ACMD: ACRONYM OR ANACHRONISM?
After the debacle and harm stemming from its recommendation to downgrade the classification of cannabis, the ACMD now wants to downgrade a drug which can be 10 times more powerful than cocaine. It is an opportune time to recall the investigation by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, writes Deirdre Boyd.
Drug users are being admitted to hospital after taking powdered ecstasy instead of cocaine, Dr Paul Dargan of Guy’s & St Thomas’s Hospital in London revealed in September. “Many snorted the drug believing it to be cocaine, when in fact it is 10 times more powerful. Others took it thinking it was ketamine.”
Dargan was speaking to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, set up by the Misuse of Drugs Act to keep the classification of drugs under review and advise government. Unasked, the ACMD had decided to review the classification of ecstasy – its chairman David Nott publicly advised that it be downgraded even before evidence was heard. This is despite the very public harms caused by its earlier recommendation to downgrade cannabis from a class B to class C drug. That decision was eventually reversed by Gordon Brown this year, despite the possibility of ACMD members resigning from what are regarded as career-boosting positions if he did so.
Two years ago, the ACMD was investigated by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee. Its report – Drug classification: Making a hash of it? – is enlightening.
“We have identified serious flaws in the way the Council conducts its business. Although the Council has produced useful reports explaining the rationale behind its recommendations on drug classification decisions, we found a lack of transparency in other areas of its work and a disconcerting degree of confusion over its remit,” the report states.
“We also note that the ACMD has failed to adhere to key elements of the government’s Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees.
“In response to these and other concerns about the Council’s operations, we have called for the Home Office to ensure that there is, in future, independent oversight of the Council’s workings... It is difficult to understand how the government can be so confident in the composition and workings of the Council without having sought expert or independent assessment, and disappointing that it takes a dismissive view of the need to do so.”
“The apparent confusion in the drug policy community over the remit of the ACMD suggests that the Council needs to give more attention to communicating with its external stakeholders,” urged the report. “We were surprised to discover a marked divergence of views between the then home secretary [Charles Clarke] and the chairman of the ACMD on the extent to which consideration of social harm fell within the Council’s remit.”
Clarke had asserted that “clinical, medical harm is the advisory council’s predominant consideration”, as did ACMD member Andy Hayman, chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Drugs Committee. ACMD then-chair Sir Michael Rawlins correctly contradicted this.
Other ACMD members excused [to this author] their decision to downgrade cannabis because it was not in their remit to consider the social harms, thinking similar to Hayman's. “It is impossible to assess accurately the harm associated with a drug without taking into account the social dimensions of harm arising from its misuse,” the report commented.
“With respect to the ABC classification system, we have identified significant anomalies in the classification of individual drugs and a regrettable lack of consistency in the rationale used to make classification decisions,” the report states.
“We have criticised the government for failing to meet commitments to evidence-based policy making in this area. More generally, the weakness of the evidence base on addiction and drug abuse is a severe hindrance to effective policy making.”
LACK OF SERVICE USERS OR PEOPLE WITH EXPERIENCE OF RECOVERY.
The Select Committee heard “several” witnesses query the balance of expertise on the Council, with particular concern over the composition of the Council during its considerations of cannabis in 2001-2 and 2005. The campaigning organisation Rethink argued that there was too much emphasis on professionals as opposed to service users: “To our knowledge, there is no-one with personal experience of using drug or mental-health services involved in making cannabis policy. This seems a significant omission”.
Retired biology teacher Mary Brett, who is UK representative of Europe Against Drugs, supported this view to the Select Committee. "Where are the biologists, the neurologists, the toxicologists, or experts on psychosis and schizophrenia?" She also argued that there was a bias on the Council towards proponents of a more 'liberal' stance: "There is not one member of an anti-drugs charity... one that advocates prevention over harm reduction. Why? There is a preponderance of the other viewpoint. This committee lacks any sort of balance."
INDEPENDENT REVIEW NEEDED.
“We recommend the Home Office commission independent reviews to examine the operation of the ACMD not less than every five years,” the report advocated.
“The Committee asked for greater openness and transparency for the ACMD,” reiterated Home Office undersecretary Vernon Coaker a year after the report. “The ACMD will publish the minutes of its meetings on the Home Office website. I ask why it is not on the website already.”
Coaker also referred to the recommendation for ACMD open meetings – but not all decisions are made here, nor are they clear: attendees at the first ‘open’ meeting left unaware that a decision was passed to prescribe cocaine. In its favour, the ACMD did give adequate advance notice of its hearing on ecstasy and of its 3rd open meeting, on 25 November 2008.
The secretariat of the ACMD has moved under the management of Professor Paul Wiles, the Home Office chief scientific adviser. He will also oversee council recruitment, about whose partiality the report had been very concerned.
Read relevant research links and Open letter to ACMD from Professor Andrew Parrott; just click here.
The 179-page report can be downloaded free by clicking here.
Print-friendly version of this article:
Download AddictionToday115-ACMD.pdf
Interesting article - though it does have flaws.
The ACMD changed it's working practices in response to the review such as having open meetings - your article does not make this clear.
Also, these comments are misleading:
"Unasked, the ACMD had decided to review the classification of ecstasy" - the remit of the ACMD is to keep the classification of all drugs under review, they should not wait to be asked.
"its chairman David Nott publicly advised that it be downgraded even before evidence was heard. " - True, but this was in the context of a previous (none ACMD) piece of work prior to his chairmanship. As far as I know he has made no such advise in the context of his membership of ACMD.
The quotes from "Retired biology teacher" are also misleading in the extreme. If you were at the open meeting of the Cannabis review you will know that the ACMD got evidence (sometimes in person) from many of the countries most eminent biologists, neurologists, toxicologists, and experts on psychosis and schizophrenia - it is just that the balance of viewpoint of these people did not agree with her own conclusions.
We all depend on the ACMD being neither liberal nor hawkish - but devoted to the evidence. I am not 100% clear that they are, but your article offers nothing to suggest otherwise. Better to have a range of scientific advisors than politicos making these decisions without any input from specialists.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Davies | November 13, 2008 at 08:02 AM
As far as I'm aware the UK is a still a signatory to the United Nations drug policy, a point which the members of the ACMD appear to feel free to disregard when making their solicited, or otherwise, recommendations.
Whether or not Professor Nutt is aware of the evidence published in the British Medical Journal(1) reflecting UNODC evidence on the total harms caused by ecstasy, or whether he has simply chosen to disregard that evidence, is something that this writer has no way of knowing, in either event his seeming intent on downgrading ecstasy, ostensibly because it is allegedly less harmful than other class A drugs, disregards the fact that the use of ecstasy is frequently accompanied by both alcohol and cocaine use, thus increasing the potential for harm.
In his attempts to downgrade ecstasy, not only is he disregarding the evidence provided by UNODC, he is consciously, or unconsciously sending out a subliminal message that ecstasy is relatively harmless, a message which by the time it reaches the tabloids will have been reinforced in much the same way that the ACMD distorted views on cannabis were conveyed.
In view of the evidence and information provided by UNODC, one can only hope that Professor Nutt will seek to become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, by taking note of the programme they have launched which is intended to provide a better sense of what can be done to deal with the total harms caused by the use of ecstasy in terms of prevention of use.
References:
1 BMJ 2008;337:a16. 10 September 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a167.
Posted by: Peter O'Loughlin | November 13, 2008 at 09:05 AM
Deidre
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here - it seems to be a rather scatter gun attack on the ACMD based on the fact that you do not like some of the decisions they have made - specifically when classifications have been reviewed and subsequently moved down in the case of cannabis, or possibly moved down in the case of ecstasy.
I note that the occasions when reviews have led to inclusion in the MDA of formerly unclassified drugs (e.g. ketamine 2005, certain steroids 2008) or moves upward (e.g. methamphetamine 2006) do not warrant mention. Why only mention the decision(s) that fits with your view that the committee is 'liberal'?
The ACMD is certainly not beyond criticism - Transform have been one of their fiercest critics - in print and in our written and oral evidence to Sci-tech select committee in 2006, but they also deserve credit where it is due; their published reports have consistently been thorough, thoughtful and authoritative, and they have taken the criticisms of the select committee seriously in clarifying, in some detail, how classification decisions will now be made (as well as acknowledging historic shortcomings and undertaking a systematic review of previous classifications - to iron out the 'anomalies' whether that be moves up or down the rankings) and reforming some of the procedural issues you highlight. Transform has also written at some length about the broader systemic shortcomings of a classification system that translates population based health-harm rankings into a hierarchy of criminal penalties for individuals (see here: http://tinyurl.com/6dj88t ), and the role of the ACMD in perpetuating these conceptual problems.
A couple of other points need clarification:
1. David Nutt made his a comment on ecstasy - that it should 'probably' not be class A, to the Sci-Tech Select Committee in 2006 as an informed personal opinion, well before he was ACMD chair, and this does not imply, as you seem to suggest, that the findings of the current review are somehow pre-determined or that the reviews scientific or intellectual integrity is in question. I think this suggestion does a disservice to Nutt and the ACMD review which, by all accounts, appears to be most detailed review of ecstasy harms ever undertaken. I suggest that you wait until they have made their recommendation and then direct any criticisms you have at the findings of the report when it is published and you have had a chance to read it.
2. You mention the 'very public harms caused by its earlier recommendation to downgrade cannabis from a class B to class C drug'. I have seen no evidence that reclassification had any significant impact on patterns of use or misuse, or cannabis related harm, nor do you provide any. The BCS data suggests cannabis use has been falling slowly since 2001 and the 2004 reclassification did nothing to interrupt that general trend. The importance of reclassification seems to have been primarily a political / symbolic one. Indeed impacts of classification changes in terms of deterrence are entirely un-evidenced. One of the key findings of the Sci Tech committee that you have chosen not to quote was that:
"We have found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin the Government’s policy on classification. In view of the importance of drugs policy and the amount spent in enforcing the penalties associated with the classification system, it is highly unsatisfactory that there is so little knowledge about the system’s effectiveness".
Remarkably, the Government provided no evidence to contradict this, beyond its 'belief' the system was effective. (more discussion here http://tinyurl.com/6f3yus).
3. regards Mary Brett's comments; there is considerable scope of expertise on the committee, including toxicologists, and more are called in to give evidence when required. I also doubt there is a single committee member who would claim to be anything other than 'anti-drug'. Further, there are, I believe, five psychiatrists on the committee; between them they have extensive expertise in psychosis and schizophrenia, having treated both professionally for many years, and indeed published various journal papers on those conditions (this was made clear to Mary when she raised the issue at the first of the ACMD's new public sessions). To note; the cannabis reports produced by the ACMD do not shy away from the mental health risks of cannabis, indeed they again include exhaustive literature reviews of the subject and detailed accounts of current knowledge on such harms and risks. I would be interested to hear specifically where you feel those reports are wanting.
Posted by: Steve Rolles | November 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Thank you to the bloggers who also agree that it was the ACMD initiative to review ACMD from a Class A drug (the only way to go is downgrading). It should be noted that, as well as David Nutt's previous writings which they cited, he wrote to Home Secretary about this earlier this year in his role as ACMD chair designate; in the interim he was vice chair. He did not recuse himself nor appoint an independent specific-project chair such as Prof Parrott.
In his role as chair designate, it was he rather than a transparently impartial person/committee who "convened a sub-group of ACMD members with the role of overseeing the process of evidence gathering, analysis and reporting".
Whether an unbiased decision is made or not, it patently cannot be seen to be unbiased.
I add that David Nutt is a charismatic and charming man.
But all this about one sentence distracts attention from the main article: the desire both to have the right thing done and to be able to know, to have confidence - because of transparency - that it has been done.
Posted by: Deirdre | November 13, 2008 at 07:39 PM
Deidre
The Science and Technology Select Committee report (that you link above and whose critical comments on the ACMD you extensively quote), in the section on ecstasy classification that you have failed to make any reference to, specifically calls for the ACMD to undertake a review of ecstasy classification, in part following from recommendations from the Police Foundation Inquiry of 2000 and the Home Affairs Select Committee of 2002 (which included David Cameron amongst its number) that the drug be reclassified. The relevant section from the Sci tech committee report, in full, is as follows (the recommendation is at the end):
"Ecstasy
60. A number of commentators have called into question whether the Class A status of ecstasy is warranted on the basis of the harm caused by its misuse. The RAND report cited evidence suggesting that “ecstasy may be several thousand times less dangerous than heroin, although both are in Class A, as the percentage of deaths among users is very small and there is little evidence that ecstasy users exhibit withdrawal symptoms, with far more evidence suggesting there are no withdrawal symptoms”.115 It also noted that “Recent figures show that there were about 13.5 times more ecstasy users than heroin users in 2004, and deaths caused by ecstasy were around 3% of the number caused by heroin”.116 In oral evidence to this inquiry, Professor Colin Blakemore, MRC Chief Executive, told us that ecstasy was “at the bottom of the scale of harm” and “on the basis of present evidence […] should not be a Class A drug”.117
61. According to DrugScope, the ACMD was not consulted prior to classification of ecstasy as a Class A drug in 1977 and the Government has resisted more recent calls to refer the matter to the ACMD.118 David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, rejected the recommendation of both the Runciman report in 2000 and the Home Affairs Committee in 2002 that ecstasy should be reclassified from Class A to Class B, in the latter case on the grounds that reclassification would be “irresponsible”.119 The Government’s response to the Runciman report stated: “In the absence of any clear recommendation from the Advisory Council to the contrary, the Government believes that ecstasy should remain a Class A drug”, but Mr Blunkett subsequently refused to ask the ACMD to conduct a review of the evidence.120,121 The Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker told us categorically in evidence to this inquiry that the Government still had “no plans” to refer the classification of ecstasy to the ACMD.122
62. What is perhaps more surprising is that the ACMD has not “presented any recommendations on [ecstasy] to the Government of its own volition”.123 Sir Michael gave the following explanation for this in evidence to us: “The difficulty is it is one of these other areas where there is very little research done on it […] Frankly, I do not think we would get anywhere by a review at the present time. This may change. There may be better evidence that comes forward but it is vague and imprecise and I do not think we would get very far”.124 We are not convinced by this explanation and note that there is a substantial body of scientific literature on ecstasy, much of which has been published in recent years.
In view of the high-profile nature of the drug and its apparent widespread usage amongst certain groups, it is surprising and disappointing that the ACMD has never chosen to review the evidence for ecstasy’s Class A status. This, in turn, highlights the lack of clarity regarding the way the ACMD determines its work programme. We recommend that the ACMD carries out an urgent review of the classification of ecstasy."
So whilst the ACMD had been under considerable pressure to undertake such a review for a number of years but had in fact evidently been somewhat reluctant. The ACMD is required to do reviews if requested by a minister, but it is also fully in its mandate to independently undertake research in line with keeping the system under review in light of emerging developments. However in this case, two parliamentary Select committee inquiry reports had recommended the change and urgently called for a review respectively. The call from the Sci tech committee moreover coming as part of a strikingly critical review of the committees activities. It is therefore fair to say the review was not entirely unbidden.
Nor should the fact that 'the only way to go is downgrading' mean that it should not be undertaken. If you do not think the ABC system should be based on ranking relative harms you need to make that argument and critique the ACMDs harm matrix and their application of it. Your apparent suggestion that reviews of classification can only take place if they are going to result in a move up the ranking (or remain where they are) is profoundly a-scientific. On that basis Class A drugs classification could never be reviewed.
Posted by: Steve Rolles | November 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM
The parallel with New Zealand's "justice and corrections" over-weighted expert advisory committee, or EACD is too rich. Sadly this and six years of political stasis (thou shalt not talk about cannabis in this term of parliament) impacted on delays to the highly recommended (two select committees) prioritisation of cannabis law review, worse, it bastardised due process over BZP (Party Pills).
However, the silver lining is that administration has created a vehicle for "Class D" (soft drug) schedule that "Order in Council" Royal assent and became law November 6th. It has the required 'framework' for sale, storage, trade, advertising and age of consent.
New Zealand now has legally regulated soft drug policy in place, administered by the Ministry of Health. Justice has been shut out.
Further, A statutory empowered Law Commission now has the terms of reference and is going to release an 'issues' paper with a view to public input and unfettered debate examining the "misuse of drugs act 1975" law (and the international covenants) from first principals.
The whole world would benefit from 'another Holland' but with 'due process' now in place we may be able to progress beyond de facto and have durable change.
NZ has long been a social laboratory and in this case is ideally suited to do so again.
One would hope that the rest of the academic world concerned about development of 'evidence based' policy in a social ecology framework would give some serious support to this ... [watch this space]
The ACMD may find both the outcome and the process instructive. ;-)
Posted by: Blair Anderson | November 14, 2008 at 12:13 AM
The pro-drug lobby once again shows its eagerness to divert from the evidence which clearly establishes the total harms caused by ecstasy, by making a mountain out of irrelevant molehills.
This is a standard ploy which is best ignored.
Let's focus on the evidence and endeavour to persuade the ACMD to do the same, rather than the idoelogical rhetoric which is being emplpoyed in the hope of burying scientific and empirical evidence.
Posted by: Peter O'Loughlin | November 15, 2008 at 01:22 PM
Addiction Today is to be congratulated on its courage in raising this important issue - not least because it was one likely to generate a hostile and defensive response from those who lobby for legalisation of drugs - which indeed it did.
But whatever one's position on prohibition, it must be in everyone's best interests to bring expert research about the dangers of a drug into the public arena - research that is clearly neither widely known nor understood - and activating debate about that research.
Adult ecstasy use in the UK is already nearly double than in the Netherlands and six times higher than France and Sweden. We have yet to live out the health, mental-health and social consequences of this level of use in the population or of the impact of children's early introdution to the drug.
We are facing, in this country, already, much higher levels of teenage (and earlier) polydrug use on top of much higher levels of alcohol intoxication than any of our European counterparts. That this may reflect both a laissez faire attitude towards their use, as well as the totally inadequate communication of their short-term and long-term risks by the various bodies tasked with this responsibility, including the ACMD, is of deep concern.
I cannot therefore understand why Professor Parrott's important and expert contribution to the debate and investigation that the ACMD is conducting is not welcomed by all.
He is surely right to argue that not one of these drugs can any longer reasonably be looked at solely outside the context of its use with other drugs and stimulants, and must be right to highlight ectasy's dangers in this context? Given his knowledge, to do otherwise would surely be irresponsible?
The ACMD itself is certainly not above criticism in the way it has conducted itself in the past. Their current exercise on ecstasy is redolent of past problems. You have to be more than forgiving not to see where Professor Nutt is coming from. So it is now contingent on the ACMD itself to meet its critics and to demonstrate that it does not have a 'default' position on the down classification of certain drugs. It needs to actively demonstrate total neutrality in these matters and show that its investigations go beyond 'going by the book'.
It needs also, I believe, to also demonstrate its social concern and social responsibility, whatever the small print of their terms of reference.
It is of huge concern that the lead scientist in this area should be doubting whether the ACMD is taking real heed of his research and expertise; or whether indeed the ACMD has taken on board his expert critique of the limitations of meta analysis. It does seem most strange that the ACMD did not and has not actively sought the advice of Professor Parrott in the first place, as a lead 'ecstasy expert', for their review. Could this suggest perhaps a certain arrogance or an unwillingness to engage with opinion different to its own default position?
Posted by: Kathy Gyngell | November 15, 2008 at 07:26 PM
I really don't understand Steve Rolles' nitpicking. He states that David Nutt gave evidence to the Select Committee about downgrading ecstasy, so the committee asks for a review, which the ACMD did not do until David Nutt as chairman designate asked for the review and himself recruited a committee to oversee it... seems a no-brainer...
Enough already - Peter McLoughlin is right: it merely distracts from the message that all these drugs have been proven to be harmful. Let's start protecting the children.
Posted by: John Corbett | November 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Id like to respond to the comments by Kathy and John, with regards Deidre's blog.
Kathy - I resent being accused of being 'hostile and defensive' - I have just pointed out what I see misunderstandings or misrepresentations in Deidre's comments. She based her comments around the sci-tech select committee's criticisms of the ACMD, all fair enough, but crucially fails to mention:
1. The study of ecstasy harms the committee commissioned, or its findings
2. The committees observation that classification decisions generally were unscientific and needed revisiting
3. Their specific recommendation that a review of ecstasy be urgently undertaken.
(and this is before even mentioning the description of the ABC system as 'not fit for purpose' or that rankings should be 'de-coupled' from criminal penalties)
That strikes me as an important oversight, worthy of flagging up, not nitpicking, and I feel reasonably qualified to comment on the report as my written and oral evidence is quoted in it on a number of occasions.
It is perhaps also worth highlighting - as a lot of critiques seems aimed at prof Nutt - that the commitment of the ACMD to undertake a review of ecstasy classification was made by Sir Micheal Rawlins when he was chair - in his follow up evidence to the sci tech select committee in November 2006 when he said (despite some reservations about the evidence base):
"We will undertake a review. You have asked us to undertake a review and we will undertake a review."
It was not therefore initially instigated by Prof Nutt as suggested, who was in fact acting on the public commitment made by his predecessor to the select committee in 2006. Also of note, at that session the then drugs minister Vernon Coaker made it abundantly clear that the Government would ignore any recommendation for a move to B.
I suggest you read the oral evidence from Nutt and Rawlins given to the Sci-tech committee (before and after the report) as well as the complete report itself , and the ACMDs written reponse to it - all are on line. I'm still waiting for any credible evidence that the current ecstasy review is somehow a stitch up, or its integrity compromised.
So who is being hostile here?
I think there is also some more general misunderstanding about what the classification system is and how it operates. We either have a system where relative harms are ranked or we don't. If we do then it is appropriate that classifications are determined in some scientific and consistent way, and - partly following the sci-tech committees critique - the ACMD have now published their methodology for doing this. Critiquing that methodology is a valid exercise (I have done so here for example: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/03/lancet-and-drug-harms-missing-bigger.html)
But this is not what Deidre or prof Parrot do. They make a series of apparent insinuations about the committees integrity, without having seen the ecstasy review (as it is not yet published) or knowing what the committees recommendations will be (I suspect they will be surprised). Critiquing the reports finding is also fine, but that logically requires waiting until you've seen it.
If you don't think the ABC system should be based on scientific ranking of relative harms, then make that argument and suggest an alternative. This case is not made
however, merely a general case is made that the classifications can only ever be revised upwards. That makes no sense.
There is nothing to suggest that Class B drugs are harmless or safe - that is neither the intention of the system nor has it ever been implied by the ACMD or the Government. I would actually suggest that if anything, the absurd idea that 'downgrading = harmless' has only gained traction due to its endless repetition by misguided critics of any down-gradings.
It is worth pointing out that possession of a class B drug is punishable with a 5 year prisons sentence, and supply with a 14 year sentence. This is on a par with sentences for GBH or rape - How does that imply either safety or that the drug is not taken seriously? Surely some perspective is needed?
All this, of course, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the legalisation/regulation debate. Reclassifications take place within a rigid and unquestioned prohibitionist legal framework, and reductions in penalties, even if they do occur, do not imply even decriminalisation of possession, let alone regulated supply. I am not aware that any drug has ever been reclassified out of the MDA 1971 altogether (although many have been added). The ACMD have never gone anywhere near questions around legalisation despite Transform's repeated requests that they consider them - indeed that is the major issue we have with them, but is another matter entirely.
Posted by: Steve Rolles | November 16, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Deidre - just to add in response to your remark above (that appears to have been edited):
You now suggest that The ACMD should have appointed an 'independent specific-project chair such as Prof Parrott' as a 'transparently impartial person' to convene/oversee the review, rather than Nutt, presumably on the basis that Nutt had previously said that ecstasy should 'probably' be reclassified, when asked for his expert opinion.
I note in Prof Parrot's open letter that he states that he says, along with his disbelief a classification change is even being reconsidered, that, very specifically; ecstasy 'should not be downgraded'.
I'm not sure how this qualifies him as impartial.
Posted by: Steve Rolles | November 16, 2008 at 09:50 PM
"it merely distracts from the message that all these drugs have been proven to be harmful. Let's start protecting the children."
Isnt that what we all want? as an ex raver who now works for the nhs in mental health and has three teenage children i have a foot in both camps
The government muddies the waters about the relative harms of illegal and legal drugs available to our young people, we have as our (legal) cultural drugs of choice two of the most harmful agents and we attempt harm reduction with these through education and taxation. Why can we not use a similar program of education to protect our children from the harms associated with illegal drug use?
These can be no doubt that MDMA is powerful drug and may indeed have all the physiological characteristics that Professor Parrot attributes to it but the first generation of pill poppers are over twenty years clear of their raving days now and i know many of them and they seem ok to me.
I work in the community but my work brings me into contact with service users in in-patient units and if there is a mental health time bomb it hasnt gone off yet
Raj
Posted by: Raj | November 17, 2008 at 06:51 AM
Let us have just a little reality seepage and less humbug. Steve Rolles is nice guy, I like him but he has an agenda, it is full legalisation. His organisation, Transform, has chosen to align itself with the George Soros financed Drug Policy Alliance and Ethan Nadelman. That organisation has argued for full legalisation of every possible substance that humans might want to use.
Given Steve’s position and long term strategy, it is not surprising that at every possible opportunity he attacks the present regime or defends anyone who he thinks might be prepared to alter it in a direction which suits Transform. The Mandy Rice Davies comment “he would say that wouldn’t he” applies to almost everything that Steve utters. We must not treat him too seriously.
Any suggestion that the ACMD is being “open” is very wide of the mark. Compare the suggested “openness” of the ACMD with parliamentary committees. The ACMD is doing what it is doing, in limited fashion because it has been forced to that. The sub committees are the real power in the ACMD, they are controlled by a few senior members. Professor Nutt has been one.
The open plenary sessions are also a sham; earlier this year the public was ushered from the room while the ACMD under Sir Michael Rawlins (With Chairman designate Nutt, alongside) held a private session with the UKDPC. (Roger Howard & Ruth Runciman were there, I think)
The UKDPC is a liberalising pressure group, (though it tries hard to pretend otherwise). When Roger Howard ran DrugScope, elements there were helping run the European Legalisation movement without telling their paymasters in government and with objectives (changes to the UN conventions), which were against expressed government policy-enough said? That is dangerously near corrupt. The ACMD should no more have a private session with UKDPC than they should with me.
The witnesses on cannabis to ACMD were rigged; how otherwise would Simon Lenton from Australia have been included (twice!). He also wants changes to the UN conventions-again against UK government policy, (and the UK government and taxpayer funds the ACMD). Good use of taxpayer pounds bringing Lenton over?
Professor Nutt has made too many suggestions about the position of Ecstasy for him to be regarded as impartial. The honourable thing to do would have been to recuse himself from any ACMD discussions. There are other worries about Professor Nutt; in a radio programme in New Zealand he certainly seemed to me to be engaging with drug legalisation. Is that appropriate behaviour given his role?
Finally, it does seem as though Professor Parrott, the UK’s foremost expert on ecstasy, is going to be heard now. Quite right, but it should not take pressure from external activists to ensure that.
Posted by: David Raynes | November 17, 2008 at 08:06 PM
It is disappointing that some of the comments, most obviously from David, but also Kathy and Peter, are attacking me rather than the very clear and specific factual observations and criticisms I've made (which I note go largely uncommented on.)
Trying to undermine the points Ive made on the basis that I come to the discussion with a stated policy position - one that i am absolutely open about - I find extraordinary in the context of public policy discussion forum. (David's tenuous 'guilt by association' is even more inexplicable and inappropriate). I don't want to get involved in this sort of childishness, but these posters can hardly make a claim to impartiality. Yes, I advocate and argue for law reform and moves towards legalisation and regulation of currently illegal drugs. Other's advocate for the prohibitionist status quo (even a ramping up of the punitive enforcement) - which is no less a radical position merely because it is current policy. Let us remember this position advocates criminlisation of around one third of the adult population and half of all young people, abdication of control for a £300 billion a year trade in dangerous drugs to violent gangsters, and continuation of a policy that aims to reduce supply and use of drugs but has, over more than 50 years and untold billions spent, consistently delivered the exact opposite.
But we are not talking about legalisation here and I did not raise the issue. As Ive said, reclassifications have nothing to do with that debate as they all take place within a prohibitionist framework.
For the record, again, I believe the the ABC system is a desperately inadequate way of ranking harms, and its translation in a hierarchy of criminal penalties unethical and ineffective. I gave evidence on this to the Sci-Tech committee, a lot of which they quoted, and I have written a lot more about it elsewhere.
Further, I agree with David that the ACMD still has procedural issues to sort out - including the anomalous privileged position the UKDPC enjoys, and the closed evidence sessions (although the Sci-Tech committee also took some non-public evidence to be fair).
I actually find it strange to be in the position of defending the ACMD in this stance, whom I am a long time and vocal and public critic. But whilst the ABC system is, IMHO, a world of wrongness, the procedures for making classification decisions are at least now clear, evidence is invited from all-comers, and the reports on which the committee bases its decisions - including the research considered - published for public critique.
I also felt that factual inaccuracies about the provenance of the ecstasy review, and the political context, required correction.
None of this make me 'pro-drug' or an advocate for ecstasy (I'm not) suggests I think it is safe (it clearly isn't) or that I feel especially strongly that it be reclassified (in the context of the ABC system it makes sense but I don't think it will make the slightest difference to use or misuse either way).
Maybe we should reconvene this discussion when we've heard what the committee have to say?
I actually suspect that they will note that whilst 'MDMA' should probably not be ranked along side heroin and cocaine in terms of relative harm, they *wont* call for a move to B on the grounds that street 'ecstasy' and 'MDMA powder' is too unpredictable in dose/purity and often contains a range of other drugs. However, I'm willing to wait and see before jumping to conclusions or passing judgement.
Posted by: Steve Rolles | November 18, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Steve
I do not attack you. I made that clear. I like you and find you stimulating company. I attack almost all the views you promote in your job for Transform. You have a job to do and you do it well. My objective is to neuter you and people like you who promote damaging drug use. I remind others that you ARE doing a job. You are not just an unpaid observer who is commenting. There is nothing whatsever personal in what I say about you and it is disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.
The ACMD public hearings are rigged, the witnesses are sometimes rigged, the hearings are rigged, in my view to pretend an openness which does not exist.
Everything important is done behind closed doors.
I regard the ACMD having deliberate private consultations with a legalisation/liberalisation lobby group, like UKDPC, as nothing short of a corrupt and absolute scandal. It is positivily third world. We should all be ashamed it is going on. I am scandalised that figures like Rawlins & Nutt should think it acceptable.
Professor Nutt should have recused himself from the XTC debate so personal has been his involvement in promoting downgrading.
I agree with you. we will get a lot of words out of the ACMD, they will be largely meaningless. The Home Office will certainly ignore them if they recommend downgrading.
Prof Parrott will talk about the long term effects. Why was he not consulted earlier? It should not take activists to get him a hearing.
Politicians will not downgrade, they worry about them downgrading and then several deaths ocurring. Quite right. They should worry.
Posted by: David Raynes | November 22, 2008 at 12:07 AM
David - It was more than clear from my first post onwards that I work for Transform - I link to Transform documents authored by me, and my name under each post is a direct link to the Transform blog. I dont know how much can be asked for really. I wouldn't expect you to post a CV with every post, nor Kathy to declare her political affiliations (one could find out about anyone with a simple google search anyway, should they so desire). Peter at least links his work website - as a provider of drug treatment. If there is such a thing as a completely independent, unaffiliated, objective commenter on blog responses I have yet to read them. Why should we expect any different - its a public debating forum; that, as I understand it, is the whole point.
Transform's work is no mystery and I do nothing to conceal it or my views - quite the opposite, we are after all, a campaigning policy group. Im out their arguing the whole time - quite often with you.
Regards your other points - my previous posts are hopefully clear enough, but just to reassure you - long term effects were considered in the open session, and Prof Parrot's written submissions were considered along with all the rest.
Posted by: Steve Rolles | December 03, 2008 at 09:49 PM
Kathy Gyngell |
"Let's start protecting the children."
Do you mean by continuing with the failed war on drugs? - where drug dealers dont ask their customers for age i.d.?
Where these drug dealers employ other youngsters to run drugs for them, and to see drugs in our schools?
No - we need to end prohibition; and control these drugs properly, and not use the word "control" in the Orwellian sense that prohibitionists mean it.
Posted by: Rory | January 19, 2010 at 05:13 PM
> where drug dealers dont ask their customers for age i.d.?
Yes they do... it's phrased "Got your money?"
Someone please drag some economists into this feckless point scoring as to whose evidence trumps whose...
We have yet to undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of prohibition practice. We cannot hope to manage where we are, let alone where we may need to go without agreement as to what needs measuring.
Rather than drug by drug analysis, lets have the real debate on the set and setting of the politicised practice of blanket criminalisation arbitarily applied to some drugs and some people.
Acknowledge there are harms - but clearly establish a correlate to who harmed who, by how much [where is the victim] and own up to the reality, humans like drugs and make harm reduction/minimisation choices accordingly.
We need a philosopicaly empowered reductionist approach to problem solving a human problem with a human solution. Its not the drugs, its us stoopid.
Anything else disenfranchises both self will and informed consent.
But since we dont live in a perfect world I can live with (1)'restricted substances regulations' that at the very least enables a civil, least cost, best practice and normative value system as the primary actor in 'control of health'.
(1) (search term for http://legislation.govt.nz for a real world 'applied model' that manages use of recreational psychoactive substances. An empowered "Misuse of Drugs Act" that acknowledges that knowledge protects! has royal assent!, and curtails Police powers 'to which they are not entitled' in defining arbitarily who enters the criminal gateway.)
"It's drug policy Captain, but not as we know it!"
Posted by: Blair Anderson | February 05, 2010 at 10:02 AM