For her latest article
Kathy has also rather stumbled on to my territory by having a go at
the Transform/Ipsos MORI drug policy poll reported in the media last
week. I commissioned a drug policy poll myself in 2010 with the help of Liberal Democrat colleagues, so
it's a subject I follow with some interest.
It's a long article, and
she has form, so this might take a while to isolate all the little
untruths and distortions, but I feel it has to be done.
[I did have a go at the first paragraph, but it has been criticised very ably already (and better than I achieved) by John Robertson at "The Poison Garden" He used 1,000 words on the first paragraph alone so I shall pick up the baton at...]
Paragraph
2:
Gyngell: “Previously
commissioned YouGov drug polls (for the Observer) suggest attitudes
towards drug use have hardened, not softened”
An
interesting assertion, though no link provided so that we can check
it our for ourselves.
Gyngell:
“The recent Sun YouGov poll hardly found a ringing endorsement for
Nick Clegg’s call for a drug policy review either - 50% of his own
party members (known for their often off-the-wall views) disagreed
and the vast majority of Conservative and Labour members gave it the
thumbs down.”
This
is where it really gets good/weird. There was a recent Sun YouGov poll and here's a quote from the YouGov website: “There
is majority support for a royal commission across party lines, with
59% of Conservative voters, 62% of Labour supporters and 75% of Lib
Dems in favour.” The full results also show a majority in favour of trials of Portuguese-style
decriminalisation (a result not replicated by the Ipsos MORI poll
using different methodology). And on page 1 there is a trend since
June of more people favouring legalisation or decriminalisation of
“soft drugs such as cannabis”, such that more people favoured
reform than the status quo. Is there another recent Sun YouGov poll that doesn't so utterly destroy Kathy's argument?
Clegg
called for a Royal Commission before Christmas, so I assume that's
what Kathy refers to when she says “review”. If anyone can point
to a poll of party “members” I'd be intrigued to read it, but if
50% of Liberal Democrat members disagree with the call for a review,
they must have been outside the walls of the conference hall when my
2011 drug policy motion calling for government to set up an immediate
review was passed. It passed “with only one or two votes against”
and there were many more than 4 people in the hall.
Paragraph
3:
Gyngell
describes Transform's mission as “To persuade understandably wary
politicians to throw caution to the winds on drugs”
This
is of course entirely unfair to Transform, as their efforts recently
have mainly been directed at achieving a wide-ranging,
government-initiated independent review of all options for reform
(including stricter prohibition). They do this presumably because
they think their position in advocating a regulated legal market for
drugs is in fact the most cautious means of dealing with drug use in
respect to reducing the harms to individuals both from drugs and from
criminal sanctions. If Gyngell is as confident in her solutions to the drug problem, then she should surely support their examination alongside the alternatives proposed by Transform. She doesn't.
Later
on:
Gyngell:
“Ipsos Mori, the pollster, it seems took Transform’s biased
portrayal of UK drug policy as contrasted with ‘decriminalised
regimes’ at face value.”
And
here is that “biased portrayal”:
“POSSESSION
OF ILLEGAL DRUGS IS CURRENTLY A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THE UK. SOME
OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE ‘DECRIMINALISED’ POSSESSION OF SMALL
QUANTITIES OF ILLEGAL DRUGS FOR PERSONAL USE.
THIS
MEANS THAT POSSESSION OF A SMALL QUANTITY FOR PERSONAL USE IS USUALLY
PUNISHED WITH FINES (LIKE A SPEEDING FINE), ATTENDANCE AT A DRUG
TREATMENT OR EDUCATION PROGRAMME, RATHER THAN ARREST.
UNDER
'DECRIMINALISATION', DRUGS ARE STILL CONFISCATED. PRODUCTION AND
SUPPLY TO OTHERS REMAIN CRIMINAL OFFENCES THAT MAY RESULT IN
PUNISHMENTS CARRYING A CRIMINAL RECORD,
FOR
EXAMPLE A PRISON SENTENCE, FINES OR COMMUNITY SERVICE. WITH THIS IN
MIND, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING COMES CLOSEST TO YOUR VIEW OF THE LAW IN
THE UK?
Is
this not a fairly rigorous description of the reality in Portugal,
the decriminalisation model which I certainly favour, and which would
likely be the route that Britain would follow it politicians gathered
the courage?
Gyngell:
“And like the rest of the media, it swallowed Transform’s
fallacious presentation of the impact of decriminalisation in
Portugal.“
Ok,
I'm not sure you could call Ipsos MORI part of the media for
starters, but here's what was presented:
SINCE
THIS WAS INTRODUCED IN PORTUGAL IN 2001, AND RESOURCES WERE INSTEAD
SPENT ON HEALTHCARE, OVERALL USE OF DRUGS ROSE AT A SIMILAR RATE TO
NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES.
HOWEVER,
THERE WERE HIGHER NUMBERS ACCESSING DRUG TREATMENT, THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM SPENT LESS TIME AND RESOURCES ON DRUG-RELATED CRIME, AND THERE
WERE FALLS IN PROBLEMATIC DRUG USE,
AND
DRUG USE AMONGST SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN ALSO FELL. WITH THIS IN MIND,
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING COMES CLOSEST TO YOUR VIEW OF THE LAW IN THE
UK?
The
results of Portuguese decriminalisation have been disputed, but the
best way to resolve this dispute is to turn to someone who has
addressed it and published peer-reviewed journal articles on the
subject. If interested, please read Professor Alex Stevens
(introduction here) The only potentially biased aspect of this description is therefore
the reporting of a fall in use among school-age children, which from
Hughes and Stevens' work appears to be a trend also seen in Italy and
other EU countries (see British Journal of Criminology article).
What
Gyngell fails to mention is that the polled group was split. Half of
those polled saw the description of what decriminalisation meant.
Half additionally saw the description of what happened in Portugal.
So the presentation of the facts on Portugal was not an attempt to
skew the poll, but an exploration of what presentation of those facts
- or their absence – would mean for public opinion.
Gyngell:
“This
was what they gave their naïve subjects to consider before the
second set of questions they were asked about their preference for a
drug policy review.”
I
shall repeat, half of the group saw just the decriminalisation
description, and half additionally saw the largely accurate (though
perhaps slightly biased) reporting of what occurred in Portugal.
These separate groups were reported separately for the subsequent
polling questions (though their answers were pooled for the press
release).
Gyngell:
“The first page of the actual poll read quite something else
than the press release. Despite the encouragingly negative portrayal
of British policy that prefaced the first question, it found:
- 60 per cent support for our drug laws as they are
- 60 per cent support for possession of illegal drugs remaining a criminal offence.
- 68% of Conservative supporters, 56% of Labour supporters and 61% of Liberal supporters – all clear majorities – backing this status quo
- And finally 74% of Asian and 77% of Blacks backing all the above (a headline of its own surely?).
Far
from heralding a dramatic liberalisation of attitude, the poll showed
only 14% of the population favouring the decriminalisation of
possession, only 21% prepared to back a limited
decriminalisation trial in
a specified area.”
I
fail to see how “POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL
DRUGS IS CURRENTLY A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THE UK.” is an
encouragingly negative portrayal of British policy. Gyngell also
fails to mention that the first page of the poll data was from the
group not exposed to the information/propaganda on what had happened
in Portugal. So after railing against the exposure of poll
participants to this bias, she presents the numbers from those who
were not exposed to this bias. Sneaky.
I'm
not sure why she feels she has to use the 60% figure twice. She's
reporting the same answer to the same question. And on what
race-obsessed planet would the opinions of 37 Asian and 12 black
people make a worthwhile headline? There was no significant
difference between these groups and the rest. The numbers of black
people in the survey were so small they didn't even test for
significance. And why not report the fact that only 36% of mixed
ethnicity participants backed the status quo? Is it because that
didn't fit into her narrative, or because that was only 3 people out
of 7? And by "all of the above", she is still referring to one answer
to one polling question.
Gyngell:
“Could my reading be correct? I checked with an academic colleague.
His reply restored my faith in my sanity as well as my eyesight:
“The
results are as you have interpreted them not as have been presented
by Transform, the
majority remain in favour of legal barriers (to drugs possession)”,
he said.”
It's
fun to consider this exchange as that between a crazy person and an
unfortunate passing colleague desperate not to feed the loony troll,
but the chances are he was presented with incomplete information in
much the same way as the readers of her blog. The poll question asked
by Ipsos MORI on cannabis regulation, decriminalisation, or
prohibition was accurately reported by Transform. They did include
the results on decriminalisation of general drug possession in their
press release under the heading "Additional survey findings include...", and they let people look at the full results of the
poll for themselves on their website. I'd say this was good practice. Much better than writing an epic blog whinge with no links to evidence
provided whatsoever.
Gyngell:
“So how come then did two thirds of those polled, decide, against
their prior answers, that a review of the drug law was in order, how
did roughly half back the idea of either legalising or
decriminalising cannabis?
They
were doped - metaphorically speaking – duped by the great
Portuguese drug fallacy”
Were
they though Kathy? Half of them weren't exposed to the factual
information on what has happened in Portugal, and what did that half
have to say?
Support
for a review (those without info on Portugal) 64%
Support
for a review (those with info on Portugal) 70%
So
even among those not doped up on propaganda, 64% support a full
independent review of all drug policy options.
Support
for cannabis legalisation or decriminalisation (not exposed) 51%
Support
for cannabis legalisation or decriminalisation (exposed) 54%
So
only a maximum of 6% of the sample were corrupted by what were facts
presented in good faith.
Gyngell
then launches into an effort to disprove the information provided
about successes in Portugal. And in some of this writing she is
occasionally correct. If Baroness Meacher is claiming in the media
that less people are taking drugs in Portugal than before then she
probably shouldn't be.
Then
something remarkable happens. Gyngell introduces a source of
information which is new to me and which might actually disprove the
one shaky assertion in the Portugal information in the poll.
“School
age use data, however, which has been monitored recently shows a
steady rise in Portugal since 1999 (by contrast with a 30% downward
trend in school age use since 1999 here) rising rapidly in the last 5
years from 10 -16%. My source was the well reputed and reliable,
comparative ESPAD monitoring studies. All this I explained.”
It's
a shame she has to tarnish this good work by using the word steady in
describing the rise in drug use among school-age children that happened in Portugal. In fact
both use of cannabis and of other illicit drugs fell in the data from
2003 to 2007. Generate these graphs for Portugal using this website and you see clearly very wavy lines rather than the straight ones
Gyngell implies with the word "steady". This pattern of lifetime use in teenagers is
entirely consistent with investment in prevention and treatment
alongside decriminalisation decreasing teenage experimentation, and
subsequent removal of this investment due to economic circumstances
leading to experimentation rising again. It's also a shame that she
says that there has been a rise from 10-16% in the past five years.
In 2011 cannabis use was at 16% (pats Kathy on head), but the only
other data points since 1999 were 2003 (15%), and 2007 (13%). I'm
going to be generous and suggest Kathy Gyngell can't read graphs.
Gyngell
then gets nasty
“Baroness
Meacher is by no means the first to have been taken in by pro drugs
advocates. Their campaign of disinformation has intensified since
they lost the cannabis classification debate in the UK – the focus
of their creeping effort to normalise cannabis use - from which
neither of the main parties is likely to retract now the serious
risks of cannabis use (especially by adolescents) for mental health
are known.”
The
pro-drugs line is a simple smear. I'm no more pro-drugs than Gyngell
is. I want the harms that drugs cause to society to be lessened. I
think that goal can be achieved by regulating them. I wouldn't
suggest anyone take any drug if they want a better life, unless of
course that drug has been recommended to them by a doctor. Organisations like Transform and Release are harm reduction organisations, not pro-drug
organisations.
The
serious risks to mental health are also paramount in my consideration
of cannabis regulations. This is how I explain why in the upcoming
issue of AdLib magazine: “Those who worry about the message sent about drugs should be able to recognise that the government message on drugs can be far better delivered by a government-approved vendor than a distant government's messy classification system. As a response to important concerns about psychosis and cannabis, the person selling legal cannabis can be trained and compelled to instruct users on the early warning signs of the illness. Far from endangering young minds, cannabis regulation should be seen as the missing piece of our otherwise excellent mental health policy.” The
risks of psychosis are a reason to regulate, not the other way round.
Gyngell:
“When the Home Affairs Select Committee, under Chairman Keith Vaz,
decided it was time for another drugs policy inquiry, it tuned its
terms of reference to theirs [the Global Commission on Drug Policy]
and went on to give its prime platform to its main advocate, the self
confessed dope smoking Virgin Boss, and Commission backer, Richard
Branson.”
This
revelation hardly discredits the Committee's report any more than the
fact that Kathy Gyngell herself later appeared before the committee
to give evidence.
Gyngell:
“...no one, least of all those best
informed, seriously maintains that either decriminalisation or the
longer term goal of legalisation would reduce drug use. (Reuter &
McCoun 1999). They all agree it would increase it (possibly from the
minority habit it is today to a majority habit like drinking and
smoking).”
Perhaps
Kathy might like to have a read at the Release document “A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalisation Policies in Practice Across the Globe” The authors, following a considerable amount of research, certainly
wouldn't agree that decriminalisation would increase drug use. “The
main aim of the report was to look at the existing research to
establish whether the adoption of a decriminalised policy led to
significant increases in drug use - the simple answer is that it
did not.”
I'm
sure others will be able to find omissions, mistakes, and slurs in
Gyngell's writing that I have not. It's important that they don't go
unrecorded. Gyngell after all appears regularly in the media to
provide "balance" in the drug policy debate. I'm not sure how
active she remains in Conservative circles regarding drug policy, but
if there are any Conservative members reading this, it might be best
to ask yourself, and more senior party members, whether her opinions
are worth any more of the party's attention.
