Alcohol may be the most harmful overall (Image: Leah L. Jones/The Washington Post/Getty)

If politicians can find the courage to defy a hostile press, a rational policy on drugs will not only be possible but ultimately popular too, says Dick Taverne

ASKED by Galileo to look through his telescope at the newly discovered four moons of Jupiter, a representative of the pope answered: “I refuse to look at something which my religion tells me cannot exist.” The attitude of most western governments to the harm caused by recreational drugs is not dissimilar.

This attitude is exemplified by the UK government’s response to a recent report by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, led by former government adviser David Nutt. The report is a methodical analysis of the harm caused by different drugs, not only to the user but also to others and society at large (The Lancet, vol 376, p 1558). Its conclusions are broadly similar to those of an earlier study by Nutt (The Lancet, vol 369, p 1047) and of one by drug addiction experts in the Netherlands.


The committee found that crack cocaine and heroin were the most harmful to the individual, but on the overall scale of harm, alcohol easily came top because of the violence, crime, road accidents, police time, job losses and relationship problems associated with its use.

Seen in this light, the UK’s system of classifying harmful drugs has no basis in evidence. Ecstasy and LSD, which are among the least harmful, are classified with the most harmful such as heroin and crack cocaine. Cannabis is classified in the second highest category, listed as seriously harmful, although its effect on individuals and others is relatively mild. Alcohol and tobacco are of course not included at all.

When I challenged the government in the House of Lords to reconsider its present system of classification in the light of the new report and take much stronger action against the abuse of alcohol, I was met by a blank refusal. I was told that there is no consensus about what constitutes evidence, that all classified drugs are extremely harmful to society, that the government must provide a stable and enduring system, and that the current system continues to serve that purpose.

In effect, the government’s message echoed the answer of the pope’s representative: “We refuse to look at the evidence because our policy is fixed and that tells us the evidence cannot be true.”

So we continue to fill our jails – which are already fuller than in any other European Union country – with drug users, even though the link between criminal penalties and drug use is weak. When for a while the penalties for possessing cannabis were downgraded in England, use of cannabis declined. This does not prove that lower penalties caused the decline, but they certainly do not inevitably result in increased use.

We continue to fill our jails with drug users even though the link between use and penalties is weak

Other countries have had similar experiences. After the end of the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal in 1974, there was an explosion of drug use that accompanied the new freedom. On the advice of an expert committee, the Portuguese government decided in 2000 to decriminalise drug use and concentrate on education and rehabilitation. Drug use has steadily declined, again suggesting that removing penalties has no adverse effects.

In the Netherlands, drug use has not been formally decriminalised but the law is seldom enforced and the emphasis is on education and rehabilitation. The use of hard drugs there is about a third of that in the UK.

Why do so many governments, including the UK’s, continue to act irrationally? It seems to be from fear of public opinion – especially fear that they may be accused by influential sections of the popular press of being soft on crime.

Yet there are good grounds for believing that these fears are misplaced. Some polls suggest that UK public opinion favours some easing of penalties for the possession of drugs. Furthermore, even where public opinion is hostile, experience has shown that policy changes based on evidence usually win support in the long run. Opinions can change, and some issues have little effect on how people vote.

For example, when it was proposed in the UK that there should be strict limits on the permitted level of alcohol in the blood while driving, change was unpopular and strongly opposed by the powerful motorists’ lobby. Once enacted, the law proved popular. The compulsory use of seat belts and London’s congestion charge met similar opposition but proved popular once enacted by bold politicians.

What is more, politicians who defy popular opinion do not necessarily suffer at the ballot box. This was tested in the 1970s when a senior policeman was murdered in Blackpool and his widow organised a hugely popular campaign for restoring the death penalty for the murder of a police officer. One of the town’s MPs supported the campaign while the other bravely opposed it. At the general election soon afterwards, both MPs increased their vote – but the one who opposed the campaign increased his by more.

In the 2001 general election, the Conservative party made “save the pound” the main issue of its campaign and the British public was all for saving it. Yet the Conservatives lost decisively. The fate of the pound proved not to be an issue that decided votes.

The message is that governments can afford to be much bolder in defying the popular press and even public opinion on some issues, of which drugs policy is likely to be one. John Stuart Mill wrote that “wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to facts and arguments”. It may take time, but in a democracy those who base their case on strong evidence and are prepared to argue for it with conviction are likely to prevail in the end. A sensible policy on the use of drugs is not a hopeless cause.