Skip to main content

New British Drug Czar Supports Reducing Penalties for Ecstasy

Marijuana doesn't cause mental health problems, but keeping track of the British drug policy debate just might.

Less than two weeks after increasing penalties for marijuana, we learn that the British have selected a new drug czar who wants to reduce penalties for ecstasy.

The man appointed head of the advisory council for the misuse of drugs once called for ecstasy to be downgraded to a class B drug, politics.co.uk can exclusively reveal.

Professor David Nutt, who replaces Sir Michael Rawlins as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) this afternoon, made the comments at a science and technology committee hearing in 2006.

"I think the evidence base for classification producing deterrence is not strong and we see that with a number of drugs," he said. [politics.co.uk]

By that logic, Nutt presumably also opposes the recent upgrade in marijuana's criminal status. Unfortunately, as we learned in that instance, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown couldn’t care less what his own experts think about drug policy.

Drug Czars Say the Darndest Things

Deputy Drug Czar Bertha Madras delivered this gem in Colorado as she promoted random student drug testing to school administrators:

"We are not waging a war on drugs; we are waging a war of defense --
a defense of the basis of humanity, and that is our brain," said Dr.
Bertha Madras, the White House deputy drug czar in charge of reducing
demand for drugs. [Denver Post]


This is the same woman who argued against distributing overdose prevention kits, claiming that overdoses would teach people not to use heroin. So no, she's actually not very interested in "defense" against the harms of drugs.

She supports drug testing programs that don’t work, but opposes overdose prevention programs that do. Her ideas would make considerably more sense if her job were to make the drug problem worse.

Update: In comments, Giordano asks "Is Dr. Madras’ brain on the defensive?" Yes, I think that's exactly what's going on here.

Dick Morris Tells John McCain to Propose Harsher Cocaine Laws

I noted last week the tendency of our revered political strategists to find themselves stuck in the 80's, arguing that harsh lock-em-up rhetoric is the only way to discuss drug policy in an election.

Well, along comes Dick Morris to prove me right in The Washington Post with this recommendation for John McCain:

Go after the Democrats for their proposals to lower sentences for crack cocaine to make them equal to those for powder cocaine. (Instead, McCain should urge raising penalties for regular cocaine.)

Obviously, the crack/powder disparity is a more nuanced political issue than something like medical marijuana. Still, I have a hard time imagining that voters in 2008 want to hear the candidates promise harsher drug laws.

It's not 1988 anymore. People know those crack laws were racist. People know about our unsustainable, out-of-control prison population. And people know the punishments for cocaine are already plenty harsh. I'm not sure where public opinion breaks on this issue, but I doubt Dick Morris does either.

If I had to guess, I'd say McCain will probably follow the path Morris proposes. The appeal of attacking a candidate who's admitted trying cocaine, and now supports a reduction in crack sentences, will be great. On the other hand, if McCain does this, he'll be standing up for a notoriously racist law in an already racially-charged election.

The candidates should choose their words carefully on this one, as should any political strategist who still thinks proposing longer drug sentences is always a guaranteed winner at the polls.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

"You Don't Want This!"



It's funny because it's true. At least I think that's why it's funny. Anyway, I hope the whole movie is Tim Meadows getting stoned, acting super intense, and reverse peer pressuring people.

Update: I posted this back in December and repost it today after actually seeing the film, which really does feature numerous scenes in which Tim Meadows acts super intense and reverse peer pressures people. I guess it doesn't have much to do with drug policy, but the whole movie is really funny and you deserve a good laugh after reading the other depressing stuff I usually write about here.