation of some drugs and the cultural rejection of other drugs. We have to reassess our social construction of ‘drugs’, and we need an inclusive framework.

A drug reform campaign designed to end prohibition and replace it with regulation would in my view be a grave mistake, if regulation provides the state with new powers to punish personal possession of unregulated substances as it has in New Zealand. Hard fought campaigns for drug law change should not be squandered. For forty years the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 has remained largely impervious to any positive reform, and this illustrates just how difficult it might be to make positive amendments to any new flawed drug legislation. Whereas, punitive orientated amendments to drug laws have historically been much easier to introduce, so considerable caution should therefore be exercised before supporting any new drug laws.

A drug reform campaign designed to end prohibition and replace it with regulation would in my view be a grave mistake, if regulation provides the state with new powers to punish personal possession of unregulated substances as it has in New Zealand. Hard fought campaigns for drug law change should not be squandered. For forty years the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 has remained largely impervious to any positive reform, and this illustrates just how difficult it might be to make positive amendments to any new flawed drug legislation. Whereas, punitive orientated amendments to drug laws have historically been much easier to introduce, so considerable caution should therefore be exercised before supporting any new drug laws.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (44)

  1. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (1988) AIDS and Drug Misuse, Part 1. HMSO, London.
  2. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2002) The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. HMSO, London.
  3. Agorist, M. (2014) 10 Facts about The SWATification Of America That Everyone Should Know, The Free Thought Project, June 2014 http://thefreethoughtproject.com/10- facts-swatification-america/#OQUqbFpLUmHPAXh7.99
  4. Alexander, M. (2013) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New Press.
  5. BBC (2008) Swiss Approve prescription Heroin, BBC Live Breakfast News, Sunday 30 th November 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7757050.stm Bewley-Talyor, D. R. (2013) Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: Harnessing like-mindedness, International Journal of Drug Policy 24 (2013) 60-68
  6. Blickman, T. (2008) Refreshing Costa's memory, TNI Drugs & Democracy, http://www.undrugcontrol.info/en/weblog/item/2029-refreshing-costas- memory?pop=1&tmpl=component&print=1%22%20target=%22_hplink.
  7. British Medical Association (2007) Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, A guide for healthcare professionals. BMA, London.
  8. Buchanan, J. (1991) Enabling Dependent Drug Users -A Cognitive Behavioural Assessment, Practice 5(1): 34-46.
  9. Buchanan, J. (2008) 'Understanding and engaging with problematic substance use', in S. Green, E. Lancaster & S. Feasey (Eds.) Addressing Offending Behaviour -Context, Practice, Values: 246-264.
  10. Buchanan, J. (2010) Drug policy under New Labour, 1997-2010: Prolonging the war on drugs, Probation Journal Special Edition, 57(3): 250-262.
  11. Buchanan, J. (2014) The Drug Policy Sham -58 Myths, Lies and Misconceptions supporting the Drug Apartheid, https://julianbuchanan.wordpress.com/blogs-2/
  12. Buchanan, J. and Wyke, G. (1987) Drug Abuse, Probation Practice and the Specialist Worker, Probation Journal, 34(4): 123-126.
  13. Buchanan, J. and Young, L. (2000) The War on Drugs -A War on Drug Users, Drugs: Education, Prevention Policy 7(4): 409-422.
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
  15. Chomsky, N. (1998) The Drug War Industrial Complex, Noam Chomsky interviewed by John Veit, High Times, http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199804--.htm
  16. Dalgarno, P. and Shewan, D. (2005) Reducing the Risks of Drug Use: The case for set and setting, Addiction Research and Theory, 13(3): 259-265.
  17. Dorn, N., and South, N. (1987). A Land fit for heroin? Drug policies, prevention and practice. Macmillan, Education.
  18. Eastwood, N., Shiner, M. and Bear, D. (2013) The Numbers in Black and White: ethnic disparities in the policing and prosecution of drug offences in England and Wales. Release, London.
  19. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2013) Testing the waters: first international multidisciplinary conference on detecting illicit drugs in wastewater, http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/events/2013/testing-the-waters.
  20. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2012) EMCDDA INSIGHTS No. 11: New heroin-assisted treatment: Recent evidence and current practices of supervised injectable heroin treatment in Europe and beyond. Luxembourg: EMCDDA. Global Commission on Drug Policy (2011) The War on Drugs and HIV/AIDS: The Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, June 2011, http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org. Global Commission on Drug Policy (2014) Taking Control: Pathways to Policies That Work, September, 2014, http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org.
  21. Gossop, M. (2013) Living with drugs, 7 th edition, Ashgate, London
  22. Gupta, S. (2013) 'Why I changed my mind on weed', CNN International http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind- marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_c4
  23. Hoare, J. and Flatley, J. (2008) Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2007/08 British Crime Survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 13/08. London.
  24. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2006) Drug Classification: Making a Hash of It? 5th Report of Session 2005-6, HC1031. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf.
  25. Hughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2010) What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? British Journal of Criminology, 50(6): 999-1022.
  26. Kerrigan, S. (2012) The Prison System Expands at Frightening Pace Following Declaration of War on Drugs, Activist Post, Tuesday, October 30, 2012, http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/the-prison-system-runs-amok-expands-at.html.
  27. MacGregor, S. (1989) Drugs and British Society: Responses to a Social Problem in the Eighties. Routledge.
  28. Nadelmann, E. (2014) Why we need to end the War on Drugs, TED talk, http://www.ted.com/talks/ethan\_nadelmann\_why\_we\_need\_to\_end\_the\_war\_on\_dr ugs/transcript?language=en.
  29. New Zealand Police (2014) New Zealand Crime Statistics 2013, Illicit Drug Offences http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/crime-stats-national- 20131231.pdf.
  30. Newcombe, R. (1992) 'The reduction of drug-related harm: A conceptual framework for theory, practice and research', in P. A. O'Hare, R. Newcombe, A. Matthews, E. C. Buning and E. Drucker (Eds.) The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm. London: Routledge: 1-14.
  31. Nutt, D., King, L. A. and Philips, L. D. (2010) Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752): 1558-1565.
  32. Nutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W. and Blakemore, C. (2007) Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harm of Drugs of Potential Misuse, The Lancet, 369(9566): 1047- 1053.
  33. O'Hare, P. A., Newcombe, R., Matthews, A., Buning, E. C. and Drucker, E. (1992) The Reduction of Drug Related Harm. Routledge.
  34. Perrone, D., Helgesen, R. D. and Fischer, R. G. (2013) United States drug prohibition and legal highs: How drug testing may lead cannabis users to Spice, Drugs: education, prevention, and policy, 20(3): 216-224.
  35. Redmond, H. (2013) The political economy of Mexico's drug war, International Socialist Review, Issue 90, http://isreview.org/issue/90/political-economy-mexicos-drug-war.
  36. Reinerman, C., Cohen, P. D. A. and Kaal, H. L. (2004) The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco, American Journal of Public Health, 94(5): 836-842.
  37. Release (2014) Press release -Over 80 high-profile individuals and organisations call on the pm to reform UK drug policy http://www.release.org.uk/press-release-support-dont- punish.
  38. Rojek, C., Peacock, G. and Collins, S. (1989) The Haunt of Misery: Essays in Caring and Helping. London & New York: Routledge.
  39. Rolles, S., Murkin, G., Powell, M., Kushlick, D. and Slater, J. (2012) The Alternative World Drugs Report: Counting the Costs of the War on Drugs, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, http://countthecosts.org.
  40. Runciman, B. (1999) Drugs and the Law, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, London Police Foundation.
  41. Sullum, J. (2013) The War on Drugs Hits a New Low with the Police Probe of David Eckert's Guts, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/15/the-war- on-drugs-hits-a-new-low-with-the-police-probe-of-david-eckerts-guts/.
  42. UNICEF (2013) Child Well-being in Rich Countries, http://www.unicef-irc.org/Report-Card- 11/. United Nations International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) (1998) General Assembly Twentieth Special Session 8-10 June 1998. http://www.un.org/ga/20special/ Washington Post (2010) The Fair Sentencing Act corrects a long-time wrong in cocaine cases. Editorial, (2010, August 3) The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080204360.html
  43. Werb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J. and Wood, E. (2011) Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic review, International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(2): 87-94.
  44. Williams, E. H. (1914) Negro Cocaine "Fiends" new southern menace, New York Times, Sunday February 8, 1914, Shaffer Library of Drug Policy, http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/negro\_cocaine\_fiends.htm.