Is the drugs law bust?

IS IT time for a wholesale review of drugs policy in Guernsey? It is a sensitive and arguably over-politicised area, one where starting with a clean sheet of paper would lead you to a very different place.

But with the unquantified costs to society socially, in court time, in prison and policing – and a willingness to act ad-hoc and use any tool in the box with little debate on 'legal highs' – there is an argument that the whole issue needs to be revisited for a more all-encompassing approach.

The last time the States debated a classification issue was in 2004, again in isolation, when Health and Social Services' recommendation to follow the UK in downgrading cannabis from class B to C was rejected.

It was an example, as mirrored in the UK with its subsequent reversal of the cannabis classification there, and just weeks ago with the sacking of the Government's independent drug advisor Professor David Nutt, of evidence-based decision going out the window.

That sacking of Professor Nutt and subsequent resignation of other members of the advisory council has weakened its position, and in doing so indirectly impacts here because Guernsey generally tends to follow the UK's lead on drugs classification issues.

'The changes in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs are unfortunate as this weakens the scientific credibility of the committee,' said the Bailiwick's chief pharmacist Ed Freestone.

'It is essential for good policy-making that the scientific evidence is carefully evaluated, so that the advice is credible; these events weaken this committee's strength in this area of public policy.'

A Health and Social Services spokesman said it made sense to generally follow UK policy because many of its professional staff and most of its pharmaceutical supplies are from there.

'That said, while the island will take into account the recommendations of the UK, if there is a local political will to adopt a different – perhaps more robust – policy, then the States may opt to do so as per the 2004 cannabis debate.'

Guernsey's tendency has always been towards the more robust on this, but there has been no recent detailed examination of evidence that this stance has been fully justified.

Some ask whether it is right that otherwise law-abiding citizens can find themselves criminalised for possessing small amounts of a drug which will arguably do harm only to themselves.

Will the States ever answer whether it would be safer to legalise, control and tax the sale and use of certain drugs as it is willing to do with cigarettes and alcohol?

Professor Nutt has argued that all drugs should be ranked according to a 'harm' index, with alcohol coming fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone. He believes tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy.

It would probably take a move in the UK before anything happened in Guernsey, but should we cast the net wider and look to the experiences of Holland and Portugal to see how different approaches work?

Few would advocate looking to ban alcohol or cigarettes, both an ingrained part of western culture to varying degrees, but their legality could be said to make a mockery of policies on drugs.

'Historically, alcohol and cigarettes have always been legal in Guernsey and so attempts to make them illegal would throw up many problems, as evidenced by the experience of Prohibition in the United States,' said the HSSD spokesman.

'Where substances are legal but harmful, the HSSD strives to pursue a policy of educating users of that harm – alongside introducing measures to protect non-users from secondary effects of that harm.'

This included the banning of smoking indoors in public and work places.

If the States debated an evidence-based policy letter, which also examined the sentencing guidelines for differing offences, it would help draw a line in the sand on this whole issue.

Until it does, the argument will continue to bubble away in the background.

Beyond the debate over drug policy, the issue highlights the blurred boundaries where scientific evidence ends and political judgement begins.

Politicians are at times rightly criticised for making policy decisions on an 'it just feels right' basis.

But an understanding of science will play an ever-bigger part in addressing future issues, just take the climate change debate and the costs of policy responses to it.

Then look around the States chamber, the place where you want to find the broad church of abilities and backgrounds and find the scientists – at the moment I can think of one – and ask if that is the right balance for the future.