Leadership by lies

If an administration bases it's strategy on facts that are wrong, seeks to suppress information that is "uncomfortable", sacks advisers who reveal uncomfortable truths and seeks to conduct a war based on the prejudices of it's ministers with no background or expertise in the field rather than the experts, it is doomed to failure.

So what am I talking about? Am I talking about the war in Iraq? The credit crunch? The Post Office strike? No, although in all of these issues there are elements of what I described above. What I am talking about is the sacking by Alan Johnson, of professor David Nutt, the Governments former chief drugs adviser. The government is supposedly conducting a "war on drugs". This war has resulted in a massive increase in the use of illegal drugs in the UK. Alan Johnson, a man who was responsible for my resignation from the Labour party, with his crass comments about asylum seekers, has shown that he is an ignorant man with fatally flawed judgement. To quote the Guardian article

In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.

So did Professor Nutt suddenly come out with a Huxleyesque pean to the joys of LSD? Of course he didn't. He issued a paper presenting the findings of various scientific studies in a rational and sensible manner. What did he say? He said that cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy were less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. Now lets give this statement some proper analysis. How dangerous is alcohol? Well if you drink too much spirits in one go, it can kill you. It is addictive and according to the government if a woman has more than a couple of drinks a day, it will damage her health. If she drinks while pregnant, it will damage her baby. Many peoples lives are devastated  by the socio-economic consequences of the behaviour. Cigarettes? The health risks of these are well documented. Cancer, heart disease, circulatory problems. Not only that but it also affects other people who are not smokers. This is why smokers have to smoke outside these days.

So what did Mr Nutt say again? That the clinical effects of these three substances are less damaging than two substances that can be lethal? I doubt that any sensible person would wish to risk a whole plague of new health problems, by making all drugs available over the counter. The professor was criticising the Governments decision to reclassify Cannabis back to a class B drug. His argument was based on 2 facts a) That clinical effects of these substances are less damaging than legally available substances and b) Use of cannabis has diminished since the drug was reclassified since it was reclassified as a class C drug..

The worrying question is that if Mr Johnson isn't listening to professionals, who is he listening to? I suspect that he's more swayed by the type of people who leave "outraged" comments on the Daily Mail website about such stories. He's trying to appeal to an ill informed constituency and he's seeking to persue policies which don't work.

The trouble is that young people who take drugs these days are not stupid. They read articles in the paper. They will see what happened to professor Nutt and they'll form two conclusions a) Drugs generally are less dangerous than the government would have you believe and b) The governement cannot be trusted on the issue.

I happen to believe that the the biggest contributing factor to the rampant misuse of illegal drugs in this country is the way their supply is regulated. The current regime ensures that there are huge profits to be made, there is a massively effective pyramid selling scheme in the dealership networks and due to the addictive nature of many drugs, a very loyal customer base.

How would I deal with it? The first thing I'd do is remove the bulk of the profit from the dealer networks. Let any habitual drug user by addictive drugs legally (in controlled amounts). This supply could be tied in to behavioural conditions. Many drug addicts resort to crime to pay for their drugs. It would be far cheaper socially to supply these with drugs on condition that they didn't commit crimes. Be under no illusion. Any drug addict anywhere in the country has easy access to drugs. The law doesn't stop any of these people. All it does is make them resort to theft or prostitution to susidise their lifestyle. I wouldn't make it an easy choice. I'd make them have to obtain supplies on a daily basis, make regular medical checkups a condition and I'd make sure that social services were engaged if there were children involved. For most hardened drug addicts, obtaining "gear" is the focus of their life. By regularising the supply, removing the criminal aspect of funding it and having access too support networks, they would have a much greater chance of regularising their lifestyle. Removing the massive profits would mean that for the dealers, it would no longer be worth the risks.

I don't think that there is any "answer" to the problem. All you can do is damage limitation. The most damaging thing I believe you can do in any walk of life is to base your policies on dishonesty. That is why this government is in trouble. That is why their "war on drugs" will ultimately be unsuccessful. Like Mr Johnson, I'm not an expert on this subject. One of my friends is. He used to be the chief drugs advisor for the Lancastrian police force. He tells me that there is near universal agreement on how the problem should be dealt with, in the professional circles, which is along the lines I outlined.

Sadly this isn't the only area where we don't believe a word they tell us. Do they never learn.