Morality and the law: an interview with the UK Drug Policy Commission

Tuesday October 18, 2011

Suzy Dean talks to Roger Howard, CEO of the UK Drug Policy Commission

The recreational drugs debate has long been polarised between those who believe we should be able to take whatever we want, whenever we want and those who believe that the production and consumption of drugs should be stopped at all costs. In recent times, policy makers, politicians and activists from both sides have found satisfaction in the argument for decriminalisation of drugs.

While decriminalisation potentially resolves some of the ambiguities that exist around policing illegal substances, it also represents a moral compromise on both sides. I met with Roger Howard, CEO of the UK Drug Policy Commission to get his take on the relationship between morality and drugs, decriminalisation and public policy.

The UKDPC talks about making drug policy based on the best use of evidence available. Is there a danger that in discussing drugs through the prism of evidence we end up just looking at statistics without considering what we morally think is and is not acceptable?

I think that morals and values underpin everything. In a sense all policy has its roots in a set of morals but there’s a big question of whether they are authentic or unauthentic morals. What’s right or wrong is defined by the law but socially it changes over time. If we look at attitudes towards homosexuality we can see that. I don’t think that there’s a fixed morality and the changes in morality can be seen by looking at statistics.

What is the difference between what you call authentic and inauthentic morals?

Authentic values adhere to the idea of ‘do to others what you would have them do to you’. They are morals based on what people actually think. As a commission our guiding moral principle is about reducing harm and optimising happiness.

You call yourself a humanist in a private capacity and you talk about reducing harm in your public role as head of the UKDPC but what is at the centre of both of those is the idea of individual morality and judgement? How do you reconcile the UKDPC mission statement to reduce harm with your own thoughts about individual judgement?

We don’t live on islands – for better or worse – so all of our actions have consequences both for us as individuals and others. Advocates of legalisation, libertarians, argue that their drug use does no harm to others but this is not true. Drug use impacts upon everybody else in the form of taxpayers whose money is spent on their treatment. This is why we must aim to reduce harm.

Isn’t drug consumption about more than harm?

We have focused on harm but it is not our only organising principle. There are clearly a huge number of people gaining some sort of benefit – or happiness – from drug use. There are two million cannabis users in the UK. In a sense we have organised policy and our responses to it in terms of harm and damage and moral absolutes. If there was a more rational weighing up you’d also be looking at the benefits that people deride from drug use but that is a hard thing to quantify.

What do you think of decriminalisation? It seems like those in favour of legalisation have not won the debate but equally those who would like to see the end of drug use have not got what they wanted; they are only on board because it has been so hard to stop the production and supply of drugs. Where does this leave the moral discussion?

It’s more of a stalemate but the polarisation was unhelpful in dealing with this messy issue where there is no easy solution. The drugs issue needed a pragmatic response and this is now what it’s getting. Decriminalisation is a pragmatic policy decision that we came to because we think that decriminalisation for personal use will not lead to a huge increase in drug use. You could argue it’s like prostitution where you keep supply and production controlled but the use non-criminalised. Logically I can see the arguments against that for being a compromise but policy responses are often a compromise.

I can understand what policy makers get out of that – it creates clarity around policing – but shouldn’t law be a reflection of social morality rather than what’s easiest for policing? One might worry that what we have ended up with is not just pragmatism but something society doesn’t benefit from. It might make the police’s job easier but society hasn’t moved on in the drugs debate.

I think we have moved on as we have moved from moral absolutism where drugs were wrong because they were illegal. I think the social etiquette is that we think in moderation most things are okay and the law reflects this now.

The government is usually bombarding young people about the dangers of drugs yet the causes and symptoms of drug addiction are not often rooted in the drugs themselves, but rather the individual and a problem that they may be having in their life. Is the state’s ‘say no to drugs’ message misdirected?

Absolutely, we often lump all drug use together in one package and ignore that different drugs have different effects. During my career I have met individuals who were beaten and buggered as children who went on to become heroin addicts because it provided a huge comfort. Someone who wants to go clubbing and take an ‘E’ as a stimulant represents a very different scenario.

The single message that drugs are bad is problematic.
So why do we have this government message that preaches a zero tolerance message? One of the points of adolescence is experimentation and understanding one’s own tolerance. It’s about making independent decisions and becoming autonomous. Surely young people can decide for themselves what to take, when and how?

There is a natural right of passage, transitory points in adolescence where young people challenge codes of behaviour, but this assumes young people are making choices in an individual context. You neglect to consider that drug producers do not have any level of social responsibility; we live in a world of exchange where actors need to be responsible yet drug producers are not. Producers need to be responsible because without education, and not everyone has had drug education, individuals may not be able to make an informed choice from the rational independent standpoint you suggest they do.

But the problem with arguing that young people need drug education in order to take drugs properly ignores the fact that historically social behaviours, from how to take drugs to how to drink, have been learnt informally. So why do you think the role of education is so important?

For an organisation rooted in evidence there is little evidence that education makes much of an impact, but it reinforces a moral code that people have. You can argue ‘what good does it do?’ but it does have a place in supporting public standards of morality.

Drug use has exploded because we are a wealthy, safe society. People lead boring humdrum lives and we have created a world of hedonism around us to take the edge off – bungee jumping, drink, drugs. It’s reasonable to argue that drug use is even self-indulgent. That’s why it’s important to have a moral argument and not a simplistic one of right and wrong. When I wonder what people worry about with drug use I think people are worried about individuals being out of control because they are intoxicated and therefore unable to make sensible decisions, to behave rationally and responsibly. This creates a sense of fear.

What do you think about the Tories’ position on drugs?

Today’s politicians are frozen but there needs to be some moral leadership on the issue. Many retired politicians come out of the woodwork and argue that drugs should be legalised. They can see things aren’t working. The problem is that the drug issue is toxic for politicians. The Labour party in 1997 placed the drugs issue in the crime domain which has led us today to a point where drugs equal crime. Of course, crime existed long before drug use. If drugs had been located as a public health issue we may today have been having a discussion about personal responsibility and freedom.

Suzy Dean will be chairing a discussion at the Battle of Ideas on Saturday 29th October entitled ‘Your mind, your high: is recreational drug use morally wrong?’ . Roger Howard will be one of the panellists.