Archive for the ‘drug policy’ Tag

Turning health policy into Benefits Street

Thursday, April 10th, 2014

Blood borne viruses have hit the mainstream news this week. This is rare, given the magnitude of the public health crisis awaiting us, but has been reported in an unsurprisingly trashy manner.

Steroid users are sharing needles. This is not a new phenomenon – last year I told you about a needle exchange I worked in twelve years ago, where steroid users would attend like cocky peacocks, using excessive machoism to ensure you knew they ‘weren’t drug users’. Their bulk and their glowing fake tans were a contrast to the usual grey-faced, skinny clientele, but their knowledge of what they perceived as a health intervention, injecting, was significantly inferior to their skeletal counterparts.

Before buying substances over the internet was commonplace, all the local gym owners were selling steroids – but only one of them attended the exchange to provide clean works along with them. He told stories of four or five men cramming themselves into toilet cubicles, passing round a single needle. This was twelve years ago – so one can only imagine the extent of the veinous damage and cross-contamination that has taken place in that time. Couple this with increased, aggressive sex drives, the other likely routes of Hep B and HIV infection. Then consider the additional cardiac strain, potential pulmonary problems, potential for bacterial infections.. Under all that fake tan and muscle, health may just be a mirage.

Which makes it only more irritating that next to news articles shouting the dangers of IV use, on the same page in some cases, are inflammatory pieces about heroin users getting paid to quit. This cheap attention-grabbing seems to miss the point that the clinical trial which paid injectors to receive a course of Hep B immunisations is in fact attempting to avoid the very same public health crisis. And if it only costs £30 to stop someone getting hepatitis, given that it costs £50,000 for a liver transplant, I’d say crack on.

And whilst I really cannot see a £10 shopping voucher acting as a deterrent to serious substance use, in light of current figures showing that over half of our IV drug users already have Hepatitis C and each course of treatment costs up to £14,000 – again, it doesn’t take a maths genius to substantiate the equation. If it reduces injecting rates, it’s worth a go.

It makes us all uncomfortable, of course, the idea that a mother should be paid to breastfeed, or a drug user could get money for accessing basic healthcare. But who, exactly, do we think we are to stand in judgement if these interventions actually work? We Guardian and Independent readers might have the education and social inclusion to make positive decisions about our health without taking bribes – well done us, let’s give ourselves a pat on the back. To presume that everyone operates in the same manner is naive and unempathetic. I wouldn’t inject into a necrotic, stinking hole in my groin, yet thousands do. Should our health policy exclusively fit those who need it the least?

Advertisements

An acceptable overdose

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Another prominent drugs death, that of Philip Seymour Hoffman, has again exposed society’s moral judgements about drug users. Reports of the ‘tragedy’ of his death portray Hoffman as a victim, a tortured soul, an artist battling inner demons. I feel for the poor guy, even more so for his three kids – but I am also left questioning the discrepancy in reporting between his death and the reports in my local paper about comparable situations. I wonder why the kid who spent his childhood watching his dad kick his mum’s head in, being raped by his uncle, then living an adult life of deprivation and misery before overdosing in a skip, only gets three lines on page 15.

You could say it is because the local lad never made a dint on the world. He didn’t offer art, beauty and insight to the masses. The difference in media representation reflects the size of the social impact each man had.

You could also say it is a class issue – a rich death is mourned, whilst a poor death is ignored. Maybe human value is just measured in wealth.

But why is it that Philip Seymour Hoffman, a man of considerable intelligence and opportunity, is considered a victim? Where is his agency in this situation?

It goes back to the same moral position I recognised in myself many months ago, this presumption so unwittingly common, that using drugs is bad. And, as with all immoral activity, for those who we choose not to perceive as bad – possibly because we relate to them, or respect them, and struggle to look at them without also seeing a reflection of ourself – we must instead formulate them as either mad or sad. So they become ‘tortured’, a victim of their ailment, circumstance or art. With such brilliance, it could happen to anyone.

Of course, your average die-in-an-alley heroin user does not evoke this sense of admiration. He would have lacked eloquence, instead conveying his pain through aggressive expletives, and probably smelled a bit. We would have tried our best not to identify with him – to imagine how we would have coped with the hand life had dealt him, how he might feel as door after door shut in his face, his options reduced to their basest – to live or to die.

And yet whose death really is tragic? A man whose life embodied success and choice, whose demise resulted from an informed choice?

It is sad, as almost every death is. I do not feel, however, that Hoffman deserves our pity. He made his choices. And when he chose to inject himself, he had a number of other options available to him that day, chances most only ever dream of.

For those who stand in Daily Mail judgement of the drug users in their community – not the professionals who have the odd line or the students using MCat, I mean the drug users who with pasty, clammy skin and homemade tattoos – I recommend you watch “Stuart – a life backwards”. I had no idea it was possible to fit twelve years of drugs work into one film. And, as with many of my clients, the main character is mad, sad and bad all at the same time – as well as being a man worthy of admiration and bloody hilarious.

I just wonder, without presupposed moral judgements about drug users, how much more we would learn about the human experience. Hoffman must have had reasons for choosing to take the risks he did, not because he wanted the deification his death seems to have provoked. But no doubt any realism of his motivations will be media-ised into a preformed box to prove he was mad or sad. Whilst the local lad will be remembered for his convictions.

Random drug testing is ‘grievous and oppressive’

Sunday, January 5th, 2014

Drug testing is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon in the UK, and is gaining popularity both in workplaces and criminal justice systems. Agreeing to random drug tests is often a contractual requirement – no drug tests, no job – and refusal to provide a specimen is considered tantamount to a positive result by Police, social workers and employers.

It is therefore extremely interesting to hear that this week, in Florida, a Supreme Court has ruled that in all but exceptional circumstances, drug testing without justifiable suspicion of drug use is unlawful, and is only legal if it protects public safety.

The ruling was made in relation those in receipt of state benefits for childcare, so, whilst not directly transferable to our own systems, it may have future relevance – given that drug testing benefit claimants in the UK has already been mentioned in the Government’s recent poor-bashing campaign (scapegoating benefit claimants for bankers’ fuck-ups), and is only one step further than setting Jobcentre staff targets to stop payments, and making systems inaccessible so as to exclude more vulnerable recipients.

But the reasons for the ruling are very relevant here in the UK. In the first part, political attempts to align the poor with illegal drug use were thwarted when the court case revealed that only 2.6% of child benefit recipients tested had provided a positive sample. This percentage of illicit drug use was lower than in the general population.

Even more poignant were the legal challenges to random drug testing brought forward by the case, which was filed by a Navy veteran-turned-student whilst single-handedly caring for a disabled mother and young son. He refused a drugs test given there was no reasonable suspicion of drug use, and as a result had his claim for public assistance turned down. He won the case on the grounds that random drug testing is “unconstitutional”.

The judge deemed mandatory random testing outside the law because, under the Fourth Amendment of US Constitution, drug tests are classed as a search, and as such can only take place in response to suspicion that a crime has been committed. This law was introduced in 1700s when British search warrants enabled the colonists to enter and seize property at will. Fury at this lawful breach of human rights was thought to have started the Amercian Revolution. The resulting Declaration of Rights clearly stated that any searches on a person “whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted”.

How incredibly refreshing. Especially at a time when, in the UK, choices we make outside of work, which have no impact on our professional functioning, can mean we lose our jobs; or when a substance we used days ago, which has no effect on our ability to drive safely now, can mean we lose our driving license. Cannabis, a drug with a very weak relationship to social harm which is now legal in parts of America, can show up in urine tests for up to four weeks. Yet what, over such timescales, is the relationship to reduced ability or function, either in the workplace or behind the wheel?

I am sure that, forty years ago, employers felt that had a right to know the sexuality of their employees. Their choice not to employ homosexuals would have been supported by the authorities, despite this lifestyle choice having no impact on their professional capacity or any relevance in the workplace.

I hope this week’s ruling is the start of a thought revolution on the issue of drug use. What a person chooses to do behind closed doors should be private, unless this choice poses a risk to the other people. So in the case of drug use, unless an employer can evidence reduced productivity or increased risk as a result of suspected substance use, drug tests should not be carried out. Most employers condone, even support, the use of alcohol outside of work, despite use of this substance being well-documented to increase risk when operating machinery – the difference in the handling of the use of other drugs outside of work can therefore not be justifiably linked to risk.

This case is a reminder that we have human rights, a fact which seems to have been lost in this country where drug use is concerned. It is possession, not use, of a drug that is illegal. We cannot be arrested for having a drug in our system – yet we can lose our livelihood, without putting a foot wrong. That certainly strikes me as grievous and oppressive.

Comment from follower

Thursday, December 12th, 2013

This comment, sent by a follower of my blog, is both and informative and hilarious enough for me to want to share it with you all. I couldn’t agree more – or put it more eloquently.

Uruguay have today / yesterday moved to legislate about cannabis and take the trade out of the black market.. What with this and the crude and brash capitalist stance of Colorado and Washington Teresa May is worth a shot at this time I reckon or at least the superficial nature of her tenure .. If she can’t do a proper turd get her off the pot , we are losing money in austere times and disabling the true opportunity of capitalism via her policies – she is even crap at being a Tory !

Stick reclassification up your K-hole

Wednesday, December 11th, 2013

The Government are now considering upgrading ketamine to Class B, as they have just realised it is popular and causes bladder damage. Fingers on the pulse again there, guys. Not only did they miss the original ketamine boom which took place years ago when I was a student (and spent a considerable amount of time watching people slumped in corners wondering why anyone would want to do that to themselves) – and then miss the more recent frenzy which occurred a few years ago in the wake of MCat legislation – but by increasing the penalties for possessing the drug, the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs have very much missed the point. The people who are taking ketamine daily and dissolving their urinary tracts are not going to stop just because the label is changed, or they are told they are now very naughty. They will just be less likely to disclose their use to anyone in the health profession, and their treatment will be less timely, less effective and more expensive.

It’s not exactly breaking news that ketamine causes significant health problems, either. The impact on the bladder is well-documented, and very young people are also being found to have irreversible damage to their kidneys, liver and brain. It’s not that I don’t think these facts need to be made more available – which I’m sure is the Government’s intention – it’s just that the last fifty years of prohibition have proved that the punitive method just does not work.

And I wonder, if there is any other policy which had failed so dramatically, and which had caused so much harm as a by-product? Why would any political organisation continue to implement a method so poor at achieving its targets?

I have been told not to bitch about Theresa May any more as apparently it has started to sound like a personal vendetta – but if she had listened to me on the khat issue, maybe her bumbling drug policies wouldn’t get her into so much trouble. Under pressure last week to reverse the ban, Khat Woman herself has been accused of implementing legislation without any supporting evidence, and, in the process, potentially damaging relations with Kenya. As a Home Office report has pointed out, given that khat is not associated with any social or medical harm, and there was no consultation with the people who use, produce or import the drug, this may have been a somewhat rash and uneducated decision to make. It could, in fact, impact negatively on unemployment and crime figures, as livelihoods are destroyed, and has led to accusations of hypocrisy within a supposed free market.

Instead, Keith Vaz MP has recommended introducing a licensing system for the substance. So maybe Keith has been reading even if Theresa hasn’t.

If the UN trust politicians, should we trust them?

Monday, December 2nd, 2013

Another international agency has formally documented its concerns about the UN’s data collection methods around international levels of drug use. In my article about Count The Costs’ Alternative World Drug Report, I mentioned that the UN’s report about drug use across the globe had been criticised for relying on government self-reporting – leaving opportunities for those in power to be less transparent than we might hope. Opaque, in fact.

This time, Harm Reduction International has released a formal challenge to the UN figures. This worldwide organisation claims that the data collected by the UN is incomparable to the 2008 data due to the difference in the methods of data collection, and that, again, government self-reporting is unreliable and unscientific. Given that over a third of the data set collected were done so by annual review questionnaires – completed by governments without any traceable references to how data was collected – analysis of the results is impossible given the lack of openness about how the figures were compiled.

Worryingly, it seems that some countries may be under-reporting their levels of drug use and HIV infection. Russia, for example, have reported that HIV rates amongst their injecting drug using population have almost halved in the last three years. Even considering why a country would want to do this feels quite sinister – but the potential impact on service provision for the drug users with the highest health needs within these countries is frightening.

Harm Reduction International have taken the decision to ignore the UN’s most recent global data, and instead continue to refer to the 2008 figures, where data collection methods were less subjective. They acknowledge that this data is out-dated but, until peer review of the data is possible, they feel the new data may misrepresent the actual international situation. They do, however, recommend that the data is considered on a country-to-country basis, as some countries have provided apparently sound figures.

I suppose this raises questions for me about the integrity of the United Nations and the standards of their publications, and the lack of power they apparently now have in extracting reliable data from politicians. This means that, instead of international agencies working together to tackle the global problems the drug trade produces, there are rifts between them – and confidence in the organisation central to finding some conclusions and solutions is weakened.

On a different note, I do also want to apologise here for my lack of consistency with my blogs recently, which I have otherwise been writing faithfully every week for the last year. I am pleased to say it is because I have some exciting new ventures afoot, which have been sapping me of my time and energy – but I am fully back on board now, pen poised, and will be bothering you with new posts yet again.

What’s worse than being a woman with a drug problem?

Thursday, October 31st, 2013

Something which the Government failed to mention in its recent, polished figures is that female unemployment is at its highest for twenty five years. Women’s organisations are pointing out that austerity measures unfairly target women, by making cuts to child benefits at a time when childcare and household bills are rapidly increasing, whilst those that do have jobs still get paid less than men (in 2010, in the public sector – which one may imagine to be the least discriminatory employer – the pay gap between men and women was still an incredible 21%).

An interesting article in Drink and Drug News this month considers the impact of austerity on female drug users. I touched on the stigma faced by women who use substances in Baby wants a double vodka, but this article looks at the effects of the cuts to service provision, given the complexities that often come hand-in-hand with being a woman with a drug problem.

As Caroline Lucas MP points out, women’s substance misuse is often more complicated than men’s, regularly associated with parental and sexual stigmatisation and shame, childcare issues, domestic abuse and prostitution. Yet these specific needs were omitted entirely from the 2010 Drug Strategy, and the ‘bulk-buying” approach to commissioning has meant that gender nuances are now ignored.

The women’s drug service in our area has vanished during the cuts, and their work absorbed by generic drug workers who have less capacity for home visits and parenting work. Many of their clients, who have experienced issues such as sexual abuse, may now need to be seen by male workers, unless they have the confidence to make demands (confidence not being a trait often associated with this group – neither the balance of power when your script depends on it). And whereas having a family may be seen as increasing someone’s ‘recovery capital’, is this necessarily the same when, for women, this may include single parenthood and domestic abuse?

Attempts to maintain and develop best practice are further stretched as fewer staff mean workloads increase – and research into joint-working models has exposed that workers who attempt a multi-agency approach to supporting women often report having to hide this from their managers, as the extra work they do cannot be directly evidenced statistically and so is considered ‘out-of-remit’.

And then there’s what social worker Gretchen Precey has tagged ‘start again syndrome’ – the desire to see every woman’s pregnancy or birth as a fresh start. The dilemma working with this client group is balancing the constant need for motivation and positivity, the belief in the possibility of change, with prioritising the needs of helpless foetuses and babies. As workers, when we see chaos, we often understand vulnerability – and we desperately focus on the glint of positive in the shit pile of someone’s life. But to ignore a woman’s past experiences of motherhood is dangerous, warns Precey – and in a culture where professionals are blamed for any harm that comes to a child (as though, I always feel, they are the perpetrators), workers are left to balance hope against risk. It creates a moral clash. These are the cases that keep you awake at night.

Almost ten years ago, I was involved in a consultation on the Government’s white paper, Paying the Price, which looked at how best to manage prostitution. It seems sad that, years later, the comments I made then ring truer than ever. My point was – the links between child abuse and sex work are well-documented, and yet Social Care are increasingly under-funded and over-stretched. What was once a support service now exists almost exclusively for the purpose of risk management. And so, whether we consider female sex workers, female drug misusers, or women who struggle with motherhood, the common themes remain the same – and as long as we fail to address the root causes of these issues, we are producing the next generation exhibiting these behaviours. The chain continues.

And some of you will know how it feels to see the kids you tried to protect all those years ago arriving at your door with baby bumps, track marks and utter disgust at the world.

Lord Coca Leaf vs Baron Cocaine

Thursday, October 10th, 2013

Those cheeky peers have been at it again. Following their revelationary recommendations back in January, which suggested we dropped the moral stance on drug use and took a more pragmatic approach, this week the All Party Parliamentary Group For Drug Policy Reform have come up with an idea so good and so politically-unaligned that it has blown my socks off.

Using the same level-headed, true harm-reduction manner as Towards a Safer Drugs Policy, Baroness Meacher and Co. have this week published Coca Leaf: A Political Dilemma?. This new document, commissioned and published by the peers but written by a specialist in The Americas’ human rights, tracks the damage done in Latin America by the War On Drugs, and then looks at the ancient benefits found in the coca leaf in its unprocessed form.

The report provides a historical context to the current UN Drug Conventions, which, since 1961, have prohibited not only the production of cocaine but also the coca leaf. This has resulted in mass fumigation programmes, leaving huge areas of South America desolate. The poverty has left populations open to exploitation by drugs barons, and massive territories have fallen under criminal control. This has, in turn, undermined democratic systems, and destroyed large areas of jungle and wildlife.

Attempts to counter this movement have met strong opposition. Publication of evidence from the World Health Organisation, which stated that coca leaf had “no negative health effects”, was blocked, and when Bolivia made its case to exclude coca production from the UN Convention for traditional use, the USA and fourteen other countries objected. Despite this, Bolivia won, and legal coca leaf production is now underway. The report released this week appears to be in response to this change, and to President Santos’ recent call for a more pragmatic approach to the impact that drugs are having in the region. It looks towards the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, where, it seem, it is hoped that the international sanctions on coca leaf production will be lifted.

In terms of the benefits offered by the coca leaf, it has long been used to enable working at high altitudes. However, it is now thought that this may not be, as originally thought, related to oxygen saturation or blood pressure – instead, it appears to moderate blood sugar levels. This indicates its possible uses in diabetes treatment. Because of the UN restrictions, it has been impossible for any research to be carried out in the modern era, but the high iron and calcium content, along with its richness of vitamins and minerals and a variety of other health-giving properties, mean that there may potential in the future to use it in the treatment of asthma, anaemia, gastrointestinal illnesses, low immunity and colds, and as an analgesic and antibacterial.

Its potential use in the food and nutrition industries, too, is possible. Containing seven times more iron and seventy-four times more calcium that the average plants we eat, it is thought to be useful for those with broken bones or osteoporosis, and its high protein content also has dietary implications. (It contains more calcium than milk or eggs, and more protein than meat.) It could also be used as an appetite suppressant for treating obesity, or taken like caffeine to increase energy levels and enhance performance. Given that it can be processed into flour, its use in the modern diet has great potential.

And finally, it is also thought to be usable in the treatment of cocaine addiction. Research is needed to test claims that the coca leaf could be used as methadone is in the treatment of opiate dependence, or whether it can also be used like buprenorphine by limiting the neural rewards available from taking the drug.

For any of these hypotheses to be rigorously tested, legal access to the coca leaf needs to be improved. Unsurprisingly, the report calls for restrictions on coca leaf production to be lifted, work to be done with the local governments to ensure that production be channelled for legal purposes instead of being made available to the drugs trade, and for farming communities to be supported in freeing themselves from black-market slavery.

These are big asks, and not requests to be implemented half-heatedly or quickly. However, with international political unity, and humanitarian aid from the countries that caused the damage in the first place (for example, maybe the four thousand US troops currently based in South America fighting the War On Drugs could be redeployed to protect the farmers?), maybe there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon for millions of South Americans.

Well done, peers. You continue to surprise and educate me.

The end of the Road

Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

Some interesting updates on previous articles have appeared in the news this week.

Silk Road has finally been taken offline, and the alleged administrator, the pseudonymed Dread Pirate Roberts, has been arrested. The website appears to have been a one-man operation based in San Fransisco. The suspect, Ross William Ulbricht, kept his operations so secretive that his housemates knew him only as Josh, the guy who spent all his time in his room on his computer, and the FBI had to scour years of data to find very rare glitches in his online personas in order to identify him. It was only when a package containing fake IDs were seized at the Canadian border with Ulbricht’s picture on them, that investigators linked this to online activity – Dread Pirate Roberts had asked for advice on gaining fake identities to set up more servers. Given that Silk Road had a estimated $1.2 million worth of trading each month, and the FBI have seized $3.6 million worth of Bitcoin during the operation, it is astounding that Ulbricht has evaded identification and capture for so long. I wonder whether the US authorities will now power on with their War On Drugs and hunt down his suppliers and customers..

It will also be interesting to see whether previous Silk Road customers see a decline in the quality of their purchases now they have lost access to the Ebay-style seller rating system.. If there are any ex-customers out there, I would love for you to get in touch and let me know how you are buying your drugs now and what impact this has had on you.

Following on from last week’s blog about the normalisation of alcohol, a couple of interesting articles have been suggested to me by staff at Sheffield University. The first informed me of the alcohol industry-driven marketing concept that is Arthur’s Day. The producers of Guinness launched this national event in Ireland four years ago to ‘celebrate Arthur Guinness’, and then refused to accept any responsibility when alcohol-related ambulance call-outs increased by thirty percent. This somewhat sinister celebration, cleverly timed six months after St Patrick’s Day and on the busiest drinking night of the month (Thursday – student night, 26th – payday), has been described by some as exploitation of Irish culture for capitalist gain – and the way it has been embraced by the public suggests that alcohol marketing is even more powerful and socially influential than anyone could have predicted. (Apart from the Dr Evil-style masterminds at Guiness, obviously.)

This seems somewhat in conflict with the Irish health minister’s claim today that he wants to ‘denormalise’ tobacco use, and achieve a ‘tobacco-free state’ by 2025. Yet another example of policy-makers’ bizarre lack of parity between substances. Given that the Irish Government are encouraring Arthur’s Day as a tourist opportunity, I’m guessing from this that they would take a different approach to smoking were Marlborough produced in Galway…

The second article recommended looked at the normalisation of women’s alcohol use in the UK. It presents some scary facts about women’s health, and considers how the pressures of being a working mum are influencing alcohol intake. Again, it is pointed out that wine is sociably acceptable whilst cooking, and suggests we really need to question what has become ‘normal’ behaviour. It does make me wonder whether our kids think we drink that like all the time, been as that’s all they see of us. And with our young women drinking more than any others in the western world, maybe we need to look at ourselves and the patterns our children emulate.

And finally – I know you will all have seen this, so I will be brief – in a brave move which may mean he does himself out of a job, Chief of Police Mike Barton has stated that decriminalisation is the way forward. Drawing a clear division between drug dealers and drug users, Mike is making a bigger statement than many of us realise, given that many Police targets focus on homogenising and prosecuting anyone associated with drugs because ‘drugs are bad’. Mike draws the same comparisons that have been previously drawn here between the War On Drugs and alcohol prohibition in 1920s America – instead of stopping the trade, it routes the profits directly to criminals. It’s a relief to know that the frontline last bastion of the moral crusade, the Police, are willing to make their voices heard – instead of, as with the Police in 20s America, seeing the battle as a way of either lining their own pockets or buying their way into heaven. I think it is an honest and altruistic move by Mike, one which may well both damage his career and sit him outside his peer group, but I for one am heartened by his stance.

Texas fights the War On Drugs (no, really)

Wednesday, August 14th, 2013

A bizarrely sensible change to US drug policy appears to have been made this week – based on a model trialled in Texas. In what seems to me to be a primarily fiscal move spun into a moral one by the Obama administration, the ideas from the conservative Bible Belt state are being rolled out to the rest of the country. Described as ‘a major shift in criminal justice policy’ by The New York Times, the changes are being implemented without the agreement of Congress, in order to bypass Republican opposition. Instead of changing legislation, alterations are being made to criminal justice directives, or the guidelines which inform federal prosecutors. The changes will stop the amount of the drug possessed from being declared in court, to avoid minimum sentencing requirements being triggered, and instead allow shorter sentencing or community orders where there is no violence, no sales to minors, no significant criminal history, and no links to organised crime and gangs.

This, in principle, seems like a positive move. However, when we consider the model originated in Texas, where millions of dollars were saved by avoiding building new prisons, and potential inmates were diverted into treatment and work programmes, we can be fairly confident the reasoning is financial rather than compassionate. It remains open to prosecutors’ discretion, which may well not reduce the race gap in prison populations (80% of those incarcerated for drug-related crime are black, which equates to one in three, yes that’s ONE IN THREE, young black males), and could in fact increase the racial discrepancy should prosecutors use their discretion biasedly. As the decriminalisation movement in America point out, this “tepid new directive.. smacks of… good spin and no spine”.

But Attorney General, Eric Holder, who unveiled the new plans this week to The Washington Post, offered some reassurance of the administration’s good intentions and understanding, saying “A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities… many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate these problems rather than alleviate them”.

Only time will tell whether this will have the intended impact. But whatever the motive for the changes, the outcome will be fewer non-violent drug users incarcerated, the release of older inmates who were imprisoned for what would now be considered more minor drug offences, and hopefully a social shift in the perceived criminality and dangerousness of drug users in the US. A vast reduction the criminal justice budget is another good outcome – especially for a country which apparently now houses 25% of the world’s prisoners – and if the move is supported with an increased access to work and housing for these people, they should soon be contributing positively to tax figures instead of eating away at the other end.

%d bloggers like this: