A dispute over the Green Party’s drug policy has become central to the campaign for a Greater Manchester by-election.

Policing minister Sarah Jones warned that the Greens’ proposals would lead to large increases in public drug use and antisocial behaviour, saying public spaces such as parks and playgrounds could be affected and that the plans would “shatter communities.” Labour echoed those warnings, saying the policy could cause a rise in drug deaths and more public drug use and citing the US state of Oregon — where possession of small amounts of hard drugs was decriminalised in 2020 and overdose deaths rose by late 2023 — as evidence it could have harmful consequences. Labour also pointed to record drug seizures under the government, including almost 150 tonnes of banned substances seized by Border Force in the year to March 2025, and said it was investing in prevention and treatment.

The Green Party, led by Zack Polanski, described the current “war on drugs” as failing and argued for a public-health approach that would decriminalise possession, divert people toward treatment and support, and create a regulated market to weaken criminal supply and reduce harm. Polanski said legalisation, regulation and control should be health-led and cited international examples such as Portugal as evidence that health-focused reforms can reduce deaths, HIV transmission and some types of antisocial behaviour. The Greens’ proposals include establishing a National Commission to examine evidence-based reform and diverting people toward addiction support, housing, employment and health-led harm reduction. Green candidate for Gorton and Denton, Hannah Spencer, has previously supported decriminalisation and said the issue deserves public discussion; she and Polanski said the Greens are committed to preventing children’s access to drugs.

The dispute has become a focal issue in the contest to succeed the constituency’s former Labour MP. The by-election campaign includes candidates from Labour, the Green Party and Reform UK. A Manchester polling firm reported the Greens leading in Gorton and Denton, a finding disputed by Labour on the grounds of sample size and methodology; Labour said the contest was between Labour and Reform.

Debate over the likely outcomes of decriminalisation featured differing references to international experience. Supporters of health-led reform pointed to Portugal’s reported reductions in some harms after its reforms, while critics cited Oregon’s rise in overdose deaths and noted that fentanyl was a major factor in that increase; Oregon later partly reversed aspects of its policy. These differing interpretations were presented by the parties to support their positions.

The immediate consequences in the campaign are intensified political attacks and counterattacks over drug policy, with parties presenting competing evidence and claims about public safety, drug-related deaths and the effectiveness of prevention and treatment. The issue remains part of broader discussions about supply, enforcement and health-led alternatives as the by-election approaches.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (oregon) (portugal) (children) (treatment) (entitlement) (outrage) (scandal) (controversy)

Does the article give a normal reader real, usable help?

Actionable information The writing reports a political dispute about drug policy in a by-election campaign. It does not give clear steps a reader can use right now: there are no instructions about how to access treatment, no guidance on what an individual should do if they are concerned about drug use in their community, and no concrete policy details such as precise legal changes, timelines, or procedures someone could follow. References to other jurisdictions (Oregon, Portugal) are descriptive rather than procedural, so a reader cannot directly use that material to make a decision or take practical action. In short: the article offers no immediate, actionable steps.

Educational depth The piece outlines competing positions—criminal enforcement versus a public-health approach—and notes claims and counterclaims (for example, different interpretations of outcomes in Oregon and Portugal). However, it stays at the level of political argument rather than explaining the mechanisms behind those claims. It does not describe how decriminalisation technically works, how regulation models operate, how health-led models treat supply control, nor does it explain how outcomes like overdose deaths are measured or what confounding factors might influence those statistics. When numbers or international examples are mentioned, the article does not explain their sources, methodologies, or limitations. Overall, it gives surface facts about positions and rhetoric but insufficient explanatory context for a reader to understand the underlying systems or evaluate the evidence.

Personal relevance The information may matter to voters in Greater Manchester or to people with a direct stake in drug policy, health services, or local safety. For most readers, it is politically interesting but not personally actionable. It does not explain how the policies discussed would change laws, services, or everyday risks in ways a person could anticipate or respond to. Therefore its practical relevance to an ordinary reader’s safety, finances, or health is limited unless they live in the affected constituency or work in related fields.

Public service function The article’s primary function is reporting political debate; it does not provide public-service guidance such as safety warnings, emergency instructions, or information on where to get help for substance misuse. It does not contextualise claims about harms or benefits with neutral takeaways for the public. As a result it ranks low on public-service usefulness: it informs about a political dispute but does not help people act responsibly or safely in response to the issues discussed.

Practical advice quality Because the article contains little to no practical advice, there is nothing to evaluate for feasibility or realism. Any policy proposals are presented at a high level (e.g., “decriminalise possession,” “direct people toward treatment,” “regulate supply”), but without specifics a reader cannot judge what following those proposals would look like in practice or what steps they could take.

Long-term usefulness The piece is focused on a current election debate and therefore is short-term in orientation. It does not analyze long-term impacts, model outcomes, or provide frameworks a reader could use to plan ahead. It fails to equip a reader with tools to assess future policy changes, track likely effects over time, or compare models rigorously.

Emotional and psychological impact The article frames the debate in polar terms: warnings that children and parks would be endangered versus arguments that current approaches have failed. That framing may provoke anxiety or reinforce partisan views, but it does not offer readers calm, balanced analysis or constructive ways to assess risk. It therefore risks heightening concern without giving avenues for understanding or response.

Clickbait or sensational language Some quotes quoted in the piece are emotive (claims that parks and playgrounds would become unsafe), and those raise attention, but the reporting itself reports those claims rather than endorsing them. The article uses disputed, dramatic statements as central elements of the story without providing enough factual context to let readers judge them. That tendency leans toward attention-grabbing political framing rather than measured explanation.

Missed opportunities The article could have added important clarifying details but did not. It missed chances to explain: how decriminalisation differs from legalisation and regulation in concrete terms; what specific regulatory models exist; the metrics used to evaluate outcomes in Portugal or Oregon and their limitations; what services and safeguards are needed to accompany health-led approaches; and where residents could find reliable information or local services. It also could have suggested ways voters could meaningfully evaluate candidates’ drug policy proposals, such as asking for costed plans, implementation timelines, and independent evaluations.

Concrete, practical guidance the article failed to provide If you want to assess drug-policy claims or act responsibly in your community, start by defining the specific question you care about: are you focused on public safety, treatment access, youth protection, or criminal justice outcomes? Once you have a clear focus, compare proposals by looking for three concrete things: precise legal changes proposed (what would be decriminalised or legalised, and at what thresholds), a timeline or implementation plan (who will lead and when), and measurable outcomes tied to independent evaluation (which indicators will be tracked and how). When politicians cite foreign examples, ask what exactly is being compared: difference in population size, existing health systems, policing resources, and socioeconomic context can change outcomes. For personal safety or community concern, prioritize local, verifiable resources: contact your local health authority, community policing team, or drug-and-alcohol services to learn what support exists and how policies on the ground are currently enforced. If you are a voter, request clear, written policy details from candidates and compare them on feasibility, funding, and evidence rather than slogans. To form balanced views, read at least two independent sources that explain outcomes with attention to methodology and potential confounders, and look for peer-reviewed studies or official evaluations rather than only news summaries or political statements. Finally, if you or someone you know needs help with substance use, seek local health services or a helpline immediately; policy debates do not replace practical support and care.

Overall judgement The article informs readers about a political dispute and the positions of parties and candidates but gives little usable help beyond that. It lacks actionable steps, deeper explanatory context, public-service guidance, and tools for assessing the claims it reports. The additions above outline practical ways a reader can turn political reporting into meaningful action or inquiry without relying on the article’s missing detail.

"warned that the Green Party’s drug proposals would devastate communities, saying they would increase public drug use and antisocial behaviour and turn parks and playgrounds into areas unsafe for children." This sentence uses strong fear words like "devastate" and "unsafe for children." It pushes worry and makes the Green policy seem very harmful without showing evidence in the text. That wording helps the policing minister’s position and makes readers fear the policy. It frames the Greens as causing danger, not as offering health measures.

"argued for a public health approach that would decriminalise possession, direct people toward treatment and regulate supply to reduce harm and keep drugs away from children." This phrase uses soothing, helpful words like "public health," "treatment," and "reduce harm." Those soft terms make the Green proposals sound caring and responsible. It helps the Greens by framing their policy as humane and child-protecting, without showing counter-evidence here.

"described the current “war on drugs” as failing, called for legalisation, regulation and control led by health professionals, and cited international examples where health-led policies reportedly reduced deaths and infections." Calling the "war on drugs" a failure labels existing policy as broken and invites change. The word "reportedly" lets the sentence cite positive outcomes while distancing from exact proof. This helps Polanski’s view and frames international examples as supportive, which boosts the reform argument.

"The Labour Party highlighted high drug seizures under its government and defended investment in prevention and treatment while warning against the Greens’ proposals." Saying Labour "highlighted high drug seizures" selects a success metric that favors Labour's approach. The sentence balances defence with a warning, but the choice to show seizures as evidence helps Labour's stance and frames the Greens as risky without detailing trade-offs.

"Debate over outcomes of decriminalisation was reflected in references to Oregon, where possession was decriminalised and subsequent overdose deaths rose, and in differing claims about Portugal’s experience." This line places a negative example (Oregon) and notes "differing claims" about Portugal, which casts doubt on positive evidence. Mentioning a rise in deaths without context leans toward warning readers that decriminalisation can be harmful. It frames uncertainty in a way that favors caution.

"became a focal issue in the contest for the seat held by Labour, with candidates from the Green Party and Reform UK competing to challenge Labour’s incumbent." Saying the dispute "became a focal issue" highlights political contest over drug policy, which centers partisan advantage. The wording stresses electoral competition and implies the issue is being used to challenge Labour, not purely discussed on its merits. This frames the debate as political theater as well as policy.

The text displays fear and alarm most directly through the policing minister Sarah Jones’s language. Words such as “devastate,” “increase public drug use and antisocial behaviour,” and “turn parks and playgrounds into areas unsafe for children” convey a strong sense of threat and urgency. This fear is intense in tone: “devastate” and “unsafe for children” are emotionally charged phrases meant to prompt worry and protective instincts in the reader. The purpose of this emotional framing is to make the Green Party’s proposals seem dangerous and irresponsible, steering readers toward caution or opposition by highlighting potential harms to families and community safety.

A countervailing emotion of care and concern appears in the Greens’ framing, expressed through terms like “public health approach,” “decriminalise possession,” “direct people toward treatment,” and “reduce harm and keep drugs away from children.” These phrases carry a moderate, reasoned compassion focused on helping people rather than punishing them. The strength of this emotion is measured and constructive; it aims to build sympathy for people who use drugs and to present the Greens as motivated by health and safety. This framing seeks to inspire trust in a health-led solution and to persuade readers that compassion and regulation can protect communities and children.

Frustration and disillusionment surface in Zack Polanski’s description of the current policy as a “war on drugs” that is “failing.” The word “failing” expresses frustration and a desire for change; paired with calls for “legalisation, regulation and control led by health professionals,” the emotion is moderately forceful and reform-oriented. This emotion serves to undermine confidence in the status quo and to inspire support for an alternative approach by implying that existing strategies are ineffective and require replacement.

Defensiveness and pride can be detected in the Labour Party’s statements about “high drug seizures” and its defense of “investment in prevention and treatment.” The tone is protective and somewhat proud of past action, using achievement-oriented language to counter criticism. The strength is mild to moderate; it aims to reassure readers that the party has taken substantive steps and to retain trust by emphasizing competence and commitment to tackling the problem.

Contestation and skepticism appear in the debate over outcomes from international examples like Oregon and Portugal. References to rising overdose deaths in Oregon and “differing claims about Portugal’s experience” inject doubt and ambiguity into the discussion. The emotional quality here is cautionary and questioning; it lowers certainty and encourages readers to weigh conflicting evidence rather than accept a simple success narrative. This serves to complicate the reader’s judgment, prompting care and vigilance in assessing policy claims.

The emotions in the passage guide the reader’s reaction by creating a tension between alarm and compassionate reform. Alarm and fear push toward rejection of the Greens’ proposals, while care and reformist frustration push toward considering alternatives to criminalisation. Pride and defensiveness from Labour aim to maintain confidence in existing leaders, and skepticism about foreign examples encourages careful scrutiny of policy claims. Together, these emotional cues aim to shape opinion: fear and alarm instill caution, compassionate concern builds empathy, frustration fuels openness to change, and defensive pride seeks to preserve political support.

The writer uses several rhetorical tools to heighten emotional impact and persuade. Strong verbs and vivid adjectives—“devastate,” “unsafe,” “reduce harm”—replace neutral descriptions with emotionally loaded terms. Contrasting frames are used: one side is portrayed as endangering communities, the other as caring and evidence-based; this juxtaposition amplifies the perceived differences. Repetition of safety-related terms (playgrounds, children, public drug use) focuses attention on vulnerability and protection. Reference to international examples functions as comparison to lend authority or caution, and the phrase “war on drugs” evokes a longstanding, dramatic conflict rather than a technical policy debate. These devices intensify emotional responses by painting policy choices in stark, human terms, steering readers’ attention toward safety, care, or doubt depending on the chosen language.