Proceeding contribution from Paul Flynn (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Misuse of Drugs (Reclassification of Methylamphetamine).
Misuse of Drugs (Reclassification of Methylamphetamine)
I will not keep the House for long, but I have to comment on the farrago of nonsense that we have just heard. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has a very old-fashioned view on this matter. Of course the Government cannot control the precursors of methylamphetamine, because they are used for a multitude of purposes. Controlling them would be entirely impractical. The hon. Gentleman has drawn to our attention a drug that is very little used in this country, and given a highly coloured account of its effects. Like many other drugs, including medicinal drugs, it certainly can have those dangerous effects in some cases, but in other cases it does not. It is used as a recreational drug, and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it was used as a medicine for a number of years after it was first invented, particularly in the services. However, the hon. Gentleman has failed to make the case relating to the connection between the category in which the drug is placed and the uses of the drug. He naively believes that if we put the drug into a higher category, its use will decrease, but that is entirely untrue. The categories were created in 1971, when there were 1,000 people addicted to heroin and cocaine in Britain. Heroin and cocaine have been class A drugs ever since then, yet the number of addicts now stands at 280,000. If we were going to place all harmful drugs in an appropriate classification, we should put alcohol and tobacco into class A because of the harm that they cause. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe the great myth that was prevalent in 1971, when the United Nations decided that it was going to get rid of drugs all over the world. There was to be a great united effort from every country. However, the result was entirely perverse. In the subsequent years, we have seen a great increase in the use of drugs throughout the countries that signed up to the United Nations convention. We are now supporting a convention established by the UN in 1998, which states that we will aim for the ““elimination”” of all drug use, and of the growing of poppies and the plants for cannabis and cocaine production, within 10 years. That period ends in 2008, yet the world has made absolutely no progress towards achieving that aim. People believe that prohibition works, but we need only to consider our own experience in Afghanistan, where the British taxpayer has spent £115 million to eliminate poppy growth. The evidence suggests that next year will see a record growth of heroin poppies there. In Colombia, the Americans have spent $4.7 billion on Plan Colombia, but next year will see a 20 per cent. growth in the coca crops there. The lesson for this Bill is that prohibition of drugs does not work; it creates a market, which enriches itself through greater sales. We should not change the classification, which will have no effect. The hon. Gentleman speaks with disrespect of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but it said that cannabis should change category, which resulted not in an increase in cannabis use in Britain but a decrease. He must accept the logic of that. He is saying that we should carry on with a failed policy from the past, but what we should do is learn from the experience of those such as the Benelux countries, Germany and Australia, but principally Portugal, which in 2001 de-penalised all drugs. As a result, the number of drug deaths in Portugal is now half what it was in 2001. The Bill is misguided. Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Spink, James Duddridge, Angus Robertson, Mr. George Mudie, Mr. Robert Goodwill, Mr. Brooks Newmark, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Lee Scott, Mr. Philip Hollobone, Ann Winterton and Philip Davies. Bob Spink accordingly presented a Bill to reclassify methylamphetamine as a category A drug: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 179].
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 446 c175-6
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Health hazards Drugs Misuse Methamphetamine
- Legislation
- Misuse of Drugs (Reclassification of Methylamphetamine) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:00:34 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_321780
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_321780
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_321780