“I’m sorry, I don’t understand this question. I already said I understood harms to be the main consideration”

I thought you were suggesting they weren’t. If you look at the classification system, cocaine and heroin are ranked as more harmful than cannabis and speed which are ranked more highly than tranquilisers. Suggestive of harms being the key factor in the classification system.

The claim is that they are the main consideration, which is why I understood them to be the main consideration.

Anyway, suppose the weights given to each factor were as follows in a particular scenario: harms make up 49%, the other factors (policing priorities, public perception, sending a message, the precautionary principle, unknowns in science, how it looks to the Daily Mail) 51%. We can say harms are the main consideration, even though the other factors in combination outweigh them.

But I doubt there is that much thought behind it at all – call me a cynic.

Incidentally, I hear cannabis use declined in 16-24 year olds after it was reclassified from B to C – the largest change occurred around the time Jacqui Smith admitted using it in the 80s.

I’m not saying there is causation, merely correlation, and I await with interest the results of this latest experiment with the ABCs – also I wonder what will happen if more politicians ‘come out’ as users of drugs in their youth.

“As far as I know, except for Tranform’s there has not been any research into the costs (not just economic but social costs) of prohibition of particular drugs in the UK.”

And building up the full evidence base around all the aspects of legalisation can only be a good thing. I agree with that.

“And again, what about the costs associated with illegalisation?”

I can only agree. These should be taken into account.

“I’m sorry, I don’t understand this question. I already said I understood harms to be the main consideration”

I thought you were suggesting they weren’t. If you look at the classification system, cocaine and heroin are ranked as more harmful than cannabis and speed which are ranked more highly than tranquilisers. Suggestive of harms being the key factor in the classification system.

The bar chart at the top of this article places cannabis on the threshold of classes B and C. So placing it in B rather than C would not appear to be the science-ignoring position even in a completely harms based system.

Though I’m not sure even evidence of extensive harms could convince you that legalisation is not a good thing, as you believe “there is no trade off” and the innate human right to enjoy your (responsible and informed) drug use has infinite benefits that society must adapt to (eg if the cost is all children becoming addicts than so be it).

Quite, this bit of our discussion is about the basis for the Government’s position.

As far as I know, except for Tranform’s there has not been any research into the costs (not just economic but social costs) of prohibition of particular drugs in the UK.

“the claim is that “the primary objective of the classification system is to categorise drugs according to the comparative harm associated with their misuse”, and another week it’s based on policing priorities, public perception, sending a message, the precautionary principle, unknowns in science… delete depending on what is politically expedient on the day.”

Is it too difficult to believe that, as the Government states, all these factors are important?

But how much weight is given to each factor? As the Science and Technology Committee said, it isn’t at all clear: “The Home Office should be more transparent about the various factors influencing its decisions.”

And again, what about the costs associated with illegalisation?

I refer you to the quotes I provided in @139.

Can’t you see a correlation between harms and classification, suggesting that this is an important consideration?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this question. I already said I understood harms to be the main consideration.

As for addicts holding down jobs, what is an addict? Someone who needs a half bottle of wine a night, or to get out of their mind on booze on Fridays?

You are conflating “addict” with “moderate use”.

I can point to lots of evidence that drug addicts struggle to hold down jobs. Look at the employment rates of heroin or crack addicts for example.

And if I was looking for a poster boy
for “Addiction has no harms” I’d probably try and come up with a better one than Harold Shipman.

@ukliberty

“Inconceivable that drugs could bring the same benefits?”

No it’s not inconceivable. Hence I would want to look at the evidence and make a decision on that basis. I have an open mind about it. I don’t think the evidence is there yet though and an independent review looking at the various benefits and harms of legalisation would be extremely valuable.

Though I’m not sure even evidence of extensive harms could convince you that legalisation is not a good thing, as you believe “there is no trade off” and the innate human right to enjoy your (responsible and informed) drug use has infinite benefits that society must adapt to (eg if the cost is all children becoming addicts than so be it).

“the claim is that “the primary objective of the classification system is to categorise drugs according to the comparative harm associated with their misuse”, and another week it’s based on policing priorities, public perception, sending a message, the precautionary principle, unknowns in science… delete depending on what is politically expedient on the day.”

Is it too difficult to believe that, as the Government states, all these factors are important?

Can’t you see a correlation between harms and classification, suggesting that this is an important consideration?

@ukliberty

“Sevillista, why are you satisfied that “alcohol being part of our culture” outweighs the 8.6k young people who have alcohol problems and the 1 in 1000 people a year who die because they drink? Or do you think alcohol should be made illegal?”

I think the evidence suggests that the benefits outweigh the harms for alcohol. It’s as simple as that.

What are the benefits? Revenue? Employment in the drinks industry?

Inconceivable that drugs could bring the same benefits?

“As for what the Government says, “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” springs to mind”

I don’t understand your point. They would say what?

Pretty much anything, no matter how inconsistent with their other claims, to help them with their particular position of today.

I thought you were saying the Government were lying and saying the decision to reclassify the evidence was solely based on harms and contradicting the science by doing so? When what they have clearly stated on the record they agree with the scientists on the harms but have reclassified on the precautionary principle due to unknowns in the science and because the classification system is based on other factors too.

No – I’m saying that one week the claim is that “the primary objective of the classification system is to categorise drugs according to the comparative harm associated with their misuse”, and another week it’s based on policing priorities, public perception, sending a message, the precautionary principle, unknowns in science… delete depending on what is politically expedient on the day.

Please can you expand on this?

It seems on face value to be a very dubious statement. So this would be an opportune moment to provide some of the evidence you vaunt.

Tim’s example is very illustrative.

“Is it? What do you base this assertion on? ”

Evidence.

Drugs cost money.

Money requires either a non-employment source of income (not something many addicts have access to) or the ability to hold down paid work.

Not many addicts appear to have the ability to hold down paid work. Being constantly high seems to impair this ability.

To feed their addiction they require an alternative source of income.

I don’t understand how legalisation would change this.

@Thomas

“Yet this is considered perfectly reasonable behaviour”

Is it? If I came into work drunk or continually came into work with hangovers that seriously impaired my ability to work I would be quickly fired.

“What is your poison, Sevillista? Marmalade?”

Why is what I do of any relevance to the argument? I know it’s fun to personalise, but it really does have nothing to do with whether the Government should consider the impacts if legalisation on different groups and weigh up the benefits and costs before making a decision. Even if I was a junkie that would still be true.

” so why not try arguing with them directly instead of trying to insinuate anything of the behaviour of a faceless commenter who you’ll never meet and couldn’t identify if you did.”

FFS why do you continually insist I’m making an argument based on morals? Does pretending I am make your argument stronger?

“When you say we need to more studies and this demonstrates your open-mindedness, I say that’s either neglecting or denying the growing body of new evidence which is available and it has the effect of pulling the wool over our eyes to the failures of the present.”

And you can say that. I have not seen any studies of the likely impact of legalisation in the UK.

” but the proclamations of Anglo-saxon academia. Is that what it will take for you to come to a more considered view?”

What is unconsidered about my view? There is no evidence for the UK so I have formed a view based on the likely impacts on supply and demand, particularly among children from less well-off backgrounds who find it more difficult to make good choices and lack information.

If I was going to launch a new product in the UK I would not do my market research in Portugal – it wouldn’t give me good info on the likely response to my product in the UK and how I Should design it. Similarly with drugs policy. We can learn something, but it would be silly to form our policy entirely on the basis of it.

“you lack standard literacy and communication skills”

I disagree with you so I am illiterate?

Weak.

“When you drop the blinkers of your self-affirming middle-class MOR prejudice and stop reading things into what others have written, your comments will have far more value.”

Ah – the moral argument again. And you accuse
me of being unable to read?

My mother is a waitress earning minimum wage, my father used to work a machine in a factory until he became unemployed 10 years ago. Solidly middle class then.

And what the fuck is prejudiced about wanting to form a view on the basis of facts on the impact of legalisation. Surely the prejudice is wanting to legalise without evidence and assuming harms are small?

@timW

“Harold Shipman was a heroin (diamorphine, which is just the pharmaceutically pure form) addict for decades”

Tim – you’re right. Harold Shipman is a great advert for heroin use.

Not far fetched at all.

I’ll agree that a mass murderer might not be the very best example for my point but Harold Shipman was a heroin (diamorphine, which is just the pharmaceutically pure form) addict for decades. Held down one of the more denamnding jobs in the country, that of GP.

There are literally millions of people who go into work with hangovers from being drunk, and I’ve been in several companies where friday afternoons are a complete write-off. Yet this is considered perfectly reasonable behaviour

Drug-taking is widely encouraged in many industries – I very much doubt anyone would be surprised how many people couldn’t work without various chemicals as a crutch, but the conspiracy of silence comes from those who are most guilty about it. What is your poison, Sevillista? Marmalade?

“There is a simple fact that numerous people derive a sense of self-worth from competitive consumption (not only drugs)”

This is a comment on the consumerist culture of contemporary society, not a value judgement on the effect of drugs.

Drugs may cause damage in various ways, but they are themselves a symptom of a deeper problem – why is it that living and working conditions are so terrible that we are so discontented to want to get intoxicated and experience altered states of mind?

FWIW my opinion on any benefits of drugs is neither here nor there, the millions of people who take them have clearly made up their minds, so why not try arguing with them directly instead of trying to insinuate anything of the behaviour of a faceless commenter who you’ll never meet and couldn’t identify if you did.

When you say we need to more studies and this demonstrates your open-mindedness, I say that’s either neglecting or denying the growing body of new evidence which is available and it has the effect of pulling the wool over our eyes to the failures of the present.

In your comment at 141 you claim to be arguing against “assertions based on a 1970s study”, yet the facts of eg the recent Portuguese experience were alluded to at the top of this thread and you have yet to even acknowledge anything but the proclamations of Anglo-saxon academia. Is that what it will take for you to come to a more considered view?

I don’t know Sevillista, either you’re accidentally misinterpreting what has been written, deliberately misreading it, or you lack standard literacy and communication skills. I think you’d make an interesting case study to try to understand which this is and why this is so.

When you drop the blinkers of your self-affirming middle-class MOR prejudice and stop reading things into what others have written, your comments will have far more value.

Blairites, pah!

Is it? What do you base this assertion on? What do you think would be the likely effects of the legalisation of, say, heroin (cannabis is an easy one, let’s aim higher)?

“Automatically consigning people to the scrapheap because they’ve taken drugs”

Where did I say this?

“or too many for another section of society’s liking”

Or this? You seem determined to put an argument based on morals into my mouth to give you something to argue about.

It’s about harms, not about what society likes or dislikes.

“On the issue of criminalisation you’ve reversed my argument. Once an individual has broken the law in the first instance then it is a progressive step to say ‘having broken one law, what difference is it to go the whole hog’.”

What is your argument?

That the innate problem drug addicts face (difficulty earning money by holding down a job due to being high combined with a need for a lot of money to finance their addiction) will magically be solved on legalisation? It seems far-fetched.

“There is a simple fact that numerous people derive a sense of self-worth from competitive consumption (not only drugs)”

So drug-taking has benefits in your mind. Any benefits would be taken into account in weighing up the evidence on whether legalisation is good or bad.

“Government should not attempt to control behaviour”

That’s a bold statement.

What about, say, people who like killing or hurting other people or stealing other people’s things? What about those who are unable to make the best decisions for themselves through mental illness? What about businesses who prefer to dump their waste in rivers rather than pay for proper disposal?

There are undoubtedly circumstances where Government should try and control behaviour.

Automatically consigning people to the scrapheap because they’ve taken drugs, or too many for another section of society’s liking is preemptive and doesn’t bear any relation to the real state of the individual.

On the issue of criminalisation you’ve reversed my argument. Once an individual has broken the law in the first instance then it is a progressive step to say ‘having broken one law, what difference is it to go the whole hog’.

Hundreds of thousands of people finance petty drug habits without resorting to prositution, theft, burglary, robbery or fraud – however, artificially escalating the seriousness of the problem is in nobody’s interests. They do so because even though they may not be fulfilling the potential you seem to feel it is their duty to reach.

I accept that drug use may be an individual limiter, but government legislation is equally as much, if not more so. If we want a meritocratic society is it right that people like Marlon King are essentially blacklisted from their chosen profession for having paid a debt to society? Instead by judging individual behaviour in the way that you have suggested is to moralise, while also creating and normalising social exclusion based on that self-selecting morality.

It comes down to a view whether drug-taking is in itself ‘fun’, or whether it is escapism from a world which isn’t actually as ‘fun’ as some political leaders project it must be.

If you hold that it is the former then I suggest that you have already accepted the conditioned expectations of the current establishment that many people will not and cannot achieve personal satisfaction and are doomed to live lives of petty frustration.

If you hold that it is the latter then you recognise the former is simple snobbery which encourages disassociation in all its’ forms – and which does so because that is a means of asserting power over you against your real interests.

There is a simple fact that numerous people derive a sense of self-worth from competitive consumption (not only drugs).

This is a wider social problem which has been encouraged by politicians to cover for their failings to manage the economy in the interests of all. The mixed message that self esteem is to be measured by comparison while offering only rejection to those who fail to live up to the mark will inevitably only drive scoiety’s ‘losers’ into spirals of dejection and greater destructivity.

So it’s not a question of whether drugs are ok or not ok, and whether drug use should be encouraged or discouraged, but because the prohibitive and punitive attitude has consistently failed we should instead be asking what is actually the most effective way of minimising general harm levels and breaking the vicious circle.

The current law is a sham and counterproductive. Government should not attempt to control behaviour, it should ensure that any behaviour choices individuals make can be conducted constructively in a safe environment and that we all have sufficient access to the requisite information to do so.

Regarding your first para, isn’t forming a view based on harms already making that distinction?

” and turn to violence and property crime in various forms as a result because they are conditioned by the context of their situation to be criminalised?”

I see. Drug addicts turn to crime not because they are unable to support their addiction financially, but because they’re criminalised because of drug law. If they were not criminalised, they would find the resources. Are you seriously trying to argue that?

“Should we strike down Queen Victoria from memory because of her laudanum habit?”

You seem to want to turn my view based on harms into some moral crusade basses on tut-tutting at drug users to make your argument. It is not. It is based on harms.

“Or are you prepared to admit you have a middling class-based prejudice?”

What is “middling class” about concern for those who are unable to make the best decisions for themselves?

My background is far from middle-class. I’ve seen many people I know get into drugs and end up wasting their potential due to addiction. Why work at school, why try and work when getting stoned and spending your life high is far more fun and your body and mind craves the chemicals you are addicted to.

Isn’t the middling class prejudice here thinking that your right to liberty outweighs the welfare of those who do not have the support networks, intelligence, aspirations that you did. Look at the stats – addicts are far more likely to be from working class backgrounds.

“doesn’t this set an unhealthy precedent whereby the coherence of the law is undermined – and that this creates social disorder where more people are likely to ignore the laws of the land?”

You could well argue the same for many other laws eg abolish speed limits – many ignore them; abolish tax laws- many evade and avoid tax…

isn’t it time we started to distinguish between the physically dependent addicts who live perfectly ordinary lives without letting their condition overly affect them or their relationships because they have the income to sustain their situation and those that don’t, can’t and turn to violence and property crime in various forms as a result because they are conditioned by the context of their situation to be criminalised?

Are the Keith Richards and Will Selfs of this world such abominations that they set examples of absolutely no worth? Should we strike down Queen Victoria from memory because of her laudanum habit?

Or are you prepared to admit you have a middling class-based prejudice? Why is the intended target of the law the general populace and the control of our behaviour, and why is a completely separate standard used to apply to those of independent means?

If it is the social context of the behaviour which is the determining factor in the level of harm in your calculations rather than the behaviour in itself, doesn’t this set an unhealthy precedent whereby the coherence of the law is undermined – and that this creates social disorder where more people are likely to ignore the laws of the land?

Or does there come some point at which this right to liberty can be over-ridden by the needs of society?

(this is a hypothetical question about whether evidence on indirect harms matters in the decision to legalise or not, so please don’t come back and accuse me of being unrealistic about harms. Just imagine there is a drug for which this is true and tell me if it would be legalised if you were the PM for the day)

“Sevillista, why are you satisfied that “alcohol being part of our culture” outweighs the 8.6k young people who have alcohol problems and the 1 in 1000 people a year who die because they drink? Or do you think alcohol should be made illegal?”

I think the evidence suggests that the benefits outweigh the harms for alcohol. It’s as simple as that.

“As for what the Government says, “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” springs to mind”

I don’t understand your point. They would say what?

I thought you were saying the Government were lying and saying the decision to reclassify the evidence was solely based on harms and contradicting the science by doing so? When what they have clearly stated on the record they agree with the scientists on the harms but have reclassified on the precautionary principle due to unknowns in the science and because the classification system is based on other factors too.

As for what the Government says, “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” springs to mind. Science and Technology Committee:

We acknowledge that in this sensitive policy area scientific advice is just one input to decision making. The Home Office should be more transparent about the various factors influencing its decisions.

If the Government wishes to take into account public opinion in making its decisions about classification it should adopt a more empirical approach to assessing it. The Government’s current approach is opaque and leaves itself open to the interpretation that reviews are being launched as knee-jerk responses to media storms.

We have found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin the Government’s policy on classification. In view of the importance of drugs policy and the amount spent on enforcing the penalties associated with the classification system, it is highly unsatisfactory that there is so little knowledge about the system’s effectiveness.

The Government’s desire to use the Class of a particular drug to send out a signal to potential users or dealers does not sit comfortably with the claim that the primary objective of the classification system is to categorise drugs according to the comparative harm associated with their misuse. It is also incompatible with the Government’s stated commitment to evidence based policy making since it has never undertaken research to establish the relationship between the Class of a drug and the signal sent out and there is, therefore, no evidence base on which to draw in making these policy decisions.

A more scientifically based scale of harm than the current system would undoubtedly be a valuable tool to inform policy making and education.

It is vital that the Government’s approach to drugs education is evidence based. A more scientifically based scale of harm would have greater credibility than the current system where the placing of drugs in particular categories is ultimately a political decision.

In our view, it would be unfeasible to expect a penalty-linked classification system to include tobacco and alcohol but there would be merit in including them in a more scientific scale, decoupled from penalties, to give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved.

“Sevillista, if you don’t believe every child will become an addict, why are you worried about it so much that you consider this (unquantified) risk to outweigh other considerations?”

It’s the logical point I’m making. How many ways can I say it?

You contend that only direct harms that are caused to others by your use of drugs that are relevant to a decision to legalise.

You said yourself that there are no trade-offs – your innate human right to liberty is the only thing of relevance.

Following this through, even if every child became a drug user this would have no relevance, and it would still be unjustified for government to take any action that would impinge on your rights. That is a fair reflection of your beliefs isn’t it?

If not, then we are in agreement- the trade-offs and the evidence on what would happen on legalisation are relevant.

“Because they say substances should be ranked by harm but don’t rank them by harm, but according to other considerations”

If you read the Government’s report on its decision, you will see that is not what they are saying – see paragraphs 7.4 to 7.6 of Parliament Order and Impact Assessment of the Reclassification of Cannabis – nor in particular the first sentence http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/cannabis/impactassessment2?view=Binary

“The Government does not dispute the ACMDs findings on harm…(but) where there is a clear and serious problem but some uncertainty surrounding a drug’s full potential to cause harm, the Government considers it must err on the side of caution and take such preventative action as is necessary to protect the public…in reaching it’s decision the Government has also taken into account wider issues”

@Thomas

It seems we have a similar position on this to be honest. You say the evidence on indirect harms is relevant as do I.

I acknowledge that there are benefits from non-addicted drug users having easier access to drugs, from people not being criminalised and from the increase in liberty. There are also costs- which you seem to acknowledge are relevant to the decision.

Where we differ is in our reading of what the evidence says, and maybe our views on the trade-offs between them.

1)unless you can identify what the precise nature of the ‘other factors’ taken into account in the classification policy are it is presumptive to reach a conclusion whether it was correct to sack Prof Nutt.

2)unless you can determine the precise identity of the ‘certain people’ for whom restraint of their behaviour can be justified according to a ‘Millian paternalistic rationale’ then you are giving carte blanche to the forces of government to intervene.

3)you speak of a trade-off between the costs and benefits to different groups of a change in the law, yet here you recognise that the political decision is dependant only on ‘harms’ (and only indirect ones at that).

4)you say you wish for a more detailed study to be undertaken into the potential legalisation of drugs before it can be considered – I say a more detailed study should have been undertaken into the potential criminalisation of drugs before it occurred (and it would be enlightening to read any that were).

My general criticism of your position is that you are only looking at half the argument and are doing so inconsistently.

Also, why are you satisfied that “alcohol being part of our culture” outweighs the 8.6k young people who have alcohol problems and the 1 in 1000 people a year who die because they drink? Or do you think alcohol should be made illegal?

Please tell me how the Government is preventing people accessing accurate information.

Because they say substances should be ranked by harm but don’t rank them by harm, but according to other considerations. It’s their congenital dishonesty and populism that prevents us from accessing accurate information.

Setting aside my objection on the grounds of liberty, no offence to uneducated postmen but I don’t believe Alan Johnson is competent to decide what I may not do.

“Clearly hit a nerve there”

Your last post was “you are bleating…You are playing to the gallery, not dealing with reality…you are confused…you have jumped to a conclusion”. Worth responding to.

“Is the problem necessarily one where the interests of different groups get traded off against each other, or is there another way round the problem?”

It’s possible that there is. Which is why I’m interested in a decent study of what the impacts of legalisation would be in the UK, rather than assertions based on a 1970s study by a US economist.

I am completely in favour of an evidence-informed policy. This is no moral position I am taking – just a concern that the benefits to certain people are outweighed by the costs to others. I don’t see how that is so difficult to understand.

What I disagree with is that there is an innate human right to “liberty to consume drugs” that has an infinite benefit outweighing all possible indirect harms. Which is what ukliberty was arguing I think (though I’m sure he will probably correct me again!).

“Frankly I can’t believe you are supporting the status quo”

Again, where did I say this?

I’ve made 4 points.

1. The Government was correct to sack Mr Nutt – it is quite right that factors other than scientific research on harms are taken account of, and politicians to take different views on the impact of uncertainties and on the evidence base where this is contested than the scientists who directly advise them
2. There is a Millian paternalistic rationale to intervene to prevent certain people from use of drugs or guide their use of drugs
3. The indirect harms of legalisation are relevant to the decision as to whether this is a good idea or not; and there is a justifiable political decision to be made
4. I am not convinced by the arguments for legalisation that have been presented – and think a full study should be done on this to provide better evidence

Note how there is nothing that says “the status quo in drug policy is the correct one”.

I think you need to read through your comments again, because you’re being inconsistent.

In the interests of keeping things brief I’ll respond by picking you up on this line:
“The State is better placed than to make decisions than SOME individuals.”

So does that justify introducing laws which detrimentally effect significantly more people and do so in ways which may be more harmful, but not directly and immediately apparent?

Is the problem necessarily one where the interests of different groups get traded off against each other, or is there another way round the problem?

Frankly I can’t believe you are supporting the status quo.