Submission
by Parents Against Lethal Addictive Drugs
Parents Against Lethal Addictive Drugs (PALAD)
aims to raise awareness of substance misuse dangers
among parents, young people and society in general.
We have members throughout the UK but are primarily
based in North Wales where our educational campaigns
will be initially focused.
1. To what extent do you agree with the
approach, which recognises that action needs to cut
across policy areas and which seeks to ensure that
different policies and programmes add value to each
other?
PALAD too focuses particularly on an integrated
holistic approach that aims "to promote equality
of opportunity" and "social inclusion"
[1.1]. Our educational aims coincide with Well
Being in Wales' belief that "Greater
personal knowledge … can help people adopt
healthier lifestyles" [4.4] and that "People’s
general knowledge of how to stay healthy and of
specific issues such as smoking, physical activity,
food hygiene and healthy eating, alcohol and drug
misuse, and sexual health can help them to make
informed choices at all ages." [4.5].
As such we fully support the aims of Well Being
in Wales. While we applaud the holistic 'systems'
thinking behind Well Being in Wales we do,
however, believe its goals are unattainable within
the foreseeable future due to legal inequalities
imposed by Government. Discriminatory substance
misuse laws prevent informed choice leading to
inequalities between groups using different drugs.
This results in the social exclusion of the minority
who use the safest recreational drug, cannabis, while
the majority are restricted to the legal but lethal
addictive drugs, alcohol and tobacco, and are
deprived of the right to chose a safer alternative (for
details see Appendix - Government & WHO
comparison of drug dangers below). Two of the
most serious causes of preventable premature death
result.
2. How can all organisations and groups be
encouraged to do more to help people to improve their
well being?
Organisations need to be able to easily integrate
their local action plans into the larger local
framework which itself should be fully integrated
into the regional/national frameworks. This requires
detailed information about each level of the
hierarchy, produced by the higher levels but
presented from the perspective of lower levels groups.
This allows national policy to be presented as a
local action plan for local organisations to adapt to
their own interests and style. Website-based
templates for local organisations would greatly aid
groups like ourselves learning how the system
currently works, how it is changing and how to
integrate with it.
The need for organisations to be well educated
about the latest developments in their field is
crucial to maximising their efficiency and to their
ability to integrate into a co-operative system. In
the case of substance misuse this is a severe problem.
Prejudice against illegal drugs, instilled through
years of Government propaganda, results in many
failing to learn and accept the latest evidence
concerning drug dangers.
3. What can be done to encourage more
partnership between organisations?
Organisations must reach consensus and avoid
prejudice, discrimination and mixed messages. The
Assembly's website is a good example of the mixed
messages organisations give about substance misuse.
If a teenager types 'drugs' into the search box then
this question/answer from 'Young Voice' comes up (www.wales.gov.uk/yvoice/8/msg00014.html):
Q: From: "GP Ted"
"AS tobacco is more harmful to health than cannabis, shouldnt tobacco
be banned as well?"
A: From: AM Mark Major ([email protected])
"According to recent reports cannabis is five
times more carcinogenic than tobbacco. As for banning
tobbacco that would istantly criminalise millions of
people. All governments have tried to disuade people
from smoking by outlining the dangers and through
taxation on cigarettes which ammonts to 85% of the
total price."
Compare this reply with the Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs report The classification of
cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which
says: "The high use of cannabis is not
associated with major health problems for the
individual or society." and the UK Scientific
Committee on Tobacco and Health report 1998 which
says "Smoking is the most
important cause of premature death in developed
countries. It accounts for one fifth of deaths in the
UK: some 120,000 deaths a year". The question
was: as millions of cannabis users are criminalised
for using a safer drug, why not tobacco addicts who
use a more dangerous one? It is a question of safety
and discrimination. The answer given implies cannabis
is more dangerous than tobacco, which it is not, and
that significant minorities should not be penalised
for their drug use, which in the case of cannabis
they are.
Most teenagers have internet access (70% of over
10s) and can easily find the Government reports
detailing the evidence for the relative safety of
cannabis. These contradictory messages result in
teenagers disrespecting both the authorities and the
law.
As a voluntary organisation focused on substance
misuse education PALAD finds itself giving out
information seemingly contradicting other health
promotion organisations, ASH being a notable
exception. Few other groups are prepared to tell
parents that the most dangerous drugs their children
can take are the legal ones. A UK registered charity,
The National Drug Prevention Alliance says on their
website: "It [cannabis] causes permanent brain
damage, even from 1 joint every other day" and
"What about the use of cannabis as a medicine ?
This is a 'scam' by the legalisers 'to give pot a
good name'. Every relevant American health authority
has rejected it, for example in relation to MS,
cancer, glaucoma, AIDS etc". These facts are
untrue and seriously mislead the public. In contrast
the House of Lords stated in 1999 that doctors should
legitimately be able to prescribe cannabis to an MS
patient without fear of prosecution. North Wales
Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom is a rare example
of an informed individual prepared to confront the
public with the truth about drug dangers.
4. How can people be encouraged to take greater
responsibility and to do more to maintain or improve
their health?
The three greatest causes of preventable death -
tobacco, alcohol and obesity - are all cases of
substance misuse in its widest and truest sense.
These problems are worse among the most deprived and
stressed communities. Substance misuse is fuelled by
an individual's attempt to improve and control their
well being using a temporary solution - a 'quick fix'
- whether by drugs or by food. It is the most basic
way for individuals to look after themselves, however
short-sighted it may be. Encouraging people to switch
to long-term caring for themselves is the challenge.
It is unrealistic to expect people under stress to
give up unhealthy habits and take up perfectly
healthy ones in one major change of behaviour,
whatever improvements are made to their environment
and opportunities. Stress-relieving drugs like
alcohol will always benefit society so long as our
lives are stressful. Harm reduction strategies are
more appropriate than attempting a more perfect
solution.
Cannabis has been shown to be the safest
recreational drug. It can also be easily grown at
home, potentially eliminating the 10% of total income
spent by the most deprived on stress-relieving drugs.
This also has the advantage of empowering the most
powerless in society, allowing them to freely meet
their own stress-relief needs. Currently the law
prohibits those wishing to exercise greater
responsibility for their health from choosing the
safest recreational drug. The only legally available
stress-relieving recreational drugs are both highly
addictive and have caused an epidemic of premature
death. If tobacco addicts and alcohol misusers could
be encouraged to switch to cannabis many substance
misuse problems would be greatly reduced and
thousands of lives saved. As cannabis is less
addictive than other commonly used drugs most users
give up in their twenties (once they have adapted to
an adult life within society). The goals of harm
reduction and encouraging individuals' responsibility
for health must mean allowing citizens access to the
safest recreational drug available. How can
individuals be expected to take greater
responsibility for their health when the law-makers
act irresponsibly by refusing to admit that their law
encourages the use of the most dangerous drug while
discouraging the use of safest?
5. What else could to be done in each
of the following policy areas?
a. Economic development:
- Raise awareness among the poorest groups of
how much money they spend on their substance
misuse, both legal and illegal drugs and
unhealthy food. Provide financial case
studies of unhealthy living vs healthy
living, showing a financial saving for the
latter.
- Raise awareness of the economic costs to
society of all substance misuse and the
economic savings likely from legalising safer
alternatives.
- Discourage the legal drugs and fast food
industries. Government tax revenue from legal
drugs (£20 billion a year) could be ring-fenced
for dealing with substance misuse problems.
b. Training and education:
- All large organisations should be made aware
of the true relative dangers of substance
misuse. Too long the illegal drugs have been
used as a scapegoat to allow us to ignore our
own bad habits - legal drugs, food misuse,
lack of exercise etc. A voluntary Code of
Conduct aimed at presenting balanced
viewpoints is suggested below (6).
- Parents must be told the costs and benefits
for their children of illegal drugs, legal
drugs, food misuse and all 'recreational
activities' such as sport.
- The prevention of under-16s becoming addicted
to tobacco is the greatest challenge,
especially for those whose parents smoke.
- Jurors should be informed of their power and
legal duty to judge the law. Juries were
created as a democratic means for the
otherwise powerless common people to use
common-sense to judge the fairness of laws
passed by the powerful law-makers. Martin
Luther King put it this way: "In any
civilized society, it is every citizen's
responsibility to obey just laws. But at the
same time, it is every citizen's
responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Juries are there to protect citizens from
unjust laws and to allow our legal system to
evolve fairly. Juries effectively ended
America's alcohol prohibition law by finding
defendants guilty of breaking the law but not
guilty of doing anything wrong.
c. Communities:
- Communities are divided by substance misuse.
The majority use the most dangerous drugs
while minorities use safer ones. These
minorities, though proven to be often the
most deprived, are discriminated against by
the law and even imprisoned for their choice
of drugs. Drug discrimination must end
throughout all levels of society.
- Heroin and cocaine addicts cause a huge
amount of crime to fund their addiction.
Prescribing of heroin to addicts would reduce
the crime rate significantly. Switzerland is
the richest nation, per capita, in the world.
It has chosen not to use its resources to
increase enforcement against substance misuse.
Instead heroin addicts receive prescriptions
and cannabis users are permitted to 'grow
their own'. We should examine and learn from
these strategies.
- Alcohol is involved in 40% of violent crime
so its misuse inevitably divides communities.
- However drugs also play a large positive role
in social interaction and cohesion. Cafes
allow people to share coffee and socialise.
Pubs do the same successfully with alcohol
when users drink moderately. Cannabis users
claim similar social benefits and are
increasingly campaigning for cannabis cafes.
As cannabis is the safest and least addictive
of all recreational drugs Chief Constables
could consider using their discretion over
enforcement against cannabis cafes as they do
with brothels - this practical strategy takes
the problems off the streets so avoiding
public complaints.
d. Transport:
The scale of drug driving should be
thoroughly researched. The new tests to
assess driving ability by testing actual
physical performance should be introduced as
soon as possible.
e. Environment:
Tobacco addicts kill hundreds of innocent
bystanders every year with passive smoking.
Smoking should be progressively banned from
public places, as Italy recently announced. A
strong strategy to protect children of
tobacco addicts should be developed.
f. Agriculture and rural affairs:
The economic problems faced by the farming
community must be the major effect on their
well being. There is great scope for a major
hemp/cannabis industry in Wales once cannabis
is legalised - as seems inevitable, given the
facts. The plant is economically useful in
many ways. Preparing for legalisation would
provide the Welsh farming industry with an
initial advantage as new markets begin to be
opened up.
g. Culture and sport:
Sport is of course of huge value to well
being. However if we are to encourage an
obviously beneficial activity the risks
should be clearly stated also.
6. What else needs to be taken into
account to improve people’s well being and to
reduce inequalities?
Policies of reducing discrimination, social
exclusion and unequal opportunities must be applied
not only to all levels below the Assembly, within
Wales, but also to those organisations above - the UK
Government, EU and the UN, for example. Laws made at
these higher levels are inherently discriminatory
penalising those who use the safest recreational
drugs thereby encouraging the use of the most
dangerous. These minorities are excluded from society
and denied the opportunity to chose safer drugs than
those classified as legal.
If we are not to condemn our children to the 1 in
5 chance of being killed by legal drugs that we all
currently face, then safer alternatives like cannabis
must be legalised. The Assembly's power to improve
Well Being in Wales is severely limited by these
unfair and unhealthy laws that have been imposed upon
it. Representations to the Government, EU and UN
should be made on the basis that Wales wishes to
establish a safer system of drug regulation than the
present system. The majority of EU nations are
pursuing this strategy.
However it should be remembered that the
Government receives £20 billion a year from the
legal trade in lethal addictive drugs. Cannabis
legalisation, with people growing their own cannabis,
would lead to significantly reduced tobacco and
alcohol revenue and the Government may be reluctant
to lose their drug profits. Governments around the
world seem to be addicted to the tax revenue provided
by the tobacco and alcohol drug cartels. To protect
that revenue they prevent the free trade in competing
recreational drugs both nationally and
internationally. Fortunately many governments are
beginning to attempt giving up their addiction and
seeking instead a more sustainable solution.
In general organisations and individuals should be
encouraged to become aware that all things have good
and bad sides. This is the cost-benefit approach.
PALAD recommends that organisations dealing in public
health issues follow a voluntary Code of Conduct laid
down by the Assembly. This would specify that the
reporting of new findings of health costs or benefits
should always be accompanied by a statement of actual
relative safety. For example a report stating simply
that coffee contains 16 carcinogenic chemicals is
irresponsible if not combined with the fact that
coffee users do not show an increased incidence of
cancer. The paradox is resolved by realising there
must also be components of coffee with anti-carcinogenic
properties. Media organisations often thrive on
conflict and are likely to resist pressure to present
a balanced viewpoint. Following various food scares
the Government is aware of this problem and no doubt
is working toward some kind of solution.
Many of the most powerless in society need to be
encouraged to realise they can make choices to
improve their life - long-term healthy choices rather
than 'quick fixes'. Making informed choices requires
resisting natural impulses to adopt the easiest short-term
solution. Instead alternative choices must be
assessed by comparing the pros and cons of one choice
with the pros and cons of the other choice. This
requires information. Similarly our actions must be
based on informed judgement rather than ignorant
prejudice.
General attitudes of 'black-and-white' thinking
lie at the root of discrimination and social
inequalities. We identify with one extreme and
project the opposite onto others. Only when we see
both sides of the coin do we see something of true
value.
7. What other points would you like to
make in relation to this document, the approach or
issues relevant to it?
Our views:
We regret that the strategy does not include a
listing the 5 or 10 most serious causes of
preventable death/injury/illness before outlining how
each are being tackled in the different policy areas.
This is important because the two greatest causes of
preventable death, both cases of substance misuse,
are not included in Tackling Substance Misuse in
Wales.
Using illegal drugs as our starting point we would
like to suggest how, we believe, a holistic strategy
for dealing with substance abuse might be likely to
evolve.
The Misuse of Drugs Act sought to prohibit the
most dangerous drugs to protect society. We now know
that the assessment of drug dangers was faulty and
that the most dangerous drugs, tobacco and alcohol,
were excluded (see Appendix below). Keith
Hellawell, in the Government's Ten Year Strategy
for Tackling Drugs, said "legally obtainable
substances such as alcohol, tobacco … have close
links with illegal drugs problems and should
therefore be addressed, as appropriate, within the
strategy."
Following this statement the Assembly has chosen to include
alcohol with the illegal drugs in Tackling
Substance Misuse in Wales. Clearly this is a more
inclusive, and therefore fairer, strategy. However
this is only the first step in expanding the strategy.
The most important cause of preventable death in
Wales, tobacco, remains excluded. A third of Wales'
adult population are tobacco addicts and over 7000
are killed by their addiction every year. 82% of
tobacco smokers become addicted before the age of 16.
These facts are well-known and rightly condemned by
the Assembly (13 October 1999, www.wales.gov.uk/assemblydata/380ED2D600025C0C000063BD00000000.html, David Lloyd).
In fact tobacco addicts have a death rate several
times that of those addicted to street-quality heroin.
The next step in evolving an inclusive fair strategy
will have to include tobacco, with all the economic
and political implications that would have. Difficult
as that might be it is only the start.
What else might fall within the category of
'substance misuse'? Obesity is the second most
serious cause of preventable death. Every year in the
UK obesity causes 30,000 deaths, 18 million days of
sick leave and costs of around £2 billion.
Regulatory authorities are considering the need for
health warnings to be placed on high-fat, high-sugar
and high-salt foods. Like tobacco, food is certainly
a 'substance' that can be overused or used
unhealthily. Often continued misuse of food is blamed
on some form of addiction. Many of us can personally
relate to this psychological craving for particular
foods and there are good evolutionary reasons why we
have such problems. No one would consider making
criminals out of those who misuse food. In the case
of food we believe that people have a right to choose
what to ingest whatever the health consequences to
themselves or to their children. This belief
contrasts with the prohibition of illegal drugs, some
of which cause no significant harm. A future highly-developed
'substance misuse' strategy will have to include
dangerous foods as well as tobacco.
This future substance misuse strategy should
itself be a subset of an integrated 'Dangerous
Recreational Activities' policy. This would encompass
all dangerous activities that people wilfully choose
to pursue, including DIY, sports & hobbies as
well as ingesting non-essential drugs or food. The
DTI website says "70 people are killed and 250,000
people injured every year in DIY-related accidents.
The largest single cause of deaths involve ladders (50
deaths)." The Government's 'Wired For Health'
website says: "Around 1.2 million children are
injured outside their homes each year in parks,
fairs, playgrounds, on the street, using sports
facilities and in schools and nurseries" and
"…every year around 250,000 young people
aged 10-16 are injured playing sports."
The Assembly's Statement on Mountain Climbing
Safety provides a good example of policies
suggested for a dangerous recreational activity that
could be applied to substance misuse (1 November 2001,
www.wales.gov.uk/assemblydata/3BE2A3FE00038F690000554E00000000.html).
"The Minister for
Culture, Sports and the Welsh Language (Jenny
Randerson): It is widely accepted that the
element of danger, which is inherent in many
adventure sports, is a significant attraction for
many participants. Safety messages should not
attempt to frighten or shock, but should take a
bold and informative stance.
Dafydd Wigley: If adults
decide, knowing all the facts, to put themselves
in danger when undertaking a leisure pursuit,
they can do so. We must create policies in a
responsible manner, and children and young people
must grow up learning that there are dangers on
mountains, as well as great enjoyment.
Jenny Randerson: The
Health and Safety Executive recently set up the
adventure activities industry advisory committee,
which is considering risk assessment. The
Committee is in its early stages, but it is
looking beyond its present work at risk
assessment."
The latter suggestion of risk assessment is
crucial in establishing consensus among organisations
and individuals. Recreational activities with
significant dangers, including DIY, sports, drugs and
foods, should undergo a universally accepted standard
cost-benefit analysis. Sports may increase physical
fitness for the majority but participants should be
fully informed of the risks.
We should perhaps also we aware of a positive bias
in Western societies toward extraversion and
engagement in the 'outside world' and a consequent
negative bias toward 'inner world' activities such as
relaxation and meditation. Many people use
recreational drugs like alcohol and cannabis in
moderation to aid relaxation, contemplation and
social interaction. These are likely to improve the
emotional health of users and aid the general well
being of both individuals and communities.
Discouraging substance misuse should not mean
discouraging substance use. The concept of use and
misuse must be defined and applied equally to all
substances whose use creates problems.
Above all we must have a rational, fair and
inclusive strategy for dealing with substance misuse.
A scientific cost-benefit analysis should guide
regulation. That regulation should evolve from
prohibition toward educated free choice. PALAD agrees
with the following views about prohibition:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most
oppressive." C.S. Lewis
"Totalitarianism is when people believe they
can punish their way to perfection." Newt
Gingrich
"He had discovered a great law of human
action, without knowing it - namely, that in order to
make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only
necessary to make the thing difficult to obtain."
"Tom Sawyer," by Mark Twain
"The purpose of education is to make the
choices clear to people, not to make the choices for
people". Peter McWilliams
Appendix: Government & WHO comparison of
drug dangers
Scientific Committee on Tobacco and
Health report 1998:
"1.39 Smoking is the most important cause of
premature death in developed countries. It accounts
for one fifth of deaths in the UK: some 120,000
deaths a year".
www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/part-1.htm
Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs report 'Reducing Drug-Related Deaths':
"between 28,000 and 33,000 people die annually
as a result of alcohol."
www.doh.gov.uk/drugs/acmd/rdrd1.pdf
Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs report 'The classification of cannabis under
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971':
"5.1 The high use of cannabis is not associated
with major health problems for the individual or
society."
www.doh.gov.uk/drugs/acmd/cannabisreportmar02.pdf
The World Health Organisation's
report 'Cannabis: a health perspective and research
agenda':
"…cannabis poses a much less
serious public health problem than is currently posed
by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies".
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-conclusions.htm
Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs report 'Government Drugs Policy: Is it
Working?':
"9. Legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol,
are responsible for far greater damage both to
individual health and to the social fabric in general
than illegal ones".
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm
Addiction:
Department of Health's booklet
'Dangerousness of Drugs' 2001:
p.60: "What this would suggest is that tobacco
has the greatest potential for dependence followed by
heroin, then cocaine and alcohol. Cannabis has the
lowest 'addictability' of all the drugs listed above."
www.doh.gov.uk/drugs/pdfs/dangerousness.pdf
Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs report 'The classification of cannabis under
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971':
"4.4.5 It is possible to rank the risks of
dependence of abused drugs with heroin and crack
cocaine the worst and cannabis well below nicotine
and alcohol."
www.doh.gov.uk/drugs/acmd/cannabisreportmar02.pdf
Violence, crime & accidents:
The World Health Organisation's
report 'Cannabis: a health perspective and research
agenda':
"Alcohol intoxication is strongly associated
with aggressive and violent behaviour."
"There is little to suggest that causal
relationship of cannabis use to aggression or
violence."
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-comparison.htm
Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs report 'The classification of cannabis under
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971':
"4.3.6 Cannabis differs from alcohol, however,
in one major respect: it seems not to increase risk-taking
behaviour. This may explain why it appears to play a
smaller role than alcohol in road traffic accidents.
…This means that cannabis rarely contributes to
violence either to others or to oneself, whereas
alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm,
domestic accidents and violence."
www.doh.gov.uk/drugs/acmd/cannabisreportmar02.pdf
|
