Will we ever win the Drugs War?

International Drug Pipelines

President Richard Nixon is accredited with coining the phrase war on drugs back in 1971 however; is it really a war that can actually be won?

Since an oriental entrepreneur first realised the financial opportunities of supply & demand, and opened an Opium Den in London, our nation (who are not alone), has had a massive problem trying to combat the negative impacts of drugs.

Addictive drugs first faced widespread prohibition in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but the so-called ’war’ against the illegal drug trade is nothing new, it has been almost constant for centuries.

It all started with the Anglo-Chinese Wars (the First Opium War and Second Opium War), it progressed through the (continuing) issues in Central and South America and latterly, it still manifests itself in Afghanistan. Yet another ‘war’ that has claimed far too many lives during the military ‘policing’ efforts, irrespective of the additional terrorism context this time around.

Back in Victorian London, the media (and several popular British authors of the time) had a tendency towards the romanticism of many of the issues surrounding the illegal drug trade. They portrayed the City as an ‘opium-drenched pit of danger and mystery’ but mostly to boost the appeal of their publications. To be fair, London’s reputation as a centre of opium smoking at the time was mostly unjustified, but it did testify to the power of literary fiction over historical fact.

Much of the literary fiction of the past can also be seen in the media of today, especially (but not exclusively) when it comes to reporting on drugs and crime. To be fair to the media, much of the emotive and sensational headline methodology they use is actually based upon ‘official’ statistics. That and contrived PR campaigns issued by the government and police, both organisations who have a propensity for ‘cooking the books’ when it comes to producing crime figures (see here).

Media headlines and literature aside; there are (without doubt) far too many negative impacts upon our society which find their roots in drug taking and the illegal drug trade.

A report by the UK government‘s drug strategy unit (see here) stated that due to the price of highly addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine; drug use was responsible for the great majority of crime (little surprise there). It said; ”The cost of crime committed to support illegal cocaine and heroin habits amounts to £16 billion a year in the UK” (a shocking figure you must agree).

Note: despite the fact this amount is more than the entire annual UK Home Office budget it should be remembered; without some serious research into the figures and ‘claims’ (which I and many others rarely have time to do), I would suggest they’re only used as indicative.

Between 2011 and 2012, an estimated 8.9% of adults in used an illegal drug. For young people aged between 16 and 24, the figure was 19.3%…(HM Govt)

Whilst people continue to take drugs, and all despite government claims suggesting the figures are actually in decline, demand will always dictate supply. It will also always provide an opportunity for nations and individuals to see a lucrative business opportunity. Is prohibition therefore a viable and effective answer any more? 

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TDPF) say not… In their publicity leaflet ‘Illegal Drugs: The Problem is Prohibition; The Solution is Control and Regulation’ the TDPF seeks to draw public attention to the fact that drug prohibition itself is the major cause of drug-related harm to individuals, communities and nations. They call for this prohibition to be replaced by “effective, just and humane government control and regulation.”

To mark the 50th anniversary of the war on drugs, TDPF along with a range of supporter organisations, launched Count the Costs, a global initiative to raise awareness of the unintended negative impacts of current policies. As the mainly punitive enforcement model which has dominated the ‘war on drugs’ for the last fifty years appears to have mostly failed our society, perhaps it really is time for some fresh thinking?

The disastrous unintended consequences of the war on drugs are so obvious even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime – the agency which oversees the current system – has been forced to acknowledge they exist…(Counting The Cost)

The TDPF suggest there are seven distinct but overlapping areas of cost to our society, all arising from the methods we currently use in our battle against drugs (see here). Despite having a good understanding of many of those issues and the realities  involved here, including those rarely espoused by our government, even I was able to learn from the website.

The saddest part about all this is not the financial cost (although undoubtedly substantial), it is the immense cost in human life. The bodies of thousands being expended with impunity by the few for exceptional personal fortunes - yet another aspect of social decline due to the greed of mankind. (I see a pattern forming with this money thing!)

But to illustrate this issue in summary and provide an answer to the original question; can we ever win the war on drugs? There’s probably about as much chance of that as there is of Barack Obama beating the NRA into submission and turning the USA into a gun free society!

Related articles

• Afghan farmers increase opium growth (oddonion.com)
• Brad Pitt: America’s war on drugs is a charade, and a failure (guardian.co.uk)
• Heroin production has tripled in Helmand since British troops arrived in 2006 (dailymail.co.uk)
• Opium crop in Afghanistan heading for record levels (telegraph.co.uk)

Booze Britain: The Alcohol #MUP Debate?

There is no doubt about it, we have to call time on the Booze Britain Culture however; the arguments around how best to tackle the issue rumble on ad infinitum. I suspect that will still be the case for many more years to come…

I don’t think many right-minded people would disagree, the negatives of excessive drinking are having a profound impact on our society. Our NHS see the impacts, our police and other emergency services are in constant combat against it and ultimately, many members of our society are suffering from it. The health and anti-social behaviour issues are myriad.

Nevertheless, some of the figures being bandied about on all sides of the arguments are not always what they seem. Take for instance the £2.7 billion price tag impact for the NHS in 2012, claimed by David Cameron as fact but found to be questionable (see Full Fact).

When the Government published their Alcohol Strategy, they emphasised the drain of alcohol abuse on our society. Central to that argument was the “overall cost of alcohol-related harm” which they placed at a staggering £21 billion a year to the UK economy.

Was that right? Investigations into the claim found that “Neither the Home Office nor the Department of Health were able to explain properly where the figures were from, and there is no obvious single point of contact to verify the original calculations” (see Full Fact).

Political spin on statistics aside. in the blog Representing the Mambo a self-professed ‘leftie’ alluded to her support for the MUP policy. A policy that was being put forward in 2011/12, but now appears now to have been shelved by David Cameron.

Obviously there are class issues and base political calculation at play and any minimum price would affect working class people disproportionately, but the solution is obvious. Drink less. The left shouldn’t be encouraging heavy alcohol consumption and siding with the drinks companies and their socially destructive agenda…(Supporting the Mambo)

In March this year there was a political U-Turn on the previous rhetoric and David Cameron wobbled on his minimum price for alcohol pledge. Despite the recent adoption of a similar policy in Scotland last year, the legality of the process is having a difficult birth due to an objection from Europe about its legality.

What about the costs/benefits analysis surrounding Minimum Alcohol Pricing?

The Full Fact website responded to the very same question (see here) however; there is also a growing body of research and evidence which suggests, many of the claims made in the past are simply tosh. Despite all the rhetoric from politicians, who want to be seen as proactive about the Booze Britain issue, the proposals for Minimum Unit Pricing won’t actually achieve the desired results it sets out to do.

The Government wants to set higher prices for alcohol. We think this will punish the responsible majority. Why should responsible drinkers pay more? (www.whyshouldwepaymore.co.uk)

Despite the Why Should We Pay More campaign actually being ‘the voice’ of the Wine & Spirit Trade Association, who obviously have a vested commercial interest in the matter, there are also a number of valid reasons why Government-set higher prices aren’t likely to cure the Booze Britain problem (see here).

SABMiller, one of the largest brewing organisations in the world (another vested interest), have also released poll results from YouGov which show that, contrary to the Government’s claims of a boost to the industry, a 45p minimum price for alcohol will turn people away from pubs (Download YouGov report PDF -0.48Mb).

The Institute for Fiscal Studies have also examined the significance of a minimum unit price for alcohol, especially relating to on and off-licence sales and concluded; “ it is unlikely that a minimum price would have much direct impact for on-licence (pub) prices” (see here).

It’s a valid factor that could have influenced a decisions by the chief executives of 12 pub chains, nightclub groups and brewers; they recently wrote to The Daily Telegraph, urging the Prime Minister to “stick to his guns”, saying that the proposed (MUP) measure would “save lives and protect great British pubs” (see here).

Despite all the UK-wide calls for minimum pricing by many politicians, medical professionals, health campaigners and people from both inside and outside the industry, it appears the battle over alcohol pricing is set to continue for some time yet. With all the controversy and divided opinion, the minimum unit pricing policy could be dropped all together!

But what of my views and opinions?

Those who’ve been here before may already know some of the answer to that question, at least in part. With upwards of forty years ‘booze’ experience, firstly as a purveyor, secondly as an enforcer and latterly as a purveyor again but throughout, always a fan of the enjoyment obtained from sensible drinking, I think you could say I’m more than qualified to comment.

The first observation is; the ‘Booze Britain’ problems we face today are as a direct result of the changing attitudes now imbedded in our society over several generations. Getting off your head on alcohol is no longer the side-effect of having a good time, it is the sole intention of many who drink, in particular our younger citizens.

The second major impact on the issue is this; with the advent of and predominance of pub-chain conglomerates within the licensed trade, provision of alcoholic beverages has become a major commercial concern. It is no longer the ‘cottage industry’ it once was, the halcyon days when pubs were the hub of our communities and also, the actual home of the majority of licensees and their families. And all that before we even start to consider the impacts of loss-leader booze sales in our supermarkets.

The final negative impact is this; for several decades we have seen a decline in any realistic proactive enforcement of our licensing laws. Add to that a (mostly) ineffective reactive response to today’s anti-social behavior, resulting from the after effects of too much alcohol, and we have some serious problems. Issues which then have a profoundly negative impact upon crime statistics and our health services.

It’s unlikely there will be a sea-change in any of these factors overnight, despite what politicians may think or desire. Although MUP may seem a sensible measure at face value, it is a facile and inadequate solution. It is also unlikely to ever result in the aims it is designed to achieve.

The price of booze isn’t the problem here, or the route cause of the issues we face. It’s the predominant public perception of the rights and wrongs of getting off your head, that and a devil-may-care attitude to the impacts of the aftermath on others.

There is no singular ‘quick fix’ for the ‘Booze Britain’ problems we now face, MUP certainly isn’t the magic key. Any return to the erstwhile era of simply enjoying a night out, without all the negative impacts, is likely to take a generation or more to fix!

Related articles

• David Cameron abandons plans for minimum alcohol price (telegraph.co.uk)
• Pubs demand minimum alcohol price (telegraph.co.uk)
• Minimum alcohol pricing could just work. It should be given a chance (guardian.co.uk)
• Government to shelve plans for minimum price on alcohol (independent.co.uk)
• David Cameron ‘ignoring compelling evidence’ that dearer alcohol would save lives (independent.co.uk)
• Calling time on the Booze Britain culture? (bankbabble.wordpress.com)
• Poll: Should there be a minimum price per unit of alcohol? (eadt.co.uk)
• Is cheaper beer a sign of muddled thinking? (bbc.co.uk)

Police Scotland: The way forward for British Policing?

Today, Monday 1st April 2013, sees the formal start of the new Police Service of Scotland. This day effectively brings to end the history of eight separate regional police forces in Scotland but what of the future for policing, both in Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom?

From a purely nostalgic viewpoint, I would say it’s partly a sad day for policing, especially for those who serve (or have served) in any of those constituent police forces being disbanded. Led by one Chief Constable for the whole of Scotland, the service will be accountable to a single Scottish Police Authority.

But these should also be seen as exciting, productive and (hopefully) more cost-effective times for Scottish policing and the taxpayer. A time which heralds the beginning of an even more efficient police service for the population of Scotland.

The establishment of a single police service will safeguard Scotland’s excellent local policing from cuts, while also ensuring all parts of the country have access to specialist equipment and expertise…(scotland.gov.uk)

Former regional police force areas of Scotland

The eight former regional police forces being replaced by Police Scotland are:-

1. Central Scotland Police
2. Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary
3. Fife Constabulary
4. Grampian Police
5. Lothian & Borders Police
6. Northern Constabulary
7. Strathclyde Police
8. Tayside Police

The creation of a single National police force (full legal name - The Police Service of Scotland) was brought about by the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012. That legislation also paved the way for a single Scottish Fire & Rescue Service to join the already established Scottish Ambulance Service.

The idea behind establishing a single service is ”to ensure more equal access to national and specialist services and expertise.” Resources such as major investigation teams, firearms teams and marine units etc are expensive functions to maintain, especially for smaller police forces with limited finances.

Image Credit http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk

Back in January this year The Daily Record spoke with Stephen House, the new Chief Constable of Police Scotland (see here).

He was talking about the formation of a new National Roads Policing Unit for Scotland and said; “the performance of Scottish forces on road safety is very strong already and all we are doing is trying to make it that bit more efficient, that bit more focused, but certainly more local through divisional units.”

The ‘visionary’ claims may well be based a little upon corporate PR however; isn’t that what we all want from our police – efficiency that is focused upon on our society’s problems and issues, one that deals with them effectively in an accountable manner?

The provision of a single force should help these specialist resources be available to all, whenever and wherever they are needed and (partly) irrespective of any ongoing equipment and training cost implications. That has to be something of a win win situation from an operational perspective. There are also some serious cost-saving implications on the policing budget which in turn, has to be good for the taxpayer.

Regular visitors will already know that I don’t subscribe to the Scottish Independence proposals (see Here) which is another matter however; I’ve long been an advocate for some (if not total), rationalisation of policing south of the border. I first wrote about the operational possibilities of police mergers for England back in 2010 (see here). My thoughts are still broadly similar in that; it makes little or no sense, from an operational or financial viewpoint, to have 40+ separate police forces in England and Wales.

But this view isn’t just mine and it certainly isn’t new. The subject of police force mergers has been rambling on for decades now. Back in 1981, James Anderton, the then Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police called for 10 regional police forces for England and Wales, one for each region that would eventually be adopted as Government Office Regions.

That could have been a sensible start to a process, eventually over time resulting in a National Police Force, but it never happened. Are we really that much further forward in the ‘visions’ for rationalisation of services, functions and policing expectations than we were 30+ years ago? In real terms, probably not.

There was too much parochialism from self-interested police chiefs, that and the inherent pompous fear from police authorities across the land, who all believed they would lose control of ‘their’ police. What both sets of antagonists against those proposals tended to forget, and often mischievously sought to combat against is the fact; it’s not their bloody police service, it belongs to the people and our society.

In recent years there have (thankfully in my opinion) been some key players influencing the police service we have now, and will have in the future.  Bernard Rix to name just one, although I don’t necessarily agree with all their views but at least they are engaged in the process. Perhaps some from within the service would do well if they were a little less insular and fixated in their views on how policing in the UK should develop?

Back in November 2011, just before the elections for Police & Crime Commissioners, the much maligned think tank Policy Exchange UK (seen by many as horsemen of the apocalypse for policing), at least tried to progress the debate about what our police service should look in the future. 

Policing 2020: …The police leaders of tomorrow will need to prepare for the type of society that will exist in 2020, and adapt to what that will mean for the policing mission and responsibilities, as well as how those services are delivered….(policyexchange.org.uk)

For those who are interested, the full report Policing in 2020 can be downloaded HERE (pdf 30Mb) and the video clip below outlines the policing ‘vision’ that was delivered by some people involved in the debate and subsequent report on the future of British policing.

But back to Scotland… Despite the unfortunate choice of date for Police Scotland to be born, all be it a necessary requirement to coincide with the changing fiscal year – Scotland and Northern Ireland with the PSNI before it will quickly show; creation of a National Police Force does not automatically mean loss of local control or public accountability in policing. Neither does it mean that we’re developing a bloody police state, as some less than knowledgable commentators have suggested in the past.

In my opinion there are still far more advantages than disadvantages to a National Police Force for each constituent country forming part of the United Kingdom.

The opportunities for enhanced operational capability, coupled with all the financial advantages created by economies of scale (which alone is so important during the current budgetary constraints) should outweigh the (mostly unfounded) grumbles of the nay-sayers. A National Force for England could enhance the policing service that our society deserves but sadly often fails to receive, it’s just a pity there’s no political will to create one.

To all the officers of Police Scotland: Good luck as you embark on your new journey serving the people of Scotland and my the future reflect the proud records and history of your past. As you strive to remain Always Watchful – Stay safe!

Related articles

• Police Scotland: Out with the old and in with brave new world (scotsman.com)
• Police boss ‘ready for force D-day’ (bbc.co.uk)
• Q&A: Scotland’s new police service (bbc.co.uk)
• Scots police merger ‘sets example’ (bbc.co.uk)