Submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry on Drugs

Testimony

The most important task of Drug Policy is to greatly reduce drug-related harm.

Following several hours of discussion, this group arrived at a consensus, but we want government to note that the initial proposal of this group, with a 5-1 majority, was that we legalise all drugs for a minimum of 5 years, as an experiment, in order to see whether the ideas and practical suggestions of global drug policy reformers are in fact correct. This initial proposal arose out of a discussion which came to the following conclusion: for addict drug users, what the law is saying or doing to us actually makes very little difference to our using. Even in jail, we often find a way to use drugs. However, we have never been in a situation where the drugs of our choice, treatment and need are legally available, therefore it is very difficult to know until we try it out what the outcome would be. In a more general sense, folk felt that it really wasn't acceptable to persecute the many, for the said protection of the few, that is, we are not happy that everybody who uses any illegal drugs is at risk of criminal sanction - unless you live in Brixton/London.. in an effort to protect those, like us, who find our drug use, mostly, difficult to control. Actually folk were not convinced that this is the reason that drugs are kept illegal; they felt that it's still a vote-winner to maintain the prohibition on drugs and that this is also a big motivating factor behind it. The overwhelming conclusions of the group were that people must be:

• Protected from AIDS and other blood-borne disease (BBD) and that this could mean increasing access to clean needles.
• That decriminalisation of cannabis was necessary in order to stop wasting precious law enforcement resources on prosecuting cannabis takers.
• It was also felt that decriminalisation of cannabis is necessary in order to free up monies that could better be used to treat the outcomes of the drug-war and addiction; e.g. AIDS, Hepatitis amongst injection drug-users
• People also felt that decriminalisation would free them up from wasting time dodging cops, and focus their energies more on their health and social circumstances.
• Folk were adamant that prescribing regimes become more flexible, and by assessment only, as is not always the case.
• Again on substitute prescribing: people were sure that an expansion of heroin-prescribing would cut out the need for people to buy illegal, often-poisoned, (or at least mixed with other drugs) and very expensive substance that often lead to acquisitive crime.
• Indeed, the group outright; if the government really wants to reduce crime; why don't they put the traffickers out of business by legalising all drugs, regulating and controlling their availability and taxing them in order to provide revenue to the treasury that might be used for helping those who are less fortunate.
• One man expressed concern that the decriminalisation (as opposed to legalisation) of drugs would simply mean that current dealers would go into greater competition, and that there would therefore be a greater 'drug/territory/war' on the streets. (This was one of the issues that led the majority of the group to vote in favour of a full-out legalisation period of 5 years.)
• Some folk were equally concerned with the level of corruption of officialdom, enabled by the current prohibition on drugs. The drugs are so expensive, there is an enormous amount of money to be made, and even those who are otherwise morally-minded, might be tempted to get involved with illicit drug distribution. AND ARE all the time, including the police, religious leaders now and then, governments etc. History is our teacher on this, as many already know, thankfully.
• The ex-addicts in the group were a little concerned that the lack of legal sanctions might mean that there were no incentives to stay drug-free, or to not start using in the first place. But the overwhelming thinking was that, though this might be the case for some people, it might be worth it, if the greater harms of poisoned drugs, imprisonment, AIDS, Hepatitis, separation of children from parents etc would be reduced.
• It was thought passionately that the glamour would be taking out of drug use if there were no legal sanctions, and that this would therefore make drugs much less attractive to the vulnerable ones who love to put themselves at some risk (it seems.)
• People were happy that decriminalisation might mean that they could grow their own cannabis and other often times healing plants.
• That the criminal market in drugs would never fully disappear whatever the law is doing/saying.
• There was a very strong desire to increase the availability of accurate, truthful and updated information on the effects of drugs. It was deemed useless that we constantly try to scare kids away from drugs when they themselves have friends who have used and who tell them the fun side
• We want our government to take more responsibility for the lies and distortions that the media hype up about psychotropic and other psychoactive drugs.
• It was also felt that decriminalisation could focus drug-workers attention on the real/actual needs of drug users rather than having to also constantly be concerned with keeping a user out of jail. And that this could then mean less transmission of HIV and other BBDs.
• Within the paradigm of decriminalisation and thus a reduction of drug-related harm, it was fervently expressed that abstinence is also a goal and desirable outcome.

And in order to support our case, we point to the experience of Holland, where there is de facto decriminalisation of cannabis but a reduction in the nos. of new young recruits to injection drug-use (IDU). And to the fact that the per capita no of young people smoking pot is in fact greater in America than in Holland - America, of course being the roosting place of the so-called 'war on drugs' everyone was surprised to find these facts to be true but the research bears it out. (We say so-called war on drugs, because as one professional advocate began to call it 10 years ago - it is really a WAR ON DRUG USERS & THEIR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS.

People also referred to the experience of Liverpool in the late 1980's and early 1990's when heroin (and cocaine to a lesser degree) were being prescribed in an area of Merseyside, which saw a drastic reduction in acquisitive and other crime, some of the lowest HIV infection rates in the country and a reduction in drug-related deaths.

As a client-led organisation, the John Mordaunt Trust was established in 1996 to honour the memory of an ex-IDU who died from AIDS, AND whom contributed enormously before he died to setting up effective HIV-prevention and care services for IDU's. He was an excellent example of what drug users can do for themselves if only they are given the opportunity. I hasten to add that this government has been debating for almost three years on whether it will fund similar projects; perhaps it is way past time, whatever you do about drug policy, to provide the funds that are necessary to pay User Involvement staff for the extraordinary amount of work they do. I know only 3/4 people in the whole U.K who are paid to be client advocates. This is a shame, especially since there are at least 10x more than that.

So, Drug Policy - Time for a change? Whatever you do, THINK care, not punishment, THINK integration not imprisonment and THINK of peaceful communities NOT a society torn into pieces by drug-related crime, AND also funding terrorism.

The U.K government is in a very good place to positively influence the U.S, and we are grateful as ex and current addict users that we live in a country where we, can at least, have some semblance of decent treatment AND take responsibility for advocating decent drug policies. Thank-you for your time.