|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Braintree Community Safety Strategy Consultation - Part 2 Don Barnard Document Friday 21 Dec 2001 PART 2 of 2 COERCIVE ABSTINENCE - DOES NOT WORK! In part one I tried to examine as fairly as possible the various policy options that seem to be available to BDC. I hope that I may have helped to clarify and define the issues, remove a number of misconceptions, and present arguments within a framework of logic that will help the committee to consider whether there may - or not - be a more satisfactory way of dealing with cannabis locally in a changing society than those employed at present. My remit here is to produce a discussion document to raise public awareness on - Drug Screening Tests for illicit substance use - not to get bogged down in the alleged health harms of cannabis use or indeed the legalisation argument - A tall order. I hope that I can achieve a balance! My personal opinion is: These test cant of the bogus religion of repression intended to grace a brave new zero-tolerance world and are best seen as an unwitting example of the vicious thinking which spawned our catastrophic drug war - not as a basis for any rationale public policy - It can therefore be safely assumed - I'm agin. As was the Campaign To Legalise Cannabis International Association (CLCIA) in 1999 when they appealed to BDC to initiate a truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of local drug control policies and budgets - one in which fear, prejudice and punitive prohibition yield to common sense, science, public health, human rights and practicality. To highlight their concern: - Drug testing for recent past illicit substance use was becoming an expensive creeping invasion into private life. And; The continued emulation of American drug control policy in the UK could result in massive human right issues, they produced the consultation document [1]. Unfortunately the issues raised in this document appear to have been past over or placed on the back boiler in the last few rounds of the BDC Community Safety Strategy Consultations. We feel it necessary to raise them again for consultation. Kind regards Don Barnard 25 Aetheric Road Braintree Essex CM7 2 NE 21 December 2001 INTRODUCTION Prohibition [Zero Tolerance] of cannabis [drugs] is one of the most serious issues facing society. It achieves this status not simply because of it's immediate effects and results, but because of what it represents and implies. The effects are well established it: - Criminalises millions of people. - Forces many ill people to make the insane choice between remaining in pain or becoming a criminal. - Often drives the supply into the hands of violent criminals and thus generates a whole stratum of violence within society that would otherwise not exist. - Endangers the health of those who take cannabis by making it impossible to establish just what they are consuming. (the majority of deaths directly caused by the consumption of illicit drugs are as a result of adulterants). - Creates a serious breakdown in trust between those that use controlled substances and those that make the laws. - Fills up our courts and prisons - Fails to reduce demand or the consumption in any significant way. - Wastes vast amounts of public resources. These points alone should be enough to illustrate [to any logical person] that cannabis prohibition [zero tolerance] just isn't working and is not workable. However, we have not scratched the surface yet. Within this failed policy we can see all of the dark shadows of totalitarianism begin to coalesce into frightening solidity. For to long we have been told to Think cannabis! Think gateway drug, cancer, addiction, death, misery, accidents at work and on our roads. It was against this background of intolerance and misinformation the (CLCIA) produced [1]. This documents sole purpose was to: - Encourage, BDC, trade unions, the police, employers, political parties and church leaders to focus on the issue of drugs and their members' attitudes towards drugs and drug misuse and drug abuse - in particular reference to Testing for recent past illicit substance use. - What if, all you have been told about cannabis is a misnomer? - To Pay more attention to what the legislators are doing in their name. It also made some predictions if we continued emulate the old failed US drug control policy. page 5 Cautioned: if UK drugs policies continue on the same lines as they are now, we can look to the USA for the shape of things to come: Pages 6 Predicted: Major companies, commerce and public services would be introducing testing for recent past illicit substance use as a condition of getting employment and keeping a job. All those in prison, on parole from prison, serving community service order or on probation would be made subject to random drug testing. Everyone failing a breathalyser would have to toe the line. HOW'S IT SHAPING UP? Since 1999 we have seen the trailing or about to see the introduction of testing for recent past illicit substances and alcohol in the majority of major companies, the police, fire Service, prison service, doctors, nurses, bankers, drivers, Recent changes to the 1988 Criminal justice Act contained in The Criminal Justice Bill 2000 allows for everyone coming in contact with the criminal justice system to be tested for recent past use of some illicit substance - [2]. ****It should be noted here that the is no intention to test for cannabis use! However, you can still get sacked or refused a job if tested positive for using cannabis. You can also lose your UK driving licence without committing a driving offence. Cannabis use was recently legislated as: A disability which will result in the users driving licence being revoked. CONCERNS As has been shown many people already face the possible disastrous consequences of this "voodoo science" called drug testing every day. - No medical test known to man is 100 percent accurate. Why would drug testing be any different? [1 AND 3] - For how long can we afford the costly use of drug testing. - Who is next for testing control: Teachers? We do not suggest that teachers use illicit substances we merely point out the argument is sound. Unemployed? Those Applying for or living in social housing? Not so mad as it sounds: See A NEW STRATEGY FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS - [4] SOUND FAMILIAR? ACTION REQUIRED. Since the bulk of the cost of drug testing and DTTO's will fall on the Essex Probation Service and Essex Police - Effectively the rate payer - BDC Community Safety Group must hold meaningful open constructive dialogue: Issues to be addressed: - Should we base employment decisions, futures careers, and educational opportunities on a test common sense tells us cannot be totally reliable. - The projected cost for drug testing as part of a community sentence order in Essex? **If the cost of setting up DTTO's is anything to go by we would hazard a guess this could be considerable - astronomical over 10 years. - What are the human right issues involved (i.e Are random drug tests an unjustified, violation of human-rights law? Public safety and health are the most common justifications given in favour of drug testing, but are these justifications valid? What is drug Testing, and does it make our skies, roads, workplaces, schools and streets safer? The ball appears to be in your court again? Don Barnard [Press Liaison Officer] Legalise Cannabis Alliance PO BOX 198 Norwich, NR2 2DE REFERENCES 1: - 'You the juror: Cannabis Law and Drug Testing - Campaign to Legalise Cannabis. http://www.lca-uk.org/displayitem.php?articleid=576 2: HOME OFFICE - PRESS BACKGROUND BRIEFING Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000: Summary Identifying drug misusing offenders at each stage of the Criminal Justice system is a key objective of the Government's crime reduction strategy. It also complements the 10-year drugs strategy, "Tackling Drugs To Build a Better Britain". The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 includes provision to extend drug testing for Class A drugs, specifically heroin and crack/cocaine, to those charged with trigger offences and its offenders under probation service supervision (bail, community sentence and on licence from prison) in order to identify those misusing drugs and monitor their progress. These new powers will: · Allow the police to test those charged with property crime, robbery and/or Class A drug offences (trigger offences), or where they suspect that misuse of specified Class A drugs are involved in the commissioning of the crime · Require the Court to take a positive drug test into account in determining whether or not to grant bail or impose drug testing as a condition of bail · Introduce a requirement to undergo testing for all those on community sentences for trigger offences who the Court consider is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse Class A drugs. · Introduce new Drug Abstinence Order for all those in target group for whom an alternative community sentence is not appropriate. · Allow a condition to undergo drug testing to be included in the licence of those released from prison who have committed a trigger offence. Evidence Base There is clear evidence that drug misuse, particularly heroin and crack/cocaine, and crime are strongly connected. Drug related crime is a complex problem encompassing any criminal activity, which is committed either to fund or as a consequence of drug misuse, or in relation to supply. On the basis of the published data over half (52%) of all illegal income (and by implication, probably, acquisitive crime) is generated by offenders using heroin and/or crack cocaine. The Drug Testing of Arrestees (NEWADAM) research programme has found that 29% of arrestees test positive for heroin, cocaine and/or crack (HCC). Regular HCC users report on average over 600 offences per year - mostly shoplifting, handling of stolen goods and drugs supply. Annual costs arising from the most serious drug misusers alone are well over £4 billion continues to increase and is the crime that people fear most. While drug testing cannot in itself distinguish between drug-driven crime and drug use as a feature of a criminal lifestyle, nearly half of those arrested who admitted taking drugs, believe their offending was linked to their drug use and in particular their need for money to buy drugs. Property crime funded around 75% of the total illegal income of all arrestees, of which almost a third was spent on buying heroin and/or crack. Research indicates getting drug misusers into treatment can considerably reduce both their illegal use of drugs and their offending behaviour. An evaluation of arrest referral schemes, which aims to use arrest as a key point at which to invite offenders to address their drug misuse, found that one in two offenders were no longer using illicit opiates or stimulants 6-8 months after referral. Also average drug expenditure fell from £400 per week to £70 per week, with corresponding reductions in crime. Powers of Act Testing persons in Police detention Where a person has been charged with a trigger offence and aged 18 years old, they may be tested for heroin and cocaine. There will be a requirement to provide a sample, normally oral fluid. It will be an offence to fail to do so without good cause. The custody officer can require them to remain in custody for up to 6 hours from charge in order to provide a sample, though this period is unlikely to be required for any sample other than urine. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended to allow the taking of urine or a non intimate sample for these purposes. It will be an offence if a person fails to give a sample without good cause leading a summary conviction to imprisonment for up to 3 months or a fine up to level 4. There is also provision to test those charged with non-trigger offences, where a police officer of Inspector or above has reasonable grounds to suspect a link between offence and misuse of specified Class A drugs and authorises the taking of a sample. A positive test (subject to laboratory confirmation) would improve the ability to identify drug misusers. A positive screening test will enable the police to give an arrestee the opportunity to be put in touch with a drug referral worker with a view to arranging early treatment. A confirmed positive test result would be conveyed to the court. Bail Courts will be required to take regard of any evidence of drug misuse into account when considering the granting of bail and/or conditions of bail. This evidence will primarily be a positive drug test on charge. The objective is to prevent people remaining at large with an unmonitored drug problem which is likely to lead to continued offending. On Community sentence: The courts may add a drug abstinence requirement to any other community sentence (excluding a Drug Treatment and Testing Order) where an offender has been convicted of a trigger offence and is 18 years or over, with a propensity for drug misuse. Where the offender is within target group of offenders, but does not warrant another community sentence, the court may make a Drug Abstinence Order (DAO). The drug abstinence requirement/order is defined as requiring an offender to abstain from misusing specified Class A drugs and to undertake testing on request. A DAO can be made for a period between 6 months and 3 years. Probation Service will be responsible for the supervision of both the Order and the Requirement. Guidelines will be issued regulating the frequency of testing and number of positive tests that will trigger breach proceedings. Release on licence A drug testing requirement may be imposed on those released from prison on licence if they: · are serving a sentence for a trigger offence; · are over 18 years; · drug abuse identified as a contributing factor to the prisoner's offending The danger of relapse is considerable after release from prison. Improvements are being made to linking up prisoners, who have undergone drug treatment in prison, with services in the community. Drug abstinence requirement on licence will allow for continued monitoring of drug misuse and act as a deterrent. Pilot Phase A fully funded two-year pilot evaluation of the scheme is planned in three areas Hackney, Staffordshire and Nottingham, to commence in Summer 2001. The pilots will include probation, police and courts within each pilot area. The outcome of the evaluation will inform the extent to which wider implementation will take place, though expansion to further sites has been budgeted for in 2002/03. An interim evaluation will be available in Spring 2002 and a final evaluation report, once the pilots have ended in 2003. Funding Funding for pilot drug testing programme is £5million for 2001/02. : 2001/02 5m (for the three pilot areas) 2002/03 25m (to allow for possible expansion of the pilot scheme into other areas) 2003/04 44m (to support the extension of drug testing provisions subject to the early results of the evaluation) Drug Testing Sample The pilot sites will use oral fluid to test for drug misuse of offenders. This is a new technology, which has been tested out during a viability study, undertaken by the Forensic Science Service on behalf of the Home Office. Results from this study showed that oral fluid would be a suitable sample to detect heroin and cocaine use and provided results to a similar reliability as urine. Urine samples will not now be used within the pilot study. 3: - DRUG TESTING - A BAD INVESTMENT - A report by the American Civil Liberties Union. Executive Summary Driven by an industry-led panic that drug use is common -- even epidemic -- in America's workforce, employers today require tens of millions of American workers from all walks of life -- most of whom are not even suspected of using drugs -- to pass a urine test to get a new job or to keep the one they have. Most employers, however, have never examined their programs to see if the investment is paying dividends through decreased accidents and absenteeism, and increased efficiency and productivity. The American Management Association reports that less than 10 percent of its members with drug testing programs have ever conducted a cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, respected scientific institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences have looked at the record and found little support for most of the drug testing industry's claims. This special report by the American Civil Liberties Union presents an analysis of ten years of research and empirical evidence on drug use among workers, its impact on work performance, and whether drug testing is an effective tool for identifying drug abusers in the workplace. Our conclusion: the major research findings contradict the claims of drug testing's promoters: · Based on results from the federal government's drug testing program, a study estimated that it costs $77,000 to find one drug user · "Lost productivity" studies claiming that drug users cost businesses up to $100 billion each year are based on vague comparisons of household drug use and income, with no analysis of actual productivity data · "Junk science" fuelled the growth of drug testing through the drug industry's promotion of unsubstantiated claims and phantom research · A recent survey of 63 Silicon Valley companies found that drug testing reduces, rather than enhances, worker productivity · The moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during off-duty hours is no more likely than moderate off-duty alcohol use to compromise workplace safety Given the weight of the scientific evidence, the ACLU challenges employers to reconsider drug testing and look at alternative solutions which are more cost effective and do not raise the same privacy and fairness problems. The solutions include: · Impairment testing of workers in safety-sensitive positions · Wider use of Employee Assistance Programs that can make appropriate referrals to substance abuse programs · Supervisor training to identify, confront and refer impaired workers to Employee Assistance Programs · More stringent reference checking The ACLU is sending Drug Testing: A Bad Investment to CEOs, union officials and human resources professionals, urging them to consider these less intrusive alternatives to urine testing as a condition of employment. "We have always believed drug testing unimpaired workers stands the presumption of innocence on its head and violates the most fundamental privacy rights," ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser says in the report. "Now we know that sacrificing these rights serves no legitimate business purpose either." A full text version of this document can be accessed via the ACLU website: http://www.aclu.org Or; PDF version is available as an attachment [215 KB ] on request: donbarnard@lca-uk.org 4: - Drug Sense FOCUS Alert # 169 April 14, 2000 Subject: More Drug Tests and Forced Treatment Are Not the Answer Source: Boston Globe (MA) Contact: letter@globe.com As the failure of the drug war becomes impossible to ignore, even many drug warriors understand the tactics of its supporters are failing. John Q. Wilson, the Pepperdine professor who occasionally tries to give the drug war a veneer of academic and moral credibility, is at least honest enough to see that sending more resources to Colombia is not going to affect the level of drug use inside the US. Unfortunately, as he writes in the Wall Street Journal this week, Wilson believes that more drug testing and more coerced treatment for illegal drug users will be a wonderful success while "legalization" would be a disaster. To make his case he uses facts selectively. While suggesting the Netherlands' more liberal policy of dealing with marijuana has caused an increase in marijuana use, he ignores the fact that rates of marijuana and hard drug use are lower for Dutch kids than American kids. Worse than his abuse of the facts is his attempt to dehumanize drug users by calling them "barbarians ... incapable of being improved by free and equal discussion." Wilson has spouted similar justifications for totalitarianism for more than a decade, which makes it clear he is incapable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Please write a letter to editors at the Wall Street Journal to identify the real barbarian. *************************************************************************** ARTICLE Pub date: Thursday, 13 Apr 2000 Source: Wall Street Journal (US) Copyright: 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Section: A Page: 20 Contact: letter.editor@wsj.com FAX: (212) 416-2658 Address: 200 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281 Website: http://www.wsj.com/ Author: James Q. Wilson. Note: Mr. Wilson is a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University and author of "The Moral Sense," available in paperback from Free Press. A NEW STRATEGY FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS Neither Legalizing Drugs, Nor Trying To Block Supply, Is Likely To Work. There is A Third Way: Reduce Demand through Mandatory Testing. The current Senate deliberation over aid to Colombia aimed at fighting narcotics reminds us that there are two debates over how the government ought to deal with dangerous drugs. The first is about their illegality and the second is about their control. People who wish to legalize drugs and those who wish to curtail their supply believe that their methods will reduce crime. Both these views are mistaken, but there is a third way. Advocates of legalization think that both buyers and sellers would benefit. People who can buy drugs freely and at something like free market prices would no longer have to steal to afford cocaine or heroin; dealers would no longer have to use violence and corruption to maintain their market share. Though drugs may harm people, reducing this harm would be a medical problem not a criminal justice one. Crime would drop sharply. Prices Would Fall But there is an error in this calculation. Legalizing drugs means letting the price fall to its competitive rate (plus taxes and advertising costs). That market price would probably be somewhere between one third and 1/20th of the illegal price. And more than the market price would fall. As Harvard's Mark Moore has pointed out, the "risk price"-that is, all the hazards associated with buying drugs, from being arrested to being ripped off-would also fall, and this decline might be more important than the lower purchase price. Under a legal regime, the consumption of low priced, low risk drugs would increase dramatically. We do not know by how much, but the little evidence we have suggests a sharp rise. Until 1968 Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin. Some doctors cheated, and their medically unnecessary prescriptions helped increase the number of known heroin addicts by a factor of 40. As a result, the government abandoned the prescription policy in favor of administering heroin in clinics and later replacing heroin with methadone. When the Netherlands ceased enforcing laws against the purchase or possession of marijuana, the result was a sharp increase in its use. Cocaine and heroin create much greater dependency, and so the increase in their use would probably be even greater. The average user would probably commit fewer crimes if these drugs were sold legally. But the total number of users would increase sharply. A large fraction of these new users would be unable to keep a steady job. Unless we were prepared to support them with welfare payments, crime would be one of their main sources of income. That is, the number of drug related crimes per user might fall even as the total number of drug related crimes increased. Add to the list of harms more deaths from overdose, more babies born to addicted mothers, more accidents by drug influenced automobile drivers and fewer people able to hold jobs or act as competent parents. Treating such people would become far more difficult. As psychiatrist Sally Satel has written on this page, many drug users will not enter and stay in treatment unless they are compelled to do so. Phoenix House, the largest national residential drug treatment program, rarely admits patients who admit they have a problem and need help. The great majority are coerced by somebody-a judge, probation officer or school official-into attending. Phoenix House CEO Mitchell Rosenthal opposes legalization, and for good reason. Legalization means less coercion, and that means more addicts and addicts who are harder to treat. Douglas Anglin, drawing on experiences in California and elsewhere, has shown that people compelled to stay in treatment do at least as well as those who volunteer for it, and they tend (of necessity) to stay in the program longer. If we legalize drugs, the chances of treatment making a difference are greatly reduced. And as for drug use prevention, forget it. Try telling your children not to use a legal substance. But people who want to keep drugs illegal have problems of their own. The major thrust of government spending has been to reduce the supply of drugs by cutting their production overseas, intercepting their transfer into the U.S. and arresting dealers. Because of severe criminal penalties, especially on handlers of crack cocaine, our prisons have experienced a huge increase in persons sentenced on drug charges. In the early 1980s, about 1/12th of all prison inmates were in for drug convictions; now well over one third are. No one can be certain how imprisoning drug suppliers affects drug use, but we do know that an arrested drug dealer is easily replaced. Moreover, the government can never seize more than a small fraction of the drugs entering the country, a fraction that is easily replaced. Emphasizing supply over treatment is dangerous. Not only do we spend huge sums on it; not only do we drag a reluctant U.S. Military into the campaign; we also heighten corruption and violence in countries such as Colombia and Mexico. The essential fact is this: Demand will produce supply. We can do much more to reduce demand. Some four million Americans are currently on probation or parole. From tests done on them when they are jailed, we know that half or more had a drug problem when arrested. Though a lot of drug users otherwise obey the law (or at least avoid getting arrested), probationers and parolees constitute the hard core of dangerous addicts. Reducing their demand for drugs ought to be our highest priority. Mark Kleiman of UCLA has suggested a program of "testing and control": Probationers and parolees would be required to take frequent drug tests-say, twice weekly-as a condition of remaining on the street. These tests are inexpensive and show immediate results. If you failed the test, you would spend more time in jail; if you passed it, you would remain free. This approach would be an inducement for people to enter and stay in treatment. This would require some big changes in how we handle offenders. Police, probation and parole officers would be responsible for conducting these tests, and more officers would have to be hired. Probation and parole authorities would have to be willing to sanction a test failure by immediate incarceration, initially for a short period (possibly a weekend), and then for longer periods if the initial failure were repeated. Treatment programs at little or no cost to the user would have to be available not only in every prison, but for every drug dependent probationer and parolee. These things are not easily done. Almost every state claims to have an intensive community supervision program, but few offenders are involved in them, the frequency with which they are contacted is low, and most were released from super vision without undergoing any punishment for violating its conditions. But there is some hope. Our experience with drug courts suggests that the procedural problems can be overcome. In such courts, several hundred of which now exist, special judges oversee drug dependent offenders, insisting that they work to overcome their habits. While under drug court supervision, offenders reduce drug consumption and, at least for a while after leaving the court, offenders are less likely to be arrested. Our goal ought to be to extend meaningful community supervision to all probationers and parolees, especially those who have a serious drug or alcohol problem. Efforts to test Mr. Kleiman's proposals are under way in Connecticut and Maryland. If this demand reduction strategy works, it can be expanded. Drug tests can be given to people who apply for government benefits, such as welfare and public housing. Some critics will think this is an objectionable intrusion. But giving benefits without conditions weakens the character building responsibility of society. Posted 21December 2001
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!