13 Apr HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 1

I have conducted an in-depth analysis of the written evidence submitted to the Home Affairs select committee inquiry into drugs policy.

As published by the committee, the evidence runs to 731 pages. Although numbered up to 189, there are, in fact, 171 submissions.

Kathy Gyngell, the ex-daytime TV producer, notorious for her extreme prohibitionist views, has managed to get two submissions accepted – 01 – “CPS” and 116 – “Centre for Policy Studies”

I had previously thought that David Raynes, who is the author of submission 94 – “Pheon Management Services” was also behind 132 – “National Drug Prevention Alliance”. However, I now accept that the NDPA submission was made by Peter Stoker independently and I have apologised to David Raynes for my error.

I shall be writing to Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the committee, to ask him to correct this. It is clearly improper that these double submissions have been submitted in disguise and accepted.

Results

I have assessed each submission as falling into either green or red categories.

This was not a difficult task as it was very clear in which category each submission belongs. The only exception was 183 – Alliance Boots, which taking a conservative view, I placed in red.

137 – 80% – in favour of reform/opposed to prohibition

34 – 20% – in favour of the status quo/prohibition

CLEAR Evidence

49 – 29% – cite CLEAR evidence

Further parts in this series will look in detail at some of the more notable submissions.

HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 2

HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 3

No Comments

Post A Comment