Your editorial ("The drugs scourge", July 23) rightly concludes that "there are no short-term solutions" to the multiplicity of problems experienced by heroin and other drug-users. Having worked with Scottish colleagues, including those in the parliament and government over the past year, we are well aware of the progress being made with the development of the recent drug strategy Road to Recovery. But not only is there no short-term solution, there is also the risk of unintended consequences coming from some policies that may at first seem intuitively appealing. Methadone substitution treatment is a good example. It has powerful evidence to support its use and, indeed, even expansion to help more people in need. However, the evidence suggests policy-makers and professionals over the years have taken their eye off the ball about putting in place the other necessary support services (for instance, in relation to employment and housing) to help people through the recovery process. [continues 126 words]
Your report (Ecstasy not dangerous, say scientists, September 2) highlights the current quagmire of drugs policy and the urgent need for the government to provide us with some clarity. This is the second high-profile study within a matter of months to suggest that much of the current evidence around ecstasy is unreliable, selective and riddled by bias. The danger of overstating the risks is obvious. As soon as a government message appears to be out of touch with reality, young people will not only disregard the information given on ecstasy but will also ignore our warnings on drugs like heroin and crack cocaine. [continues 153 words]
Roger Howard, director of DrugScope, the UKs leading centre of expertise on drugs, answers your questions What is DrugScope's position on the Government's cannabis policy? Is it really sending "mixed messages", as some people believe? Catherine Wilby, Dorchester DrugScope welcomes the reclassification of cannabis and feels that government, far from giving out mixed messages, is in many ways beginning to give a clearer message than before. That cannabis can be potentially harmful nobody doubts. However, the issue is whether cannabis is really as harmful as other Class B drugs such as amphetamines, or indeed, harmful enough to justify a classification only one grade below the most harmful drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine. [continues 1625 words]
On Saturday the Portuguese prime minister announced to a worldwide gathering of drug addiction professionals that a bill would be introduced shortly in the Portuguese parliament to depenalise the consumption of some illegal drugs and increase resources for health care. He said this was no liberalisation measure but rather an effective means to respond to a growing social problem. The Portuguese government is implementing the findings of a commission they established to look at such matters. Next month in Britain the police foundation's independent inquiry will report. I hope it will pose three challenges to our political leaders: what evidence is there that having an informed debate on drug policy and associated laws sends wrong messages to young people; where is the evidence that the use of cannabis is a causal factor or gateway to "later more dependent drug use"; why do we persist. in responding to dependent drug use primarily as a criminal matter rather than as a major public health concern? This government rightly says it will develop policies based on evidence. It will now have the opportunity to do this in relation to drugs. Roger Howard Chief Executive, Standing Conference on Drug Abuse [end]
The use of civil law and administrative measures for less harmful drug use is currently being tried in South Australia. In other parts of Europe responses to drug use - including low-level cannabis use - involve civil penalties. An important part of any on-going debate should be to examine the effectiveness of these policies and investigate how successfully they could be applied here. Roger Howard Chief executive, Standing Conference on Drug Abuse [end]
Your correspondent (Letters, August 18) claims that legalising drugs will result in a massive loss of income for drugs dealers and consequently hit the local economy. Surely rather than transfer wealth from dealer to the treasury, it would leave more cash in the pockets of the equally impoverished end-users. This of course assumes that the government allows this natural reallocation of income to happen by preventing the replacement distribution network from profiteering. Ian Shotton London [continues 4 words]
