The US War on Drugs is phony bullshit. That’s not news. It’s been rebadged as Third Way under Obama, but even by the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s admission, it’s not been significantly altered – those mandatory minimum sentences are still on the books, and possession of marijuana remains a criminal offence. As with so many sociopolitical features, the UK’s drug-related policies, laws and problems bear striking similarities to the USA’s, but there are some distinct differences.
A first glance at the UK statistics and the US statistics suggests similar patterns in UK and US drug use. Overall, around 8 to 10 percent of the population of both countries have taken an illicit drug in the past year. Cannabis is by far the most-frequently-consumed illicit substance, with cocaine, popular among the relatively wealthy, checking in at second-place. So far, so unsurprising.
Still, similarities aside, there are also some significant differences on the ground, and it’s here where the root problems each country is attempting to address diversify a tad. Methamphetamine is a fine example: with over a million users in the USA, it’s one of America’s most popular drugs – probably third-placed. Yet in Britain, it’s the least popular traditionally-manufactured illegal drug: it’s estimated that just 17,000 Britons took meth in 2011. (Maybe that’s the real reason we don’t like Breaking Bad?). Proportionately, meth is around eleven times more popular in the States. That’s a hell of a difference.
As the BBC notes, the demographic makeup of the people that use it is rather different here, too. In America, meth is associated with the underclass, and meth addiction is overwhelmingly associated with the lower classes; in Britain, the majority of the small contingent using it operate in upmarket clubs, particular gay clubs, located in affluent parts of major UK cities. A variety of factors – bad reputation, expense, lack of pop cultural cachet – have contributed to its relatively insignificant status here. When choosing between a £250/gram high that Britons best know as causing “meth mouth” and, say, a £50 gram of relatively-respectable cocaine, the choice to many Britons is obvious.
The UK’s biggest drug concern is that of designer drugs and the rapid onset of “legal highs”, a far more difficult nut to crack, especially given the sledgehammer-like nature of most anti-drug laws. With a burgeoning scene for such product across the UK, both geographically and demographically, it’s able to be sold for relatively small amounts of money, and as chemical discoveries can be rather fast-moving, such product has been nimble at skirting UK law. As The Guardian note, it’s almost impossible for a kind of ‘war on drugs’ to continue against such tides.
Yet despite the differences in takeup, and the different political attitudes of the country at large, the UK’s Drug War policies have by-and-large replicated those of the US, to the point of signing an agreement with the US (and Russia, Sweden and Italy) concerning the old third-way terms. Oh, the Drug War hasn’t been at the forefront of British politics quite as much as its transatlantic superior. But make no mistake: it’s still a Thing. An open letter to British Members of Parliament (MPs) from celebrities and businesspeople as diverse as Richard Branson, Russell Brand and Sting made the rounds earlier this summer. It reiterates exactly the kind of points you’d anticipate: that the UK government spends £3bn on drug policy annually and achieves almost nothing; that root causes need to be tackled and many possession charges decriminalised. It’s a reaction to a – again, predictable – recent independent governmental committee report that states “we need to review existing policy, which costs taxpayers £3 billion a year but does little to address the root causes of addiction and pointlessly criminalises people.” The report is supported by an array of “backbench” MPs – those not ranked highly within their respective parties – from four major UK political parties.
The British public aren’t behind it, though. Sixty percent of the country are opposed to decriminalisation of possessing small amounts of illegal substances; only 14% outright say they support it, with the balance coming from those who feel more extensive trials and tests are necessary to determine the worth of decriminalisation. Even when presented with detailed specific scenarios, the majority still oppose marijuana possession legality. Two-thirds claim to support independent review, yet when it comes down to it, they don’t agree with enacting that very review’s proposals.
In a country ruled by tabloid press, then, the official word is no surprise: “there’s no case for fundamentally rethinking the UK’s approach”. The popular press concur. One step forward, two steps back; on this, Britain and the USA remain fundamentally one and the same.
Rules and regulations regarding drug representation on British TV and in British film are reasonably strict. We’re actually kind of hot on preventing any positive depictions. Even at the 18 certificate, the British Board of Film Classification won’t allow any drug depiction that “promotes or encourages misuse” – and they ain’t bullshitting either, as one particularly descriptive Weeds DVD bonus feature discovered. One of their poorest decisions of recent years. (Classification of home video is a legal requirement for the vast majority of content in the UK, so you can’t just pull an “Unrated” like the USA.)
All the cool kids found out about Mary Jane from Weeds DVD extras, y’know. (Not the show itself. That’s fine.)
TV’s not too different. Ofcom, the UK TV regulator, is pretty hot on “protecting the under-18s“. Curiously, the only section of their guidelines in which drug-taking is mentioned: TV and radio broadcasts that might be listened to by under-18s, particularly those aired before the watershed (9pm), must never glamourise or condone drug use (or smoking, or excessive alcohol consumption). There’s a little more leeway than the BBFC in that they don’t explicitly state that no broadcast can ever promote drug use, but of course in practice, that never happens anyway (and would probably contravene their “generally accepted standards” at any rate).
[divider]
As I’ve mentioned previously in this column, primetime soap operas are among the most popular programming on British television, and drugs feature prominently in their storylines from time to time. Naturally, the characters involved in such are always looked down upon with the requisite amount of scorn. Channel 4, the slightly more offbeat and arthouse of our major channels, did something pretty nifty last year, though: live broadcasts of volunteers taking MDMA.
- It was a busy weekend for American films in British cinemas, as the top three titles were new US-studio-backed entires. Insidious Chapter 2 won the battle, as I’d anticipated, with a very good £3 bow; Rush, the Formula 1 biopic, did decently in second, with £2m. White House Down had to settle for third, predictably, though its £1.1m wasn’t an awful result, all things considered. Elsewhere, Despicable Me 2 is still in the top 10 after twelve weeks, which is a little bit bonkers. The coming weekend is light on newbies, Brit biopic Diana likely the best-performing of a bad bunch, despite the absolute critical slaying it’s received. The US is represented by RIPD (LOL) and The Call, two long-delayed critical and commercial disappintments.
- Less imported excitement on the music charts. Katy Perry stayed at number one on the singles top 40, with “Roar”. Albums charts were dominated by British newbies; Gregory Porter just made the top 40 with his latest LP, while Janelle Monáe‘s latest made #14 (vs. #6 in the USA).
- I wrote about the Picket Fences pilot for ThisWasTV.com this week. Enjoy.
- Most Britons want the burka banned. Much like with the drugs, we can be a little conservative when we want to be..
