War on Drugs failure, redux

Last summer it was leaked to the press that the government admits that the War on Drugs was a complete failure. However, the follow-up report (which formed the basis of the completely pointless Drugs Act 2005) was not released, until now that is.

There’s a good analysis of it on Transform:

1. Acknowledges that supply side interventions are futile but argues that they should be continued anyway;
   
2. Calls for drug seizures to be ‘proclaimed’ despite acknowledging that seizures are ineffective at reducing availability or drug harms;
   
3. Notes that increased drug availability does not increase problematic drug use - thereby torpedoing one of the central tenets of the UK drug strategy, and one of the major arguments against legalisation, control and regulation of drugs;
   
4. Analyses current intervention programmes in detail and concludes they are ineffective at reducing crime harms because too many ‘High Harm Causing Users’ who come into contact with the Criminal Justice System slip through the net. It suggests that planned changes (pre-Drugs Act 2005) will only have a marginal impact;
   
5. Recommends that heroin use be criminalised, and a register of addicts be established – as a way to ‘capture and grip’ problematic users into treatment – and thus reduce offending;
   
6. Calls for an expansion of heroin prescribing.

So let’s see:

• The current system doesn’t work, but we’ll carry on anyway… Nothing like evidence-based policies, are there?


• Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t 5 & 6 conflict with each other? I agree that heroin should be prescribed; however, you can’t do that if at the same time you’re making it an offence! How can you give someone a substance legally, if then you’ll lock ‘em up for it?

There’s also one in the Guardian:

The report says if heroin prescription for registered addicts was widely adopted, the £4bn a year demand for illegal heroin and crack cocaine would drop significantly. It would be better to draw the 260,000 heroin users who have serious habits funded through crime into an environment where they can inject safely and be persuaded to move towards abstinence. "In principle, there is a strong rationale for a more widespread use of heroin prescription in the treatment system," says Lord Birt.

He says there is a general consensus among doctors that heroin prescription can help older heroin users, but that expert opinion is divided, with some arguing it would attract new users. Trials in Switzerland and the Netherlands suggest such schemes can cut crime and improve users' health. The strategy unit recommended starting £2m a year pilot schemes in Britain to establish the evidence here. The Birt report concludes that "introducing such a policy would be contentious and disruptive, though the gains, especially in reducing crime, should be substantial".

Although the cabinet did not adopt Lord Birt's proposal to make heroin use a crime or introduce more widespread heroin prescribing, the more coercive approach he recommended has been included in the Drugs Act 2005. Its measures include the compulsory drug testing of 240,000 suspects a year arrested for drug-related crimes.