Government should listen to its advisers on drugs policy

There is an interesting story in today’s Independent, flagged in Left Foot Forward’s Politics Summary, which reports that a group of government-appointed drug experts are to call for a nationwide network of “shooting galleries” to provide injectable heroin for drug addicts following successful trials. Here are a couple of snippets:

“The trial started three years ago and yielded benefits within months. Early results showed crimes committed by the addicts dropped from about 40 to six a month, after six months of treatment. A third of the addicts stopped using street heroin and the number of occasions when the rest “scored” dropped from every day to four to five times a month.

“The programme was modelled on one in Switzerland where introduction of injecting-clinics “medicalised” heroin use, removing its glamour and transforming it from an act of rebellion to an illness requiring treatment. Last year, Swiss voters backed the scheme in a referendum, proving it could be a vote-winner. Similar clinics have also been established in France, Germany and Canada …

“Professor John Strang, head of the National Addiction Centre said “It is ‘intensive care’ for drug addicts, more expensive than standard treatment but a third of the cost of sending them to prison at £44,000 a year. And they become re-addicted on release. We are dealing with a profound drug hunger and trying to medicalise it to break the link with street heroin use and crime.”

The current Government is on record many times insisting that their policies will be based as far as possible on evidence. In the area of drugs policy, however, there have been two recent occasions when the government has gone against their own advisory body, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). The first was back in January 2009 when the Government reclassified cannabis as a “Class B” drug (from “Class C”) in contravention of advice from the ACMD. Not long after, the ACMD released a report recommending that ecstacy be moved out of the most dangerous “Class A” category and the Government ignored this advice too.

There is now movement on an international level towards a more progressive approach to drugs policy. As well as the countries cited in the snippet above who use “shooting galleries,” Portugal decriminalised all drugs eight years ago and the effect has been positive. Mexico and Colombia have also both recently started to make moves in this direction.

This latest report is an opportunity for the Government to reconsider their approach to drugs policy. If their own experts are telling them that there is strong evidence that “shooting galleries” will reduce harm, crime, and costs then this should not just be dismissed.

http://twitter.com/labourmatters/status/3979081280 labourmatters

RT @leftfootfwd Gov should listen to drugs advisers as a new study finds that prescribing heroin can reduce crime http://bit.ly/TuZdr
http://twitter.com/propensity/status/166529211249606658 Propensity

RT @leftfootfwd: Government should listen to its advisers on drugs policy (ACMD) http://t.co/HYDvXSMp Respect and Best Wishes!
http://twitter.com/jstjini/status/166529800234729472 jini wallace

RT @leftfootfwd: Government should listen to its advisers on drugs policy (ACMD) http://t.co/HYDvXSMp Respect and Best Wishes!
David Raynes

This article sadly conflates several issues so is likely to confuse those not steeped in the history.

Firstly “Shooting Galleries” which have been rejected by successive governments of all colours is generally understood to mean places of safety where addicts can use street drugs. Preseving dangerous injecting behaviours.

Secondly, provision of heroin to some addicts has been part of the UK system since the the late 1920s and the Rolleston Committee. Thus Britain has more experience of this and the pitfalls than any other country on earth. The “British System” was much curtailed at the end of the 60s partly because it was found to be feeding and supporting the illegal market.

The recent RIOTT trials under John Strang do not justify any suggestion that heroin prescriptiopn can be extended to all addicts and that is not what Strang himself believes. He has told me face to face that he believes it only suitable, with other support, for a very small number of chaotic addicts.

Fouthly the “decriminalisation” of drugs in Portugal is not supported by independent assesment, that view is based on a study by someone who allegedly spent 3 weeks in the country then wrote a paper for the Cato Institute. Other assesments, more detailed and with more effort put into them have concluded that the data does not support Portugal being taken as a succesful model.

Fifthly the reclassification of cannabis at the ACMD was a marginal decision with government erring on the side of caution. Substantial outside academic views including that of Professor Appleby, National Director of Mental Health, and Professor Robin Murray the expert on psychosis were of influence on government. The true facts are the the ACMD said cannabis was dangerous. It is. After tobacco and alcohol it is the most pertsoanlly and socially damaging drug, simply through prevalence.

The international movement you describe, has been there a very long time, it is not “progressive”, it is financed by big business. Millions of dollars have gone into this movement to change the views of “useful idiots” in favour of legalisation of all drugs.

There is nothing progressive in keeping heroin addicts on injections of heroin, addicts deserve better from society, they deserve our fulsome help to become free of addiction. That is what most addicts want.

No doubt the pharmaceutical companies have a differrent view!