Reviewing The Effectiveness Of Uk Drug Policy Criminology Essay

Reviewing The Effectiveness Of Uk Drug Policy Criminology EssayThis paper palisades that a precise inspection of the effectiveness of UK medicine polity is urgently adopted. Policy as contained in the Mis lend oneself of Drugs Act 1971 (the MDA), Drugs Act 2005, Medicines Act 1968 and strategy document Drugs protect families and communities is currently in a state of disrepair. The question projects a contemporary over-influence of rhetorical bases in policy formation and military rating, to the detriment of a frank review of its actual effectiveness, however I am unconvinced this artificial annexation of such broad notions will forge the more effective drug policy to which the question also refers. Rather, I propose that these notions describe the many governing manipulated and dovetailed to produce and justify a much wider policy model. And it is this model, and the weight given to those authorities that currently hinders the effectiveness of the UK drug policy and deser ves review. I call into question the way in which our current organization is criminalised via the implementation of the MDAs class organisation, limited to non traditional drugs, and establish on control as justified by rhetoric. I propose a more appropriate direction in the adoption of an evidentially ground wound reduction model, in line with the home offices most recent policy.2. UK Drug PolicyIn order to explore the necessity for a mingy evaluation of the current UK drug policy one must gain a plenary understanding of what the contemporary policy actually is, and why.2This finish be demonstrated most thoroughly and accurately through a brief analysis of some of the most important policy models affiliated with our domestic drug policy. Through extrapolating the wider reasoning behind our current system I hope to decipher the influences on policy decisions and where the weight imposed on such factors is disappointing the balance should be changed.2.1. MedicalizationA tim eline stretching from the nineteenth century keynotes the first defined drug policy of full medicalization at the end of the century.3This stance places drug substance abusers at heart a medical paradigm, seeing addiction as a disease.4Whilst this ideology can still be seen as a strand within medicinal interactions with problem drug users, in terms of treatment and the Medicines Act 1968 it no longer hold ups as the basis of domestic strategy.2.2. A contend on DrugsNixons 1973 use of the metaphor of contendf ar in relation to drug policies has since seen the USA wage an ever-escalating war on drugs.5This has impacted the UK, where it is argued that criminal law and arguments of morality ar deeply embedded in UK drug policy,6evidenced through a movement towards a largely American-inspired prohibitionist draw near in post war years, simply echoing the Pharmacy Act 1869s earlier quasi-medical control of certain substances.7And I argue that this prohibitionist control still under pins UK drug policy like a shot8framing contemporary strategy documents.9My research signifys this ideology that has principal to drug policy becoming discourtesy-focused to an extent that it can be viewed as distinctively and substantively unlike in the twenty first century.102.3. CriminalisationAcademics take in noted that the home office has used its influence to try to push Britain towards a system quasi(prenominal) to that of the USAreliant solely on control measures.11With the MDA regulating drugs using a complex legislative framework revolving around the criminalisation of a band of illicit drugs guidance on penal control, appargonntly based on risk assessment of the harms these drugs cause to the exclusion of traditional drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.12This was compounded barely by the Drugs Act 2005 placing law enforcement and crime reduction as central features of the agenda, working alongside the MDA in criminalising the activities surrounding certain drugs .13The government has maintained that this fundamental economic consumption of providing a framework within which criminal penalties are set is correct, compounding the overwhelming priority of criminalisation in the current drug policy.14I argue this undermines current drug strategy aim to reduce the harm that drugs cause to confederacy, to communities, individuals and their families.15Gower has ex touch a deep concern regarding this over-reliance on criminalisation as the center of control, arguing that it lacks a clear grounding in evidence, and it does not achieve its objective to reduce the misuse of drugs.16This criticism coming from a strong donnish feeling that criminalisation seems to define our current definition of the drugs problem, with critics calling into question this nonsensical and unjustified focus on punishment and enforcement.172.3.1. Why has the drug-crime link make do to be the principal lens through which the drug problem is viewed today?18The government s criminalisation of drug use is validated by suggestions that drug use and crime are linked in some way19as demonstrated by the home office website.20This contemporary obsession with the drug crime link,21refers to a belief that the drug trade is linked to serious organised crime.22Officials argue that the coincidence of drugs and criminal activity can be understood through a theory of causation, and remains a key strand in current drug policy.However, this long history of exaggerated claims has been damned by experts, recognising that whilst there are links it is surprisingly difficult to show that any of the comm just now misused drugs directly cause any behaviour.23A number of studies have identified only vague correlations,24with limited evidence showing any causal connections between drugs and crime, somewhat questioning any conviction that drugs cause crime.25The perceived drug clime link is simply a rhetorical justification of the criminalisation of policy direction, lacki ng any real evidential strength.262.2.2. The Role of the MediaConsultation papers work as a key resource in the governments current evaluative process.27However, universe opinion and thus their responses are fundamentally manipulated by the media. Newspapers work in many ways as a talking shop for politicians to inform much of what we know, or think we know, about crime with careful choices by such outlets triggering a variety of public responses.28Schlesinger et al assert that media representations are a key moment in the process whereby public discourses concerning crime and justice are made available for general consumption.29Thus, in consultation papers recognised as conversations with the public and the limited existing form of evaluation medias interpretation is likely to implicate subsequent responses somewhat negating the productivity of consultation.30Distorted media presentation of substances can influence popular belief about their noxiousness, which then directly imp licates change in drug policy with clear inconsistencies between reality and reports.31Mannings commentary on ecstasy depicts how a series of well documented media-led moral panics can lead to an evolution of the governments policy, based on individual tragedies and anecdotes rather than rational analysis of evidence and pragmatic public health responses.32The rushed mixture of Mephedrone recently echoed this to the letter.33Whilst it denies reviews pit to media attention,34I argue that through sacking David Nutt following such pressure,35government showed its willingness to bow to public mood, feeding policy with rhetoric.36I assert that this amplified role of media in the reflection of drug policy forges political moves driven by people pleasers, rather than evidence.2.3.3. The role of ACMDThe Advisory council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is a statutory body which aims to purport the government on drug policy and treatment37. However, its validity is questionable. Firstly, AC MD has a statutory duty to consider both medical and societal harms when making recommendations,38with a number of factors feeding into decisions, including unconvincing theories, the media, culture and what the public is thought to think39. Secondly its remit seems to be restricted to those substances the government are concerned with notably excluding alcohol and tobacco. And finally, when scientific bodies bring evidence at odds with political direction it is disregarded.40Despite Professor Wiles assertion that the Government does not interfere with the emancipation of the ACMD and that ACMD have freely decided not to advise them about traditional drugs,41their ambit is limited to illicit drugs, because their advice intended to be independent at present, depends on government policy, not just scientific evidence. ACMD is forced to be political in character used as puppets of government in its attempt to legitimatise a framework that simply does not correlate with the statis tical evidence experts propose.422.4. Cultural prejudiceThe government itself notes that the distinguishing factors regarding the illegality of drugs are based in large divorce on historical and cultural precedents43. Politicians are it would seem unwilling to tackle traditional drugs, simply because it would conflict with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance.44Safe.Sensible.Social promotes a sensible drinking culture rather than the prohibition of alcohol,45which is of stark contrast to any policy regarding what are regarded as illicit drugs. The reasoning for this polarity is defended though the social acceptability of alcohol and tobacco which are void of any scientific basis.46This method of character questions the validity of our drug policy emphasising how arbitrary the nature of the way in which we currently decipher which drugs fall within the ambit of the MDA really is.472.4.1. Traditional DrugsBecause of a preoccupation with illicit drugs in recent decade s there has been, until relatively recently, much less discussion on alcohol. This is changing.48The government has introduced 2 alcohol policies, the most recent being Safe.Sensible.Social in 2007, however health professionals who had pressed for the alcohol strategy were critical of it when it appeared in 2004 and the 2007 review was thought to be little better.49Whilst the government discredit direct comparisons between illegal drugs and alcohol as inappropriate,50the evidence brought to government by the Health Select Committee covering a huge breadth of harms concludes that England has a drink problem.51Comparisons are appropriate and necessary. WHO deduces that two million destructions are caused by excessive alcohol consumption world-wide each year, with it being responsible for 11% of the total disease burden in Europe.52 on base this, 90% of all drug related deaths are attributed to alcohol and tobacco.53In addition there are arguments of a strong correlation between bus t drinking and offending,54even satisfying the flimsy drug-crime link precedent of the MDA.The governments response that the sort system under the MDA is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco55is met with criticism of their complacency in the face of the seriousness of our current predicament.56Nutt expresses that it is this omission from the classification system that, perchance more than any other, truly lays bare its fundamental lack of consistency, reasoning or evidence base.57If classified under any realistic assessment of toxicity, addictiveness and mortality rates both drugs would certainly be criminalised and prohibited under the current system58. There is a clear presumption were alcohol introduced today it would be classified and criminalised.592.5. Political rhetoric is far removed from the reality60The governments use of broad definitions, reliance on rhetorical justifications and a seemingly unconvincing distinction of l egal and illegal drugs despite their harms, leads us to a strange statutory framework which legalizes drugs alcohol and nicotine that are equally, if not more, addictive and cause more death and ill health thanthe most feared illegal drugs.61The moral panics constructed by the failure of politicians promises of a drug free world, have lead to claims that the current policy is an embarrassment, unproductive, and based on a band of rhetoric amidst a failing model of criminalisation and penal thinking.62Whilst both the alcohol and drug policies suggest a allegiance to minimizing the harms caused by drug use, the prevalence of tough talk and political posturing has invariably triumphed over common sense, with the key aim of harm reduction wooly within the framework of a criminalisation model.63This clearly calls into question the legitimacy of the advisory council, politicians, and the effectiveness of our drug policy and legislation.3. A Call for EvaluationThe governmental strategy is ad hoc in its foundations, attracting a plethora of criticism regarding the artificiality of the dominant construction of criminality. ACMD suggest that there is scope to explore how effectively the current system is operating,64and Journalists are led to similar conclusions following indications of the insufficiency of current policy.65As reports continually conclude, this war on drugs has been a disaster.66With Boland encapsulating this exasperation in his assessment that the logic of continuing to pour huge amounts of public money into fighting a war that is patently not going to be won must be revisited with a more questioning mind.67Both scientifically and rhetorically, there are calls for evaluation with an eye to a more effective policy model in which evidential distinctions will thrive.3.1. The Ambit of EvaluationAn evaluation should cover all substances regarded as harmful drugs. Scientists and academics struggle to specifically define what a drug is in the first plac e retracting back to science with reference to mixtures of chemicals and their effects on users.68It is fundamentally the mission of the law to draw distinctions, writing laws that draw careful and appropriate distinctions between the permitted and the prescribed.69The war on drugs has become a war on certain (illicit) drugs, with traditional others such as alcohol and tobacco falling outside of the scope of the Draconian enforcement of controls.70The one obvious basis for distinction between legal and illegal drugs are that illicit drugs are those that create a high risk of harm to the users or others, however even this has been proved to be, inherently flawed.713.2. Drugs and Harm A New Agenda for a New Government72Although law enforcement has been given a higher priority in recent yearsthey coexist with a quite different line of thinking and action, that of harm reduction.73An evaluation of the current policy should use an increasingly evidence based approach, with particular reg ard to the classification of traditional and non traditional drugs within this harm reduction model. If a harm reduction approach is adopted, the policy will work to reduce the harms that result from the misuse of drugs, which waste lives, destroy families and damage communities.74However, legislations hidden implication of harm reduction is currently insufficient.75 some(prenominal) such base has been overshadowed in recent decades through the MDAs more prominent regime of classification and subsequent criminalisation of illicit substances.76Through exploring classification in its present form compared to how it could be improved through using this model, I hope to illustrate how the government could develop strategies which may lead the drug user into less harmful patterns of drug use, rather than simply enforcing the law and punishing wrongdoers.774. Drug Classification making a hash of it78Despite indications that the current classification system is indefensible79the home offic e has give tongue to it has little intention of changing this framework, deciding not to pursue a review of the classification system at this time.80I counteract that this is a mistake, with the the methodology and processes underlying classification systems inherently flawed.81As per Forte et al, in a freedom loving society no conduct by rational adults should be criminalised unless it is harmful to others I argue that a transparent evaluation of the way in which our policy full treatment and should work is long overdue.824.1. Policy needs to informed by evidence83Critics have, in many ways, attributed the failing classification system to it being closed to scientific evidence.84Many arguing that the MDA simply reflects official perceptions of relative harmfulness,85claiming that the government routinely cherry picks and spins figuresto give a misleading impression.86I suggest that this can be remedied through a clearer, more sagacious approach87. And support the notion that evid ence should not dictate all aspects of drug policy, but that clear distinctions need to be made when policy is based on scientific evidence and when it is made on the basis of particular conception of what society should be like.88Nutt has said that people really dont know what the evidence is. They see the classification, they hear about evidence and they get mixed messages with the scientific probity of governmentundermined in this kind of way.89The public should be fully informed of the basis of the framework presented to them, and the reasoning behind this. Rhetoric and cultural influences are an important factor in formulating policy decisions and communicating with the public and their impact should not be wholly negated, rather a limitation of rhetorics weighted influence in key decisions regarding the harmfulness of drugs is needed.5. Policy ConsequencesUpon evaluation I suggest that the current system will be regarded as outdated, ineffective and in need of a complete regen eration. Whereas at present it seems the ACMD can only recommend prohibition,90I have not explored, nor will I advocate, the notion of legalisation or indeed the criminalisation of harmful substances. Rather, I suggest such an approach is unproductive, and envisage a two pronged approach involving the current penal system as just that a system of punishment, footrace parallel with a more scientifically based approach.5.1. One PolicyIn accordance with my discussion regarding the scientific evidence about alcohol bring forth harm, I believe that alcohol policys separation from the UK drug policy is unnecessary and unproductive. We must fully endorse harm reduction approaches at all levels and peculiarly stop the artificial separation of alcohol and tobacco as non-drugs.91As it stands, there is no sign that the governments aims to reduce harmful alcohol consumption have been achieved.92Increasingly strong evidence suggests a long term trend towards the integration of traditional an d non traditional drugs.93And I support a more comprehensive policy that amalgamates drugs and alcohol, using the evidence bases made available to the government to truly work to reduce the harms caused by drug misuse in the UK.946.2. Rational weighing machineBased primarily on the work of Nutt, King, Saulsbury and Blakemore, I am calling for a second scale that doesnt simply masquerade itself as an indication of the harmfulness of drugs but is an accurate scientific representation of the harmfulness of each drug. This would be decoupled from penalties, to give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved, working as a second pillar to a continued penal classification system, with very little change.95Transform has supported the pragmatic nature of this scheme, and my research would suggest that many critics would welcome this scientific inclusion,96offering scientific evidence of actual risks as a way of replacing perceived risk in the classification process97. A key i ssue with this approach is the deciphering of what harm actually is, however I propose that this scale would allow for flexibility in the retardation period of its existence. Whilst Nutt has criticised the current systems lack of flexibility,98he is confident that this modified scale is remarkably robust as data is added to it, clearly opening its doors to a workable and scien