There has been some progress in the movement to achieve policy relating to drug use and possession that is evidence based. An all-party group has been established to press for evidence-based policy. The all-party group on drugs policy reform draws on a wide range of parliamentarians, including former ministers. It is also encouraging that its creation has attracted media coverage, including in The Daily Telegraph. Interestingly, and appropriately, the report is written by the party’s health correspondent rather than by a home affairs correspondent.
The Magistrate’s Blog writes a downbeat post after linking to another blog from a probation officer (both blogs have a solid reputation).
http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/2011/03/politics-vs-reality-chapter-94.html
What are the international treaties he refers to and how do they affect our sovereignty?
I waited to see if an expert from the House would answer your question on Treaties, unfortunately it appears the Drug Baron is busy.
UN Treaties on Drugs and Crime
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/index.html
On how it affects our sovereignty I can only return a question, have we actually got any left ? It appears Courts in other Countries and indeed our own are capable of overturning everything-thankfully at that in a lot of cases.
Carl has pointed out the correct treaty – the single convention (in relation to drugs):
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/single-convention.html
“This Convention aims to combat drug abuse by coordinated international action. There are two forms of intervention and control that work together. First, it seeks to limit the possession, use, trade in, distribution, import, export, manufacture and production of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes. Second, it combats drug trafficking through international cooperation to deter and discourage drug traffickers.”
It is clear that none of those objectives have been achieved. Even worse, implementing the single convention has a nasty habit of going against other UN treaties and bodies.. such as Human Rights, the WHO etc. etc.
In addition, although we are ‘bound’, we are not limited to criminalising millions of our population – just look at Portugal, Holland, Czech Republic where all have decriminalised possession to some degree with positive outcomes. There is another option, which is to drop out. Currently Bolivia is mulling this over as they want Coca chewing out of the convention (as Coca chewing is both safe and not Cocaine), but after 18 months with no objection to their amendment our country along with the usual suspects at the last moment refused in order to ‘maintain the integrity’ of the convention. Hypocritical to say the least! http://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1131-seventeen-objections-to-abolishing-ban-on-coca-chewing
So regarding sovereignty, we can do a lot more, even within a horrendous treaty such as the single convention, but we both chose not to and then implement our own form of the law (the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) incorrectly and arbitrarily on “cultural and historical precedents” instead of evidence. It is now so bad that our ‘leaders’ refuse to even look at the overwhelming evidence clearly illustrating what they are doing doesn’t work. That is why that blog was so downbeat… That is why during the noble Lord Norton’s QSD all the lords agreed.. except for the government minister…
Lord Norton this is good news indeed! I saw it being mentioned the other day with this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html. How does this effect your call for a Royal Commission?
It would be positive if the APPG and a RC came back with evidence saying the same thing.. be even harder to ignore…
For a collection of the costs of the ‘war on drugs’:
http://www.countthecosts.org/seven-costs-summary-briefing
“Drug Abuse”
is actually the Big- Issue-Topic;
and it begins at the Abuse of Agricultural & Horticultural growing-soils and work-forces;
but as vitally it originates in flawed Economics-equations and in hedonistic-consumerist global-mis-management;
and is compounded by Politics whereby Jobs are created
and Revenues raked in by Governments.
And I dare say that is because the Human Race’s leaders, guides and governors are addicted to, and worship, lifestyles that are hedonistic in both the 75% Lifeplace and the 25% Workplace(40hours per week);
and are in terms of the conservation & improvement of Earth’s Lifesupports and of the Human Race, un-sustain-worthy, as well as being very probably over the long-term also economically and ecologically un-sustain-able*.
————
Failure to destroy the poppy-crops in-the-field, and failure to buy-them-up-legitimately for controlled pharmacological purposes, has empowered the criminal-burgeoning of the illegal-drugs Market wordlwide.
————
Like the constructive-class of events called ‘Miracles’, the destructive-class of events called ‘Sabotages’ comes not just in blitz-strikes such as 7/7 and 9/11, but in insidiously-ongoing infiltrations of what we may call Drug-Terrorism.
This Big-Issue surely needs to be addressed by ALL national-defence ministries and organisations;
and that, in the Lifeplace, must include the Education sector and other Human-Development Bodies, very especially the as-yet-undeveloped, possibly not-even-established, Individual-Human-Development organisation, in Britain.
===========
* Instantially, Hitler’s Third Reich and its Blitzkrieg Armies and Genocidal-governance would have been “sustain-able” (were it not for concerted defence-actions to stop it);
but at root it had been un-sustain-worthy from its outset.
—————–
1947W23Mar11.JSDM.
This was indeed welcomed news Lord Norton.
Is this at all related to the Royal Commission dialogue or is the timing coincidental?
Nice to see Lord Lawson involved too. Some very notable figures have spoken out indeed.
It would seem that this government really does not care about health and would prefer to pander to the red-tops with big claims they don’t want to be able to back up with evidence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12865441
“This decision exposes the hypocrisy of a government that claims to promote public health yet enters into agreements with the food and alcohol industry that ignore the evidence on what really works”
They can’t afford £300,000 to assess policy and the health of its citizens yet have ready access to “a few million” to make the lives of a few MP’s easier (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926). £300,000 is less than the price of ONE Tomahawk missile (not saying I disagree with the no-fly zone, just trying to add some more perspective).
This is frankly sickening. Cutting relative pennies from the budget so we can’t see just how bad their policies are. Drug policy is the same as ‘illegal’ drugs can’t be compared to ‘legal’ ones because they are ‘illegal’ or ‘evil’ (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-drugs-chief-sticks-to-punitive-policy-despite-major-failings-2252477.html). And in fact the same for lots of policies.
Lord Norton, maybe with your privileged position you could provide me with an insight into just why our ‘leaders’ feel it prudent to ignore the hard questions and deliberately ignore or suppress evidence to the detriment of many?.. as I am at a loss.. I just can’t rationalise it anymore… I never thought I would be completely disillusioned in the political process by my mid-twenties…