New website layout

 

 

Overview index

Summary:

1. Summary of claim

 

Characteristics of severe discrimination:

2. Discrimination is characterised by a difference in respect and dignity; in severe cases the victims are dehumanised and even demonised.
3. Discrimination is characterised by a difference in treatment; in severe cases the victims are criminalised, even executed, for activities permitted for others.
4. Discrimination is characterised by scapegoating, the unjust transfer of blame from majority to minorities.
5. Grounds for discrimination: familiarity leads to public acceptability which leads to legal status which leads to tradition (cultural and historical precedent) which feeds back to familiarity. Similarly unfamiliarity leads to unacceptability and illegal status.
6. Familiarity leads to rational distinctions.

 

History:

7. Historical development of discrimination.

 

Law:

8. Democracy, Rule of the Majority (Majoritarianism) & Rule of Law, equality before law
9. Human Rights Act analysis: Article 14, grounds = property associated with personal and cultural identity; ambit = Art 1-1 & Art 8 (regulations) + Art 5 (penalties); previous case presenting similar legal argument
10. Common law analysis

 

Additional information:

11. Submissions to public bodies and Government – brief summary.
12. Relevant documents & references

 

More detailed index

 

1.      Claim summary: drug discrimination is the difference in treatment of consumers, traders and producers of drugs used by minorities and those of equally harmful drugs used by the majority (on the grounds of familiarity/tradition and legal status). ACMD, WHO & UN quotes. Gov admits discrimination “in large part based on historical & cultural preference”.

2.      Unequal dignity & respect: derogatory language - UN & ‘evil’, narcotic, users, dealers, pushers; HO & false dichotomy of rights, 1950s advertising v propaganda, Anslinger. [ECHR intro quote]

3.      Difference of treatment 

4.      Scapegoating – essential process underlying severe discrimination requiring high scrutiny; leads to dis-integrated attitudes (stereotyping) and regulation (under-regulation v over-regulation):

                                                               i.      denial by the majority (or powerful minority) that they are equally responsible for the problem [alc/tob are not ‘drugs’ but ‘substances’ – Strategy consultation doc]; innocent till proven guilty; no fear, don’t frighten public [50s quotes]

                                                             ii.      identification of the problem solely with minorities (or the powerless majority) [‘drugs are harmful’]; guilty till proven innocent; fear, frighten public [50s quotes]

                                                            iii.      social exclusion of minorities identified with the problem, thereby excluding the problem from society.

                                                           iv.      (i) & (ii) demonstrate a failure to make justifiable distinction between those who impose an unreasonable risk on society and those that do not; majority deny they impose unreasonable risks, ‘transferring’ its responsibility onto minorities, thereby denying that minorities also may pose no reasonable risk. [WHO 1994 quote]

5.      Grounds of discrimination:

                                                                           i.      familiarity

                                                                         ii.      acceptability

                                                                        iii.      legal status

                                                                       iv.      tradition, cultural & historical precedent [feeds back to (i)]

                                                                         v.      all above affect prevalence – ratio of majority to minorities use

6.      Familiarity develops conscious distinctions, unfamiliarity does not

7.      Historical development of discrimination

8.      Majoritarianism & Rule of Law; abuse of power, abuse of process, inequality before the law.

9.      Human Rights Act claim

                                                               i.      Claim

                                                             ii.      German 1994 case

10.  Common law claim:

                                                                           i.      irrationality

                                                                         ii.      unfair procedure

                                                                        iii.      illegality

11.  Summary of campaign so far:

                                                               i.      Submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s Getting the balance right- Implementing standards of conduct in public life, April 2004 + response from Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King

                                                             ii.      Submission to the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology’s Drug classification- making a hash of it?, January 2006

                                                            iii.      Submission to the Better Regulation Executive + Government response, June 2007

12.  Key documents and references.

New pages on ideas on only:

The 3 correct (necessity, voluntary v involuntary risks, vulnerable groups) & 1 false distinction (discrimination) under headings of:
Unfairness: bias/improper purpose, fettered discretion/closed mind/dependence
Regulator rights & duties: protect individuals & organisations's rights
Liberty
Autonomy & self-determination: subsidiarity & margin of appreciation, responsibility at appropriate level