The dust has barely settled on the General Election but the new Conservative government already seems set on an authoritarian, illiberal agenda. Nowhere is this clearer than in their approach to the issue of ‘legal highs’. The Psychoactive Substances Bill attempts to regulate dangerous, untested substances, that can do real harm but rather instead the Government has produced a confusing and potentially dangerous Bill that does far more harm than it attempts to prevent.
The problem is their bill attempts to ban any substance that makes you feel happy or sad, tired or awake, focused or spaced-out, or in any way changes your mental state, from being produce or supplied, save for a few exemptions such as caffeine and tobacco. The good news is, if you grow roses that do not have a scent, then you should be OK but if the perfume makes your lover feel romantic or, heaven forefend, amorous, then you could be in serious trouble. The perfume is having a psychoactive effect and as you supplied them, you are guilty of a criminal offence under this bill.
It may be a laughable example but there are some serious issues here. This Bill would send those after ‘legal highs’ to the same drug dealers who will sell you cocaine or heroin. Instead of being able to buy 'legal highs' in clearly marked packaging from ‘head shops’, where you have at least some idea of what you are taking, this trade is going to be driven into the hands of criminals. They do not care what is in the pill or powder they sell you and you won't know whether it’s a ‘legal high’ or a dangerous Class A drug in that clear plastic bag.
The bill is equally problematic for law enforcement. The legislation does not criminalise possession of psychoactive substances, just their production and supply. That is a different approach to substances covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act (controlled drugs), where possession is a criminal offence. That means the police can’t stop and search or arrest you if they think you are in possession of artificial ecstasy, but if they think you are in possession of real ecstasy they can. How exactly the police are supposed to know whether you are ecstatic because your lover has bought you roses, you have taken an EX-1 or have real ecstasy on you is anyone’s guess!
Clearly there is an issue with 'legal highs', which often haven’t been safety-tested, being sold in packets where the small print says ‘not for human consumption’. But that is just the point; this should be treated as a health issue, a harm-prevention issue, not a criminal issue.
Liberal Democrats want to take a different approach. If the government is serious about reducing the harm caused by the misuse of drugs, they should be focused on channelling addicts into healthcare and social users into education. Simple possession of drugs should be dealt with under the civil rather than the criminal law.
If the government is going to exempt substances on the basis relative harm, as they intend to do with alcohol and tobacco, they should be looking at exempting substances currently covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act, that are clinically proven to be less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.
This bill could be a real opportunity to take the sensible approach to drugs, rather than criminalizing even more of our young people. In the coalition government the Liberal Democrats championed drug laws that are fit-for-purpose, with Norman Baker taking the lead. The first actions of this Conservative government's show they have no interest in an evidence-led approach, and that those who believe in stopping real harm, are going to have to fight to be heard.
Brian Paddick is the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson. He was a member of the Metropolitan Police Service for over 30 years serving in every rank up to the rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner.