MEMORANDUM 37
Submitted by the Life Education Centres
Life Education Centres is a registered national
charity which provides education about healthy living and drug
prevention to 700,000 United Kingdom primary school children each
year, and works with over 25 per cent of LEAs
There is evidence that primary prevention education
programmes are effective in reducing drug use in young people
or delaying experimentation.
We note that the British Crime Survey has shown
that the percentage of 16 to 19 year olds using drugs in the past
year has fallen from 34 per cent to 27 per cent between 1994 and
2000. However, use of Class "A" drugs such as ecstasy
and crack cocaine continues to rise along with underage drinking
of alcohol.
1. DOES EXISTING
DRUG POLICY
WORK?
Although the existing policy may be effective
in reducing overall drug use, drug-related deaths or crime, it
is not reducing hard drug use perhaps because of increasingly
aggressive targeted marketing. We consider that a major reason
for this is the failure to consider prevention in terms of deterring
people from starting to use drugs (primary prevention). The concept
of prevention is currently directed to harm limitation, because
it is now widely and incorrectly accepted that most people will
try drugs. Once this assumption has been made, the only way to
tackle the problem is by preventing drug-related harm. Primary
prevention is a critical aspect of existing drug policy which
has been largely overlooked. The document, Protecting Young People
(DFE, 1998) highlights the importance of such primary education
and quotes research indicating that "continuing programmes
of life skills based drug education, starting at an early age,
can have an impact in first use of drugs by young people".
(Wragg, 1990).
The document goes on to state that "this
is significant because there is a correlation between early use
of tobacco and alcohol and early experimentation with illegal
drugs which, in turn, is a indicator for more frequent and problematic
drug use later on".
This well documented research clearly highlights
the need for effective and planned drug education and the 1997
Ofsted report "Drug Education in Schools", states that
"effective teaching of drug education should increase pupils'
knowledge about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs". It goes
on to detail the particular skills and attitudes which need to
be developed and the appropriate varied and interactive teaching
methods required to facilitate this.
2. THAT WOULD
BE THE
EFFECT OF
DECRIMINALISATION ON
(A) THE
AVAILABILITY OF
AND DEMAND
FOR DRUGS,
(B) DRUG
RELATED DEATHS
AND (C)
CRIME?
2.1 The most important effect of decriminalisation
of an illicit drug such as cannabis is the signal it would send
out to young people, indicating that either the Government considers
cannabis to be safe or the Government approves of drug use or
the Government has given up its struggle against drugs. Either
way this would be likely to lead to an increase in drug use, both
of cannabis and also of harder drugs, particularly cocaine even
if the policy towards these did not change.
2.2 Following decriminalisation the demand
for drugs would predictably lead to an increase in use by inexperienced
users, and this would lead to increased numbers of drug-related
deaths. It is perhaps significant and therefore worthy of note
that the drugs which cause the majority of deaths are the legal
drugs, tobacco and alcohol. It could therefore be concluded that
increasing the number of legal drugs would also lead to a rise
in the number of drug-related deaths
2.3 Decriminalisation would not reduce drug-related
crime. It is more likely to result in an increase due to wider
use of heroin and cocaine. The wider use of drugs which is likely
to arise from decriminalisation may well result in an increase
to street prices which will, in turn, increase the cost of addiction
and with that crime to fund that addiction. There is also a scenario
that drug dealers, who are often addicted to drugs themselves,
would be motivated to sell more and more harmful drugs, often
to young people who have become their main market.
2.4 The request for submissions does not
address impact on other health effects (such as effects on memory,
mental health problems, cannabis-related malignancy etc) which
would also become apparent with time. Neither does it address
the very real problem of underperformance in schools and inability
to keep a job.
3. IS DECRIMINALISATION
DESIRABLE AND
IF NOT,
WHAT ARE
THE ALTERNATIVES?
3.1 For the reasons stated, decriminalisation
is not desirable. Reclassification is an alternative. The most
important alternative strategy is education for primary prevention
which needs to underpin any secondary and tertiary prevention.
It is well known for example that heroin use is extremely rare
in those who have not smoked cigarettes or who have not smoked
cannabis. If an education programme could be implemented which
deters young people from taking up cigarettes or cannabis, we
predict that drug use would go down.
3.2 If the Government should consider that
decriminalisation or reclassification of cannabis is the best
way of dealing with the problem, this submission makes it clear
that the key to successfully implementing such a policy lies in
a prolonged and intensive educational preparation. Smoking, in
the population as a whole, has decreased largely because of educational
measures, and cannabis use could similarly be reduced by appropriately
directing public awareness. Education directed towards primary
prevention is likely to be most effective, because drug use often
starts early in life, in particular use of legal drugs such as
alcohol and tobacco and young people are the most vulnerable group
at the present time.
September 2001
| 
