CHAPTER FIVE SOCIETY AND DRUGS

To most people familiar with the problem, it is obvious that drug misuse is not a'criminal matter and should not be dealt with entirely by policelice. It is not surprising that the police behave clumsily when, amongst other things, they must deal with sickness as if it were criminal. Even if the police understood the problem, they could only behave more subtly. The drug problem, in this country, will not improve in actuality until the law and the attitudes of the "Establishment" are changed.

The present situation is the same as that of a few years prior to the Homosexual Law Reform. At that time, no directive was given to curb police action against homosexuals, but this became less vicious as society's attitudes changed. Today we have a full-scale "witch-hunt", and this time the "problem" is drug use, with the press whipping up a public hysteria which is, as always, based on ignorance. We 7, have come to the point where rational discussion is almost .1, impossible and the public treats the issue with such hysterical indignation that no one in Parliament wishes to risk his majority by being outspoken or decisive on the issue. The end result is that the "drug problem" is controlled by the police. The only way the police can judge the effectiveness of their control is by the number of arrests they have made. These massive numbers of arrests are ineffective but the police, alarmed by their inability to contain the problem, have only increased their activities, stretching any point of law in order to procure convictions. Last summer, a writer in a small town reported that:

"...the Authorities then became nether panicky and instituted a D-squad, the first round here ... the police have a dossier on suspected drug offenders and they raid the same pads (twice a day sometimes) with tedious regularity. The same people are searched ... from July 10th to July 18th they had 25 convictions (in a small town, remember)."

When a person has been convicted of stealing, he could be called a thief. However, a person who has been convicted of a drugs offence is not necessarily an addict. He may be the casual, occasional user of an apparently harmless substance.

Even if he is not an addict, he will be treated as one and subjected to the conventional treatment which our society is still using to deal with the problem. These are methods with which a perfectly healthy person can barely cope and which do irreparable harm to an addict

There cannot be a more harmful way of treating an addict than to send him to prison. It is this aspect of the law which concerns Release most. As the law stands at the moment, it is probable that every addict will go to prison. Perhaps prison can be avoided for a first or a second offence but the chances are certainly very high for each subsequent offence.

The maximum penalty for a drugs offence is a fine of £1,000 or ten years' imprisonment or both.

If a person needs drugs, a criminal reprimand is not going to prevent him from using drugs. If he is an addict, he is mentally and physically sick and needs a great deal of medical care and attention. The use of "hard" drugs is, for an addict, a necessity which may stay with him for the rest of his life, and since adequate facilities for the treatment of drug dependence do not exist in this country, it is likely that almost three-quarters of the people whose cases we have handled once will come to us again for assistance.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the drug laws is that the people at whom these laws are directed are just those people who are most in need of earef I absoirstion into society rather than alienation from it

Most of the people who come to us have broken the law as a result of finding conventional standards of behaviour difficult to accept. Conventional society can be seen to disregard individual fulfilment and directly oppose any attempts made to create new values. When the social environment in which one is brought up is so repressive and highly competitive, it is easy to lose faith in oneself and in so doing lose faith in society as well. Rather than continue the painful process of being considered a failure in conventional society, complete detachment from the society is • necessary. But, unless there is a new identity, ideal or ambition to fill the vacuum caused by the detachment, it is Impossible to prevent the emotional disillusionment which Will follow.

The difficulty with which we are faced at the moment is to change the attitudes of the police, the courts and society. :1 so that there is recognition and understanding of the so-called "drug problem" which cannot be solved by the conventional means of criminal reprimand. A continual criminal stigma attached to young people who need "hard" drugs or - use "soft" drugs will do irreparable damage and further undermine any constructive efforts that are being made to improve the system which is responsible for the situation.

The police have been left to cope with the problems, ; thrust upon them by society, with the methods at their disposal. There are only 20,000 Metropolitan police. They are ' responsible for a very wide range of community services, including traffic duty, protecting VIP's and ambulance escort. Recently, they have had to turn out in force at weekend demonstrations, which has not done much for police/ young generation relations. This is the age of protest and, to the police, the pot smoking "hippie" is the epitome of the protest. Protests are directed at all symbols of the authoritarian state and the police are the epitome of authority. It is not difficult to see why the police are so enthusiastic about arresting "pot" smokers. Nor is it difficult to see why policemen can get badly hurt at demonstrations! The already existing conflict has probably been exacerbated by such publications as "Drugs and the Police" by T. Jones (Butterworth, 1968). This author does little to explain the underlying causes of the "drug problem" and does not mention alcohol or nicotine as causing substances dependence. However, he does describe the degrading and anti-social aspects of drug dependency and stresses the point that it is the duty of the police to help stamp out the problem.

The young drug user is, and will continue to be, an object of victimisation because, as part of a minority group, he is vulnerable in a society whose main concern is to use legal measures on a problem where medical or social solutions are 'likely to be more successful. This perhaps unconscious victimisation is reinforced by corrupt police methods which themselves create a complex pyramid of problems almost ,equal to the original problem.

If the police are trying to solve the "drug problem", they should try to do so with more propriety. They should be able to distinguish legal from illegal drugs before they are given powers to search or prosecute "suspects". If this is not possible for all officers, the Drug Squad should be expanded and the power to investigate drug cases be confined to this branch of the police force. At the present time, any member of the police force may stop and search any member of the public. The finding of a pill or two is sufficient evidence to enable a police officer to charge any member of the public with being in possession of dangerous drugs. Whether or not the "drugs" are filegal will be decided at a later date.

At worst the "drug problem" is a new illness which reflects and is reflected in the whole of our society. But it is necessary to recognise that we are a drug-orientated society and that almost all drugs which are today being used ( Imisused) also provides benefits which are among the privileges of living in this century. As with all new developments it takes time to find out how to deal with the relatively small problem of misuse. Now that there are drugs which alter states of mind, it is inevitable that people who find themselves permanently dissatisfied with their normal existence will try these in an attempt to improve their condition. It must be recognised that these people are potential casualties of the system that created them.

Because it is illegal, drug taking has become part of all sub-cultural youth movements which provide instant identities. Superficial membership and constant change in cult alliances is encouraged by thespress, always in need of fresh "copy", and by other commercial speculators who "cash in" on the latest fashions.

We are still at the stage where debates and attempts to assess aspects of the "drug problem" are filled with the cliches repeated in any discussion about "youth problems". "Too much money", "Too much leisure time", "Not enough respect for the home and upbringing", "Broken homes", "Deprived backgrounds", etc. We seem to be unwilling to accept that tension in the family — either repressed or open—is normal, and because of this, the family is no longer a stable unit to which young people can relate. This presents them with the difficulty of finding identities and evolving new values for themselves. Nearly all current details are material. From the start, we must succeed — academically or commercially. Otherwise we are classified as "second class citizens", with little social status and little chance of acquiring any. Almost all occupations and entertainments are passive. And yet the young are not allowed to criticise the social system that has created such anomalies.

In this structure of material values there is no apparent place for a deeper or more private existence. Because of this, many people are anxious, repressed, undeveloped and find themselves in too few situations where they are able to experience varying degrees of emotional intensity.

We find that the pressure to conform to conventional standards is opposed to the necessity of maintaining our individual identities. The superficial uniformity of our society, which our elders wish to propagate, is in direct conflict with the evolution we see happening around us more rapidly than ever before. And yet, as our need to conform diminishes we become more aware of our inability to answer the questions which arise as a result of our developing freedom.

A large percentage of the population relies upon television orother mass media for emotional experiences. Many young people who are bored by commercial banality are turning to chemicals as an extension to their everyday experiences. The directions which these experiments take and their consequences, are entirely dependent upon the individuals' needs and the social contexts in which they find themselves.

At present, the only drugs that can be legally consumed for their own sake are nicotine and alcohol. The young (and more liberal older people) have accepted other drugs into their social patterns. Older generations are still blind to the fact that they use drugs to the same extent as their children. Young people are rightly indignant when their parents, drinking alcohol, using tranquilisers or sleeping pills, are shocked to find their children using cannabis.

It is important that we should accept both the advantages and disadvantages of drug taking. This does not seem possible at the moment, because the legal system is unable to deal with the complexities of the problem. The whole issue is involved with subconscious repressions which themselves are not understood. Large numbers of young people today use all kinds of drugs. The Home Office figures of 2,000 known addicts is not even an accurate guide to the scope of the heroin problem. These figures merely state what the
Home Office knows. Illegal use of "soft" drugs has become part of life to young people to an extent never anticipated by the "Establishment". The "experts" commenting on the problem usually classify drug users and misusers as part of the same problem. In reality, not only do Zliffetentds people use different kinds of drugs for dilferent reatons, but 1 every individual using drugs has a variety of reasons for so 'I doing. It is in this context that we must consider the "drug problem" recognising the ordinary individual merely wishing 1 to widen the range of his experiences, as well as the person dependent on drugs.

To discuss the "problem" more rationally, we must attempt to define the stage when a drug user becomes a danger to other people, to the extent that the power of the state should be brought to bear against him. Can a person be allowed to take personal risks so long as it is only himself that is involved? At what point does a person start misusing any drug? How can drugs be administered so that there will be no black market? Why is there so much fear of pleasure-giving drugs playing a legitimate part in our society?

One would have thought that the medical professions would have been the first group to answer these questions. So far, there has been an uninspired silence. The British Medical Profession could also be held responsible for much of the escalation in heroin addiction, because of their practices in ,overprescribing and their unwillingness to admit they are unable to cope with the problem. The second Brain Report in 1965 pointed out the danger of allowing general practitioners to prescribe heroin which could lead to heavy. overprescription. The Dangerous Drugs Act 1967, which Went into effect in April 1968, will have had some effect. It Is pointless, however, to single out overprescription as the one fault in the system, when so little is known about the drug problem and so few provisions have been made for adequate treatment.

It is virtually impossible to estimate the exact amount of a drug that an addict needs. A minimal period of three days continual surveillance would be necessary for the most accurate estimate. The facilities for such extensive research are simply not available. Furthermore, addicts are unable to work. They, therefore, have no security and live an almost nomadic existence. The only security they do have comes from the excess drugs they are prescribed which can be sold. All addicts ask their doctors for more drugs than they personally need. In this way, they help each other out and make livings selling their excess drugs to other users. It is prbable that, if doctors stopped overprescribing, there would be an immediate rise in crime as addicts would have to find other ways of earning money to buy drugs in the criminal underworld. It may be that this fault in medical practices is a small price to pay in exchange for not having an extensive and powerful illegal market in "hard drugs".

It must be accepted that for the moment we have absorbed pleasure giving drugs into our society, but because the side effects of these drugs, including alcohol and nicotine, are not widely known there should be an immediate, rational, informed public discussion about problems of drug dependence. Ideally, this would lead to changes in attitudes of govemment officials so that new standards may be 'incorporated into the laws. In our society, legislation must be flexible enough for the maximum benefits to be derived from the correct use of drugs. The law must be able to prevent the ill effects of drug misuse while the individual is allowed the fundamental right to do with himself what he chooses.