Examinatin of Witnesses (Question 438-439)
MR STEVE
ROLLES, MR
MARTIN BARNES
AND MRS
LESLEY KING-LEWIS
26 APRIL 2006
Q438 Chairman: My apologies for starting
this session a little late, but I am sure you were fascinated
by the comments of Panel One. Could I introduce Mr Steve Rolles,
the Information Officer for Transform Drug Policy Foundation,
Mr Martin Barnes, the Chief Executive of DrugScope and Mrs Lesley
King-Lewis, the Chief Executive of Action on Addiction. You are
all very, very welcome. Mr Rolles, because you are in the middle
could we ask you to field questions wherever necessary. You have
been chosen as the chairman of your panel by a unanimous decision
of our Committee. The ACMD told us that the purpose of the ABC
drug classification system was to "classify the harmfulness
of drugs so that the penalties for possession and trafficking
should be proportionate to the harmfulness of the particular substance".
Do you think the classification is effective in achieving that
objective?
Mr Rolles: I suppose that in the
context of an ABC system up to a point. There has obviously been
some discussion about anomalies of certain drugs and certain classifications
and there will no doubt be more discussions on that. I do not
think that anyone is disagreeing that there are anomalies within
that system. I would say that the objections of the classification
system are actually more than that in that it is at the very heart
of the Misuse of Drugs Act and broader prohibition is paradigm,
the aim of which is to reduce drug use and misuse, to reduce drug
availability as a way of reducing drug use and misuse and more
broadly to reduce harm related to drugs in society. I think if
you look at the evidence of the last 45 years it has transparently
not done any of those things. Drug use has gone up exponentially;
drugs are more available than they have ever been and drug harms
have increased correspondingly to an astonishing degree. On any
criteria you choose with regards to misuse, availability and overall
harm the classification system and the policy that it sits within
have failed in quite spectacular fashion.
Mrs King-Lewis: I very much agree
with Steve and I think we have missed that opportunity, in that
we failed to measure any of the impacts which John Strang mentioned
earlier. We have had so much opportunity to actually look at what
is the impact that classification has had on society at large.
Have we seen an increase in cannabis use? Have we seen a decrease?
Have we seen more users within young people? What has been the
actual effect and the impact? We have failed to measure all that
so what we would really welcome is automatic review of outcome
measures whenever there is a change of the classification or a
change that has implemented policy. We have missed so much opportunity
to gather that vital evidence.
Q439 Chairman: When you say "we"
who do you mean?
Mrs King-Lewis: That is a very
good question. We, as a research charity, are calling for government
and ACMD and in respect of the previous argument I think a weakness
there is that there is no-one who is proactively determining a
research strategy for this country. There is no-one who is commissioning
research and there is no money available. We really need an independent
body to actually implement the research. I think there is a very
good role for the ACMD to be more proactive identifying what the
gaps are and then having the budget attached to it but getting
it commissioned by an independent body. That is very important;
it has to be independent.
Mr Barnes: I agree with Steve
to some extent that if the goal is to reduce drug use or prevent
drug use then clearly the lessons of the last thirty years show
that we have not succeeded but I do not think you can put the
blame just on the system of drug classification per se. We have
the wider debate about the divide between legal and illegal drugs.
You have covered alcohol and tobacco this morning in terms of
the comparisons of harm, but within the context of setting a legal
framework for illegal substances the drug classification system
as it operates is far from perfect. However I think there is actually
flexibility built into the system. The issue is perhaps why have
we not seen since the Act was introduced sufficient change in
the way certain drugs have been categorised. What are the triggers
that should lead to those reviews and those changes? I think more
importantly what are actually the barriers? We have covered a
lot in previous inquiries in terms of anomalies where current
drugs sit, the role of the ACMD but all of that operates within
the political context, the way the media covers these issues and
the fact that when we deal with the issue of drugs and drugs policy
it is very difficult on almost any level to have an informed,
objective, evidence based discussion. More often it is heat rather
than light that it is generated and politicians are nervous about
drugs policy; they are nervous about being seen to make changes
and if we needed any evidence to confirm that just look at what
happened with the cannabis re-classification. Historically it
is a significant change but in terms of the system overall it
is not that big, but that was not the way it was reacted to politically
or in the media.
| 
