In the wake of the CAT panic reported by Release News last week, Government spokesman David Hanson has announced that mephedrone could be banned and placed under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act as early as April 16th. The Home Secretary Alan Johnson has apparently laid a draft order before parliament to this effect. With parliament likely to be dissolved in the next few weeks, prior to a probable general election on 6th May, we are concerned that the move will not receive adequate debate in the House of Commons.
After receiving the ACMD’s recommendation on 29th March 2010 that mephedrone should be a Class B drug, the Home Secretary announced an immediate ban on importation of substances containing mephedrone and other generic synthetic cathinones. Previously notorious for being a legal high, possession and supply of mephedrone will soon be illegal, with possession offences drawing a potential 5 year prison term, and up to 14 years for supply.
Under the Misuse of Drugs legislation, measures such as this require a period of research and review by the ACMD; the reclassification of cannabis, for example, involved over two years of consideration. In this latest case, with the government’s relations with its scientific advisors already under tremendous strain following the sacking of Professor David Nutt, followed by a raft of resignations, it seems clear that the advisory process has been observed merely as the barest of formalities, with the ACMD joining the Government in bowing to media pressure.
There is no doubt that the wild alarm sweeping through the media and politics has driven this process along at breakneck speed, riding roughshod over the procedural requirements imposed by the law. Release is concerned about the swift instigation of the ban, as it seems clear that concern for the health of individuals and society has been overridden by other imperatives derived from media hysteria. This is government by panic, and it does not bode well for democracy.
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Panic in CAT Country
Over recent days, a full-blown moral panic has erupted over the spread of mephedrone, a new and currently legal drug that has apparently become something of an overnight sensation among the UK’s young people. To use the term ‘moral panic’ in this case is not to imply that there is no cause for concern, or that the drug is safe. Rather, it’s a term drawn from social science which accurately reflects the situation: popular media have reported developments in the most lurid and sensational terms, with hugely exaggerated claims made for numbers of users and—especially—numbers of deaths, as deaths have been classified as resulting from the use of mephedrone before the evidence is in. In short, all sense of proportion has been lost in regard to this issue.
Why? When a reaction is out of proportion to its stimulus, usually some underlying anxiety is at work. And indeed, there are more diffuse and general fears in circulation about the young generation—its invasion of urban centres, where it prowls, hooded and intent on disorder; its disinterest in parliamentary politics; its sexual practices; its absorption in the internet and electronic gadgets, its casual consumption of illicit substances. The mephedrone scare provides a focus around which a concerned older generation can gather. Add to this underlying social trend the approach of a general election, with press and politicians looking to score points, and you have the classic ingredients of a moral panic. And with it, pressures mount on the authorities to be seen to “do something.”
The appropriate response to the problem is, in fact, fairly obvious. As a number of commentators including Release have pointed out already, what is needed is a reasoned consideration of the research evidence, and a set of actions guided by its conclusions. We do not know yet how dangerous mephedrone is: most of the cases in which it has been present in toxicology reports have shown other substances present, and the precise health and social circumstances of the individuals have yet to be made clear. There is also the broader context of drug control in which the mephedrone question sits: the present regime does not, in reality, provide control at all, but rather hands it over to an illicit market run by organised criminals, with violence, high prices and unknown purity adding hugely to the dangers posed by the drugs themselves. Given this, and the fact that young people will use drugs regardless of warnings, we should make harm reduction information available and so avoid at least the most risky practices. The resort to panic is counter-productive in every respect.
Why? When a reaction is out of proportion to its stimulus, usually some underlying anxiety is at work. And indeed, there are more diffuse and general fears in circulation about the young generation—its invasion of urban centres, where it prowls, hooded and intent on disorder; its disinterest in parliamentary politics; its sexual practices; its absorption in the internet and electronic gadgets, its casual consumption of illicit substances. The mephedrone scare provides a focus around which a concerned older generation can gather. Add to this underlying social trend the approach of a general election, with press and politicians looking to score points, and you have the classic ingredients of a moral panic. And with it, pressures mount on the authorities to be seen to “do something.”
The appropriate response to the problem is, in fact, fairly obvious. As a number of commentators including Release have pointed out already, what is needed is a reasoned consideration of the research evidence, and a set of actions guided by its conclusions. We do not know yet how dangerous mephedrone is: most of the cases in which it has been present in toxicology reports have shown other substances present, and the precise health and social circumstances of the individuals have yet to be made clear. There is also the broader context of drug control in which the mephedrone question sits: the present regime does not, in reality, provide control at all, but rather hands it over to an illicit market run by organised criminals, with violence, high prices and unknown purity adding hugely to the dangers posed by the drugs themselves. Given this, and the fact that young people will use drugs regardless of warnings, we should make harm reduction information available and so avoid at least the most risky practices. The resort to panic is counter-productive in every respect.
Thursday 4 March 2010
Cocaine in the UK
In a report published today, the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs claimed that cocaine use is growing in Britain, and has become a normal part of life for many people. It calls for increased efforts to be directed at both demand reduction and the international traffic that supplies the drug. The report has initiated a moral panic reminiscent of that which greeted the rise of the country’s first cocaine culture during the First World War and the early 1920s. The national alarm was a prominent factor in the passing of Britain’s first prohibitionist legislation.
In the Daily Mail, Conservative Home Affairs spokesman James Brokenshire (aptly named to carry the banner of ‘Broken Britain’) commented that it is “preposterous” that a line of cocaine is now supposedly cheaper than a coffee in London, while citing the ease with which Johnny Foreigner can slip across the UK’s “porous borders” as the reason for the prevalence of cocaine. He blames the labour government for this state of affairs, while neatly linking the issues of drugs and outsiders—in time-honoured fashion. The Times concentrates more on the role of celebrities in glamorising the drug by ‘getting away with’ its use.
In the Report itself, it’s interesting that Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “There can be no relenting in the fight against cocaine trafficking. The international trade in cocaine causes untold human misery and social and environmental destruction.” He then lists the issues: the exploitation of drug mules, the destruction of rainforest and health problems for users. The first two of these can be laid squarely at the door, not of cocaine, but of the misguided (and, in the long run, quite disastrous) ways in which 20th century governments tried to deal with the problem of drugs. A regulated drugs market would solve both. As to the third point, again, prohibition has certainly exacerbated the health issues of cocaine use, since the adulterants mentioned by the Report (anaesthetics, animal worming agents and carcinogens) would not exist if legal quality controls were put in place. Despite the Report’s statements to the contrary, many people are fully aware that cocaine can and does cause health problems in its own right, and, if it is to be used at all, is best used sparingly. While fully acknowledging the risks involved with the drug, however, it is difficult to see how these are lessened by leaving its trade in the hands of gangsters.
What the Report does not do is to get to grips with the fundamental issue: cocaine and other drugs are a by-product of globalised consumerism, which works by providing people with goods and services that they want to buy. Drugs remain a curious anomaly in this system, inadequately controlled by an antiquated and discredited set of laws. While drug fashions move in historical cycles, drug use is certainly here to stay; and, like all industries and markets, requires effective forms of regulation to manage the conduct of the participants.
In the Daily Mail, Conservative Home Affairs spokesman James Brokenshire (aptly named to carry the banner of ‘Broken Britain’) commented that it is “preposterous” that a line of cocaine is now supposedly cheaper than a coffee in London, while citing the ease with which Johnny Foreigner can slip across the UK’s “porous borders” as the reason for the prevalence of cocaine. He blames the labour government for this state of affairs, while neatly linking the issues of drugs and outsiders—in time-honoured fashion. The Times concentrates more on the role of celebrities in glamorising the drug by ‘getting away with’ its use.
In the Report itself, it’s interesting that Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “There can be no relenting in the fight against cocaine trafficking. The international trade in cocaine causes untold human misery and social and environmental destruction.” He then lists the issues: the exploitation of drug mules, the destruction of rainforest and health problems for users. The first two of these can be laid squarely at the door, not of cocaine, but of the misguided (and, in the long run, quite disastrous) ways in which 20th century governments tried to deal with the problem of drugs. A regulated drugs market would solve both. As to the third point, again, prohibition has certainly exacerbated the health issues of cocaine use, since the adulterants mentioned by the Report (anaesthetics, animal worming agents and carcinogens) would not exist if legal quality controls were put in place. Despite the Report’s statements to the contrary, many people are fully aware that cocaine can and does cause health problems in its own right, and, if it is to be used at all, is best used sparingly. While fully acknowledging the risks involved with the drug, however, it is difficult to see how these are lessened by leaving its trade in the hands of gangsters.
What the Report does not do is to get to grips with the fundamental issue: cocaine and other drugs are a by-product of globalised consumerism, which works by providing people with goods and services that they want to buy. Drugs remain a curious anomaly in this system, inadequately controlled by an antiquated and discredited set of laws. While drug fashions move in historical cycles, drug use is certainly here to stay; and, like all industries and markets, requires effective forms of regulation to manage the conduct of the participants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)