drugs

A recently discovered, by me at least, Lib Dem blogger, Jamie Saddler, comments on the apparent decision by government not to press for a lower blood alcohol limit:

Epolitix are reporting that the government have decided against lowering the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50 mg... This is all well and good, but they are the ones who would do this regardless of the limit, and need to be the exception. It needs to be spelt out to people that if you are driving, even one drink is unacceptable. [From Jamie Saddler: Government Gets It Wrong on Drink Drive Limit]

I wonder. I do have an interest here - I was done for driving under the influence and banned for a year, sixteen years ago now. In my case, it was a timely reminder, even though it led to years of bad times for me - losing my job and so on. Had I been caught a few years earlier while I was working in Glasgow I think I would probably have done time and I am probably truly lucky not to have had an accident in that time.

Nonetheless, when I was stopped, I will always remember the first words the officer said to me: "Good evening, sir, you haven't done anything wrong, but we were following you for a while and we felt you took that last roundabout a little carelessly so we wanted to stop you and have a word; first, I'd like you to provide a sample of breath to testing for alcohol content."

They had been following me for some time, on otherwise empty roads mid-evening in Birmingham and approaching an empty roundabout I had taken a straighter line - inside-outside-inside - that someone a little more perfect would have done perhaps. I had done nothing wrong. They said.

Nothwithstanding all this though, I still wonder if drink limits are the right, or at least the most liberal, way of dealing with this nasty social problem of people who drink, drive and then injure or kill others or property. And I certainly question the common message that Jamie repeats that "even one drink is unacceptable". I rarely drink at all nowadays. I have a good relationship with alcohol. I regard it as one of the worst drugs available, even though legal, and take it generally with caution (okay, I had a few large whiskies on Saturday night but was taking a taxi, but was perfectly lucid).

But recently I was out in the car meeting someone and had two pints and drove home. They were nice pints and next time I visit I will take the bus because I would have enjoyed more. But over three and a half hours I drank two pints of ale, and "the alcohol in one pint of ordinary strength lager will take two hours to pass out of your body" [Bupa guidance]. So I'm probably right in saying that there may have been the equivalent of less than half a pint in my system when I drove away.

The problem with having a law that specifies a uniform amount for everyone and above that is a crime regardless of whether you are behaving dangerously or not, or even using a mobile phone, or driving whilst exhausted, or smoking, or eating, at the wheel, or on drugs, and so on is that you just have to keep adding extra clauses, extra laws to deal with new situations.

The problem with having a more general law of "dangerous driving" is that it appears to introduce some subjectiveness into the legal process. You are no longer asking whether a person was simply, objectively, over a certain limit, but whether the "man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider that you were acting dangerously.

The former also, almost by definition, involves trawling for offenders and in the process interfering with the perfectly legal comings and goings of law abiding citizens. And it really doesn't respect a notion of causing danger. Just breaching a numerical limit. Whilst the latter is how we expect for British law to be dealt with more generally - involving intention, capacity, culpability, danger and the subjective decisions of a jury or bench.

Now, that's not to say that I want to see more people drink driving, or a rise in death and injury as a result. As a libertarian minded person though I do want people to have to take responsibility for their own actions. And therefore consider for themselves whether what they are thinking of doing may be dangerous to themselves or others. The arbitrary, numerical limit takes away that responsibility in a way.

In the case Jamie mentioned:

I do not understand why this is dealt with under "causing death through dangerous driving" and not manslaughter. Manslaughter of course allows for a life sentence. A few life sentences and people would start thinking a bit more about whether it's worth testing their alcohol fuelled infallibility. If people are prevented from drink driving simply for fear of breaking a limit that will result in the loss of their license if they are unlucky enough to get caught by police, how much more so by the possibility that their journey might end in a prison cell for life if they take a gamble and lose?

I have no problem with using any of the impairment inducing activities - taking drugs, eating, phoning someone, smoking, driving too tired and so on - as aggravating the culpability and pushing more towards higher sentences. But is this not a case where "tough liberalism" punishing the consequences and not creating arbitrary laws that simply apply to everyone, dangerous or not, could once again reduce the burden of legislation and the arbitrariness of laws to deal with different substances and activities, whilst focussing peoples' minds on the real consequences of their actions?

Around 7.5% only of "KSIs" (killed and seriously injured) in road traffic accidents are causally linked to alcohol, and I believe this figure includes when the drunk is the pedestrian that staggers out in front of a perfectly legal driver and is killed or injured.  Which suggests to me that the greater rewards will now be found dealing with other forms of anti-social driving.  I nominate middle-lane-itis and misuse of the acceleration lane for starters.

No, not those "E's" that make you a little bit more chirpy and empathic when you're out at a club, but E grades at GCSE level...

Interesting that getting a grade E may double the relatively tiny risk, while smoking skunk may increase it by less than half that. I suppose it is distinctly possible that all the Grade E students are perpetually on spliffs.

Personally I think both this research and the cannabis research are more on the "urban myth" front than good science but I'll bet we don't get some lurid headlines in the Express or Mail these next few weeks about all those just about to receive their GCSE grades and how half of them are doubling their risk of evil psychosis. I note also the last paragraph of the BBC article:

[Hilary Caprani of mental health charity Rethink] added: "The good news is that many people who have psychosis recover and go on to have challenging careers."

We don't hear that much in the scaremongering about dope, do we?

...but if some of you arrived here because of a scurrilous Labour leaflet trying to discredit me because of my opinion on drugs issues, I wanted to settle your minds, I hope, with a synopsis of my position...

I am indeed in principle in favour of legalizing the vast majority of recreational drugs - for adults. Once legalized, their supply should be regulated, controlled through a licensing system, and taxed - which can help fund more treatment instead of prison cells. It is not the state's job to prevent adults in particular choosing to put something into their own body, or indeed, like dangerous sports and so on, what they do with their own body, if others are not harmed by that. Such laws actually remove the ability of the individual to be morally responsible for what they themselves do.

That is not to say that I want to see an increase in drugs use. Just that I believe that it is the current approach, the "war on drugs", that creates and sustains an illegal underground market that encourages people into multiple addictions and puts people into the hands of criminal suppliers who could not care less about the health of their customers so long as the money rolls in. It was recently suggested that the international trade in illicit narcotics is now the world's third largest trading sector, after I think it was financial services and energy. When heroin was legal in this country we had 18 registered addicts in the country - despite it being used in common, over the counter, drugs such as cough syrups. Make it illegal and we have seen the level of addition soar exponentially.

This is a long considered and pragmatic position, that agrees with many professionals in the fields both of law enforcement and drug treatment. Basically, that the current system, based on criminal enforcement, puts far more people in danger from drugs - it makes it easier to peddle to children, because the peddlars are unseen and uncontrolled (and sometimes children in the schoolyard themselves). It creates the core of gang and gun culture. It makes it harder to seek help when, in doing so, you have to out yourself as a criminal.

From Colombia to Croxteth, Afghanistan to the Aylesbury Estate, more people die because of the criminal networks engaged in the drugs trade than from the drugs themselves. Our politicians know this and continue to pursue the obviously failed "war on drugs" strategy because it is a populist one that's sure to get some people huffing and puffing and voting for them - don't fall for it - they are nothing short of accessories to murder! We need a mature debate about these immoral laws (any law that actually colludes in and creates the environment that breeds killings in our communities is an immoral law).

Nonetheless, as the desperate Labour party scaremongers know, my theoretical position on drugs is not one that has much relevance in the role of a city councillor, which is why we Lib Dems have decided not to rise to this astonishing personal attack, marring as it does what has been a reasonably well conducted campaign so far, and concentrate on the positive things we wish to do within the remit of the city council. I do not want any more people, and predominantly younger people as many of the victims of the current drugs system are, dying because of a populist and immoral set of laws that create more problems than they fix.

Now, perhaps you will stick around a bit and read up on my positive ideas for the pressing problems on which Oxford City Council could have an influence, such as affordable housing, and partnership working to bring a bit of business sense and community ownership into the management and development of community owned assets - in the process, I hope, giving more opportunities to people to do something fruitful with their lives and leisure time and not get onto drugs in the first place!

I don't normally watch the "One Show" but I forgot to turn over today and Andrew Neill is on giving his take on the budget. I loved this one line in particular:

"This is a good budget for the Colombian Medellin Cartel"

He is right when he says that an ecstasy pill is now cheaper than a pint and a line of coke cheaper than an alcopop, and probably right that trying to attack binge drinking by increasing the cost will simply mean the real bingers take more pills or lines instead.

For me, cheaper alcohol simply means that when I do drink, which is not often, I can get a better quality of wine for the same money. Why should I be penalized?

Tough liberalism is what we need.

In this Vatican announcement of a new "Seven Deadly Sins" for the twenty first century, the Catholic Church has included the "taking of and dealing in drugs". Rarely can Rome be accused of political correctness, but on this occasion Archbishop Girotti has been spouting the most ungodly bollocks.

In the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 7 verse 15 Christ says: "There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man."

In the very first chapter of the bible, Genesis 1, verse 29 God said to Adam: "Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat."

Most of the substances that humanity has used as recreational drugs for thousands of years have been completely natural in origin. Created, they would acknowledge, by God. Nothing in that creation is inherently bad. Each has its own place in our "diet", with some providing sustenance, some healing, and some oiling social interactions.

The great twentieth century monk Thomas Merton said that it made a difference what the purpose of using any of these gifts of nature was, whether the taking of them became sinful. In his case he looked at alcohol, and suggested that alcohol was good when it was used for companionship and for helping social situations on their way, but bad when it was used as an indulgence merely to get drunk, to lose one's faculties of judgement.

One can argue I suppose that many drugs can do the latter better than the former. Try talking to someone who has just shot up some heroin! On the other hand, cannabis can induce much loquacious companionship and even cocaine or ecstasy can cut the ice at parties - especially for those of us who are naturally quite timid (terror inducingly so) in such situations. I suppose addiction is a form of gluttony in some cases that has gone to extremes. But the mere act of taking drugs cannot be described as a "deadly sin" just because of the substance being used.

Because of the "war on drugs" we have a terrible situation in which some places, indeed some entire countries are in the midst of a battle with the organized crime that supplies the underworld global market in drugs, and supporting such organized crime is compounding the misery for many. But it is that "war on drugs" that creates and exacerbates that misery.

The Vatican should be denouncing instead the "war on drugs" as a biblically indefensible attack on some of the uses human ingenuity has found for some of God's entirely good creation.

The "taking of drugs" will certainly not be on this Catholic's confessional list any time soon. And I reckon the current crop of Vatican apparatchiks falls woefully short of the wisdom of St Gregory the Great!

A: Before the government bans their legal substance of choice...

It was probably too good to be true, a "legal high" giving similar effects to ecstasy. And so it proves to be. The government, following orders from the bansturbators at Euro High Command (who says we still have control of our own domestic laws any longer?) is to move to ban BZP, Benzylpiperazine. According to the Guardian it is likely to become a class C substance by the end of the year:

Move to ban stimulant BZP | Science | The Guardian:

Owen Bowcott

The Guardian, Tuesday March 4 2008 Article history

BZP, a psychoactive stimulant promoted as a legal alternative to ecstasy and amphetamines, is to be banned in Britain. The government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs will today begin the process of making it a controlled substance, following a recommendation from the European Union. It is likely to become a class C drug before the end of the year. BZP was once almost marketed as an antidepressant until its similarity to amphetamines was noted. It has been associated with vomiting, anxiety, insomnia, mood swings and seizures. It is already a controlled drug in eight EU countries. The EU action is binding and requires all EU member states to take legal action within a year. There has been no direct evidence of BZP causing death, although it has been linked to several fatalities in the UK.

I haven't tried it yet. I was going to a few weeks ago when I felt a bit down and thought it might be safer than trying to get a black market ecstasy tablet or some MDMA - it's really good for social situations that make me nervous and where I would not want to get drunk just to be able to strike up a conversation with strangers.

The whole sorry saga highlights just how idiotic the drugs laws are, and in particular the British classification system that Jacqui Smith has recently re-inforced with her deadly new death strategy. If BZP becomes a class C drug, while those it seeks to emulate are class B, amphetamines, and class A the even less harmful MDMA/ecstasy, where is the science behind that? Yup, you're right, there isn't any.

They may as well make sugar and chocolate class Bs on a whim if you ask me. Both are "linked" to several thousand fatalities each year in the UK. There's better science there it seems to me to justify that. But more than this, no doubt the search will go on for another substance, as yet uncontrolled, that will give similar effects, and the drugs laws will play catch up once again after legal businesses have built up a good trade in unadulterated doses because they can operate in country in clean, clinical lab factories and not kitchen top clandestine chemistry sets.

Maybe it's just the ethos of the new era in Britain under the Son of the Manse, and the Tories running hard to keep up with what is being seen as a neo-puritanism stalking the country, but there's been a lot of talk of new or increased restrictions on things like drugs and drink. Most recently of course we've had the outbursts by Chief Constable Peter Fahy of the Cheshire Constabulary wanting to  prevent "lesser adults", prospective alcohoodies, whose misfortune is merely to be older than we allow them to vote, to fight for Queen and country (or at least Tony Blair and George Bush), to serve in most elected offices, and to stand trial as adults, but less than the arbitrary age of twenty one from consuming the demon drink for fear that they all turn into murderous fiends.

I am a Libertarian and a Christian, and I want to share with you a favourite little passage from the good book that I believe sums up the libertarian response to such nonsense, and shows that it is inconsistent to see "things", substances and the like, as the culprits such that we should not be allowed to touch them. Temperance once meant not abstinence, forced or otherwise, but self-restraint, personal responsibility, and it's just plain wrong to blame the inanimate for what state people get into by abusing them.

From the Gospel of Mark, chapter 7:

18 And [Jesus] saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Christianity is not a po-faced, prohibitionary puritanism, but a way of life that emphasizes the virtue of true Temperance. I wish I could find it now, but I once read one of the works of the Cictercian monk and philosopher Thomas Merton in which in one passage he explains that things like alcohol and tobacco (he might feel differently today about the latter of course but let's suggest he might choose cannabis today) are both gifts and temptations. As a gift, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation for its ability to lubricate social interactions, but as a temptation can be used to blot out one's other problems or to remove the inhibitions that prevent us doing harm to others or ourselves.

It's up to us all to learn, if we want to use such things, how to do so responsibly, to use them as gifts, and without endangering others or making complete fools of ourselves, abusing them as temptations. We cannot achieve that by banning them, or keeping them from young enquiring minds.

There's a bit of a kerfuffle started up over a report by eminent science guru Colin Blakemore and David Nutt of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and MPs like the report and want change.

But there's something I would like to know about the research - if anyone finds an answer to this I'd be grateful.

Heroin and cocaine are in there as number one and two most harmful drugs (followed by barbiturates, methodone and then good ole grog incidentally - way ahead of LSD at 14th and Ecstacy at 18th). Now I presume first that they are not distinguishing between different forms of cocaine and that in that figure is both David Cameron's alleged adolescent sniff of white powder and crack or freebase cocaine use (nor presumably the millions of people who use the coca plant itself, or the tonic wine, toothpastes or cola drinks that once contained versions of cocaine).

But I'm intrigued about the heroin place. I was under the impression that biochemically heroin, properly dosed, was actually less damaging to the human body than alcohol - yes, overdosing and so on lead to hearts stopping (as do overdosing on alcohol and all depressants) which is definitely not good for the human body but, well managed, you can get a "high" without taking those sorts of risks and be less damaged by it than a similar high from alochol.

So is this research about the harm of a substance itself or the relative harm of each substance given the peculiar social circumstances in which it is taken. Or put it another way, are they trying to gauge the relative harm despite these drugs being illegal and therefore prone to tampering with and uncertain dosage and the whole criminal world that surrounds their supply chain?

My suspicion is that these placings would change again if all of these substances were legal and controlled.

Certainly any evidence based input to future discussion of illicit drugs is welcome but just changing how legal or otherwise a substance is seen as by the courts won't take away the criminal underworld that surrounds drugs and causes adulteration, misinformation and pushing people into multiple dependencies which they are then scared to deal with even when they want to.

Technorati Tags: drugs laws