Pubdate: Thu, 15 Mar 2007
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2007 Independent Media Institute
Contact:  http://www.alternet.org/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1451
Author: Bruce Mirken

DrugReporter

WILL A NEW STUDY FORCE CHANGES IN DRUG LAW?

A two-year study from a British commission is recommending a 
reality-based approach to drug law, rooted in science and focused on 
reducing harm. Americans should take note.

On March 8, a high-powered British commission recommended tossing 
that country's law on illegal drugs onto the scrap heap and starting 
over again. Given that the U.S. Controlled Substances Act parallels 
the British Misuse of Drugs Act in important ways, the suggestion 
deserves attention in America as well.

Indeed, it would be a fine start if Americans could simply begin the 
sort of rational, thoughtful debate on drug policy that the British 
seem to be having. If we could manage such a thing, we might start 
changing illogical and unscientific laws that now lead to more U.S. 
arrests for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined.

The RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy, 
was convened by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, 
Manufactures and Commerce, a respected think tank with a 250-year 
history. After two years of research, this panel of experts and 
laypeople came to a number of conclusions so sensible and so obvious 
that it's astonishing how consistently our elected leaders have 
avoided confronting them. In particular:

* The notion of a drug-free society is "almost certainly a chimera. 
. People have always used substances to change the way they see the 
world and how they feel, and there is every reason to think they 
always will." Therefore, "[t]he main aim of public policy should be 
to reduce the amount of harms that drugs cause." A policy based on 
total prohibition "is bound to fail."

* The concept of "drugs" should include tobacco and alcohol. "Indeed, 
in their different ways, alcohol and tobacco cause far more harm than 
illegal drugs." These substances should be brought into a unified 
regulatory framework "capable of treating substances according to the 
harm they cause."

* The heart of this new regulatory framework must be an index of 
substance-related harms. "The index should be based on the best 
available evidence and should be able to be modified in light of new evidence."

* We need a new way of evaluating the efficacy of drug policies. "In 
our view, the success of drugs policy should be measured not in terms 
of the amounts of drugs seized or in the number of dealers 
imprisoned, but in terms of the amount of harms reduced."

As an example of the sort of harms index they envision, the RSA 
Commission points to an index developed by a pair of British 
scientists, David Nutt and Colin Blakemore, and published in a House 
of Commons report last year.

Based on scientific evaluations of physical harms (e.g., acute and 
chronic toxicity), likelihood of dependence, and social harms 
(including damage done to others, health care costs, etc.), Nutt and 
Blakemore ranked 20 different classes of drugs, both legal and 
illegal. Not surprisingly, heroin was at the top of the harm scale, 
followed by cocaine and barbiturates. Alcohol and tobacco were rated 
as significantly more harmful than marijuana and several other 
illegal substances.

While not specifically endorsing the Nutt/Blakemore index, the RSA 
Commission clearly considered these rankings a good example of what 
they have in mind, using them as a starting point for illustrations 
of how such an index might translate into law. Marijuana, they wrote, 
"should continue to be controlled. But its position on the harms 
index suggests that the form this control takes might have to 
correspond far more closely with the way in which alcohol and tobacco 
are regulated."

Both the United States and Britain now have drug laws that rank drugs 
into a series of classifications. The problem -- well, at least one 
problem -- is that these classifications have little connection to 
what the science actually tells us about the dangers (or lack 
thereof) of different substances. Britain's version, the commission 
noted, "is driven more by 'moral panic' than a practical desire to 
reduce harm. . It sends people to prison who should not be there. It 
forces people into treatment who do not need it (while, in effect, 
denying treatment to people who do need it)."

And Britain's law is, on at least one key point, far more rational 
than the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. The British classify 
marijuana in the lowest of three classes of illicit drugs -- still 
illegal, but treated as less dangerous than cocaine, heroin or 
methamphetamine. Simple possession, without aggravating 
circumstances, is generally a "nonarrestable" offense.

Our CSA ranks marijuana in Schedule I, the worst class of drugs -- 
considered not only to be at high risk of abuse but also to be unsafe 
for use even under medical supervision -- along with heroin and LSD. 
Amazingly, cocaine and meth are in Schedule II -- considered 
acceptable for use under medical supervision. That such a ranking is 
insane should not need to be stated.

There are plenty of specifics in the RSA report about which 
reasonable people can disagree. But the important thing is not what 
they say about any specific drug -- and indeed, the report is careful 
not to advocate specific legal changes for particular drugs. What's 
important is that it suggests a framework that's far more rational 
than what now exists in the United States, Britain and most other 
countries: A reality-based approach rooted in sound science, focusing 
on how to reduce harm.

Even more encouraging is the generally level-headed reaction thus 
far. Some commentators are arguing with parts of the report and 
disagreeing with some suggestions, but even critics seem to be 
acknowledging that the RSA has raised important issues that need 
serious discussion.

As a commentary in the March 9 edition of the London paper the Mirror 
put it, "Hasn't the time now come to hold a public debate on whether 
our current drug prohibition is working any better than the alcohol 
prohibition of Al Capone's day? Aren't we now adult enough to discuss 
whether a legally regulated drug trade would work better than our 
gangster-run market? We think we are."

Sadly, it's hard to imagine such a rational discussion taking place 
on the national stage in the United States. Meanwhile, in the time it 
took you to read this, 12 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman