SCIENCE AND NON‐SCIENCE IN UK DRUG POLICY

Abstract

science nor politics; unregulated drug/alcohol useis almost inevitably likely to produce greater harms andproblems than we have currently and would go againstthe principles of regulating human behaviour that haveunderpinned all human civilizations.So, then, is it one—the other—or both?Science can, indeed, I would argue must, be the primemediator of policy if we are to minimize the harms ofdrugs, both medical and social, but science cannot deliverpolicy because that is the realm of politics. What scien-tists can do—as I have done—is insist that where scienceis taken to support a political decision it must be the bestscience. Even more importantly, politicians must not beallowed to hide moral or worse, petty political, motiva-tions regarding drug legislation behind a smokescreen ofscience. This has happened in the United Kingdomrecently with the explanations given for the governmentdecisions to increase [cannabis] or maintain the harshest[3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)] con-trols for two of the least harmful drugs.Society could decide that the role of the drug laws isnot primarily to reduce drug harms but to serve someother moral or political purpose, as the United Nationsnarcotics conventions seem to do. In that case, then Isuppose scientists will have to argue their case at theballot-box alongside the rest of society. Hopefully, this isan outdated concept of drug regulation that will not gaininfluence again.The idea that politicians are more in tune with publicfeeling on drugs is one that—at least in the UnitedKingdom—we have evidence to refute [2]. The HomeOffice’s own MORI poll found that more than two-thirdsof Britons wanted the penalties for cannabis possession tostay as for class C (2-year maximum prison term), yet thegovernment ignored this when they reclassified it to B(which attracts up to 5 years’ imprisonment and alsoallows people caught in possession to be arrested, held incustody and have their homes searched). There is alsothe influence of the media which, in the case of the UKtabloids, purports to represent the public view but in factattempts to manipulate it for reasons that are to do withsales, political influence and possibly even mischief.So where now? My view, gathered from working withpoliticians for more than 10 years, is that they know thatthe only sensible way forward is to adopt the current sci-entific approach to drug classification propounded by theUK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs [3] and mostother expert groups. However, few current politicianshave the courage to pursue this approach, especially inthe United Kingdom in an election year. Hopefully, as thenew generation of politicians with more drug experiencetake office (cf. Obama’s disclosure of cannabis and methy-lamphetamine exploration), a more sensible and science-based attitude to drug legislation will emerge.