New poll shows 70% support for legal regulation of cannabis

 
The following press release was issued today by the campaigning group Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform. The blog will explore its fascinating findings in more detail at a later stage. For more information on drug policy and public opinion see Transform's (soon to updated) 2004 briefing Attitudes to Drug Policy and Drug Laws: A review of the international evidence. 
Note: Transform has provided a quote, but has not been involved in the poll, and has no affiliation with the LDDPR 

New poll shows 70% support for legal regulation of cannabis

Three other drugs: Magic Mushrooms, Amphetamines, and Mephedrone show a majority in favour of legalisation and regulation, whilst 3 in 10 people would prefer the state regulate rather than prohibit heroin supply. These poll results demonstrate that the public is ready for a mature, open discussion of alternative approaches to drug policy and that there is no need for politicians to fear a backlash should they express doubts about the wisdom of our current approach.

Rather than just ask whether each drug should be “legalised”, the poll gave brief descriptions of three regulatory options and asked the public to pick which they thought most tolerable for each of a series of drugs. The options were:

• Light regulation (drugs sold like tobacco and alcohol are now)
• Strict government control and regulation (an example of how government could heavily regulate a legal market in an attempt to minimise harm)
• and Prohibition (the current status of illegal drugs).

support for legalisation/regulation combines support for the first two options

Headline results include:

• 70% support for cannabis legalisation/regulation, with 1 in 3 of those polled feeling that it should be sold in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco.
• More people supporting legalisation/regulation than prohibition for 3 other drugs: Magic Mushrooms (52% to 34%), Amphetamines (49% to 40%), and the recently banned “legal high” Mephedrone (41% to 39%).
• 39% support for the legal regulation of ecstasy sales, 36% support for regulation of cocaine, and 30% of respondents supported the legal regulation of heroin.
• For alcohol and tobacco over 1 in 4 respondents supported strict government control and regulation and 8% expressed a desire for tobacco to be prohibited.

Poll result summary graph 

Ewan Hoyle, founder of campaigning group Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform says:

“The “Do you think x drug should be legalised?” question asked in polls up until now has failed to elicit any useful information. It may be interpreted by many poll participants as a question on their moral tolerance of drug use, or may conjure up thoughts of an unregulated free-market that they rightly judge to be dangerous. This poll shows that, when asked to choose between some of the actual regulatory options available, the public regards the strict controls and regulations that are being proposed by the reform movement as a sensible solution to our drugs problem.”

“The percentage favouring the legal regulation of Class A drugs is far higher than in previous polls and I would expect this percentage to rise still further as the debate progresses and the causes of the astronomical social and financial costs of problem drug use under the current system are explained. Prohibition of cocaine and heroin is causing, not preventing, massive harms to communities in the UK, and to all the countries in the world that this illegal trade touches.”

Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation said:

"It is important that people understand that ‘legalisation’ is a process not a policy endpoint – and is one that can lead to strict government regulation of markets. It does not imply an unregulated commercial free for all that many may imagine if no other options are outlined. If anything an unregulated free for all is what we have under prohibition.

The important lesson for politicians is that they don’t need to be afraid of public opinion on this issue if it is presented in the more practical terms of market regulation"

Notes for editors:

• How the poll looked to participants
  
• From July 7 to July 9, 2010, Vision Critical conducted an online survey among 2,000 randomly selected British adults who are Springboard UK panelists. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current age, gender, social class, region and newspaper readership data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Great Britain.
  
• Complete data breakdown in google doc spreadsheet format: here, here and here

Contacts for comment:

Ewan Hoyle - Founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform

Mark Thompson
Prominent Lib Dem blogger and leading member of LDDPR

Steve Rolles
Transform Drug Policy Foundation 01179415810

Liberal Democrat manifestos on drug policy, 2005 and 2010

Continuing with our coverage of election party manifesto commitments on drug policy, today its the turn of the Lib Dems. (see Labour here and the Conservatives here). Unlike Labour and the Conservatives, the 2010 Lib Dem manifesto, published this morning, opts for a more functional title: 'Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010'

In line with the other main parties, drug policy only appears in the crime chapter, with nothing in the sections on health, education or families. In the 'Your community' chapter, that covers crime issues, under the heading 'practical steps to make you safer - we get two specific drug policy commitments:

"Ensure that financial resources, and police and court time, are not wasted on the unnecessary prosecution and imprisonment of drug users and addicts; the focus instead should be on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police should concentrate their efforts on organised drug pushers and gangs."

It is not clear if this is a call for de-facto decriminalisation of possession (through non-enforcement), as has happened in a number of countries across the world, or just a shift of emphasis in enforcement - more detail is clearly needed on specifics here. The last sentence is telling, in terms of the total failure to recognise, (or at least articulate) that it is primarily the enforcement of supply side prohibition that turns drug use into a crime issue in the first instance. This position undermines an otherwise welcome call in the next paragraph, to:

"Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government."

In the same chapter, under the heading 'making the justice system work to rehabilitate criminals and reduce crime' two more commitments (the former not specifically drug related but obviously relevant):

"Introduce a presumption against short-term sentences of less than six months – replaced by rigorously enforced community sentences which evidence shows are better at cutting reoffending." (this commitment also appears in the 'Your money' chapter under a list of where government savings will be made)

"Move offenders who are drug addicts or mentally ill into more appropriate secure accommodation."

This is essentially all there is, excepting a mention of being 'critical supporters of the Afghan Mission' in the 'Your World' chapter. Drugs, however, are are not specifically mentioned, the stated aim only being to 'stabilise Afghanistan enough to allow British troops to come home during the next Parliament'.

The tone of the Lib Dems drug policy (and criminal justice policy more generally) is notably different from that of the other two main parties, with a seemingly more upfront commitment to evidence over punitive populism. The exception is the above reference to "pushers" which is rather old-school fear mongering language, and a term notably not used to describe those who aggressively market alcohol or tobacco.

That said, the commitment to 'Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice' does set the Lib Dems aside from the other parties regards how the Government deals with the ACMD, although it would be good to see what an ACMD 'completely independent of government' means in practical terms (this would presumably involve redrafting the Misuse of Drugs Act). Also clearly related to the ACMD-saga is a  commitment, appearing in the 'Your Job' section under the heading  'creating a dynamic environment for science and innovation' to:

"Safeguard academic freedom and the independence of scientific advisers by amending the Ministerial Code to prevent government from bullying or mistreating advisers and distorting evidence or statistics. "

The 2010 commitments offer marginally more detail than the Lib Dems 2005 manifesto , which was also far more concise overall.

Once again there is nothing on drugs in the health, family and education chapters, and we have to wait until the chapter 3 on crime, 'Tackling Crime, Defending Liberty'. Under a subheading '10,000 more police on the street - cut crime and the fear of crime':

"We will concentrate more police efforts on tackling drug traffickers and those drug users who resort to crime to feed their habits, rather than criminalising people possessing cannabis only for their own personal use."

On the same page under the different subheading 'Quality investigations, safe convictions, fighting crime and terror' :

"We will increase police resources to improve the detection and investigation of crime. We will create a co-ordinated UK BorderForce to strengthen the country’s borders against terrorism, people trafficking and drug smuggling."

The most obvious change between 2005 and 2010 is the dropping of any direct mention of cannabis, presumably reflecting the minefield that issue become in the intervening years, although the 2010 commitments regarding the ACMD are arguably at least an indirect nod to cannabis policy.

What you do not learn from either manifestos is that the Lib Dems do in fact have a more detailed official drug policy document, that was developed in 2002, titled Honesty, Realism, Responsibility: Proposals for the Reform of Drugs Law that is - from Transform's perspective - far more pragmatic and forward looking than anything to emerge from the other two major parties. It contains a strong critique of prohibition generally, and openly explores ideas for decriminalisation of personal drug possession, and legal regulated cannabis supply, albeit caveated with the need for UN convention reform as a precondition. They are unique amongst the three main parties in having engaged with these ideas.

Whilst the Lib Dems appear to have made the intellectual journey on drug policy reform, they have still shied away from it when it comes to front line politics. For them it remains an issue on which they have generally been defensive, (choosing to avoid - sometimes even deny) rather than one they actively campaign on.