However, MP Kate Howey criticised such policy saying it had caused more harm than good by giving the message to children that cannabis was “no worse for you than sweets,” and neglected the psychological risks of the drug. Furthermore, a poll conducted by MORI found that there was concern that youngsters were more likely to come into contact with drugs as a result of the Lambeth Scheme (Crowther-Dowey 2007 pp. 118). Similar arguments and the fact that medical research is still unsure over the severity of the effects of cannabis led to it being re-classified back to a class B drug in 2008. Ministers were afraid that the links to schizophrenia were being neglected (BBC News, 2009). This a wise move, as if there are doubts over the severity of the effects of a drug, then caution is arguably the best policy. Previous mistakes, such as the case of thalidomide being subscribed to pregnant women, highlight the dangers of under estimating side effects.
Arrest referral schemes were introduced in 2000, their function being to target offenders with drug related problems. They also aim to provide drug treatment to reduce crime. The ARS operate independently of the police and when someone is arrested they have an opportunity to see an ARS officer, if they accept they have an interview from which they may be referred for social care, medical treatment or even housing. There has been evidence that fewer arrests have been made of individuals who have had contact with the ARS. However, some users would appear to be missing out on services often people from ethnic back grounds. Furthermore, the ARS are not on call 24 hours a day and if custodies are busy they are not always available to provide support (Crowther-Dowey, 2007, p.122). This indicates that care and control do not always go hand in hand and are not always fully achieved.
However, if offenders are dealt with by police there are a number of possible outcomes. If sentenced it is usually a custodial sentence or a community based project, some are redirected to non police projects due to a lack of police funding. There has been some criticism of the community service approach, as it is often administered without any contact with the medical profession. Furthermore, breaches of this punishment may result in custodial sentences and re-conviction rates after this punishment are high. Although it may be aimed at harm reduction, it is a velvet glove concealing an iron fist of legislative policing (Crowther-Dowey 2007).
Prevention and legislation can only go so far in the battle against drugs and it must be combined with education. Drugscope defines education as the “acquisition of knowledge, understanding and skills, and exploration of attitudes and values...” Education can take many forms from classes in schools, youth work, and intervention from the mass media. Government policy such as Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain, recognises the importance of education and the department of education saw it important that all schools be “interested,” in drugs awareness by April 2004. That year the Department for Education and Skills prepared further guidance for schools in respect of drugs education, sending out a clear signal that illegal drugs on school premises are not acceptable and gives head teacher a “one strike,” option to expel children involved in dealing drugs. OFSTEAD now tells us that the quality of drugs education has never been better (Mclnnes 2007 p, 126).
Despite a plethora of national initiatives, surveys suggest that their effectiveness is a best mixed. For example the UK has the highest self-reported drug use in Europe. It is unsurprising that research talks of the “normalisation,” of drugs amongst youth of today (Mclnnes, 2007). Dorn (1981) has argued that; “no know method of drugs education programmes can be said to reduce drug use,” however, this statement may just depict the fact that it is difficult measure the effectiveness of such policies and not that education policies are not successful at all. Obviously we should be more concerned with the success of polices rather the ease of measuring them, on the other hand if such policies are difficult to measure it makes it difficult to eliminate less successful schemes leading to wasted resources. De Haes (1994) has argued that education programmes are often weak and can produce both positive and negative result. Conducting his own research he concluded that none of the test pupils changed their drug habits when given a range of different educational approaches.
The health advisory services reviewed evidence relation to drug education and prevention. It highlighted the need to use universal and targeted methods of drug education. Universal programmes have the benefits of reaching large number but evidence suggests their effects are limited. The latter approach requires “at risk,” peoples to be targeted. However, considering drugs offences are usually punished then screening individuals it is difficult to determine who is ‘at risk’ as subject may be reluctant to confess to their habits. Thus, schools are faced with a dilemma of balancing discipline with understanding (Mclnnes 2007). Furthermore, the introduction of sniffer dogs raises serious questions over human right of individuals. McKeganey (2005) also has similar concerns towards random drugs test in schools. We must question whether we can consider a policy successful if it impinges to far into our liberty.
Blackman (in McInnes 2007 p.130) argues that all drug education programmes commence from an over orientated perspective on illicit drugs and often contain goals of prevention. Indeed the debate has been whether education should be about drug use or against drug use. Harm reduction approaches work on the view that illicit drug use has become normalised and we need to be concerned with the management of such drugs rather than the irradiation of them. However, the approach of education has pointed much more to abstinence rather than harm minimisation. Many argue that the former fails to equip children in the properly manner to handle a society in which the use of illicit substances of common place. Young people are unlikely to except negative message painted by such forms of education especially if they have had pleasurable experiences with drugs. Despite calls for the harm minimisation approach to be central to education intervention it seems that political anxiety and preference has steered away from this approach (McInnes 2007 p.131). On the whole this had resulted in less successful messages getting through to youngster.
Media campaigns have also taken an abstinence stance. Often they have attempted to prevent drug use by fear mongering (Fluke and Donato in McInnes 2007 p.131). A good example of this is the current television campaign “talk to Frank,” which shows a beating heart which then stops warning against the dangers of using coke. Many young people ignore such campaigns instead relying on their own evidence or evidence from their friends to dispute the credibility of such advertisements (Rogers and McCarthy, 1999). Extensive negative campaigning is unlikely to persuade the youth of today who are able to recognise when they have not been given a fair illustration of the situation. Although the mass media have generally exaggerated the dangers of drug use it is, once again, nearly impossible to measure the results of such campaigns. However, the rational arguments against such policy seem enough to condemn them.
On a more positive note, drug information programmes aim at providing school children with factual knowledge about the use of drugs. Dorn and Murji (in McInnes (2007, p. 133) states that “information may… have a role in the post-initiation escalation if use and in harm reduction.” Skill based programmes have also focused on the ability to resist peer pressure. Although there is evidence to show association between drug use and peer factor, causations have not been established. Coggans and McKellar (1994) have challenged notions of peer pressure arguing that young people select their peer groups based on their own aspirations and beliefs which may include groups which provides access to drug experiences. Simpson (2003) furthers this by adding that simplistic notions of peer pressure do not accurately represent the complex biographies given by some of his interviewees. Despite this, training young people to provide peer support has become popular. Once again, its success is determined by the message. If the message does not represent an accurate depiction of drug use then young people are just as likely to question the message as well as the messenger. Life Skills Training (LST) is a programme designed to focus on sociological factor that influence drug use. It is taught as a series of lessons to 11-14 year olds. It appears to be successful as research show that children who had contact with the programme had lower rates of cannabis use and drunkenness. However, other programmes such Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) delivered in Mansfield to groups of 9 and 10 year olds did not show any positive results on children’s knowledge and attitudes (McInnes, 2007 p.136). This suggests that the success of educational based programmes is inconsistent.
Dispassionate reading suggests that all programmes have had little or no effect on children. However, perhaps too much is being expected of education as a tool. Blackman (2004) is more scathing stating that “the unconvincing result of … drug education programmes seem[s] unlikely to halt their delivery.” It seems though if we are to pursue programmes in the UK it must stay clear of “warning based programmes,” which, as has been shown above, can be counter productive (McInnes 2007). However, there is one final argument to be made in favour of education. As a tool it has shown much success in other areas of social life. Counter to Blackman’s view, we need to take a different approach to drugs education rather than abandoning it all together. Just because the hammer is being used the wrong way round does not mean that it will not hammer a nail if used correctly.
Treating drug related problems is, in comparison to education, a policy area that has had more success. It seemed that after Labour’s re-election in 2001 a consensus developed which advocated a shared agenda between criminal prevention and the treatment approach. At the same time a shift towards to a more interventionist stance from the medical profession was encouraged by 1999 guidelines. Previously, drug treatment was governed by a classic liberal philosophy that people had the rights to treat themselves but by the twentieth century it was perceived that this approach had failed (Rose 1996, Garland 1985, in Webster 2007, p. 147). It was replaced by neo-liberal ideology which involves devolving responsibility for self government to families and communities and replacing professionals with the advice of grass roots experts. It is also seen that these families and communities need to take a responsibility for drugs prevention. This bottom up approach has spawned a range of different institutions. Local based DATs have had the task of drawing different approaches together (Webser 2007, p. 152).
The main debate in the sector of policy is whether coercion or voluntary treatment constitutes successful policy. Bean (2002) is one of the main advocates of enforced treatment in Britain. He argues that “the problem isn’t that treatment is coercive but criminal justice based routes to treatments such as DTTOs have been poorly implemented.” Coercion has been a strong part of the criminal justice system, harm reduction and counselling approaches. NTORS, the biggest study of drug treatment in the UK, concluded that drug abuse was a chronic relapsing condition that required treatment to fit the client’s needs, hinting that a more balanced approach was necessary. However, the British system seems to be leaning towards the use of coercion, adding new coercive initiatives under the 2001 Criminal Justice Act. Bean (ibid) argues that ‘treatment works’ suggesting that British policy is on the right lines to peruse enforced treatment programmes, but his argument for coercion rest solely on the fact that drug abuse is on the rise rather than any empirical evidence. However, the evidence, once again, of the success of this field is hazy. Few studies use control groups, little research into the effects on young people is undertaken and we know little about which mechanism are successful in the treatment procedure (Pawson and Tilley 1998 in Webster 2007 p. 157). Thus, it becomes difficult to judge the effectiveness of this policy empirically meaning that it is difficult to assess the success of either approach. However, putting validity aside, research has returned positive feedback on drug treatment programmes in the UK (Lurigo 2000 in Webster 2007 p. 157). For example methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for heroin was found to substantially reduced use. Resident Rehabilitation programmes, although have early drop out rates, do provide success for those who remain. (Mclnnes 2007).
In conclusion, British drug policy can be seen to be in the early stages of development. The rise in drug culture is a relatively new phenomena and the British system does show a certain inexperience with dealing with the problems. Although progress is being made in the especially in the treatment sector, the difficultly we have in measuring success of different drug policy is, in some ways, hindering its success. This problem is intensified when discussing the effects of education which has had some limited success but on the whole had been rather ineffectual. Once again, it can be seen how the British policy makers are themselves on a learning process and still pursue ineffectual policies reliant on fear mongering which the youth of today are resistant against. Perhaps the legislative and preventative sectors have developed the most knowledge been acquired partly through trial and error from schemes such as the one seen in Lambert. Overall British drug policy has plenty of room for improvements and the quicker it is realises that abstinence is not a realistic goal and that consensus, rather than coercion, is more effectual, the sooner it will improve.
Bibliography
BBC News (2009) “Debate over cannabis classification”
Blackman, S. J. (2004) Chilling Out: the Cultural Politics of Substance consumption, Youth and Drug Policy, Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill
Bean, P. (2002) Drugs and Crime, Cullompton, Willian
Coggans, N. & McKellar, S. (1994) “Drug use among peers: peer pressure or peer preference?” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, Issue: 15, pp. 15-26
Crowther-Dowey, C. (2007) “The Police and Drugs” in Simpson, M. & MacDonald, R. (eds.) Drugs in Britain: Supply and Control, Palgrave McMillian, New York, pp. 108-123
De Haes, W. F. M. (1994) “Looking for effective drug education programmes: fifteen years exploration of the effects of different of different drug education programmes,” in Coomber, R. (ed.) Drug and Drug Use in Society: A Critical Reader, Kent, Greenwich University Press.
Dorn, N. (1981) “Social analyses of drugs in health education and media,” in Edwards, G. & Busch, C. (eds) Drug Problems in Britain, London, Acahemic Press.
McInnes, A. & Barrett, A. (2007) “Drugs Education” in Simpson, M. & MacDonald, R. (eds.) Drugs in Britain: Supply and Control, Palgrave McMillian, New York, pp. 125-159
McKeganey, N. (2005) Random Drug Testing of School Children: A Shot in the Arm or a Shot in the Foot for Drug Prevention? York, Joseph Rountree Foundation.
Morris, N. (2007) “Britain's illegal drugs trade worth £8bn a year” The Independent,
Reuter, P. (2007) “An Analysis of UK Drug Policy”
Roger, A. & Mcarthy, M. (1999) “Drugs and drug education in the inner city: the views of 12 year olds and their parents,” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, Issue: 6, pp. 51-59.
Simpson (2003) “The relationship between drug use and Crime: a puzzle inside an enigma,” International Drug Policy, Issue: 14, pp. 307-19
Webster, C. (2007) “Drug Treatment” in Simpson, M. & MacDonald, R. (eds.) Drugs in Britain: Supply and Control, Palgrave McMillian, New York, pp. 162-177.
