Why is Regulation of Drugs Important?

When you woke up today, it was probably on a bed that didn’t collapse in the night because the manufacturers had made it from poor quality materials. When you went last went food shopping, none of the food you bought made you sick because the supermarket had thrown away all the out of date stock. If you’ve taken a public taxi, then you probably ended up where you wanted to go and didn’t get ripped off because all licenced taxis have to have visible meters fitted. All of these measures designed to keep you safe, healthy, and able to make your own financial decisions, are the result of government regulations. There’s a lot of talk about how “bureaucratic red tape” slows down business and gets in the way of the consumer, but do you really want to go back to the good old days of “mad cow disease“, when farmers were feeding infected dead cows to live cows and managed to kill 166 people in the process? This is why control and regulation of drugs are important for users, not just communities. Not because the government should be able to use the system to stop people taking drugs, but because drug users shouldn’t be risking their health, or possibly lives, because unscrupulous dealers have a direct financial interest in compromising the quality of their products.

Bureaucratic red tape ultimately stops everything falling apart.

Some cannabis activists have vehemently objected to any suggestion that the law should have any say in who sells what to whom. Some people believe that cannabis should just be decriminalised, because cannabis doesn’t kill anyone, and therefore no regulation is needed. But all drugs are psychoactive substances, it’s not really about whether they kill people or not, they all alter your consciousness. And even if something is harmless, the circumstances in which it is produced can be terrible. Trousers aren’t going to kill you, but the children making them in sweatshops in Indonesia might be happier if they didn’t have to work twelve hours a day to make them for us. So we should recognise that much of the time regulation is a good thing. When you get down to it, it seems the issue for many people is that the current laws regarding alcohol and tobacco are inconsistent and they object to the idea that cannabis will be subject to the same inconsistent regulation. In many places, you can smoke in the open air, but not drink, and you can drink indoors but not smoke! To argue that alcohol and tobacco should be regulated the same as cannabis really means that as reformers we should be supportive of a change in the alcohol and tobacco laws as well.

When it comes to the age of consent, it’s important to remember that the age of consent is not related to any form of scientific research into harms but the age at which you are deemed legally able to make your own decisions for yourself. So this public argument about when  various drugs do and do not damage your developing brain seems to be irrelevant. It therefore seems fair to say that, within reason, certain (probably the “soft” ones) drugs like cannabis should be commercially available to over 18 year olds without restriction but from licenced production facilities which are subject to regular inspection in the same way that the sale of food is regulated and inspected, and that what you produce in your own home and give to your friends is your own business. I don’t mind taking the risk of eating a cake that a friend has made me, but I don’t want the kebab shop down the road to be doing whatever they want in their kitchen. In the same way, I’m sure that most canabis users are happy to consume whatever their friend grew in their garden but are dissatisfied with street dealers selling them herbs with ground glass in – a tactic they often get away with because of the lack of regulation. Harder” drugs are a trickier issue, but well covered in Transform Drug Policy Foundation’s publication, Blueprint for Regulation

The Blueprint for Regulation

But what about the children?! Well, what children do below the age of 18 not in the public eye is also generally considered at the discretion of parents and medical professionals – parents are allowed to give their children alcohol in the home under supervision, and medical professionals can prescribe whatever they want to anyone of any age, they can make those decisions in their own judgement. Doctors have the power to give Prozac to five year olds, yet they don’t! Such laws seem to be a good way of ensuring a balance between the rights of adults to alter their own consciousness and to raise their children as they see fit, the responsibility the government has to public health, and the desire that I hope we all have to not have nine year olds wandering around drunk or high.

The challenge is to set the bar so that it is low enough to keep people safe but not high enough that people will turn to a black market – we can see that with alcohol, which doesn’t have a black market, and the government’s efforts to stop people from smoking, which is prompting a significant black market of people importing knock-off tobacco from abroad and selling it under the counter. That’s what should be the challenge. Where to set the bar. That we’re arguing over whether there should be a bar at all and seeing people being killed or ruined in the process is a travesty. Whether you’re a Tory or an anarchist, nearly everything in your life, from your clothes to your spice rack, are subject to safety regulations that you, the consumer, benefit from. It is unfair to non-problematic drug users that they cannot be protected under the same legislation.

6 thoughts on “Why is Regulation of Drugs Important?

  1. Oct 9, 2008 … Pursuant to section 62 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005, His Excellency the Governor-General, acting on the advice and with the …
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0373/latest/whole.html

    Yep. it’s all about regulation. Signed of the by the Queens Representative no less.
    The explainatory note on page 5 (its all that brief) is highly intructive of the scope and purpose of regulation and recognises that as little as possible is a good thing while no regulations, ie prohibition is worse. No need for Police, Corrections (HMS?), Justice, or Law to grift off of what is low level largely benign cannabis use.

    This is the stuff of social capital…..

    If this isnt the kind of law your looking for, decribe in ten words or less why not? 😉

  2. This note is not part of the regulations, but is intended to indicate their general effect.

    The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 (the Act) created a regime for regulating restricted substances. Restricted substances are psychoactive drugs that are considered to be of low risk but still in need of some regulation. Part 3 of the Act established a limited number of controls for restricted substances, including a minimum purchase age of 18 years and prohibitions on free-of-charge distribution and the advertisement of restricted substances in certain media. Section 62 of the Act allowed for wider controls to be implemented through regulation.

    These regulations, which come into force on the 28th day after the date of their notification in the Gazette, place further controls on the places from which restricted substances can be sold or supplied, the signage that must be displayed, and the advertising, labelling, packaging, and storage of restricted substances.

    Currently, there are no restricted substances.

  3. Apologies for the repeat’s. Overzealous use of the ‘send’ when it had already gone but didnt say so.

    But should I be surprised the content has drawn no further comment?

    Here is the applied ‘beyond the blueprint’ model, well known to others and hardly a secret that seems to answer quite literally AND legislatively all that is needed for both new drugs and old.

    I needn’t be proposed, it exists.

    And it is UN compliant. And exists within a Westminster legal/governance framework.

    Policy is driven by the health imperative, its aim is enabled efficacy backed by pragma over dogma and research over conjecture and prejudice.!

    (Capacity to regulate and tax is a default benefit.)

    Management 101 stuff really. But enough said. Sounds like the Doctor ordered? Certainly did to David Nutt. Respectfully someone might like to ask him!

    Pass on to Amanda Fielding if you wish.
    [I did so myself but I haven’t had the courtesy of a reply to date.]

  4. Hi Blair,

    I didn’t comment because you posted essentially the same comment on four blogposts on this blog. I don’t have anything further to say than I did the last time you mentioned this New Zealand legislation, which is that this legislation does not appear to be applied to anything and I don’t understand what effect you think it is having.

    Drugs are still illegal in New Zealand, and it is still government policy to imprison people caught producing, supplying, buying, and using them: http://www.ndp.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexcm/ndp-policyactionplans-policy New Zealand has one of the highest per capita uses of methamphetamine in the world, so currently their drug policy is not working: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10777109

    So I really don’t understand what your point is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *