arrests? >> from my experience, being arrested, there's some confusion and ignorance around addiction. and it is understandable, because a lot of drug addicts, speaking personally, are anti-social. they are a strain on society. they necessarily engage in criminal activity. they're a public nuisance in many ways. i felt, when i was arrested, that the police were doing a necessary job of enforcing the laws of this country. and they were doing what they had to do. but it wasn't until i had access to abstinence-based recovery that i was able to change my behavior and significantly reduce my criminal activity apart from the occasional squirmish. >> final quell from me, on this section, is the issue of legal highs. we've been very concerned in the evidence that we've received about the number of legal highs that are available. and young people who seem to be able to take legal highs, whenever they are banned or proposed to be banned, a new legal high emerges. do you think that this is

something that does effect young people? is this now the drug of choice for young people? >> i don't know because i'm not young enough anymore. but i know that young people will always want to get high. and i think that what we need is a pragmatic approach to this. in a way, for me, as i said before, is insignificant, the substance they are using. alcohol, illegal street drugs, the legal status of a drug is irrelevant. if you are a drug addict, you are getting drugs, that's it. in a way, it is probably best to make it simple. as for legal highs, what we need to do is address the social, mental and spiritual problems that are leading young people or people of all ages to taking drugs. what we need is research into about skin nance-based recovery. >> under some of those points, brid bridget? >> you are currently working on a program on addiction. what messages are you hoping to get across? >> the messages we're hoping to

get across is that mate nenls of drug addiction through state sponsored substances should be only be deployed as part of the program. we need to start regarding addiction in all its forms as a health issue as opposed to a criminal issue. that we need to change the laws in this country and we need to have more compassionate, loving attitude to the 350epeople with disease. and recognize that people with proper help, access to the proper treatment, can become active and helpful members of society, like myself, some would argue that point or perhaps chip somers, a man with a criminal record as long as your arm, now runs a treatment center and has been clean for 27 years. that's the message. we don't want to discard people. we don't want to life them off on methadone and leave them on the sidelines. we need to bring them in, offer them treatment and once again, neutrknewiz izneutralize the th.

we need to offer them treatment and activate them and incorporate them into the society. the message is one of pra matism and compassion, in all areas of the condition. >> thank you. mr. somers. we will have questions for you, if you want to chip in, if i may, at any stage, please feel free to do so. is there anything you want to add? >> i think he's doing splendidly. >> thanks, chip. he runs the treatment where i got clean, so -- >> we are coming to him -- >> he's already the puppeteer between every articulation. >> mr. ellis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. brapd, ynd, you said addicts an illness. >> yes. >> but would you say it is fair to characterize it as self-induced? >> not really. >> like many other illnesses. and also that it does carry with it victims, many people who are

on drugs commit offenses against other people, do they not? so, it dife erdifers in that, a well. when one is looking at the criminal justice system, doesn't one need to have compassion for the victims of crime? >> i've glad you asked me that question. very important question, it's one that we need to address. of course the victims of a drug-related crime are important and need to be taken care of. we were with graham bartlett yesterday, a wonderful man, a good civil-minded gentleman. his belief that by regarding addiction as an illness, by offering treatment, instead of a more punitive approach, we can take -- we can prevent people from committing crimes. just personally, i was a criminal when i was a drug addiction, the ways i had to i a require money to get drugs.

chip was an armed robber. i hope you don't mind me telling them this. and other people i've met, criminality is necessary. of course we're not saying forget the victims. but it's better to address the social situation pragmatically. and i think we all know this. by prescribing methadone to people, most people on methadone are using illegal drugs to supplement their habit. they are not addressing the root problems. we need to approach the victims with respect, whether it is been criminal behavior, it needs to be dealt with, but in the penal system itself, we can offer treatment, like the brilliant work that's done by raft in various institutions and prisons. >> that needs to be -- >> i don't feel it needs to be a carrot or a stick. both of those things seem like bizarre melt fors. love and compassion, for everybody involved. if people are committing criminal behavior, it needs to be delt with. you need to offer them treatment. not liberalism but because it

deems with the problem and prevents further crimes. addicts that get clean at one day at a time through abstinence-based recovery generally speaking stop committing crimes. >> ellis? >> the role that celebrities play in society is not insignificant. i want to -- >> i'd argue that it is insignificant and that's why they play that role. >> perhaps it should be more than it is. what i want to know from you, mr. brand, is if you think having got out of the cycle of addiction, and i congratulate you for that. >> thank you. >> whether you would like to position yourself as a role model in society for those who might look to you, as an example. >> as the great tupac said, role is something people play, model is something that people make. both of those things are fake. what i want to offer people is truth and authenticity in the treatment of this illness, in our regard to the criminal

components of it. in assisting victims and in the way we legislation and organize our society. i can't be responsible, as you know, you know, you hold committees all the time about the behavior of our media. what the cipher of my image is used to represent. i have no control over. >> you do. you do. because your behavior is some aspect of what's portrayed about you, isn't it? >> well, yes, of course. how is this going to be written up? this could be written up, michael ellis is sprawled on a pill there by the wit or brand or could say former drug addict rambled on. if you read it in "the telegraph," in one thing, in "the socialist worker," it's going to say another thing. behave yorp has got components. but i'm saying, what i want to you have aer people is truth and authenticity. i think celebrity is a toxic concept used to distract people from what is actually important and in this case, that's treatment of people with the disease of addiction. >> mr. somers?

>> as far as we were concerned, those people who are brave enough, who are both celebrities and recovering addicts have a profound effect on the number of people who seek treatment, because it givens out a very positive message that recovery is possible. and when russell brand's book came out, the number of referrals to our treatment center was just, you know, hugely exam rated because people. suddenly discovered that treatment was possible, help was possible and people could get better. and it made a profound difference. i would help that more people in the public eye, whether it be -- celebrities they are in the public eye, will come forward and have the bravery to do so. >> so celebrities can be a positive role? >> absolutely. but then it can backfire, as well, when people make a big fuss about being in recovery and relapse and, of course, that's unfortunate. but we're fortunate with russell that he's maintaining a good recovery and continues to be a good role model. >> don't you think more people need to know about things like

cocaine production, where cocaine comes from? the committee went to colombia to look at the affects that the harvesting of cocaine was having on the people of colombia, who are extraordinarily poor and were forced to be involved in this kind of activity. do you think if there was more focus on where it all came from and how it affected communities, that would help stop people getting voge getting involved? >> no. no more than the industrial consequences of oil production affect people using their cars. people care about getting the resource their require. the illegality makes no difference. i think what we need is to aness the emotional, mental and spiritual problems that lead to addiction. of course, any illegal industry or the cocaine manufacturing in south american nations, wherever, has a negative consequence for their nations but i don't think that's something that individual drug addicts are going to be affected by, because they are normally on drugs. >> thank you very much.

>> i'd like to ask a question to mr. somers. focus 12 has three high profile patients, mr. brand and boy george included. that is something unthinkable about 50 years ago. >> yes. >> do you think that's led to a wider acceptance of drug use in society in general? >> i don't think it's encouraged people to use drugs. i think there have been some people who have made a positive -- >> sorry -- >> i was right in the middle of my answer. >> still a good speech. just some ladies going by. >> the public is fine. >> because flirting with them to. >> i think there are certain celebrities who have made sort of a positive message about drug use, which has not helped the situation at all. i think most people who get

better from drug addiction are a very positive influence. but i think there are some, obviously, who have probably contributed to people using drugs because they make it look glamorous, they make it look interesting. and i don't suppose that helps. but i think as long as -- while they are using, they tend to do that. if they stop using, they obviously become a very positive role model. but i do think there are some celebrities -- i don't think it's made a huge difference. one or two people -- >> who cares about -- >> as a focus, how do you pick your celebrities in. >> the ones that get clean, i'll grab them. >> thank you. >> very helpful. >> firstly, i would like to congratulate you on your work on abstinence-based work. i think it's very effective and i share your suspicious about long-term methadone maintenance. i was struck by your comments

about the problems of highlighting drug use in communities. do you think we're doing enough or do you think that there's a risk that will harm reduction-based approaches to giving a false impression that there are some drugs which are safe if they are used correctly? >> i think we are not doing anything enough to give an honest answer to the problems of drugs. i think we are giving a rather clouded message about drug use. i think there's a lot more we could be doing, but honestly educating people about drugs. i don't think we address it, take it on board properly enough. and i, yeah, i feel we should be doing much more. especially at an educational level. we should be giving honest education and i don't think there are many honest education. we need to change how we're doing the education of young

people, particularly. >> how? because -- >> by giving more honest information. it's no good just going into schools, saying, drufks are bad, stop it. because in each of those schools there will be people who are using cannabis, who are using ecstasy, not all school, but some of them will be. and if you don't give people the both, the good and the bad of drug use, you -- they won't listen to you. because there are lots of people in schools who are smoking cannabis and not dropping dead. you have to give both the positive and the negative side of it. i don't think we're doing that. it's too much of the negative side of it and not giving honest information, unless it is honest, people won't listen. >> thank you. >> mr. somers, you are an advocate for about skin nance-based approaches. you know there's been work published that showed there was good evidence for methadone maintenance and very high cost effectiveness, fairly good for heroin meant innocence and a lack of evidence for abstinence.

do you think that's the answer for everybody or are you arguing that there are people for whom it is a very good option? >> i think it is an admirable aim for everybody, not everybody can achieve it, not everybody can give up smoking. but i think it is, i think there's a really good purpose for methadone usage, at a certain stage. but just to park people on methadone for four to seven years and more is criminal, really, i mean, just to keep people locked into that addiction, because methadone usage is a dependency. you are totally depen den. i think it has a role. but i think it gets overused and we just tend to use it as a responsible to everything. and we don't do enough to intervene. i think it would be an admirable aim for everybody. i don't think methadone usage is a good thing. i see very few people on methadone who are leading good, stable lives. i think most of the people are also using other drugs on top. if i saw it producing good stability, i would be much more in favor of it.

i don't see that. what i do see is people who are abstinent lead good lives. >> i think that suggests further research is needed. can i ask, for both of you, because we have finite resources to spend. if we are going to spend more money on treatment and education, money has to be taken somewhere. and one suggestion is that we spend less money on doing the policing of possession, for example. is that something which you would support? >> i this i that's-- i think th brilliant idea. i think there are people in the criminal justice services that share that view. the you have a apro rate the resources from somewhere and it's been brought up in here, it's like -- it's not -- penalizing people for the possession of drugs is costly and expensive. a good number of times i was arrested was simply for

possession and the costs of that would be better spent on education and addressing and treatment, i think that would be a very, very sensible use of those redirected funds. >> mr. somers? >> i feel like i'm in school now because i've forgotten the question. >> instead of nicking people for possession, just stick it into treatment and education. >> thank you for that translation mr. brand. mr. somers? >> i think there's an awful lot of money wasted on small-time possession of small amounts of drugs which are just part and parcel. i think there's a lot of police time wasted on that. i'm not saying we should legalize it. if we could get rid of some of that. that sort of minor possession is just part of the every day life of being an addict. and, you know, it would be -- i certainly think there's a massive difference between that. it's good to treat it as a health issue but i'm not in

favor of legalizing things. i think we do -- >> you spent a lot of time in prison. >> yes, i did. >> also armed robbery to get drugs. i think -- >> mr. brand -- >> thank you. there's quite a gap between education and full-blown addiction. and treatment for abstinence and in that gap, you have first use and so on. and what you need is intervention during that period, to prevent addiction and sort of prevention and some of that prevention is, perhaps, diver shun programs. are you saying we should remove all spending on those intermediate steps in drugs policy? >> no. i think we should do it better. >> thank you. >> thank you. chairman, i'd like to ask both the gentlemen, what are your views on dekrillization or legalization of drugs? >> mr. brand? >> chip's been clear on the subject. i'm not a legal expert. i'm saying that it's, to a drug

addict, the legal status is irrelevant. it's at best a inkon veen yecon. you are going to get drugs rega regardless. the more money you waste in administering and controlling that, i think there's a futility. >> would you be in favor or not? >> yeah, to tell you the truth, yes, i would. i think there's a degree of coward and willful ignorance. a good many people here, if you think about it, we all someone who is affected by alcoholism and addiction and it's something we need to handle compassionately. the criminal and legal status, i think, sends the wrong message. but i wouldn't start banging a drum, as i said before, to make drugs legal. i don't take any drugs and i don't drink because for me, they are bad. er think we need to recognize the distinction that certain people have a condition or a tendency that drugs and alcohols are going to ruin their lives. we need to find those people. >> mr. somers? >> do you agree with --

>> i think there's a real argument for decriminalizing it. however, i think there's a massive difference between that and legalizing drugs. i think you really find it very difficult to justify the legal use of a lot of drugs. you can't really justify the legal use of heroin, crack cocaine, or any of those drugs. there's no reason for people to use those drugs. you would be -- >> what about cannabis? >> that's probably the one you can make an argument for. >> you wouldn't support the legalization or cannabis? >> i think it's the one most likely to be -- the one you have a chance to actually put forward and argument. i don't think there's any justification for the legalization -- >> but if you legalize or decriminalize cannabis, you are not taking away the problem. we've seen the other end. there is a serious organized crime issue and narco-terrorism.

it ruins people's lives, causes conflict in countries. i mean -- >> i'm not advocating the legalization of cannabis. i'm jouust saying if there was y drug at all that you could at a forward an argument, cannabis is the one you've got the best chance with. how on earth do you justify the usage of heroin or crack cocaine -- >> making it legal is not working anyway. i just think that there needs to be honesty and authenticity around this issue so people in parliament don't look like they're out of touch. some of the this information is already accessible. >> thank you. one question for mr. ellis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you both referred to a preference for ignoring what you describe as the more minor offending in relation to drugs. can i suggest to you that a lot of the more minor offending leads to some of the more major

offending. and that actually what one is doing if one is to ignore those types of offenses would be to make the matter worse, both for society who is suffering under the increased levels of crime, but also for the offender who would be less likely to learn the lessons of having been arrested and be more likely to get worse. >> let me interrupt for a bit. being arrested isn't a lesson, it's just an administrative blip. you need to demonstrate an awareness of the situation. in many ways the disease or condition of addiction does exacerbate and if you start taking drugs it's likely you'll take worse drugs and committing crime. but again, mate, what we need to identify is a degree of authenticity and compassion in the way we deal with this policemen problem. otherwise you just seem like you don't know what you've talked about. we've talked about that. what about the victims of the

crime? >> i think all parties are interested in victims of crime. >> of course we are. that's what we're saying. >> i think we're running out of time. i have a final question -- >> time is infinite. >> unfortunately -- >> we cannot run out of time. >> for this committee -- >> who's next? she may not show up. >> mr. brand, i have a final question for you. >> it's not quite a variety show, mr. brand. >> you're providing a little bit of variety, though. >> mr. brand. you have 4.5 million twitter followers and 1.5 million facebook followers. having gone through addiction and then rehabilitation, what is your message to young people who want to get involved in drugs? what would you say to them about the effects that it has? >> my message isn't for young people, my message is for people that have this condition of addiction. if you have the condition of addiction there is help available for you and i

recommend be a sin sense-based recovery i don't want like it's any of my business. the kids that just say no, who are taking drugs in the white house when they were visiting nancy reagan, it's a further demonstration of the disjunct between reality and authenticity. let's have an authentic, truthful, honest debate and funding for abstinence-based recovery. >> do you have anything to add to that? what you're doing in your charity? >> i tend to deal with what -- i get very muddled in all the legalization, decriminalization -- what i do is deal with the problem when it exists. i agree completely when those people come into treatment, they have damaged a lot of the people in the public, they are harming at least four or five other people this their families who are significantly distressed by that behavior and i try and prevent that and i think the best way of preventing that in the long-term basis is ultimately abstinence treatment.

i think that's when you start causing harm to the families, stop causing harm to the public, and that's your best chance. at the moment i see people who are not in abstinence perhaps, still cause advertise press to people in families and the public. >> thank you very much. and thank you for your written evidence. order, could order,. alder, could we have you're next witnesses, please. thank you very much.alder, coult witnesses, please. thank you very much. >> now, thank you very much for coming to give evidence. as you know, the committee is

conducting an inquiry into drugs policy, all aspects of drugs policy. weed we'd like to start with you. you've been quite quit critical of successive governments including to some extent our inquiry. because i think you have a feeling that all the strategy does not result in government and parliament being tough on those who use drugs. is that your view? are you worried about the way in which drug strategy has developed? >> well, the simple summary of my view is this. that most discussion on drug policy in britain today is based on following false logic. that there has been an attempt at serious prohibition of drug use. that attempt at serious prohibition has failed. therefore, we should abandon any future attempts at serious prohibition. the truth is, and it's easily examined if you look, for instance, at arrest figures, if you look at instructions to

magistrates dating back to 1973, this country abandoned any serious attempt to prohibit the use and possession, particularly of cannabis, but also actually of class "a" drugs many years ago. and that we have informally and without admission a system of decriminalization in this country more advanced than either portugal and the netherlands. and to argue on the basis of that prohibition has failed and we should have even less of it is not merely false and mistaken but actually unhinged. >> that's very helpful. the government's overall strategy, do you think that it's in the right direction? >> the new strategy, if we do what they say, i'm in drug education, really. if they do what they say and stop people from ever taking drugs in the first place, i'll be absolute delighted. we say that we will give accurate and reliable information, and that isn't out there at the moment.

but if that's alter ed, yes, i' happy with it. it makes a change from the harm reduction education which has been in vogue for the last, i don't know, 10, 15 years, something like that. >> no, i agree that the war on drugs is a -- you would like to say, reports of my death have been much exaggerated. this is something that hasn't happened. we have got de facto decriminalization. an administrative blip if it indeed happens, if anything happens after arrest you're even luckier. i think advertise class cannabis was reclassified to class "b," in effect, all we have had is a majority of cases of warnings. so children haven't been protected. there hasn't been proper intervention. and unfortunately, there aren't the type of intervention programs following that initial arrest or warning that do help children. and stop them from continuing.

>> you've been absolutely clear you're against decriminalization but you probably followed events in south america where, following the visit of president obama and before he visited colombia recently, the heads of government of south american countries also saying that we have to have a debate about decriminalization because the so-called war on drugs, and this is where they agree with you, has not really worked. is there no possibility, do you think, of any form of decriminalization to try and deal with the drugs barons attempt to run these -- >> mr. chairman, we have decriminalization. we've had decriminalization in this country since the passage of misuse act, bipartisan measure in 1971, and particularly its implementation in october of 1973 when he instructed magistrates to cease sending people to prison for cannabis possession, which has then grown over the years into a reduction of penalties for that drug to such an extent that the prime police response to

cannabis arrests now is something called the cannabis warning which doesn't even have your legislative seal out, was created entirely administratively by the association chiefs of police officers and does have no legislative force nor any criminal force. cannabis in this country is effectively decriminalized. therefore, one could point out further if you want me to go into. >> please. >> because it's an answer some months ago, that the actual performance of the criminal justice system towards class "a" drugs is not much stronger. so we have a situation of decriminalization. to argue that to solve any problem to do with drugs you would need to decriminalize is therefore to argue from a position saying we need something which we have already got and which we have had for 30 years. the huge, the huge tragedies visited, particularly on south and central america, are the result of the enormous self-indulgence of