Comment: Mephedrone ban will do more harm than good
Politicians should construct policy on the basis of evidence, not media circuses.
By Ian Dunt
How long will it take until we learn how to deal with drugs? Mexico is now perilously close to becoming a failed state. Our enemy in Afghanistan is funded through our own heroin habit. Crime in this country is so reliant on drug use – both as motivational factor and funding source -that the prohibition on drugs is the greatest gift politicians could grant the criminal underworld. Thousands die unnecessarily as a result of drug impurities.
And still we debate more bans as if none of this were happening. A drug available for quite some time now has become the centre of a media storm. Mephedrone, or meow meow, has been linked with various deaths over recent weeks, and the media coverage around it has quickly built to saturation point. But we still do not know of an evidence base to confirm its role in the deaths of these young people. ‘Linked to’ is not the same as ’caused’. And ‘media coverage’ is not the same as ‘independent verification’.
The view of former Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) chief Prof David Nutt is that we should create a new category – class D – for substances whose effects are yet unknown. That is a sensible starting point, although it’s plainly too adult for the screaming media attack dogs to comprehend.
Instead, a violent swirl of politicians and media commentators bang on about a ban for a few weeks, and hey-presto: it will materialise. The legality of the drug will be examined “very speedily, very carefully” Peter Mandelson promised. At the last PMQs, Gordon Brown said the government was taking the threat of the drug “seriously”.
Confronted with that level of political reality, the ACMD has to propose a ban. After all, Prof Nutt shows what happens when the council rejects the political line. Today’s resignation of veterinary medicine expert Dr Polly Taylor should have stopped any action. As Dr Evan Harris, the Lib Dem MP who provides more support to the scientific community than anyone else in parliament, argued this morning, the ban has to wait until the council is “properly constituted”. Not so, apparently. The Home Office confirmed it would press ahead regardless. The drug has no animal use and the views of a veterinary expert are therefore unnecessary.
When the debate over Prof Nutt’s sacking originally flared up, MP after MP from across the House stood up to congratulate the home secretary on correctly understanding how the relationship between politician and scientist should work. As Churchill said, scientists should be on tap, not on top.
It is true that MPs are elected, and therefore must make the decisions. But this is an issue of human fallibility, not constitutional principle. The reason evidence and testing exists is so we may proceed on the basis of truth. If MPs are so intent on legislating on the basis of suspicion and news articles there’s no point pretending to listen to scientific evidence and the ACMD may as well be scrapped. Of course ministers have the final say, but as rational human beings they should take note of evidence.
Anyone remotely bothered by what the evidence shows might take a look at the effects prohibition has on our society, and conclude that the banning of illicit substances does more harm than good. The correct solution is to follow Prof Nutt’s advice and classify it in a new category, class D, until further tests have been completed. And then, if it is in a similar level of harm to other amphetamines, which seems likely, we should keep it legal but regulate carefully. Each amount going on sale must be tested to ensure it does not contain impurities, and sold in small quantities around a tight regulatory framework. Young people wanting to take it will need to hear guidance on potentially dangerous cocktails, such as the dangers inherent in using it – or any other drug – with alcohol.
Or we could just get all excited and ban it. After all, that approach has worked out wonderfully for us so far, hasn’t it?
The views expressed in politics.co.uk’s comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.
