Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Why drug reform advocates must move away from activism to make change

The pro-drug reform lobby must accept it has failed and change to push its agenda ahead, leading experts have warned.

Speaking at a Global Cannabis Intelligence event about the state of advocacy in the UK, three leading policy advocates set out how they think greater access can be achieved.

The discussion comes week after the 50-year anniversary of the passage of the The Misuse of Drugs Act.

Despite evidence the law has failed to reduced drug-related harm and several attempts to change it, the act still defines the UK’s approach to drugs.

Paul North, director at advocacy group Volteface, said campaigners need to be less ideological if it wants to avoid another 50 years of failure.

He said ‘activism is very limited because it relies on a central message and is tied to an ideology’ and that  ‘if someone can predict your position, you probably aren’t going to get people to agree with you’.


Mr North added: “Extinction Rebellion is a good example of this – nearly everyone thinks climate change is bad but a lot of people don’t like them because they are so tied to an ideology, it creates a ‘them and us’ scenario.

“When a subject is moral like drug policy, that becomes a problem.”


He said activism has a role but advocates of drug reform must harness public relations effectively and be more inclusive.

North continued: “Drug reform debate must move beyond activism because, if we’re totally honest, drug reform [in the UK] in the past 50 years has been fairly abysmal, not a great deal has happened…the approach I take to that is, rather than being angrier and louder, we need to step back and as what we can do differently.”


He called on the drug reform movement to ‘be brave and do things a little differently, adding: “When I came into this space I envisioned it being friendly and positive but it’s actually very turbulent and cliquey.

“The challenge is if you want to say something else or start a new narrative, it gets quite lively.”


His sentiments were echoed by David Badcock, CEO of Drug Science, who said an evidence-based approach was far more likely to make inroads with politicians and regulators.


He said: “It’s no good just attacking the whole time and telling people they are wrong and misinformed…it’s not something that makes a difference and changes things.


“When you attack policymakers, they just dig in deeper. What we try and do is try and engage positively with policymakers who can make a difference.”


Amber Moore, senior researcher at the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group, said: “The most important thing is talking to people who aren’t fully convinced and understand what their concerns are…that’s such an important part of it.

“It’s not always easy but I think the best way to do it is just listen to people.”



Share this post

Link to post

11 minutes ago, Joolz said:

His sentiments were echoed by David Badcock, CEO of Drug Science, who said an evidence-based approach was far more likely to make inroads with politicians and regulators.



How did that approach work out for Drug Science founder David Nutt?

12 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Posted (edited)

Yes it sure did work wonders for him.

He got the sack.For speaking the truth.


I guess saying necking E is safer than horse riding got quite a few toffs back up.
Plus saying cannabis was safer than fags and booze.



How many MP have ties to the drink industry.It use to be quite a few .

I bet that did not go down to well at all.


Tories dont like being told they are wrong .

It goes against their mind set.


Abit like Humpty Trumpty was .


Just Doris is our trump sad to say.

Edited by hashi
2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

He's right though, 50 years of abysmal progress, more than likely another 50 of ignorance and corruption. 



1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

   There has been more regression than progress, in the UK legislation at least :(

However, there has been a significant change in public attitudes as seen in the change to medical cannabis :)


   The last 50 years did not always have legal USA, Canada and so many more lessons from the rest of the world to look at.

To be seen by an ever more connected and international populace! :george:

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

So change from the truth of “You’re misinformed and shouldn’t be given the power to run a car park let alone a country” to something along the lines of “yes we are all filthy addict nut jobs, won’t you please help us by giving us some nice safe govt grown weed that you can make a shit tonne of money off” then in another 5 year change the tune again to “we was only kidding last time but look, shit ain’t that bad eh? Crimes down, people are more chilled, tax revenues are up, there’s less violence as people have realised there’s a great alternative to the booze. Can we have an open market now pretty please oh glorious govt?”


Meh, seems like a lot of effort but might be the only way we ever see change. These toffs and twats will never give in if you accuse them of not knowing everything!

Share this post

Link to post

Maybe if they hadn't bottled it in 1971 spice would never have took off if the UK?

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0