Should We Introduce A Rational Drug Policy for the UK?

Drug policy has come to the forefront of the news again recently, what with the recent, actually-evidence-based-for-a-change, report on drugs making it apparent that there’s no direct link between enforcing drug laws that target personal possession and any kind of reduction in the levels of drug use throughout the UK. The report, therefore, suggesting that existing drug policy does not work as apparently intended – something many people have been aware of for quite some time already.

Hurrah! Logic! Evidence! I hear you cry, but of course the report only came to light very recently in spite of being ready since earlier in the year, finding itself suppressed for a number of months. The suppression was inevitably followed by a complete denial from our conservative overlords who berated the suggestion of rethinking drug laws as reckless, suggestions that the  Lib Dems were just ‘pro-drugs’, and that the evidence stating that targeting personal possession benefits no one in fact suggested that we should continue as we always have. Resignation of Lib Dem Norman Baker who worked alongside Conservative Theresa May throughout the report soon followed on the basis of the previously mentioned shenanigans.

Both sides (ineffectiveness of current drug policy and government reaction to this news) of this story no doubt came as no surprise to many people, least of all Professor David Nutt – he who had the gall to suggest, based on actual scientific evidence, that alcohol and tobacco (and indeed horse riding) were far more dangerous than LSD, MDMA, and cannabis, and was promptly fired from his position as a chairman on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. You know, that old story, hire someone to find things out for you and then fire them because you don’t like that found.

Anyhoo, the Professor has not backed down in this and has been doing his best to continue finding truly evidence based information about drugs, and to further study the potential health benefits found in illegal drugs – treating Parkinson’s disease, pain, depression, and more – in spite of the near impossibility of scientists being able to do studies with illegal drugs because of the red tape, costs, and government procedures in place that make it nigh on impossible. In light of the recent news, and Baker’s resignation, Nutt has had a few things to say;

“I kind of thought, ‘If the minister himself cannot effect change, I was pissing in the wind, wasn’t I?’ It sums up the problem. Scientists can’t make things change, politicians can’t make things change. This is a monolith.”

Beyond that though, he has recently spoken of how a holistic, evidence-based, and rational drug policy should look like in his view. This includes possession, regulation, etc. of the potential industry, and his views on how individual drugs should be treated in the same way. So, here for you is what a rational drug policy might look like.

POSSESSION

“Using drugs can be a rational choice, a bad choice, or in cases of addiction, a very constrained choice. It is never a crime. Therefore, no criminal sanctions for drug possession and use.”

However

“Personal allowances and administrative penalties for exceeding these may be needed for some drugs, to limit the volumes of drugs in black markets.”

“Drug products, like other risky products, need to be manufactured and sold in ways that manage those risks. Therefore, drug-specific regulations are needed – from light-touch rules to strict pharmacy-only access.”

INDUSTRY

“Addiction is an enemy of health and freedom as much as prohibition is. There must be no room for creating profit at the expense of health and choice. Therefore, prohibitive controls must be targeted at corporations, not consumers, with total bans on the marketing and advertising of products with more than a very low potential to be dependence-forming.”

ALCOHOL

In Professor Nutt’s eyes, the increase in harm caused by alcohol can be followed back to the convenience of alcohol becoming common place in supermarkets back in the 60s and 70s. For this reason he suggests that alcohol should reclassified as a licensed drug and thus only available in specific licensed premises, such as pubs.

CANNABIS

“Cannabis, frankly, I think you could just sell in cafes like in Amsterdam.” Says it all really.

MDMA

When it comes to ecstasy, the Professor sees it as being available over-the-counter at pharmacies, and possibly other licensed establishments, but with regulated access and personal allowance of around 50 doses a year.

KETAMINE

With Ketamine, Nutt is of two minds; either complete unavailability on account of its tendency to fuck livers up real nice, or a pharmacy-medicine only availability with a strict limit on amount. Though, he is open to alternatives;

“Ketamine’s a particular problem because when they moved it from [class] C to B they also brought in hundreds of ketamine analogues, many of which have never been made. It’s possible there are many safer ketamine-like drugs, but we’ll never be able to find them now because they’ve all been made massively illegal.”

COCAINE

The white stuff is a big no for the Professor and would be completely unavailable, but more so than that he would hope to be able to wipe it out comletely;

“If we had proper access to drugs like MDMA, mephedrone… stimulants of that class, people wouldn’t need cocaine. It’s more toxic than newer stimulants by virtue of its complex pharmacology. I would find it difficult to have a regulated cocaine market.”

CRACK

Another definite no-no for the Professor. It’s only in comparison to crack that Nutt has anything close to positive to say about coke classic;

“If people had a choice, I’d rather they snorted [cocaine] than smoked.”

HEROIN

“The idea that you can walk off the street and say, ‘I’m going to try my first shot of heroin intravenously, even in a controlled environment’ – that’s too dangerous. Heroin kills people in hospitals when doctors give it [to them], so I don’t think you can have heroin for personal use.” So, that’s prescription only.

AMPHETAMINES/METH

As we’ve seen with some of the other drugs so far, Nutt’s view is that they would be available over-the-counter in pharmacies with regulated access and personal allowance limits.

In regards to crystal meth, he holds that in a similar regard to crack;

Smoked methamphetamine is like crack, and smoking stimulants makes you very addicted, very fast. Methamphetamine is longer lasting than amphetamine, and certainly longer lasting than cocaine. Certainly injecting or smoking methamphetamine is a bad thing.”

BENZODIAZEPINES

With Benzos the Prof goes for a removal of prescription requirements as is the practise now, and instead opts for, as you might’ve guessed, over-the-counter in pharmacies with regulated access and a limit on personal allowance.

MAGIC MUSHROOMS/LSD

Over-the-counter, regulated, personal allowance, a strict restriction on trips per year.

“They’ve never killed anyone, to my knowledge.” And he’d know.

NBOMe-CLASS PSYCHEDELICS

Popularised on the difficulty of obtaining LSD. However, far stronger and actually dangerous – this is what happens when you prohibit things carelessly. In the Nutt’s policy, most likely unavailable, and as with cocaine, hopefully nullified due to safer alternatives.

“The NBOMes are tricky. I presume that the majority of people do it because they’re legal. They are, I think, to LSD like heroin is to codeine.”

KHAT

Entirely unregulated;

“Khat should never have been made illegal. Khat was only made illegal because the Americans were banging on at us for 15 years to [make it illegal].”

TOBACCO

Only available over-the-counter at pharmacies in plain packaging only, but with no limit on purchase.

***

Sooooooooo…

What are your thoughts? Do you think drug laws work the way they are or do we need change? If we need change, what kind? Stricter laws? More relaxed laws? Do you agree with Professor Davit Nutt? Do you think he’s way off? Let us know.