Comment: The case for legalising drugs

Time to think? A Frank advert about cannabis useTime to think? A Frank advert about cannabis use

Reddit

Stumble

 

Opinion Formers

Find more Opinion Formers in this category:

 
 

Wednesday, 11, Mar 2009 12:01

By Ian Dunt

There are some debates you feel a little nervous about. You enter into them because you genuinely believe in what you're saying, but you're aware, in the back of your mind, that there are damaging counter-arguments to your position which could severely weaken your position.

Not so with the argument for drug legalisation. It's a unique pleasure to argue for a radical liberalisation of drug laws because the case is so watertight. On every conceivable front, the legalisation of drugs presents itself as the most sensible, compassionate and logical conclusion. With government ministers from around the world currently meeting in Vienna to discuss the next decade of drug policy, this argument urgently needs to be considered.

Our first concern with issues such as these is reducing harm. All sides of the debate are united on this front. We wish, as a society, to prevent as many deaths as possible from drug use. In this respect, the decision to make drugs illegal is perhaps the most damaging and blatantly irresponsible position to adopt.

Take heroin. The vast majority of deaths from heroin use are the result of criminalisation. Dealers operating in the black market cut the substance with pollutants, and users injecting the drug outside of monitored settings are prone to using dirty, unsterilised needles. The drug itself is relatively benign. As Dr Richard Brotman noted in a 1965 study: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body." Legalising drugs, and thereby monitoring their contents and use, would reduce drug-related deaths.

There is an entirely separate harm which derives from drugs however – that of crime. The link between drug addiction and criminal behaviour is very well established. Official government estimates indicate that the relatively small section of the UK population which uses heroin or cocaine is now responsible for 54 per cent of robberies and 85 per cent of shopliftings.

Most drugs are addictive. Crack, probably the most vicious and damaging of all known narcotics, can addict from the first hit. Heroin, despite its harmlessness to the body, can be extremely addictive. Even non-addictive drugs, such as cannabis, can create very strong dependency in the user. In fact, one of the dangers of cannabis which is not addressed half as much as it should be is its habit of sucking out all the ambition and get-up-and-go from those users who have the psychological disposition to let it do that to them. Addiction makes people behave in ways they would not otherwise contemplate, such as theft or prostitution.

But criminalisation dramatically worsens the causal link between drugs and crime. Where hard drugs such as heroin are medically prescribed, the costs are hammered down and the need to turn to crime is reduced. Home Office orders for psychiatrists to stop giving heroin prescriptions in the 1970's directly correlate with a burgeoning black market in the drug – and all the increased crime which came with that market.

In a wider sense, handing the drug trade to the black market has a marked impact on a wide variety of society's horrors. The international drug trade is currently worth around $320 billion (£233 billion). The vast majority of this currently goes to criminal gangs. It is, in fact, the second largest source of income for organised crime. The proceeds are spent on a wealth of different disasters, from people trafficking to identity fraud. With a coordinated legalisation programme we could cut off this funding stream in one swoop.

And then there are the geopolitical implications. When Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), admitted to the failure of current drugs policy he mentioned the 'balloon effect', where enforcement serves to merely shift trafficking routes and production from one location to another. The effects of this are currently being felt in Mexico. Recently, experts have been pointing to the 6,000+ annual drug-connected killings there as evidence of it becoming a failing state.

From the US-sponsored destruction of coca fields in Boliva, which deprives poor farmers of their primary source of income, to poppy-production in Afganistan, the money of which rapidly finds its way into Taleban coffers, to the Farc rebel group's use of drug money in its war against the Columbian government – drug prohibition is the antithesis of a workable international political strategy. The relationship between western interests and drug prohibition is analogous to our dependence on oil: it funds our enemies, it destabilises allies and it drastically complicates efforts to secure western objectives overseas.

Drug use will not go away. It has been around as long as humans have. As the serenity prayer goes: "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference." There could be no better rule for political thought. It will not go away. But we can mediate its effect on society by minimising its health implications and reducing its causal link with crime, terrorism and poverty.

Many people in government are already convinced of the case for reform. There are murmurs of David Cameron's liberal beliefs on the matter. The Tory leader voted, when he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, for the UN body on drugs policy to look at whether to legalise and regulate the drugs trade. Whether he maintains this stance as prime minister (if he becomes prime minister) is another matter entirely.

Similarly, Julian Critchley, the former director of the Cabinet Office's anti-drugs unit, once had an epiphany. Entering his post, he clamed to have no opinion on drug policy. By the time he left he was a committed advocate for regulation of the industry, adding that the "overwhelming majority" of professionals, including police, health service workers and members of the government, were of the same opinion.

Whatever the obvious benefits of a rapid sea-change in our policy, it would take considerable courage for the government to alter its current thinking on drug enforcement. The tabloids would explode in condemnations and, quite frankly, there are no votes in it. Also, courage is not one of the attributes this government is renowned for. But the evidence from countries which have gone down a more liberal root shows that public opinion turns sharply if it is shown to be well-regulated. Switzerland, for instance, has implemented a legally regulated heroin system for 1,400 addicts in clinics with a psychosocial support structure. The majority of the population support the policy. As Baroness Meacher said in the House of Lords earlier this year: "Once you can prove that you can do it, the population will come behind you."

If you're still not convinced, there is one final - relatively unimportant - argument to mention: the moral argument. It follows from a question which is very simple, but seems somehow weirdly extravagant. What right does the government have to tell you what to do with your own body? The answer is: absolutely none.

The views expressed on politics.co.uk's comment pages do not necessarily reflect the views of the website or its owners.

What do you think?

Name 

Location 

Email 

Comment 

Enter the text shown to the right

User comments...

  • "Thanks, Ian Dunt, for stating the blindingly obvious. Since Mike Trace was obliged to resign from his governmental post in 2003 after being exposed by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail as being actively in favour of drugs legalisation, there has been no prospect of any change in the counter-productive Prohibition. UNODC, under the direction of Costa, is determined to give us more of the same. If any other policy had so manifestly failed, it would have been publicly discredited and revoked, but Prohibition is not a policy so much as a religion that requires blind belief in the face of evidence. Naturally, its adherents assume the moral high ground and think they can tell others what to do with their bodies. "

    Russell Cronin (London) Posted: 11/03/2009 10:08:28

  • "This is a very measured and thoughtful article. I have read some of the supportive comments on Yahoo and broadly agree with them, particularly the point that the current policy very evidently isn't working - so maybe we should try another approach. As a former director of a Mental Health Trust, I have seen far too many young people (well over 90% of all those we did see, in fact) whose lives had fallen apart due to drugs - and once over that mental health precipice, the way back to health or even to any relatively stable form of functioning, is extremely hard. Most of these young people will never work again, even though some had impressive qualifications and had previously held down serious jobs; even more sadly, perhaps, the fracturing of their mental stability means that they will almost certainly never form lasting relationships either, so their chances of finding supportive life-partners, settling down and having families are also extremely poor. And in many cases, the only drug they had had experience of (usually the one they could afford) was cannabis. No-one should think cannabis is not a dangerous drug. Yes, some people can take it without apparent damage for years ('apparent' is an important word here, because long-term effects are largely unknown) - but, to quote a senior consultant at the hospital where I worked, 'for those who have any tendency at all towards mental fragility, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.' The very high long-term cost of caring for such a huge number of young people whose lives have been destroyed by drug taking is the answer to the person who commented 'so I suppose the rest of us have to pick up the tab' or words to that effect. We are picking up the tab already. "

    Caroline Peacock (Durham) Posted: 11/03/2009 14:13:19

  • "I agree with Russell about the blindingly obvious. Drug prohibition has not worked and must be changed to a more enlighted approach of decriminalisation. However, the extreme cynic in me believes that will never happen because of the huge anti-drugs industry that has been built up around the world, both in the criminal justice system and the anti-drugs agencies. The amount of industry depending for its existence is so large that like the banks, it will not be allowed to fail by a change to the status of narcotics and other addictive chemicals in our society."

    Michael Hargrave (UK) Posted: 11/03/2009 14:37:36

  • "Peace on the Home Front Debaters debate the two wars as if Nixon’s civil war on Woodstock Nation did not yet run amok. The witch-hunt against the half-a-million strong witches assembled in August 1969 cannot be good for America, the world-leader in percentile behind bars. If we are all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance credibility. The negative numbers that will bottom-line our legacy to the next generation can be less ginormous. The witch-hunt doctor’s Rx is for every bust to numerate a bigger tax-load over a smaller denominator of payers. Spend more on prisons than on schools. My witch’s second opinion is to grow your own. More consumer discretionary dollars will stimulate the rest of the economy when they are not depleted by prohibition’s black market. A clause about interstate commerce provides bogus constitutionality. The policy on the number-one cash crop in the land is no taxation; yes eradication, but money to frustrate enforcement grows on trees. The authors of the Constitution never intended to divert tax revenue to outlaws. America rejected prohibition, but its back. Swat teams aren’t slowed down by lack of a stinking amendment. The demonized substances never had their day in court. Nixon promised to supply supporting evidence later. Later, the Commission evidence didn’t support, but no matter. The witch-hunt was on. No amendments can assure due-process under an anti-science law that never had any due-process itself. Science hailed LSD as a drug with breakthrough potential, until the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) halted all research. Marijuana has no medical use, period. Lives are flushed down expensive tubes. The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) makes an exception to the CSA allowing the Native American Church to eat peyote. A specific church membership should not be prerequisite for Americans to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Denial of entheogen sacrament to any American, for mediation of communion twixt the soul and the source of souls, violates the First Amendment. Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate a governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce mental conformity? Politicians who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction. Common Law must hold that the people are the legal owners of their own bodies. Socrates advocates knowing your self. Mortal law should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Those who appreciate their own free choice of personal path in life should not deny self-exploration to seekers. Should schools stop teaching that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable by government? Simple majorities in each house could put repeal of the CSA on the president’s desk. The books have ample law on them without the CSA. Americans are already liable for damages when they screw-up. The usual caveats remain in effect. Strong medicine requires prescription. Employees can be fired for poor job performance. No harm, no foul; and no excuse, either. Replace the war on drugs with a frugal, constitutional, science-based, drugs policy."

    Bill Harris (Texas USA) Posted: 13/03/2009 00:06:05

  • "A great article, but I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say there are no votes in it. A mainstream party suggesting the idea could potentially force a serious debate on the subject (something the government has long avoided) and this would demonstrate to many many people that the current prohibitionist model is completely counter-productive. I would also ask: what is organised crime's largest source of income?"

    Sven (Swansea) Posted: 13/03/2009 12:48:13

  • "My best friend, a South African woman, is currently on remanded detention in a Venezuelan prison. She was caught in Aug08 with 2kg cocaine. Because SA currently has no Prisoner Transfer Agreement I have founded a movement to pressurize this Govt to sign onto the existing multi lateral PTA and extradite the more than 850 SA Citizens detained in apalling foreign jails, far from home, no money, no clothing, no medical care, no family... for years!! This is INHUMANE! Our people are suffering & this Govt is bucking against extraditions... but not for much longer! Take a look at our website, Locked Up in a Foreign Country ( www.lockedup.co.za ) for the shocking reality pertaining directly to the criminalization of drugs... and it's increasing fast. Having seen the devastation caused to people and their families I say DEcriminalize drugs, regulate them, manufacture & sell them under clinical conditions and use the law enforcement money for education and rehabilition! Seriously, if alcohol were invented today, by current standards it would be more illegal than cocaine... and it is more harmful with more destructive results!"

    Bee (South Africa) Posted: 13/03/2009 16:43:06

  • "I was thinking that a national I found drugs day would perhaps shake it up where every one phoned there local police told them they had found a small amount of drugs in the street and were on the way to hand it in lets see them cope with that day...once a week would cause mayhem.. bring it on.."

    heather newsome (kyle of lochalsh) Posted: 20/03/2009 02:16:57

Election Video Manifestos

politics.co.uk's Opinion Formers set out to present their manifesto "wish lists" to the next generation of MPs and ministers ahead of the General Election in 2010.

Dogs Trust UK Election Manifesto Video

Dogs Trust give us their 2010 General Election Manifesto video in which they give us their views on stray dogs and battery farms and the need for compulsory microchipping.

Check out more Opinion Former election video manifestos here

politics.co.uk Blog channel

Political blogs are likely to play a crucial role in the battle between the political parties in the upcoming general election. So we at politics.co.uk decided to give our readers a guide to those blogs that we think are worth a read. Check out the new politics.co.uk blogs channel and explore the hundreds of UK political blogs we have featured here.

politics.co.uk blog

Read the latest blog posts from the editorial team at politics.co.uk

UK's No.1

We are the UK's leading dedicated political news website. Find out how you can get your message across to our audience of opinion leaders and policy makers.

Newsletters

Stay up to date with the goings on both in UK politics and on politics.co.uk by signing up to our daily newsletter, public affairs newsletter and jobs bulletin.

Public Affairs Jobs

Check out politics.co.uk's new jobs section, for government, public sector and public affairs roles

Current Vacancies:

Featured Services

NewsManager

Offering Communications Professionals a solution to managing the systems required to undertake their work, NewsManager brings all of the components into one service.

DirectNews

DirectNews provides tailored news feeds for digital media and specialises in news content driven, sales and marketing solutions.

Search our services directory ...

Latest Opinion Former Press Releases

Declan Curry and Michelle Mone to speak at the National Housing Federation’s Housing Finance Conference

The National Housing Federation is delighted to announce the confirmation of two keynote speakers for its annual Housing Finance Conference, Declan Curry and Michelle Mone.