All the billions spent to curb drug use have been in vain
I know from experience that policy initiatives have never had any effect on levels of use or on addicts themselves
David Rowntree
The Guardian
Drug statistics can make depressing reading. According to a recent report, nearly 35% of the UK population has tried illegal drugs. That's nearly 19 million people. Of those about 330,000 are addicts, about as many people as the city of Leicester contains. The government's response is outlined in its drug strategy, which is due to be revised next year. But despite having spent billions on education, policing and enforcement, drug use has not changed, according to the UK drug policy commission report. In fact, there seems to be no evidence that any country's policy has had any lasting effect on the number of recreational or dependant drug users at all. Ever.
It's a baffling conclusion, especially as there seem to be some common-sense approaches that work well in other areas of life. For instance, it would appear reasonable that more education would help reduce drug use. If we explain the risks to children, it seems self-evident that fewer would go on to use drugs. I'm convinced having honest information about drugs is essential for everyone. But in terms of actually reducing use, education, whether in schools or elsewhere, has been a disaster.
Other approaches also seem like common sense. It seems logical that tougher penalties would reduce the number of users. If we could combine harsh penalties for use with a realistic chance of getting caught, it seems obvious that fewer people would take the risk. Again, the evidence shows that this dual approach, tried for decades around the world, simply doesn't work. In the US, a study of 94,000 schoolchildren found no significant difference between rates of drug use, regardless of the penalty and testing regime. At home and abroad, a widespread increase in the number and length of prison sentences has failed to stop huge increases in drug use.
So what can a drug strategy actually do? I think it's essential to look at dependent and non-dependent users separately and assess what it's possible to achieve. Most recreational users stop by the time they're 30. Though the headline figure is that 35% of the population have tried drugs, fewer than 10% have done so in the last year, and only about 0.6% become dependant. Most users seem to suffer no long-term ill effects, and since they are predominately young men, the risks involved might be part of the attraction. There is no evidence that legislative change makes any difference, but it does carry considerable political risk. More liberal laws open up the government to accusations of being soft on crime; more draconian laws risk accusations of pandering to the right, ignoring evidence and wasting time and money. Unless attitudes change, the best government may be able to do is present an honest message that drug taking is dangerous and not recommended. But if people decide to do it anyway, it should outline the risks and be clear about what to do if things go wrong.
(More here.)
David Rowntree
The Guardian
Drug statistics can make depressing reading. According to a recent report, nearly 35% of the UK population has tried illegal drugs. That's nearly 19 million people. Of those about 330,000 are addicts, about as many people as the city of Leicester contains. The government's response is outlined in its drug strategy, which is due to be revised next year. But despite having spent billions on education, policing and enforcement, drug use has not changed, according to the UK drug policy commission report. In fact, there seems to be no evidence that any country's policy has had any lasting effect on the number of recreational or dependant drug users at all. Ever.
It's a baffling conclusion, especially as there seem to be some common-sense approaches that work well in other areas of life. For instance, it would appear reasonable that more education would help reduce drug use. If we explain the risks to children, it seems self-evident that fewer would go on to use drugs. I'm convinced having honest information about drugs is essential for everyone. But in terms of actually reducing use, education, whether in schools or elsewhere, has been a disaster.
Other approaches also seem like common sense. It seems logical that tougher penalties would reduce the number of users. If we could combine harsh penalties for use with a realistic chance of getting caught, it seems obvious that fewer people would take the risk. Again, the evidence shows that this dual approach, tried for decades around the world, simply doesn't work. In the US, a study of 94,000 schoolchildren found no significant difference between rates of drug use, regardless of the penalty and testing regime. At home and abroad, a widespread increase in the number and length of prison sentences has failed to stop huge increases in drug use.
So what can a drug strategy actually do? I think it's essential to look at dependent and non-dependent users separately and assess what it's possible to achieve. Most recreational users stop by the time they're 30. Though the headline figure is that 35% of the population have tried drugs, fewer than 10% have done so in the last year, and only about 0.6% become dependant. Most users seem to suffer no long-term ill effects, and since they are predominately young men, the risks involved might be part of the attraction. There is no evidence that legislative change makes any difference, but it does carry considerable political risk. More liberal laws open up the government to accusations of being soft on crime; more draconian laws risk accusations of pandering to the right, ignoring evidence and wasting time and money. Unless attitudes change, the best government may be able to do is present an honest message that drug taking is dangerous and not recommended. But if people decide to do it anyway, it should outline the risks and be clear about what to do if things go wrong.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home