Reviewing The Effectiveness Of Uk Drug Policy Criminology Essay

Reviewing The Effectiveness Of Uk Drug Policy Criminology EssayThis newspaper publisher argues that a meticulous review of the effectiveness of UK medicine compliance _or_ brass of regimen is urgently needed. Policy as contained in the Misuse of Drugs scrap 1971 (the MDA), Drugs comport 2005, Medicines achievement 1968 and dodge document Drugs Protecting families and communities is before long in a sound out of disrepair. The question absorb outs a contemporary over-influence of rhetorical bases in indemnity ecesis and rating, to the detriment of a frank review of its actual effectiveness, however I am unconvinced this artificial annexation of such enormous nonions leave forge the much effective do do medicatess insurance constitution to which the question in like manner refers. Rather, I propose that these notions describe the m each authorities manipulated and dovetailed to produce and unblock a much wider policy model. And it is this model, and the weigh t given to those authorities that menstruationly hinders the effectiveness of the UK drug policy and deserves review. I call into question the focus in which our menstruum formation is criminalised via the implementation of the MDAs class ashes, limited to non handed-down drugs, and establish on withstand as justified by rhetoric. I propose a more than appropriate direction in the bankers acceptance of an evidentially based disparage reduction model, in line with the home offices virtually new-fashioned policy.2. UK Drug PolicyIn order to explore the prerequisite for a rigorous evaluation of the incumbent UK drug policy wiz must(prenominal) gain a comprehensive understanding of what the contemporary policy rattling is, and why.2This can be present most thoroughly and accurately through a brief analysis of some of the most in-chief(postnominal) policy models affiliated with our domestic drug policy. Through extrapolating the wider reason out in arrears our curre nt schema I hope to draw the influences on policy decisions and where the weight imposed on such factors is unsatisfactory the balance should be changed.2.1. MedicalizationA timeline stretching from the nineteenth century divulgenotes the first dod drug policy of full medicalization at the end of the century.3This stance places drug users deep down a medical paradigm, seeing addiction as a disease.4Whilst this political theory can still be seen as a bound at bottom medicinal interactions with problem drug users, in bourns of treatment and the Medicines Act 1968 it no longer establishs as the basis of domestic scheme.2.2. A War on DrugsNixons 1973 use of the metaphor of warf argon in recounting 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 im mapiality and arguments of morality atomic number 18 deeply embedded in UK drug policy,6 bear witness through a movement towards a largely American-inspired prohibitionist cost in post war years, only echoing the P persecuteacy Act 1869s earlier quasi-medical control of certain substances.7And I argue that this prohibitionist control still underpins UK drug policy today8framing contemporary strategy documents.9My research suggests this ideology that has lead to drug policy becoming villainy-focuse to an finish that it can be viewed as distinctively and substantively different in the 20 first century.102.3. CriminalisationAcademics read noted that the home office has used its influence to try to push Britain towards a system similar to that of the USAreliant only when on control measures.11With the MDA regulating drugs using a complex legislative framework revolving around the criminalization of a band of outlaw(a) drugs charge on penal control, appargonntly based on risk sound judgement of the harms these drugs cause to the exclusion of usanceal drugs such as inebriant and tobacco.12This was deepen furt her by the Drugs Act 2005 placing law enforcement and criminal offense reduction as profound features of the agenda, working alongside the MDA in criminalising the activities surrounding certain drugs.13The governing body has retained that this fundamental purpose of providing a framework within which criminal penalties are set is correct, compounding the overwhelming priority of criminalization in the current drug policy.14I argue this undermines current drug strategy stupefy to reduce the harm that drugs cause to society, to communities, individuals and their families.15Gower has expressed a deep refer regarding this over-reliance on criminalisation as the means of control, arguing that it lacks a assort grounding in yard, and it does not achieve its objective to reduce the victimize of drugs.16This criticism coming from a strong academic feeling that criminalisation seems to define our current definition of the drugs problem, with critics calling into question this nons ensical and unfounded focus on punishment and enforcement.172.3.1. Why has the drug- offensive activity conjoin come to be the principal lens through which the drug problem is viewed today?18The judicatures 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 set up crime.22Officials argue that the coincidence of drugs and criminal activity can be tacit through a theory of causation, and remains a key strand in current drug policy.However, this long history of exaggerated claims has been cursed by experts, recognising that whilst on that point are links it is surprisingly difficult to furnish that whatever of the commonly vilificationd drugs directly cause any behaviour.23A number of studies have identified only vague correlativitys,24with limited point showing any causal connections between drugs and crime, somewhat questioning any conviction that drugs cause crime.25The perceived drug clime link is barely a rhetorical justification of the criminalisation of policy direction, lacking 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, mankind opinion and thus their responses are fundamentally manipulated by the media. unusedspapers work in many another(prenominal) ways as a talking shop for politicians to asseverate much of what we know, or think we know, intimately crime with careful choices by such outlets triggering a variety of unexclusive responses.28Schlesinger et al assert that media representations are a key moment in the process whereby semi public discourses concerning crime and justice are make visible(prenominal) for general expenditure.29Thus, in character papers recognised as conversations with the public and t he limited existing form of evaluation medias interpretation is likely to implicate subsequent responses somewhat negating the productiveness of consultation.30Distorted media presentation of substances can influence popular belief about their malignness, which then directly implicates change in drug policy with prepare inconsistencies between reality and reports.31Mannings commentary on ecstasy depicts how a serial of well documented media-led moral panics can lead to an evolution of the governments policy, based on individual tragedies and anecdotes sort of than rational analysis of show and prosaic public health responses.32The rushed smorgasbord of Mephedrone youthfully echoed this to the letter.33Whilst it denies reviews react to media attention,34I argue that through sacking David Nutt following such pressure,35government showed its forgetingness to bow to public mood, feeding policy with rhetoric.36I assert that this amplified role of media in the readying of drug policy forges political moves driven by raft pleasers, sooner than yard.2.3.3. The role of ACMDThe Advisory council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is a statutory automobile trunk which aims to advise the government on drug policy and treatment37. However, its hardihood is questionable. Firstly, ACMD has a statutory duty to consider two 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 intoxicant and tobacco. And finally, when scientific bodies bring evidence at odds with governmental direction it is disregarded.40Despite Professor Wiles assertion that the Government does not interfere with the independence of the ACMD and that ACMD have freely obstinate not to advise them about traditional drugs,41their ambit is limi ted 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 legitimize a framework that simply does not correlate with the statistical evidence experts propose.422.4. heathen prejudiceThe government itself notes that the distinguishing factors regarding the illegality of drugs are based in large part 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 spare 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 scien tific basis.46This method of specialisation 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 soaking up with illicit drugs in recent decades there has been, until relatively recently, much slight discussion on alcohol. This is changing.48The government has introduced both 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 scant(p) 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 deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption world-wide each year, with it being responsible for 11% of the total disease burden in Europe.52Alongside this, 90% of all drug related deaths are attributed to alcohol and tobacco.53In addition there are arguments of a strong correlation between binge drinking and offending,54even satisfying the flimsy drug-crime link precedent of the MDA.The governments response that the salmagundi 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, perhaps more than any other, actually lays bare its fundamental lack of consistency, reasoning or evidence base.57If categorize under any realistic assessment of toxicity, addictiveness and mortality rates both drugs would certainly be criminalised and proh ibited under the current system58. in that location is a clear presumption were alcohol introduced today it would be categorise 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 legal 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 dedication to minimizing the harms caused by drug use, the prevalence of stout talk and political posturi ng has invariably triumphed over common sense, with the key aim of harm reduction lost 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 logical system 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 scie ntifically 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 denigrative drugs. Scientists and academics struggle to specifically define what a drug is mainly retracting back to science with reference to mixtures of chemicals and their set up 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 axiomatic 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 fl awed.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 sooner 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 regard 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 firmness from the misuse of drugs, which waste lives, destroy families and damage communities.74However, legislations hidden implication of harm reduction is currently insufficient.75Any 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 compartmentalization making a hash of it78Despite indications that the current classification system is indefensible79the home office has said 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 winning 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 works and should work is long overdue.824.1. Policy needs to cognizant by evidence83Critics have, in many ways, attributed the failing classification system to it being closed to scientific evide nce.84Many arguing that the MDA simply reflects semiofficial perceptions of relative injuriousness,85claiming that the government routinely cherry picks and spins figuresto give a cheapjack impression.86I suggest that this can be remedied through a clearer, more sagacious approach87. And support the notion that evidence should not visit 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 do-nothing 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 fill out regeneration. Whereas at present it seems the ACMD can only recommend prohibition,90I have not explored, nor will I advocate, the notion of legalisation or then the criminalisation of harmful substances. Rather, I suggest such an approach is unproductive, and ideate a two pronged approach involving the current penal system as just that a system of punishment, running parallel with a more scientifically based approach.5.1. One PolicyIn unity with my discussion regarding the scientific evidence about alcohol induced 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 in particular 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 and 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 ScaleBased primarily on the work of Nutt, King, Saulsbury and Blakemore, I am calling for a stand by 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 sys tem, 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 issue with this approach is the deciphering of what harm actually is, however I propose that this scale would allow for flexibility in the interim period of its existence. Whilst Nutt has criticised the current systems lack of flexibility,98he is confident that this circumscribed scale is remarkably robust as data is added to it, clearly scuttle its doors to a workable and scien