Labour is missing a trick on drugs policy

On 6th December last year, the Government published its new 10-year strategy for addressing illicit drug use. In packaging the announcement for the press, the Government spinners chose to focus on casual middle-class cocaine users who indulge at dinner parties (presumably, we are left to imagine, somewhere in Islington). Writing in the Guardian, Health Secretary Sajid Javid claimed: “People having a line of cocaine may not think that they’re causing anyone harm, or that they’re playing a part in a criminal enterprise, but they are actually the final link in a chain that has suffering, violence and exploitation at every stage.”

But in response to the intervention, drug rehabilitation experts were quick to point out that middle-class cocaine users make up only a very small proportion of the problem. The Government were after the ‘war on the Woke who do coke’ headlines to masquerade £780 million of new investment in the drug addiction treatment and recovery system. If it sounds strange for a government department not to lead its PR blitz by touting the fact it had secured so much funding, it’s because the increase was a reversal of previous cuts, and implicitly betrayed the total failure of ten years of Conservative drugs policy which has seen the use of Class A drugs rise every year, with drug deaths currently at an all-time high.

Responding to the statement in the Commons, Shadow Home Office Minister Sarah Jones MP rightly highlighted what the Government was eliding. She tied the increase in drug deaths to the wider cuts to policing and the criminal justice system which has seen many types of crime de facto legalised. This aspect of the Labour response was right on the money – it forms part of the Party’s ambition to make the next election about the state of the public realm after a decade and a half of austere Conservative rule. Labour wants to be able to point to the prevalence of criminal activity and anti-social behaviour that people can see around them in their communities and say, ‘we can’t go on like this.’ 

But what Sarah Jones didn’t do was tackle the double-speak still at the heart of the Government’s drugs policy. The other aspect of the ten-year plan was aimed at “reducing the demand for illegal drugs and being utterly unequivocal about the swift and certain consequences that individuals will face if they choose to take drugs as part of their lifestyle.” With the surrounding services needed to tackle the problem so starved of funding, it’s not clear whether the Government will be able to deliver improvements, even with this funding boost. But should we begin to see a modest improvement in drug deaths and misuse statistics, the question will remain, is it really possible to tackle this issue properly while still viewing drug use as something to be punished, rather than something that should be treated, or, in some instances, something that can have a significant therapeutic benefits?

In her role as a Shadow Minister, Sarah Jones wouldn’t have been able to press the Minister on this contradiction, even if she had wanted to. The unfortunate truth is on this issue there remains little difference between the Labour and the Conservative frontbenches. In February of last year, when asked about the prospects of cannabis decriminalisation, Keir Starmer said he thought the UK’s drugs policy was “roughly right”, echoing his two direct predecessors as Labour leader who took similarly draconian stances.

This isn’t a blog post about the moral arguments for a more liberal approach on drugs. Those, though, are absolutely clear: countries – like Portugal – that follow strategies of decriminalisation and legalisation see plummeting death rates and reduced drug usage. Since the failed prohibition of alcohol in the US, governments around the world have achieved relative success by discouraging reckless legal consumption of alcohol. The prohibition of drugs, by contrast, has given rise to a thriving industry of criminal activity and unleashed untold human misery. A liberalisation of drugs policy also offers the prospect of economic opportunities – including from the growing global medical cannabis market – and the possibility of a new approaches in the treatment of conditions like depression and PTSD through psychedelics.

This blog post, rather, is aiming to make the strategic case for a change in Labour’s position. Take cannabis decriminalisation as a first step, which, if implemented, would hopefully open the political space for similarly progressive approaches with other drugs. Here, as with other areas of drugs policy, the Labour frontbench – and the political class more broadly – is out of touch with the public. Last year a YouGov poll found that 52% of Britons said they would support the legalisation of cannabis in the UK, compared to 32% who opposed it, with support unsurprisingly higher among young people. There is no evidence that coming out in support of decriminalising cannabis would hurt Labour with the voters it is trying to win back at the next election. The stalemate on UK drugs policy seems to be based more on a sense of the median voter as perceived by politicians, rather than on any actual evidence of what that voter thinks about the issue. The time has come to shed some of these old dogmas.

This ties back to Sarah Jones’ Commons statement – Labour needs to be campaigning on the fact it is us, not the Conservatives, who will make the places where people live safer and more pleasant. I think the fear among some in Labour circles resistant to a more progressive drugs policy see the issue as inextricably linked to the peoples’ feeling about crime, and worry such a move would be a gift to CCHQ. Again, I fear this gives voters less credit than they continue to show us they deserve when this issue gets polled. No one likes being disturbed and feeling unsafe where they live, and it’s true this is often wound up in people’s minds with drug use and the drug trade, but those views don’t necessitate support for punitive drugs policies, and a self-confident Labour party should be able to take advantage of that distinction while maintaining a sense we are the party best placed to tackle crime.

Part of Starmer’s personal hesitancy probably comes from having seen the effects of the criminal pipeline supporting the drug trade during his time spent working as a prosecutor – something he is rightly keen to highlight whenever given the chance. But this could also be turned to Labour’s advantage. The Tories are going to struggle to convey a sense that Keir Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions and bloke whose favourite extracurricular is five-a-side football, is liberalising our drugs laws because he himself wants to able to head down to the Terrace after PMQs and light up a spliff (a luxury that Jeremy Corbyn, unfairly, probably didn’t have). Rather, Starmer can say, having looked at the evidence, as lawyers do, that the approach we as a country have been taking simply hasn’t been working – and that a new approach is needed based on learning from our – and, indeed, his – mistakes, as well as the example of other countries.

And while the political exposure is small, there are clear benefits to a change of position. It would allow Sarah Jones, and any other Shadow Ministers who will have to communicate on this issue, to put a spotlight on the glaring contradiction at the heart of the Government’s current approach –  not to mention allow Labour politicians credibly to highlight the hypocrisy of a Government full of ministers who have admitted to taking drugs now locking people up by the thousands for the same transgressions. 

All the focus since the 2019 General Election has understandably been about ways Labour can win back Labour-Tory ‘Red Wall’ switchers, but the other side of Labour’s electoral coalition is important too. The Greens – who stood on an unambiguous commitment to end the war on drugs – took 2.7% of the vote in 2019, up from 1.6% in 2017. The Greens are now regularly polling at around 6%. While the squeezing effect of ‘First Past The Post’ will likely bring that down in the run up to a General Election, a strong Green showing could still prove to be enough to put the Tories over the top in some key marginals. By moving left on drugs, Labour could signal to those saying they would now vote Green – who are disproportionately younger, and many of whom will have voted Labour in 2017 – that their vote belongs with the Labour Party. The same goes for similar voters taking a good look at the Liberal Democrats, another pro-drug policy reform party, which had most success in the 2001 and 2005 General Elections by presenting themselves as being to the left of New Labour on social questions and issues of individual liberty. Some of Ed Davey’s recent interventions on policing show they are once again seeking to exploit open space on Labour’s left flank. 

Of course, changing position is also the right thing to do, and that probably ought to count for something too.

Tom Darling
Tendo Consulting