Users of controlled drugs are the unspoken victims of an extreme, yet almost invisible, form of discrimination. The belief that some drugs are "evil" is pervasive, yet strangely absent when it comes to other equally or more harmful drugs approved of by the majority such as the drugs alcohol and tobacco. To put things into perspective, according to the UK National Office of Statistics in 2005, there were 6,627 alcohol-related deaths and 86,500 tobacco-related deaths, compared for example with 58 ecstasy-related deaths and 19 aspirin-related deaths. Yet it is ecstasy and not alcohol or tobacco which is most often referred to as a "killer drug" whilst a person sharing an ecstasy pill with a friend is committing a crime which carries a potential life sentence since this would legally be considered supply of a Class A drug. Although some argue that this disparity in the number of deaths is due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco are more widely used because of their legal status, this is not the case. In a factsheet on drug-related deaths issued in September 1996, the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence (ISDD) compared the annual mortality rates for four different types of drugs, the reported mortality rates (as a percentage of total users for each type of drug) were 1.5% to 3% for opiate users, 0.9% for tobacco users, 0.5% for alcohol users, and 0.0002% for ecstasy users.
In March 2007, scientists, including members of the UK Parliament's top advisory committee on drug classification, published a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 substances in a report entitled "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The report rated most "illicit" drugs as far less harmful than the drugs alcohol and tobacco and called for an urgent review of the drug classification system which was deemed arbitrary.
In January 2006 the then UK Home Secretary Charles Clark had made the following promise:
"… I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will make proposals in due course… one needs to proceed on the basis of evidence… I want to emphasise to the House the importance of evidence and research on this subject."
Yet the promised consultation paper never materialised despite the following admission made by the Government in October 2006 in response to a report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee which questioned the criteria used for classifying drugs:
The Government concluded at paragraph 12 of the above document that it "has decided not to pursue a review of the classification system at this time". In light of the fact that the drug classification system is arbitrary, the Government's decision not to fulfil on their previously promised evidence-based review is irrational. This effectively results in a form of discrimination on the basis of the majority's drug preferences. We call this "drug discrimination" – drugs which evidence suggests are less harmful are more tightly-controlled than drugs which evidence suggests are more harmful, ignoring science in favour of "historical and cultural precedents". This is contrary to the policy of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which seeks to use education, health and police power measures to prevent, minimise or eliminate risks that might result from activities with dangerous or otherwise harmful "drugs which are being or appear [...] likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears [...] capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem".
The current legal situation is a clear case of majoritarian interests subjugating minority interests and bears striking similarities to other forms of discrimination which in the past were (and in some cases still are) enforced by law and largely accepted by society, such as discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. Additionally, the misclassification of various substances sends out incorrect signals about their relative harm, for example "magic mushrooms" for which there are virtually no recorded deaths are in the same Class as heroin and users are subject to the same criminal sanctions regardless of evidence suggesting that they are not even remotely equally harmful. Will the young person who has tried magic mushrooms with no adverse effects trust the Government's warnings on heroin?
The Drug Equality Alliance (DEA) are speaking out for the countless millions who suffer the denial of equal rights and equal protection with respect to their drug of choice. We are working to catalyse a paradigm shift towards evidence-based administration of drug law and towards a system which secures equal rights and equal protection for all those who exercise property rights in dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs. In particular we provide legal support and lay advice for those who are affected by the discriminatory administration of drug law and we are actively involved in legal challenges to the UK Government's maladministration of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
This organisation was inspired by the legal arguments of
Casey Hardison, currently serving a 20 year sentence in the UK for producing LSD, DMT and 2C-B (drugs which the evidence shows are less harmful to individuals and society than the drugs alcohol and tobacco). The length of Casey's sentence epitomises the draconian nature of UK drug laws especially when contrasted with the 15 years that can be expected for an "average" murder and the 5 years which can be anticipated for a rape where there are no aggravating factors. The legal cases now being assisted by the DEA are based upon Hardison's work as it develops with the legal research he undertakes. Casey points out in precise legal detail why the current administration of the Misuse of Drugs Act is in itself illegal, irrational and unfair, and his quest is to challenge his convictions though an articulate legal discourse and ultimately to end the "War on some people who use some Drugs". Casey has worked with the Drug Equality Alliance to further develop the legal arguments now being deployed by DEA member
Edwin Stratton,
Alan Taylor and founder DEA member and (non-practicing) lawyer Darryl Bickler.
The organisation accepts members who are prepared to make some donations or contributions to the cause. We wish to disseminate our ideas and do not protect our intellectual property although we ask you to consult us before using any of our materials.
