Crises and radical thinking on drug policy

Reform has always been a “two-steps forward, one-step back” undertaking.

It’s sad that drug policy reform must always be wrapped tragedy but alas – in the context of drugs – crisis has historically been the mother of invention.

It was in the face of thousands of overdoses and the highest HIV prevalence in Western Europe that Switzerland introduced effective heroin-prescription programmes, safe injection facilities, needle and syringe-exchange programmes and low-threshold methadone services.

Helped along by lawmakers who were not afraid to lead from the front, these policies resulted in making Switzerland’s HIV prevalence among people who use drugs one the lowest in Western Europe, at about 1.4 per cent.

In Portugal, the year the country witnessed 1,430 new HIV infections among people who use drugs (accounting 52 per cent of all new infections), the government introduced dramatic reforms, decriminalising all drugs and establishing model services for drug users.

Almost 10 years later, new HIV infections among people who use drugs dropped to 164 (15% of all new infections).

It was a similar HIV crisis in the UK in the mid-1980s that spurred the then-Conservative government to launch a number of harm reduction interventions that greatly reduced HIV among people who inject drugs.

Now, as Latin America faces its own supply-side crises with tens of thousands of drug-related killings, gross human rights abuses and overflowing prisons, governments are increasingly vocalising a desire to take bold action toward reform of failed prohibitionist policies. 

In 2009, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy – including the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, as well as leaders in journalism, politics, academia and literature – called for a paradigm shift in the approach to drugs. This was followed by a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy that encouraged “experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.”

Subsequently, numerous Latin American governments have openly discussed forms of regulation, including government sale of marijuana or licencing private facilities.

However, drug policy reform has always been a “two-steps forward, one-step back” undertaking and while creativity is being sought in the Americas, Europe is losing some of its pioneering spirit.

Austerity, in some contexts, is a danger to gains made in HIV prevention, among people who use drugs. In Greece, the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) warned of an increase in the number of newly identified HIV cases among people who use drugs, from between 3 and 19 a year from 2001 to 2010, to 113 new HIV cases as of July 2011.

The Greek government has increased services for drug users to address the situation but the EMCDDA cautions, that “the level of activity is still insufficient to meet the demand within the injecting drug using population.”

In other cases, a nascent abstinence-agenda is trying to manufacture a bogus tension between treatment models – suggesting that providing life-saving services to drug users, like needle-and-syringe exchange programmes, is at odds with ensuring availability of abstinence-based treatment for those who want it.

Some other lawmakers may argue that services to drug users are poor investments in lean times, ignoring the fact that it is immensely cheaper to prevent blood-borne viruses and bacterial infections like HIV, than treat them.

This is the current global paradox in drug policy.

While a new approach may indeed be rolled out to reduce black market violence in Latin America and other parts of the world, a regression to old, expensive and failed ideas in Europe may revise costly and avoidable crises from the past. 

And, perhaps, inspire some fresh thinking once again.

Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch is the director of Open Society Foundations Global Drug Policy Program

A drug user injects heroin. Photograph: Getty Images

Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch is the director of Open Society Foundations Global Drug Policy Program.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.