Thread: I've just been counting the number of bad ideas in @thetimes report on the new #drugstrategy2021 (text taken from @LexisNexis). Let's start with the premise that (1) there is an 'alarming rise' in drug offences, and (2) half of all murders drug-related... 
The reason for (1) the increase in drug offences is that the police have been carrying out more stop-and-searches. We don't know what the underlying trend in drug use is, although there are worrying reports of increased drug-related deaths.
The idea (2) that half of all murders are drug-related is based on data suggesting that either the victim or the perpetrator used controlled drugs. By that logic, 100% of murders are water-related.
The suggested response is (3) a 'crackdown', despite evidence reviews repeatedly showing that crackdowns of various kinds don't work.
Specifically (4), there is a headline promise to close down 2,000 'gangs'. In the text, this turns out actually relate to the number of phone numbers closed down; an indicator that has very little connection to the amount of drugs sold or harm done.
People whose numbers are on dealers' phones will be targeted for police messages to let them know they are 'not anonymous' (5). I know of no evidence that this will reduce use, and I wonder how it squares with data protection law.
(6) Even more money will be spent on the new prisons that will already cost us £billions. I'd be interested to know if HMPPS ever reviewed the implementation of the 2008 Blakey report, and why his recommendations for ever tighter security measures have evidently failed.
(7) Mandatory drug test on arrest - first introduced by the Drugs Act 2005 - will be revived and expanded, despite never having been rigorously evaluated or shown to reduce crime. Back then, a parliamentary Human Rights Committee warned that this breached arrestees' rights.
(8) The new version looks even worse, as it is stated that people will be punished for refusing treatment, not just for their crime. This is against all medical ethics codes. Any treatment provider which takes part will be in breach of their ethical commitments.
There will apparently be (9) an 'advertising blitz' on university campuses. Haven't students suffered enough this past couple of years, without being targeted by some ham-fisted media company reviving Pablo the drug smuggling dog? dailymotion.com/video/x2ndbay
There also seem to be (10) a bastardised version of the idea of using drug tests to provide 'swift, certain and minimal' consequences for deterrence. But instead of being swift and certain, the process of taking people through courts will be delayed and severe.
Overall, the package reads like a group of SpAds and civil servants have been tasked with coming up with some 'totemic tough' policies to balance out the evidence-based recommendation of @DameCarolBlack on re-investing in treatment. I.e. Project ADDER writ large.
@DameCarolBlack Looks like the list is getting longer independent.co.uk/news/uk/boris-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
