Epidemic levels of public bewilderment and governmental complicity

Last week the United Nations Global Commission on Drugs Policy attracted media attention from around the world, partly due to the attendance of such luminaries as Sir Richard Branson, and support from the likes of Dame Judi Dench, Sting and Julie Christie. However, the conclusions that the Commission has come to, have understandably generated far more discussion. The commission has recommended the decriminalisation of all illegal drugs and an end to the disastrous policy of the ‘War on Drugs’, a 40 year long failure that has seen record levels of addiction, billions squandered and a degree of bloodshed in some parts of the world that is comparable with civil war.

The British Government, rather predictably, gave the convention short shrift by stating that they were adamantly opposed to any change in policy at all. This was to be expected, governments of both stripes would be mercilessly persecuted by the British press on the announcement of the first post de-criminalisation drugs death. Their rationale is based around the degree of harm that illegal drugs pose to the health of individuals. In one key, and conveniently overlooked area of the drugs debate, however, the government are doing precisely the opposite of what they claim is their position.

Alcohol, a drug that continues to cause more deaths per year than all illicit substances combined, that if it were being measured on an indice of harm would have to be adjudicated a class A drug, continues to be sold in a manner that would make a Columbian drug lord proud.

Far from legislating against the rock bottom prices, the government’s minimum pricing policy on alcohol has been so ineffective (the Guardian on February 16th 2011 reported that only one in 4,000 drinks promotions would be affected) that one can only stretch the argument of ineptitude so far. That six of the UK’s leading health bodies have walked away from the government’s new drinks code, which calls for a voluntary pledge of responsibility, should give us all an idea of how effective the medical establishment thinks this brewer’s charter will be.

Taking the pledge was the term used in 1930’s America by drinkers who wanted to stop but were relying on willpower alone, invariably most of them failed. This pledge of good behaviour on the part of multinational drinks manufacturers is eerily similar. As with most problem drinkers back then, the distillers and brewers are completely insincere about their desire to change, and the government knows it. The voluntary code is designed to be as ineffective as the Press Complaints Commission’s voluntary code of conduct that the government is equally anxious to avoid making mandatory.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, special adviser on alcohol to the Royal College of Physicians has recently said: “"it is not acceptable for the drinks industry to drive the pace and direction that such public health policy takes."

If we are to make any progress in what has become the pre-eminent public health crisis of our times, we must have a government that has the courage and integrity to put socially irresponsible enterprises in their place, but this is just the beginning. Minimum alcohol pricing, while important, should be part of a wider strategy.
It is essential that the deeper causes of addiction in Britain are addressed, the reason why people actively seek alcoholic oblivion and wish to escape from being who they really are is still a mystery to most of us, and yet this phenomenon plays itself out in every public house and public place in every town and city in Britain. An epidemic of addiction is still being met with epidemic levels of public bewilderment and governmental complicity.