Substance deaths are soaring – will this election signal the beginning of the end for the war on drugs?

Rarely do politicians act ahead of public opinion so we all have to consider how radical we are willing to be on this issue

Public opinion is warming to the idea of a regulated cannabis market (iStock)

Has a political ceasefire been declared on the war on drugs?

If political manifestos are a barometer of what is most pressing in voters’ minds, it might be telling that alcohol and drugs feature in all the main parties’ manifestos. Until this election sounding tough on drugs was an almost unanimous theme in signing up to the war on drugs. So a road to Damascus experience has taken place, with all the manifestos now recognising the need for a new way to address the record numbers dying as a result of drugs or the vulnerable young people exploited by county line gangs.

It would be reassuring to think this radical change in political thinking is as a result of the evidence. We are not short on evidence of the harms amplified by the current approach to drugs and even have some idea of how these could be reduced. But despite the rhetoric it is rare that evidence determines drug policy. What really seems to matter is what we all think as voters. The rapid change to policy on cannabis last year is a classic example of how eager politicians are to be seen as humane when faced with media coverage of children with epilepsy who are denied cannabis products that alleviate their suffering.

Perhaps focus groups and other methods of gauging voter concerns have revealed that drugs are an emerging priority that require action. I’d like to believe we are collectively concerned but I doubt it, when it comes to problems with drugs the uncaring response of “they brought it on themselves” persists as a popular attitude.

Lobbying has been effective for the alcohol and gambling industries, with both managing to avoid restrictive state regulation by arguing for self-regulation. The cannabis industry uses the same techniques and intelligence to shape policy in their favour. Public opinion is warming to the idea of a regulated cannabis market, where access to the drug is opened up, as has happened in most American states.

Although drug cartels are a totally different beast, they do have a monopoly on making money out of drugs as the state has so far absolved itself of a role in the market. Several reports point out the potential economic benefits of regulating a range of drugs not just cannabis. Potentially this offers a win-win for political parties, by adopting a new approach to drugs they not only appear to be responding to the devastation that drugs contribute to, but they also could raise much needed funds to pay for their other manifesto promises.

This public shift by politicians also reflects their private views on drugs. In the past convention dictated that while in public office, ministers would support prohibition and generally sound tough on drugs. Then having left office adopt a more pragmatic and honest view, often accompanied by personal confessions of past drug use.

So this unanimous call for drug policy reform by all the main political parties is most likely the result of a range of push and pull factors. Some of which will be personal, political instinct or economic pragmatism. Irrespective of what has really driven this change in approach to drugs what matters is how far reaching this reform will be. Something much more than tinkering will be required to halt the record numbers dying due to drugs or the increasingly easy access we all have to drugs despite them being banned.

Rarely do politicians act ahead of public opinion so we all have to consider how radical we are willing to be when it comes to this issue. Unfortunately the way harm due to drugs is spreading, if you haven’t been personally impacted by drugs it won’t be long before you are. Whether you’re a politician or just thinking about who deserves your vote, first-hand experience is more powerful in prompting an appetite for change to prohibition than evidence.