Druglink interview Bob Ainsworth

In December 2010, former Defence Secretary and Drugs Minister, Bob Ainsworth, astonished party colleagues by declaring his support for a fundamental reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

In a Parliamentary debate, he advocated a regulated market. He said he felt that the system of strict prohibition had “built up international criminal organisations that dwarf the mafia,” and added “we have not dented the huge apparatus that supplies drugs”. Here, Ainsworth discusses his tenure in government and his views on how we should move toward a more liberal regime for controlling drugs with Jeremy Sare.

When exactly did you change your By the time I left the job, we had So what was it that prevented you views on drugs? moved the policy a bit toward harm from revealing your misgivings? minimisation. We had rowed back from When I became Drugs Minister (2001-3) It was because of the collective populist Hellawell [former Drug Czar] I held a traditional enforcement-centred responsibility you sign up to when in type of ideas and we parted company view – just a “try harder, be smarter” Government. We were making some with him after introducing more approach. My views changed in office as progressive improvements, but David harm reduction, more treatment and a result of talking to people in treatment, Blunkett, as Home Secretary, was reclassifying cannabis from Class B to C. in policing and simply reading a lot and prevented by and the No.10 I was very annoyed when No.10 thinking about the policy we had. machine from going any further. More imposed a target to halve poppy than anyone, they acted as our brake. production in Afghanistan on us, Can you describe a specific moment because it was a ridiculous ambition. as Drugs Minister when you realised Ultimately it was more of a headache for What conversations did you have with prohibition was not working? the Foreign Office. colleagues? One trip to Jamaica was significant to A big influence on me wasL ewis Moonie me. I witnessed first hand the failures What was it like working with Keith (now Lord), a Defence Minister and a of the current system and the resultant Hellawell? doctor, who showed me we should be drug-funded corruption that threatened moving to a properly evaluated response The relationship was very difficult. He to create a failed state. to the drug problem. But I have lost had been at war with Mo Mowlam for friends in Parliament who are extremely some time and both were pretty bruised angry and think I am undermining the How would you describe the main by it. At the same time, David Blunkett fight against drugs.T hey think ‘bear features of your period in office? wrested control of drug policy back to down, press on’ and it will just work. the and effectively sidelined We certainly used the Home Affairs I have had family members who have him. It was part of my job to handle him Select Committee, whose membership asked to speak to me because they were and see him off without the Government famously included Chris Mullin so upset with my position. suffering too much political damage. and David Cameron, to broaden our He left a parting shot over cannabis support. We also opened the door for reclassification, but nothing serious. heroin prescribing and tried to oblige, encourage, cajole, force the practitioners into accepting it.

10 | Druglink January/February 2012 For parliamentarians, is it less about The British Crime Survey figures Legal highs are a huge change and the rights and wrongs of the issue show dramatic falls in the last 10-12 a new path to drug use for young and more about how their views are years for many drugs, particularly people. Do you think the imposition perceived? cannabis. So why do Governments of temporary bans will help reduce take such a hard line rather than use? It is certainly a big part of it, particularly champion their successes? for party leaders. Tony Blair was really I don’t know. It is certainly not a bad not of my view fundamentally and had Gordon [Brown] re-classified cannabis, thing for the law to be able to react more a pretty conservative take. But David I think, simply because Paul Dacre [Editor quickly but the basic problem is the lack Cameron on the other hand, I’m pretty of The Daily Mail] wanted him to. The of logical thought applied overall. sure, is a liberal at heart and would be in political fear about drugs is derived from a private conversation. He only recanted a lack of knowledge. There are MPs who Will you continue to work with at the point he became Conservative took some of these substances when Transform? leader because of the inevitable electoral they were young – they could bring some consequences. wisdom to the public arena, but don’t. I have certainly tabled questions and The drugs issue can never get to the And then there are MPs and peers who will continue to do so. But I am a top of the political agenda like it ought have had family problems and they have constituency MP and I don’t want to be to. We are over-centralised, decisions are some knowledge, albeit hugely distorted the ‘Member for Drug Reform’. I have made almost exclusively by No.10 and by their own personal tragedy. said to many other MPs that when you that is a big problem. As a political issue, speak your mind, it’s not that bad. You it is completely parked. How are we going to make progress may think you are going to get murdered. on reforming the policy? My local paper ran a survey; 56 per Six months before the speech, you cent were against and 44 per cent were held one of the most senior posts in Strip out all this baggage. Have a for my stance. Paul Flynn thinks his the cabinet. After the speech, the top conversation where we could consider independent views on drugs actually add of the party were whispering about the potential increase in usage which to his popularity locally. The public will how you had seemingly lost all sense might flow from a more liberal regime. give a much more thoughtful response of reason. Then we could measure whether than you ever get from the media or in the increased harm was equal to the the House. The only bit which annoyed me was the harm caused by the war on drugs, and “senior sources” who told the papers determine what is the balance of good. If Do you think there is much to be I was “irresponsible”. The attack dog you could have that conversation, then optimistic about, for example the was unleashed, which in my case was we could work out the correct regulation Global Commission on Drugs led by John Mann MP. I know how it works – I for heroin, cocaine and cannabis and George Schulz and several former used to do it when I was Deputy Chief all the new substances which are being Presidents? Whip! I had been liaising with Transform invented every day of the week. who thought a former Drugs Minister I still hold an optimistic outlook. advocating regulation would make the You have advocated an incremental Once the regime of prohibition falls, difference. I never had any illusions approach rather than a ‘big bang’. it will collapse like a house without about that. I knew the system would Could a pilot be set up to test foundations, which is effectively what easily absorb anything I had to say. decriminalisation, like we did with it is. There is an awful lot going on cannabis reclassification? already signalling change, referendums There is a policy review within in California and big changes in policy in Labour party now. Yes. But there are pilots which we Latin America. At some point, somebody refuse to study and learn from such as must seize the moment and the whole There is. But don’t expect anything. decriminalisation in Portugal or heroin rotten edifice will fall over. We will end The fact is, Labour has lost power and prescribing in Switzerland. By the UN up with a proper international debate the purpose of the review is to regain Conventions, which we are signatories recognising the current situation is power. The shadow cabinet are simply to, we try and crush these projects rather unsustainable. Policy will shift, just like it seeking the platform which will lead us than study them. did with alcohol in the 1930s, and finally to electoral success, which won’t include it will become a health issue and not drugs. So, on this issue, I would say simply one of enforcement. politics is not serving the people. n Jeremy Sare is a freelance journalist.

January/February 2012 Druglink | 11