Add at end
6. That the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs retain a majority of independent scientific and social scientific experts in its membership and that no changes to drug laws be made without receiving its advice as per the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act.
To be inserted after line 50 (as part of "Conference believes that"): "F. Issues such as housing, family and youth support, mental health and tackling unemployment and high inequality should not be overlooked as means of both averting problematic drug use and supporting recovery."
Explanatory note
Deprivation, homelessness, problems at home as a child, lack of social engagement etc. are all risk factors for drug problems and I think it's important for us to emphasise that the effects of even the best possible drug laws could be negated by failure in these other areas. Whether money would be better spent on these areas rather than on law enforcement and criminalising users is one of the things the 'panel' could consider, while the amendment also helps explain why we are calling for the high-quality provision of psychological and social services. Finally, I feel it underlines the message the Liberal Democrats - unlike certain other parties - are looking in a grown-up, evidence-based manner at the realities of the drugs trade and possible solutions.
Monday, 12 September 2011
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
The nearly final draft of the motion for Spring conference
Conference notes:
A) The continuing failure of a prohibitionist policy on psychoactive drugs to reduce consumption of these drugs in the UK and to tackle the many social, economic and health consequences of their use.
B) Problem drug users commit over half of all acquisitive crimes and account for around 95% of street prostitution
C) The destabilising influence the drugs trade is having internationally especially in Latin America, the Caribbean, West Africa, and Afghanistan, where up to 50% of Taliban income is from the opium trade.
D) A comprehensive survey by the WHO has demonstrated that there is no association between more stringent prohibition and lower levels of drug use. Progressive policies in Portugal and Switzerland have achieved excellent results and have broad public support.
Conference believes:
1) We have a moral duty to ensure that drug addicts are not compelled to harm themselves or others by funding their drug use through prostitution, acquisitive crime or drug dealing.
2) Harm reduction should be paramount as a consideration in drugs policy and reduction in the use of drugs is a vitally important contributing factor in that effort.
3) An end to prohibition would increase respect for and co-operation with our police forces, remove drug dealing as an attractive career path for our youth, remove a major driver of gang violence, reduce prison overcrowding and free up tens of thousands of police for other priorities.
4) The treasury would benefit from billions of pounds in saved criminal justice costs. The population would benefit directly from reduced costs of crime and lowered insurance premiums.
5) Deaths, injuries and illness brought about by overdose, contaminants, blood-borne infection, general ignorance of safe use practices and ignorance of the mental health implications of drug use would be reduced.
6) It is precisely because of the Liberal Democrats full support for the excellent work of the UN in promoting liberty, health, human rights, peace and security across the globe that we should campaign for the urgent reform of the drugs conventions which are clearly creating quite opposite effects.
Conference therefore calls for:
a) Strict regulation and control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs to be a key policy in the fight against acquisitive and organised crime, prostitution, the Taliban, mental and physical ill health, child neglect, unemployment and poverty.
b) Supervised consumption of prescribed or low-cost drugs to be available to drugs users who might otherwise deal drugs, commit acquisitive crime or enter sex work.
c) The consideration of a licensing scheme that would ensure education on each specific drug is administered before an individual is licensed to purchase it at a licensed pharmacist or clinic, and that would ensure under 18s would not be able to purchase drugs, alcohol or tobacco in shops.
d) Close monitoring of patterns of use and the impacts of reform on public and societal health to be carried out while maintaining individual's rights for their drug use history to be completely confidential.
e) The opening of dialogue with our neighbours and allies to facilitate Britain gaining wide support from the international community for when we responsibly take the lead in this course of action.
A) The continuing failure of a prohibitionist policy on psychoactive drugs to reduce consumption of these drugs in the UK and to tackle the many social, economic and health consequences of their use.
B) Problem drug users commit over half of all acquisitive crimes and account for around 95% of street prostitution
C) The destabilising influence the drugs trade is having internationally especially in Latin America, the Caribbean, West Africa, and Afghanistan, where up to 50% of Taliban income is from the opium trade.
D) A comprehensive survey by the WHO has demonstrated that there is no association between more stringent prohibition and lower levels of drug use. Progressive policies in Portugal and Switzerland have achieved excellent results and have broad public support.
Conference believes:
1) We have a moral duty to ensure that drug addicts are not compelled to harm themselves or others by funding their drug use through prostitution, acquisitive crime or drug dealing.
2) Harm reduction should be paramount as a consideration in drugs policy and reduction in the use of drugs is a vitally important contributing factor in that effort.
3) An end to prohibition would increase respect for and co-operation with our police forces, remove drug dealing as an attractive career path for our youth, remove a major driver of gang violence, reduce prison overcrowding and free up tens of thousands of police for other priorities.
4) The treasury would benefit from billions of pounds in saved criminal justice costs. The population would benefit directly from reduced costs of crime and lowered insurance premiums.
5) Deaths, injuries and illness brought about by overdose, contaminants, blood-borne infection, general ignorance of safe use practices and ignorance of the mental health implications of drug use would be reduced.
6) It is precisely because of the Liberal Democrats full support for the excellent work of the UN in promoting liberty, health, human rights, peace and security across the globe that we should campaign for the urgent reform of the drugs conventions which are clearly creating quite opposite effects.
Conference therefore calls for:
a) Strict regulation and control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs to be a key policy in the fight against acquisitive and organised crime, prostitution, the Taliban, mental and physical ill health, child neglect, unemployment and poverty.
b) Supervised consumption of prescribed or low-cost drugs to be available to drugs users who might otherwise deal drugs, commit acquisitive crime or enter sex work.
c) The consideration of a licensing scheme that would ensure education on each specific drug is administered before an individual is licensed to purchase it at a licensed pharmacist or clinic, and that would ensure under 18s would not be able to purchase drugs, alcohol or tobacco in shops.
d) Close monitoring of patterns of use and the impacts of reform on public and societal health to be carried out while maintaining individual's rights for their drug use history to be completely confidential.
e) The opening of dialogue with our neighbours and allies to facilitate Britain gaining wide support from the international community for when we responsibly take the lead in this course of action.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Draft heroin prescription and drug decriminalisation motion for Scottish Spring conference
This is a pragmatic compromise motion for Scottish conference drafted in the presumption that Scotland would not wish to go it alone without England in controlling and regulating drugs. This motion will require the backing of 25 reps and/or a local party in order for it to be considered at conference. Please get in touch if you wish this to happen.
Conference notes:
Problem drug users commit over half of all acquisitive crimes and account for around 95% of street prostitution in the UK.
A comprehensive survey by the WHO has demonstrated that there is no association between more stringent prohibition and lower levels of drug use.
The opium trade accounts for up to 50% of the Taliban's income.
2008 saw the highest ever recorded number of drug-related deaths in Scotland. A figure that has increased in each of the last three years and that has been trending upwards since the late nineties when death rates were less than half what they are now.
Decriminalisation of possession of drugs for personal consumption in Portugal has been associated with reduction in prevalence rates of consumption in teenagers, plummeting rates of HIV infection in injecting drug users, and reduction in opiate-related deaths by more than half. The success of the policy has resulted in there being very little political desire for a return to criminalisation of drug users.
Heroin prescription policies have been successful in many European countries in reducing crime, reducing spread of HIV and deaths from drugs, and in allowing addicts to hold down jobs. Countries like Denmark have now adopted heroin prescription policies without first carrying out trials as the supporting evidence from other countries has been judged to be sufficient.
Scottish Government commissioned research estimates the economic and social cost of drug use in Scotland at £3.5 billion each year, with each problem drug user costing over £60,000 per year.
Conference believes:
We have a moral duty to ensure that drug addicts do not needlessly harm themselves or others by funding their drug use through prostitution, acquisitive crime or drug dealing.
Drug users who wish to seek medical help should not fear arrest or removal of their children as a result of seeking help.
Drug use should be regarded as a medical and not a criminal justice problem.
Prescription of heroin to problem drug users could greatly reduce revenue for organised criminal gangs in Scotland and abroad and reduce the chances of vulnerable young people being drawn into heroin use by addicts dealing to fund a habit.
Conference calls for:
Heroin prescription schemes to be adopted wherever needed to tackle the associated acquisitive crime, prostitution and drug dealing that is blighting our communities.
Something similar to the Portuguese model of decriminalisation of drugs possession for personal use to be adopted as a means of minimising the harms drug use is causing in our society, and allowing people to access help without fear of prosecution or stigma.
Conference notes:
Problem drug users commit over half of all acquisitive crimes and account for around 95% of street prostitution in the UK.
A comprehensive survey by the WHO has demonstrated that there is no association between more stringent prohibition and lower levels of drug use.
The opium trade accounts for up to 50% of the Taliban's income.
2008 saw the highest ever recorded number of drug-related deaths in Scotland. A figure that has increased in each of the last three years and that has been trending upwards since the late nineties when death rates were less than half what they are now.
Decriminalisation of possession of drugs for personal consumption in Portugal has been associated with reduction in prevalence rates of consumption in teenagers, plummeting rates of HIV infection in injecting drug users, and reduction in opiate-related deaths by more than half. The success of the policy has resulted in there being very little political desire for a return to criminalisation of drug users.
Heroin prescription policies have been successful in many European countries in reducing crime, reducing spread of HIV and deaths from drugs, and in allowing addicts to hold down jobs. Countries like Denmark have now adopted heroin prescription policies without first carrying out trials as the supporting evidence from other countries has been judged to be sufficient.
Scottish Government commissioned research estimates the economic and social cost of drug use in Scotland at £3.5 billion each year, with each problem drug user costing over £60,000 per year.
Conference believes:
We have a moral duty to ensure that drug addicts do not needlessly harm themselves or others by funding their drug use through prostitution, acquisitive crime or drug dealing.
Drug users who wish to seek medical help should not fear arrest or removal of their children as a result of seeking help.
Drug use should be regarded as a medical and not a criminal justice problem.
Prescription of heroin to problem drug users could greatly reduce revenue for organised criminal gangs in Scotland and abroad and reduce the chances of vulnerable young people being drawn into heroin use by addicts dealing to fund a habit.
Conference calls for:
Heroin prescription schemes to be adopted wherever needed to tackle the associated acquisitive crime, prostitution and drug dealing that is blighting our communities.
Something similar to the Portuguese model of decriminalisation of drugs possession for personal use to be adopted as a means of minimising the harms drug use is causing in our society, and allowing people to access help without fear of prosecution or stigma.
Why might PPCs and MPs be interested in supporting a motion to control and regulate the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs?
In 2005 we had the Iraq War to distinguish us from the other political parties. The population respected our taking a stand based upon liberal principles and a respect for international law and the United Nations as an institution. We risk going into the next general election with no stand-up-and-take-notice policy that will attract attention to our existing policies. Policies which deserve to be taken seriously by the voters.
This is an excerpt from the speech I gave to the LDDPR fringe event at Autumn conference:
“This is not something we should propose alone. I would hope we could gather a grand coalition of charities, newspapers and news magazines, and prominent law enforcement and other professionals in support of this policy. If we stick our head above the parapet on our own we run the risk of it being blown off and of looking rather foolish. If we amass an army of compassionate, intelligent, respected groups and individuals, then the voter should take notice, and hopefully be persuaded. I truly believe we can win this argument. This is what politicians are for: Presenting policies that will improve people's lives and persuading people to vote in their best interests. In a time when faith in politics is all but lost, this is a policy that could certainly not be described as cynical populism. It appeals to the best in people. It asks them to think and to empathise with the people whose lives prohibition is ruining. Yes, some will be scared by it, but others will be so enthused by it that they will join the party and enthusiastically campaign on our behalf. So long as we get our message straight, this policy can reinvigorate interest in all of our policies and allow us that chance of a genuine breakthrough.
I'd like you to imagine standing on a constituent's doorstep presenting a policy that is likely to do the following:
Reduce acquisitive crime by over 50% and domestic burglaries by around 80%. Constituents will like the nice reduction in their insurance premiums that should result.
Allow around two thirds of street prostitutes to leave prostitution, free of the need to fund their drug habit. I should point out that prostitutes suffer post-traumatic stress disorder at 5 times the rate of soldiers returning from Iraq. We can and should save them from their horrific routine.
Reduce overcrowding in existing prisons and save the £2-3bn planned to be spent on building new ones.
Free up tens of thousands of police for community policing and other priorities.
Substantially increase the respect for the police among our nation's youth.
Remove a major criminal career path as an option for these youth's future.
Deprive organised criminals of over £5bn in income.
Increase stability in Latin America and Afghanistan by cutting a considerable source of income from organised criminal gangs and the Taliban.
Allow us to ensure that all people thinking about taking drugs are aware of all the potential health, social and economic consequences of their use.
And virtually eliminate the chances of our young people encountering pushers of hard drugs.
If the constituent's response is “Wow, but how are you paying for all this.” you can say. “Well actually, this policy is projected to save at least £10bn each year.”
I'd now like to present some arguments for the media debate I hope will occur:
Every time a drug trafficking operation is disrupted there may be a temporary reduction in purity and increase in price. This increases the health risks and the criminal activity needed to maintain a habit. Every time a sex trafficking operation is disrupted, you are freeing women from sex slavery. I'd like to ask the moral absolutist prohibitionists where they'd rather their taxes were spent.
While the tories/labour/the daily mail may not intentionally be representing the interests of organised crime and the Taleban, they should understand that the gangsters and terrorists of the world will be hoping and praying that it is the tories/labour/the daily mail and not us that win the argument.
David Cameron has expressed strongly pro-reform views as a backbencher based on the evidence he heard on the Home Affairs Select Committee. Will he now support a policy he believes will effectively tackle many of society's problems, or will he accept the advice of his political advisers and let the people of this nation continue to suffer in the interests of gaining power?
We have the evidence.
We have the weapons and skills to win the arguments.
But does this party have the courage and confidence to stand up and lead?
If, like me, you fear where a conservative government will take our country, I'd suggest we find that courage and find it fast.
There is no great ideological chasm to cross. Rather, the voters are divided into the well-informed, the yet to be well-informed and Melanie Phillips.”
Since I delivered this speech in September, Transform Drug Policy Foundation have released “After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation”, which, in addition to their earlier publication “After the War on Drugs: Tools for the Debate” gives the party a wide array of arguments with which to defend a policy of strictly regulated control, and many tools that will be useful in actively promoting this course of action to the voters.
Chris Huhne recently argued that there are massive problems with reform because of the UN conventions. The Liberal Democrats are famously internationalist. We are firm friends of the EU and the UN. Sometimes a friend has to say “I'm sorry but you are wrong. You're hurting people. We're not going to go along with this anymore.”
With dramatic recent rises in youth unemployment, it is vital that we act soon to prevent another generation getting caught up in the misery of prohibited addiction. Important allies are experiencing similar economic hardship and are being led by relatively liberal governments, a situation that may not be present at an election 5 years from now. There are no other policies that could reduce spending while improving public health, reducing crime, creating jobs, increasing freedom and undermining international criminal gangs and terrorists.
We don't have to fear a political backlash on this issue. Any argument against us would be founded on ignorance or prejudice, and the politician or commentator could be quickly made to look foolish. What we do have to fear is the act of going into a general election campaign with no one policy that neatly sums up our guiding principles. We need to draw a line in the sand. The old politics of Labour and the Conservatives with their focus groups and grasping populism, or the new politics of a Liberal Democrat party having the courage to lead the world in standing up against the criminals sucking the life out of our communities. If we do the right thing, and pronounce this policy with confidence with the supporting evidence presented clearly for all to see, we will gain considerable admiration amongst the population here and abroad, and (perhaps most importantly) we will gain a considerable number of seats.
This is an excerpt from the speech I gave to the LDDPR fringe event at Autumn conference:
“This is not something we should propose alone. I would hope we could gather a grand coalition of charities, newspapers and news magazines, and prominent law enforcement and other professionals in support of this policy. If we stick our head above the parapet on our own we run the risk of it being blown off and of looking rather foolish. If we amass an army of compassionate, intelligent, respected groups and individuals, then the voter should take notice, and hopefully be persuaded. I truly believe we can win this argument. This is what politicians are for: Presenting policies that will improve people's lives and persuading people to vote in their best interests. In a time when faith in politics is all but lost, this is a policy that could certainly not be described as cynical populism. It appeals to the best in people. It asks them to think and to empathise with the people whose lives prohibition is ruining. Yes, some will be scared by it, but others will be so enthused by it that they will join the party and enthusiastically campaign on our behalf. So long as we get our message straight, this policy can reinvigorate interest in all of our policies and allow us that chance of a genuine breakthrough.
I'd like you to imagine standing on a constituent's doorstep presenting a policy that is likely to do the following:
Reduce acquisitive crime by over 50% and domestic burglaries by around 80%. Constituents will like the nice reduction in their insurance premiums that should result.
Allow around two thirds of street prostitutes to leave prostitution, free of the need to fund their drug habit. I should point out that prostitutes suffer post-traumatic stress disorder at 5 times the rate of soldiers returning from Iraq. We can and should save them from their horrific routine.
Reduce overcrowding in existing prisons and save the £2-3bn planned to be spent on building new ones.
Free up tens of thousands of police for community policing and other priorities.
Substantially increase the respect for the police among our nation's youth.
Remove a major criminal career path as an option for these youth's future.
Deprive organised criminals of over £5bn in income.
Increase stability in Latin America and Afghanistan by cutting a considerable source of income from organised criminal gangs and the Taliban.
Allow us to ensure that all people thinking about taking drugs are aware of all the potential health, social and economic consequences of their use.
And virtually eliminate the chances of our young people encountering pushers of hard drugs.
If the constituent's response is “Wow, but how are you paying for all this.” you can say. “Well actually, this policy is projected to save at least £10bn each year.”
I'd now like to present some arguments for the media debate I hope will occur:
Every time a drug trafficking operation is disrupted there may be a temporary reduction in purity and increase in price. This increases the health risks and the criminal activity needed to maintain a habit. Every time a sex trafficking operation is disrupted, you are freeing women from sex slavery. I'd like to ask the moral absolutist prohibitionists where they'd rather their taxes were spent.
While the tories/labour/the daily mail may not intentionally be representing the interests of organised crime and the Taleban, they should understand that the gangsters and terrorists of the world will be hoping and praying that it is the tories/labour/the daily mail and not us that win the argument.
David Cameron has expressed strongly pro-reform views as a backbencher based on the evidence he heard on the Home Affairs Select Committee. Will he now support a policy he believes will effectively tackle many of society's problems, or will he accept the advice of his political advisers and let the people of this nation continue to suffer in the interests of gaining power?
We have the evidence.
We have the weapons and skills to win the arguments.
But does this party have the courage and confidence to stand up and lead?
If, like me, you fear where a conservative government will take our country, I'd suggest we find that courage and find it fast.
There is no great ideological chasm to cross. Rather, the voters are divided into the well-informed, the yet to be well-informed and Melanie Phillips.”
Since I delivered this speech in September, Transform Drug Policy Foundation have released “After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation”, which, in addition to their earlier publication “After the War on Drugs: Tools for the Debate” gives the party a wide array of arguments with which to defend a policy of strictly regulated control, and many tools that will be useful in actively promoting this course of action to the voters.
Chris Huhne recently argued that there are massive problems with reform because of the UN conventions. The Liberal Democrats are famously internationalist. We are firm friends of the EU and the UN. Sometimes a friend has to say “I'm sorry but you are wrong. You're hurting people. We're not going to go along with this anymore.”
With dramatic recent rises in youth unemployment, it is vital that we act soon to prevent another generation getting caught up in the misery of prohibited addiction. Important allies are experiencing similar economic hardship and are being led by relatively liberal governments, a situation that may not be present at an election 5 years from now. There are no other policies that could reduce spending while improving public health, reducing crime, creating jobs, increasing freedom and undermining international criminal gangs and terrorists.
We don't have to fear a political backlash on this issue. Any argument against us would be founded on ignorance or prejudice, and the politician or commentator could be quickly made to look foolish. What we do have to fear is the act of going into a general election campaign with no one policy that neatly sums up our guiding principles. We need to draw a line in the sand. The old politics of Labour and the Conservatives with their focus groups and grasping populism, or the new politics of a Liberal Democrat party having the courage to lead the world in standing up against the criminals sucking the life out of our communities. If we do the right thing, and pronounce this policy with confidence with the supporting evidence presented clearly for all to see, we will gain considerable admiration amongst the population here and abroad, and (perhaps most importantly) we will gain a considerable number of seats.
Why might Ethnic Minority Lib Dems be interested in supporting a motion to control and regulate the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs.
There are two major aspects to the ways that “The War on Drugs” impacts upon the ethnic minority communities in Britain. Within Britain, ethnic minorities are disproportionally targeted by police stop and search powers, imprisoned at a greater rate, and generally victims of a degree of stereotyping in relation to drug use and crime. Beyond our shores, many of the countries where British ethnic minority communities have family ties have been affected by prohibition to a far more serious degree than the UK.
Suspicion of drugs possession is the single greatest reason for stop and search procedures to be taken against individuals and blacks are around six times more likely than whites to be subject to these procedures. Asians are also disproportionally affected, being stopped at nearly twice the rate of whites. This has implications for arrest rates, with the proportion of arrests of blacks resulting from stop and search procedures being twice that of the equivalent statistic for whites. This disparity in the use of stop and search undoubtedly contributes to the fact that there are 5 times as many British blacks in prison as a proportion of their population as there are whites. The proportion of black prisoners imprisoned for drugs offences is also 2-3 times higher than for whites, with other ethnic minority prisoners also twice as likely to be in prison for drugs offences.
Whether these figures are due to institutionalised racism, or whether they accurately reflect rates of drug-related criminal activity in ethnic minority communities, it is apparent that British ethnic minorities have more to gain from strict control and regulation of drugs that do British whites. Removing the influence of drug dealers and gangsters in inner city communities would remove a major driver of gang violence and a potentially lucrative criminal career option for inner city youth. It might be expected that these negative influences could be replaced by more positive role models and a greater interest in education, culture, and sport as means of advancement.
In the Caribbean murder rates are now higher than in any other region of the world, in large part due to the displacement of the cocaine trade from countries targeted by the US “War on Drugs”. West Africa is quickly becoming an easy target of the Colombian drugs cartels. Failed states like Guinea-Bissau are powerless in the face of the cocaine trade passing through their territory and many of these states' GDPs are dwarfed by the monetary worth of the drugs shipments they are expected to resist. There is also suggestion that a powerful franchise of Al-Qaida may be involved in the cocaine trade in Mali and Lebanese allies of Hezbollah may be purchasing some of the cocaine passing through the region.
What is for sure, is that the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is heavily involved in the opium trade, with opium providing up to 50% of its income. Were the rest of the world allowed to grow and process opium to meet their requirements, the Taliban's power to spread their extremist world-view and terrorise the people of the region and beyond would be greatly reduced.
By strictly regulating and controlling the drugs trade we can remove the driver of horrific violence in the Caribbean and everywhere else where trafficking occurs, we can squeeze the funding streams of extremist terrorist groups threatening inter-faith relations around the world, and we can create communities free of drug-related crime in which people of all faiths and ethnicities can interact with less prejudice and fear.
Suspicion of drugs possession is the single greatest reason for stop and search procedures to be taken against individuals and blacks are around six times more likely than whites to be subject to these procedures. Asians are also disproportionally affected, being stopped at nearly twice the rate of whites. This has implications for arrest rates, with the proportion of arrests of blacks resulting from stop and search procedures being twice that of the equivalent statistic for whites. This disparity in the use of stop and search undoubtedly contributes to the fact that there are 5 times as many British blacks in prison as a proportion of their population as there are whites. The proportion of black prisoners imprisoned for drugs offences is also 2-3 times higher than for whites, with other ethnic minority prisoners also twice as likely to be in prison for drugs offences.
Whether these figures are due to institutionalised racism, or whether they accurately reflect rates of drug-related criminal activity in ethnic minority communities, it is apparent that British ethnic minorities have more to gain from strict control and regulation of drugs that do British whites. Removing the influence of drug dealers and gangsters in inner city communities would remove a major driver of gang violence and a potentially lucrative criminal career option for inner city youth. It might be expected that these negative influences could be replaced by more positive role models and a greater interest in education, culture, and sport as means of advancement.
In the Caribbean murder rates are now higher than in any other region of the world, in large part due to the displacement of the cocaine trade from countries targeted by the US “War on Drugs”. West Africa is quickly becoming an easy target of the Colombian drugs cartels. Failed states like Guinea-Bissau are powerless in the face of the cocaine trade passing through their territory and many of these states' GDPs are dwarfed by the monetary worth of the drugs shipments they are expected to resist. There is also suggestion that a powerful franchise of Al-Qaida may be involved in the cocaine trade in Mali and Lebanese allies of Hezbollah may be purchasing some of the cocaine passing through the region.
What is for sure, is that the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is heavily involved in the opium trade, with opium providing up to 50% of its income. Were the rest of the world allowed to grow and process opium to meet their requirements, the Taliban's power to spread their extremist world-view and terrorise the people of the region and beyond would be greatly reduced.
By strictly regulating and controlling the drugs trade we can remove the driver of horrific violence in the Caribbean and everywhere else where trafficking occurs, we can squeeze the funding streams of extremist terrorist groups threatening inter-faith relations around the world, and we can create communities free of drug-related crime in which people of all faiths and ethnicities can interact with less prejudice and fear.
Why should Green Lib Dems support a motion for strict control and regulation of manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs?
The “War on Drugs” as it is being currently fought has massive unintended consequences for the environment. As over 40% of the estimated global cocaine trade is being intercepted, with little effect on prices to the consumer, it can therefore be logically argued that 67% more coca bush is being cultivated than is necessary to meet demand. Coca is being cultivated in some of the most biodiverse countries in the world. Colombia especially is concerned about the loss of valuable rainforest habitat. The policy of burning intercepted drugs only drives this destruction further, as does the US policy: Plan Colombia. This policy involves the aerial spraying of coca plantations with herbicide, a policy that requires farmers move elsewhere and destroy more rainforest if they are to make a living, and has the obvious environmental implications of widespread herbicide administration to a remarkably biodiverse rainforest.
Further reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/25/colombia-endangered-species-cocaine
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/features/plan-colombia.html
The fact that the coca trade is illegal creates other serious consequences. Cocaine factories in the rainforest use many toxic chemicals that they are not bound by environmental law to dispose of responsibly. As with cultivation, the destruction of these factories by law enforcement requires that they move elsewhere and affect yet another ecosystem.
In the short term, I would suggest that intercepted drugs shipments should not be burnt, driving the need to grow more coca and manufacture more cocaine. Rather these seizures should be used in treatment programmes in the UK. Not so long ago, general practitioners were routinely prescribing heroin and cocaine to the addicts who needed it. We should return to this model, or something similar, undercutting the criminal market with the very drugs they planned to sell in our country. Not only would this course of action reduce the environmental impacts of the drugs trade in the South American rainforest, it would represent a serious economic blow to the drugs cartels and reduce the viability of Britain as a market for their criminal activity, while also engaging addicts in treatment services in the hope that they can reduce or even terminate their consumption.
The cocaine trade effects are the most obvious example of the impacts prohibition is having on the environment. The vast amounts of energy consumed by illegal cannabis factories are a concern, as are any organisation's activities when using chemicals in a manufacturing process untouched by the concerns of environmental regulations.
The “War on Drugs” is having massive unintended (but to be expected) consequences upon the environment. If Britain could lead the way in reducing these consequences by growing and manufacturing our own drugs, then hopefully the rest of the world will recognise the success of our policy in vastly improving the lives of many of our citizens, and will move towards more sensible drugs policies that safeguard our environment for the enjoyment of subsequent generations.
Further reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/25/colombia-endangered-species-cocaine
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/features/plan-colombia.html
The fact that the coca trade is illegal creates other serious consequences. Cocaine factories in the rainforest use many toxic chemicals that they are not bound by environmental law to dispose of responsibly. As with cultivation, the destruction of these factories by law enforcement requires that they move elsewhere and affect yet another ecosystem.
In the short term, I would suggest that intercepted drugs shipments should not be burnt, driving the need to grow more coca and manufacture more cocaine. Rather these seizures should be used in treatment programmes in the UK. Not so long ago, general practitioners were routinely prescribing heroin and cocaine to the addicts who needed it. We should return to this model, or something similar, undercutting the criminal market with the very drugs they planned to sell in our country. Not only would this course of action reduce the environmental impacts of the drugs trade in the South American rainforest, it would represent a serious economic blow to the drugs cartels and reduce the viability of Britain as a market for their criminal activity, while also engaging addicts in treatment services in the hope that they can reduce or even terminate their consumption.
The cocaine trade effects are the most obvious example of the impacts prohibition is having on the environment. The vast amounts of energy consumed by illegal cannabis factories are a concern, as are any organisation's activities when using chemicals in a manufacturing process untouched by the concerns of environmental regulations.
The “War on Drugs” is having massive unintended (but to be expected) consequences upon the environment. If Britain could lead the way in reducing these consequences by growing and manufacturing our own drugs, then hopefully the rest of the world will recognise the success of our policy in vastly improving the lives of many of our citizens, and will move towards more sensible drugs policies that safeguard our environment for the enjoyment of subsequent generations.
Why might Women Liberal Democrats be interested in supporting a motion to control and regulate the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs?
The stories of how prohibition affects women give the drug policy reform movement the strongest arguments we have. The one experience more than any other that motivated me to campaign for drug policy reform was watching the documentary film: “Killer in a Small Town” The film tackled the story of the 5 young women who were murdered by Steve Wright in Ipswich in 2006. The film-maker spoke to their families and friends and attracted attention to the fact that these young women were seemingly ordinary girls from ordinary families who had apparently just made a few bad decisions in their life and found themselves addicted to heroin and selling sex on the streets. It struck me at the time that any unhappy or rebellious girl making a few mistakes could quickly find themselves in a similar situation, a thought that sickened me.
One of the most distressing scenes of the film was the playing of footage from the ITV news showing a journalist talking to a young woman after it was apparent a serial killer was preying on prostitutes in the town. The interviewer asked “Despite the dangers, why have you chosen to come out tonight?” to which she replied “Because I need the money. I need the money.” The young woman interviewed was Paula Clennell, who was to become Wright's fifth victim.
Around 95% of street prostitutes in the UK are considered to be problem drug addicts according to Home Office estimates, and nearly two thirds cite funding drug use as their primary motivation, suggesting that the vast majority could leave prostitution if they could obtain their drug of addiction at an affordable price. Having recently met some former prostitutes at a conference and witnessed them struggle to confront their past and the effect it has had on their lives, I would say that our humanity compels us to do everything we can to ensure few others have to go through similar experiences. I certainly don't want to hear anyone else standing in front of me saying “I was lucky... I was only raped once.”
Were the majority of street prostitutes to leave sex work, basic economics dictate that conditions for remaining prostitutes should improve. Sex workers should be able to increase prices, work less hours and be more choosy about the clients they take business from if “supply” of sex workers doesn't meet “demand” from punters. Some of the tens of thousands of police freed up by the massive reduction in acquisitive crime rates that should accompany controlled, regulated drug supply could be diverted into shutting down exploitative brothels, and ensuring demand is not met by trafficking from overseas.
The sad truth is that there are male heroin and crack addicts out there who are identifying vulnerable teenagers, seducing them, offering them drugs and sending them out on the streets to raise money to fund both their habits. I would much prefer any decision to take hard drugs to be based upon education provided by a trained pharmacist or counsellor rather than the extent of your education being contained in the phrase “Try some of this, it's awesome.” spoken by the first man you think you love.
It is also true that many of the currently illegal drugs have the potential to cause great distress to families. They can bring about changes in personality and values that create awful dilemmas in mothers and other family members, torn between the pain of holding a drug-affected family member close and the pain of pushing them away. A system combining licensing and drug tagging might be very effective in restricting provision of drugs to children in the first place and the absence of criminal sanctions for use should make it much easier to seek and receive help, as has been the case in Portugal, where drugs have been decriminalised since 2001. In Portugal prevalence rates of use of all the major drugs by 13-18 year olds reduced between 2001 and 2006.
Another tragic feature of the relationship between women and drugs is the routine removal of the children of drug addicts. There are around 10,000 children of heroin addicts in care in the UK and addicted mothers who are having serious problems are resisting seeking treatment in the fear that their children will be taken from them. Current prohibitionist policy just increases harms for both the mother and the child. Removing the chaos from addicts lives by ensuring they don't have to be constantly chasing money to fund their habit can allow them to hold their children as their number one priority. What chance does a woman have of escaping the spiral of despair and addiction if she is living in constant fear of losing her kids?
The passage below is taken from a piece written in 1995 by Mike Gray about the closure of a clinic in Widnes. Heroin prescription used to be widespread in the UK, but had been scaled back under diplomatic pressure from the US.
“In March of last year I visited the Chapel Street Clinic and met with several of the patients. I sat in on a group session where eight heroin users discussed their lives and problems with a counselor before picking up their weekly prescriptions for pharmaceutical heroin. Unlike the junkies we are used to seeing, this group was virtually indistinguishable from any other bunch of young adults on the streets of Liverpool. They were well dressed, talkative, energetic -- they had jobs -- and they used heroin daily.
One of the most attractive was a young woman named Juliette who had been an addict for 13 years. She came from a middle-class background, married a rich kid who got her into heroin, then left her with two kids and no money. She tried desperately to kick but couldn't make it. Somehow for ten years she managed to stay afloat through petty theft and prostitution, with the authorities breathing down her neck. Finally, terrified that they were about to take her kids away, she happened to find the right doctor and he sent her to John Marks. Marks gave her a check-up, satisfied himself that she was indeed a heroin addict, and wrote her a prescription for a week's supply.
"For the first time in ten years," she said, "I had spare time. I didn't have to worry that my dealer wouldn't show -- I didn't have to worry about the price or where to steal the money. So for the first time in ten years, I had a minute to look in the mirror. I looked and I said, `Oh, my God.' Then I looked at the kids, and I said, `What have I done?' All these middle-class values came flooding back in on me.
" Today Juliette has a job, a house, and a mortgage. The kids are in school and doing well. Everybody's in excellent health. And once a week she comes to Chapel Street for her prescription. I asked John Marks what will happen to Juliette on April 1 (when the clinic closes). He said, "Well, she'll go down the tubes."
Many of the young women who get involved with drugs have had difficult lives and can only find comfort in drugs, despite what their addiction makes them do. We have turned our backs on their plight for too long. Regulating and controlling drugs sensibly can take the chaos from these young women's lives and allow us to offer them comfort that will not damage them. Careful pricing has the potential to put drug dealers out of business, removing the pushers that try to recruit children as customers. Control and regulation is not throwing in the towel in the “War on Drugs”, it is moving the war onto ground that we understand and can control in order to limit the damage drugs can do to our society. Supporting the Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform motion for Spring conference could help the Liberal Democrats take a massive step forward in tackling the terrible effects of prohibition in the UK and beyond.
One of the most distressing scenes of the film was the playing of footage from the ITV news showing a journalist talking to a young woman after it was apparent a serial killer was preying on prostitutes in the town. The interviewer asked “Despite the dangers, why have you chosen to come out tonight?” to which she replied “Because I need the money. I need the money.” The young woman interviewed was Paula Clennell, who was to become Wright's fifth victim.
Around 95% of street prostitutes in the UK are considered to be problem drug addicts according to Home Office estimates, and nearly two thirds cite funding drug use as their primary motivation, suggesting that the vast majority could leave prostitution if they could obtain their drug of addiction at an affordable price. Having recently met some former prostitutes at a conference and witnessed them struggle to confront their past and the effect it has had on their lives, I would say that our humanity compels us to do everything we can to ensure few others have to go through similar experiences. I certainly don't want to hear anyone else standing in front of me saying “I was lucky... I was only raped once.”
Were the majority of street prostitutes to leave sex work, basic economics dictate that conditions for remaining prostitutes should improve. Sex workers should be able to increase prices, work less hours and be more choosy about the clients they take business from if “supply” of sex workers doesn't meet “demand” from punters. Some of the tens of thousands of police freed up by the massive reduction in acquisitive crime rates that should accompany controlled, regulated drug supply could be diverted into shutting down exploitative brothels, and ensuring demand is not met by trafficking from overseas.
The sad truth is that there are male heroin and crack addicts out there who are identifying vulnerable teenagers, seducing them, offering them drugs and sending them out on the streets to raise money to fund both their habits. I would much prefer any decision to take hard drugs to be based upon education provided by a trained pharmacist or counsellor rather than the extent of your education being contained in the phrase “Try some of this, it's awesome.” spoken by the first man you think you love.
It is also true that many of the currently illegal drugs have the potential to cause great distress to families. They can bring about changes in personality and values that create awful dilemmas in mothers and other family members, torn between the pain of holding a drug-affected family member close and the pain of pushing them away. A system combining licensing and drug tagging might be very effective in restricting provision of drugs to children in the first place and the absence of criminal sanctions for use should make it much easier to seek and receive help, as has been the case in Portugal, where drugs have been decriminalised since 2001. In Portugal prevalence rates of use of all the major drugs by 13-18 year olds reduced between 2001 and 2006.
Another tragic feature of the relationship between women and drugs is the routine removal of the children of drug addicts. There are around 10,000 children of heroin addicts in care in the UK and addicted mothers who are having serious problems are resisting seeking treatment in the fear that their children will be taken from them. Current prohibitionist policy just increases harms for both the mother and the child. Removing the chaos from addicts lives by ensuring they don't have to be constantly chasing money to fund their habit can allow them to hold their children as their number one priority. What chance does a woman have of escaping the spiral of despair and addiction if she is living in constant fear of losing her kids?
The passage below is taken from a piece written in 1995 by Mike Gray about the closure of a clinic in Widnes. Heroin prescription used to be widespread in the UK, but had been scaled back under diplomatic pressure from the US.
“In March of last year I visited the Chapel Street Clinic and met with several of the patients. I sat in on a group session where eight heroin users discussed their lives and problems with a counselor before picking up their weekly prescriptions for pharmaceutical heroin. Unlike the junkies we are used to seeing, this group was virtually indistinguishable from any other bunch of young adults on the streets of Liverpool. They were well dressed, talkative, energetic -- they had jobs -- and they used heroin daily.
One of the most attractive was a young woman named Juliette who had been an addict for 13 years. She came from a middle-class background, married a rich kid who got her into heroin, then left her with two kids and no money. She tried desperately to kick but couldn't make it. Somehow for ten years she managed to stay afloat through petty theft and prostitution, with the authorities breathing down her neck. Finally, terrified that they were about to take her kids away, she happened to find the right doctor and he sent her to John Marks. Marks gave her a check-up, satisfied himself that she was indeed a heroin addict, and wrote her a prescription for a week's supply.
"For the first time in ten years," she said, "I had spare time. I didn't have to worry that my dealer wouldn't show -- I didn't have to worry about the price or where to steal the money. So for the first time in ten years, I had a minute to look in the mirror. I looked and I said, `Oh, my God.' Then I looked at the kids, and I said, `What have I done?' All these middle-class values came flooding back in on me.
" Today Juliette has a job, a house, and a mortgage. The kids are in school and doing well. Everybody's in excellent health. And once a week she comes to Chapel Street for her prescription. I asked John Marks what will happen to Juliette on April 1 (when the clinic closes). He said, "Well, she'll go down the tubes."
Many of the young women who get involved with drugs have had difficult lives and can only find comfort in drugs, despite what their addiction makes them do. We have turned our backs on their plight for too long. Regulating and controlling drugs sensibly can take the chaos from these young women's lives and allow us to offer them comfort that will not damage them. Careful pricing has the potential to put drug dealers out of business, removing the pushers that try to recruit children as customers. Control and regulation is not throwing in the towel in the “War on Drugs”, it is moving the war onto ground that we understand and can control in order to limit the damage drugs can do to our society. Supporting the Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform motion for Spring conference could help the Liberal Democrats take a massive step forward in tackling the terrible effects of prohibition in the UK and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
