“I am well aware that some readers will take exception to things that I have written in this book” writes Gossop in his chapter on cannabis. Given the UK government's difficulties in coming to terms with cannabis (and other drug) use, this is a modest but well identified comment. This chapter refers to the obstinacy of belief in the escalation (gateway) theory of cannabis use – that it leads to more dangerous forms of drug taking, above all heroin. UK statistics suggest about 250,000 heroin users and five million cannabis users. So what has happened to the other 4.75 million? And will the discussions, admittedly tense, between Copenhagen City Council and the Danish government proposing state production, regulation and sale of cannabis inform UK policy, especially when seen alongside 2012's Washington and Colorado votes and Uruguay's 2013 legalisation.
The UK's toeing of the European line on khat last summer (peer-pressure or group-think?) does not bode well for independent thinking or reality based rather than orthodox drugs policy. I wonder what the Home Secretary imagines will happen now, and how user habits might change. (Gossop describes the devastating impact of the ousting of cannabis by heroin in Pakistan when heroin production was displaced from Iran after the fall of the Shah.) We will probably never know: the khat ban does not provide for any impact assessment, and the proposal by the Office of National Statistics to reduce collection and publication of data about tobacco, alcohol and drug use does not give ground for optimism about future, accurate monitoring of substance use prevalence and trends. As many have observed, drugs policy in the UK is an evidence-free zone.
Thus belief in the escalation theory is maintained because its proponents “would like it to be true”, one of the drug debate characteristics (delusion/denial) which the seven editions of Living with Drugs have attempted to rebut. Other characteristics include the propensity of much of the media to stereotype drug use and drug users, misrepresenting evidence and surveys which do not fit with media (proprietor?) preconceptions and stances. The NGO Australia21 has commented on the negative and demonising impact (intentional?) of, in particular, the Murdoch press in its coverage of illegal drugs. Apart from pointing a superior and self-righteous finger of blame, such reporting – and its language and rhetoric – makes it difficult to conduct an informed public debate. In the UK, it's unclear whether government pushes or is pulled by the media in formulating drug policy – what role did the false and sensationalist reporting of “mephedrone deaths” in 2010 play in bringing about the hasty bans?
The substance “enjoying” the highest page count remains tobacco – appropriately, as shown byJuly 2013 decision by government to shelve proposals to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products. His tobacco coverage also illustrates the continued relevance of Gossop's focus on the economic influence of the legal and illegal drugs trade. “Big tobacco's” influence can be seen in the continued activities – and successes – of lobbyists for the tobacco trade; and the sustained role of illegally traded tobacco products. The extent of lobbying has already been seen in the organised programmes of mis-information run by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and 1960s in response to the emerging evidence of the health damage caused by tobacco smoking. This could be seen as a further example of the way that the drugs trade damages individuals, societies, institutions, governments, regions, albeit one which proponents of the “war on (illegal) drugs” may be reluctant to acknowledge.
It is an easy option for government to put consumer rights and freedom of choice, not to mention reducing state “interference” in every-day life (not extended to cannabis and khat users) above wider public health concerns. We remain encouraged to “drink responsibly” as a quid pro quo to having our drinking “rights” restricted: it will be interesting to see whether we ever reach a stage when the use of currently illegal drugs is assessed and monitored to the extent that their “responsible” use will be promoted.
Recognising that this “story” will never be finished, I look forward to a future edition developing the sections on “enhancing” drugs. The world of sport has long been concerned about physical performance enhancing drugs and has taken a stance on their use. An emerging phenomenon is that of cognitive performance enhancing substances. Will the same “moral” (lack of “fair” play) objections will be raised to their growing use, or will a different attitude develop as some policy makers might see them as a way of gaining a “competitive edge” in the “global race” (to what goal?) we have been hearing so much about in recent months. All's “fair” in love and (economic) war? And I’d like to see a linkage between the sections on aphrodisiacs and date-rape drugs – alcohol fits into both, rohypnol is confined to the date-rape category. I don’t dispute the separation, I would like to see both “uses” linked in discussion.
Gossop has up-dated this edition to include more extensive content on the creation of a virtual market in substances, illegal and other; and the associated growth in the number and availability of novel psychoactive substances – in large part a result of prohibition policies, as producers and suppliers try to keep ahead of jurisdictions and their banning of specific chemical compounds, both finished products and precursors. He does not allow these details to obscure the essential characteristic of drug use – that where there is a demand there will be a market. The existence of a vast global market for legal and illegal substances seems to be a taboo topic for governments and the agencies which exist to justify and enforce the prohibition-based international conventions on illegal drugs. This is an aspect of “globalisation” for which free-market advocates do not – yet – appear willing to take credit.
While it's good to see this title once again available, providing a comprehensive and carefully and patiently argued text for lay and professional readers, it's also a cause for concern that such a book remains necessary and relevant. Its reappearance could be taken as a comment on the state of UK debate on social policy in general, drugs policy in particular. The last word should go to Gossop, who states in his conclusion, as in all editions of this work: “Drug taking is here to stay and one way or another we must all learn to live with drugs”.
