A fair cop: Interview with Tom Lloyd

Witty, informed and eminently sensible, former police officer Tom Lloyd was one of the star speakers at the SSDP Drug Policy Reform conference held in Galway on April 5. Having begun his UK police career in 1974 and retired as a Chief Constable in 2005, Lloyd has witnessed at first hand the myriad failings of the current prohibition. He now works with the International Drug Policy Consortium and TalkDrugs.org, both managed by drugs organisation Release. Following his conference talk at Aras Ui Chathaill, NUIG, Lloyd sat down with Hot Press to expand upon some of the topics he touched on.

HOT PRESS: Are we getting any closer to an end to international cannabis prohibition?

TOM LLOYD: I think we are, especially because of what we’ve seen this year in the United States. The states of Colorado and Washington have moved towards a controlled and regulated system, so that anyone can use cannabis. Though the models aren’t exactly the same, in effect the production and supply have been taken out of the hands of criminals, which is excellent news. But there are also benefits in taxation and a whole range of other benefits that we perhaps haven’t seen fully yet. Also, there's the other very significant step of Uruguay legalising the production, supply and consumption of cannabis. They’ve gone for a mixed model, which is essentially less commercial than the US. Individual growers can grow their own, you can join a collective, and, of course, you can buy from state registered and regulated outlets using cannabis produced under government licence.

You recently visited Uruguay.

I actually visited Uruguay about a week ago because they invited a number of people from around the world to assist in the monitoring and evaluation of the law because – whether they like it or not – the eyes of the world are upon them. What concerns me is people who still advocate prohibition – what they’ll do is try to find the smallest little weakness, or the smallest area where maybe things aren’t going perfectly, and then raise that as a sign that the whole thing is failing. But the news from the US and from Uruguay means that we are considerably closer, but we’ve still got a fair old tussle to try to persuade people to see reason.

There are various law enforcement agencies all over the world – e.g. the DEA in America – who need prohibition in order to justify their heavily funded existence. Is that a problem?

There are huge vested interests now in maintaining prohibition because there are huge numbers of police and law enforcement. The likes of the DEA, local cops and federal agencies all get their salaries, to an extent, because a lot of their time is spent enforcing the drug laws. Also, and this is where it’s sad, because a lot of police time and effort is spent dealing with either street robberies or burglaries or shoplifting. Much of that is an economic consequence of prohibition driving the price of drugs up, and the criminals controlling the market, and people having to pay inflated prices for their drug supply and committing crime to do so. But the fact is that people see this as something that’s important to do. We’ve had 40 years of the modern war on drugs, the war on people, of myths, lies, misrepresentation and deception around what’s actually going on. And many people believe that law enforcement is the way to try to somehow reduce consumption, reduce supply, reduce harm – even though, patently, that’s failed.

In America especially, the private prison business needs a constant supply of prisoners.

Yes, in the US you’ve got a massive private prison industry, which lives to a very large extent on prisoners prosecuted under drug laws. We’ve got this ridiculous situation where in the US the level of incarceration is massive: with 5% of the world’s population, the US has 25% of the world’s prisoners! Estimates vary, but perhaps over half are there because of drug prohibition. If you think about some of the more militaristic type of approaches deployed to try and destroy crops in Colombia or other parts of Latin America, there is also a huge investment in money, resources, human resources as well, in producing arms, helicopters, other equipment. There are people who are paid salaries and support their community by working in these munitions factories and other places. So you’ve got an awful lot of people who basically live off the money spent on drug prohibition.

There’s always been a lack of political will to address the issue of drug prohibition. Is this changing?

I think it is – because public opinion is changing, approaching the tipping point, if not there yet. Americans refer to drugs as a ‘third rail topic’, which means you don’t touch it because you don’t want to get electrocuted. Meaning politicians don’t want to talk about drug prohibition and if they do they will inevitably have to go down the route of having to discuss alternatives to the failed policy. So there is a kind of vested political interest in not discussing options other than prohibition.

Given the damage being done by the War on Drugs, is that not an almost criminal complacency?

It is a complacency which is rational, in one sense, if you’re a politician. Because if you genuinely believe, and certainly in many parts of the world this would be true, that if you advocate some kind of drug law or drug policy reform then you might lose votes – as a politician, that’s against your raison d’etre. If you don’t have votes you’re not a politician, you’re just someone who’s unelected like anybody else. So it’s a rational choice not to engage in the debate. Leaving the politics aside, not engaging in the debate is irrational and largely dishonest and also perpetuates what is a hugely damaging system. There is massive harm of many types caused by drug prohibition. But it is very complex – and while we have a democracy it’s very difficult for politicians to engage in this constructively. Some do, if they have the necessary support and understanding. But it’s interesting when you look at what happened in Colorado and Washington, for example: that was the population saying they wanted a change and then the politicians followed. And I suspect that’s largely how it will have to go in most countries and most States.

In Uruguay public opinion was actually against cannabis legalisation.

It’s interesting. President Mujica basically drove the legalisation of cannabis forward in his country and succeeded. He did secure a majority in parliament, but the majority of the population actually don’t agree with him. So that was brave politics: I think he’s an inspiration that many others could follow.

Have you ever experimented with any illegal substances yourself?

My drug of choice is alcohol. But it’s an interesting question that. Why should it be relevant? What we’ll do now as members of the public or journalists or whatever is always ask a politician or an activist, “What about you? Do you use the stuff?” I suppose, in one sense, it’s a legitimate question because you want to ask, “Is it your own personal interest? Are you advocating for reform so you can smoke more dope?” In my case, no, that’s not the case. I’m doing it basically to try and minimise harm – but also to stop criminals getting away with these huge profits. I object to that.

Of course, admitting to past drug use can result in restricted travel. Look at Nigella Lawson this week...

Yes, they wouldn’t allow her into America because of her self-confessed cocaine use, and yet President Obama admitted in his autobiography to using cocaine – so perhaps because he’s already in he’s getting away with it (laughs). Perhaps if he went on a visit abroad they’d stop him coming back in, though I think that’s highly unlikely. This just shows you: you are inhibiting natural freedom of movement and trade for no real genuine, supportable reason.

Is racism a motivating factor for continuing the War On Drugs?

Well, there are some theories that suggest that President Nixon was motivated by racism against blacks when he declared the modern war on drugs ‘Public Enemy No.1’ in 1971. I think there’s some evidence that his chief of staff Haldeman was a witness to him saying, “This is a way we can get the blacks.” There is no doubt that the application of drug law enforcement appears to be racially biased in perhaps every country where it’s enforced. It is often the marginalised, the minorities, the poor, the vulnerable, who are on the receiving end of most the drug law enforcement, as opposed to those who are more engaged in society, better off, more able perhaps to either articulate their own position or have access to people who articulate it for them. The ridiculous 100 to 1 disparity in sentencing for powder cocaine and crack cocaine meant that, as crack was predominantly used by poor people, that was why it was produced – so that cocaine became available as a cheaper commodity. This is what drug gangs do. This is the pernicious effect of drug prohibition. We have huge sentences handed down to black people. That’s changed in recent years. However, it’s still an 18 to 1 disparity. Everywhere you turn, prohibition is creating problems over racist behaviour, over persecution of minorities, over waste of resources that could be better directed away from law enforcement into health or social justice or social equality or education.

It’s ultimately a totally dishonest policy, isn’t it?

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the YouTube clips of DEA officials and others when asked the question at a congressional hearing, “Which is more dangerous, heroin or marijuana?” They won’t say heroin is. They just bluster and say “Well, they’re all terribly dangerous.” Well, of course this is not true and so we now have a hugely damaging situation going on where children, if they bother to listen to what grown-ups are saying or certainly if they listen to what prohibitionists are saying, they’re not getting the truth and they know it’s not the truth. So, this undermines any message you might want to give children about making sensible choices by understanding the reality of what’s actually happening in the drug world. I mean, it’s an unsafe world at the moment because of prohibition. All drugs are more harmful, more dangerous when criminals are in charge of their production and supply. And almost any intervention by law enforcement is going to make you worse off, whether or not you have a problem with your drug consumption.