Drug Policy

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Just because this was quite a popular subject on the boring thread.

I think the current policy of prohibition isn't working and encourages marginalisation and violence so think all drugs should be legalised with some kind of licensing, removing the power of the gangsters in their distribution and they should be taxed with taxes being used to pay for rehab, health and outreach services for addicts.

[Jah Lush]

I couldn't agree more. A very sensible option. Unfortunately I can't see it happening.

[char1ie]

It's such a massive subject for discussion, and each drug potentially requires its own thought.

I am all for decriminalisation of cannabis. And I also believe that heroin addicts should be treated as victims rather than criminals and proscribed free, managed heroin.

However the "free all drugs" banner does not take into account the myriad of harm, addiction, legislation and crime that need to be considered in assessing each drug.

Charlie

[char1ie]

And as a follow-up, Amanda, do you think the government should legalise crack cocaine and allow it for sale, using the tax to pay for drug-users' treatment?

Be careful, this is a public forum and your answer will be available for journalists to see.

Charlie

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I would have places that are licenced to sell cannabis separate from ones that are licenced to sell harder drugs but may have to say yes to crack because at present it is controlled by gangsters and users are less likely than heroin users to go into treatment plus prohibition does not work, but crack is a seriously scary drug so I think more thought needs to be given to conditions when legalising it.

If there could be shown you could decrease violence and other drug dealing related crime by allowing it be sold in certain licensed premises and can increase access to drug treatment and medical services then pragmatically we would really have no option but to explore that route.

You will never be able to stop some people wanting to get sh!tfaced no matter how many laws you pass, but I think we need to look at harm reduction and removing the criminal control especially as drug money is used to fund a lot of very scary people.

[char1ie]

What establishment should be licenced to sell a highly addictive drug that is very harmful to users?

I understand that it's bad that criminals own the supply chain but is legalisation of something so harmful the solution?

Wanting to get shitfaced and being addicted to something are very different things.

Charlie

[Horsebox]

Charlie,

The prohibition of all drugs has been an absolute massive failure. Almost all illegal substances are pretty much freely available.

The "War On Drugs" is lost.

You/me/your children can easily go and score whatever is wanted.

It will take brave politician to admit this and to then drive forward a new way of thinking.

Surely legalised drugs, with licensed vendors and applied age restrictions is a fresh and possibly more successful way of tackling the problem?

I refer to the tired example of the Nederlands, which has a lower percentage of it's youth using cannabis on a regular basis, when compared to the UK.

I just can't see a logical argument against trying another way, when the current attempt is such a miserable failure.

Horse.

[gerry]

We already have an alcohol problem in this country....do we really want to add legalised drugs to that equation? At least the prohibition, ineffectual and imperfect as it is, still keeps a lid on the usage to some extent...I think it would be a disaster if drugs were freely available, sold on ebay, for example!!! I think we need to make it as difficult and costly as possible for anyone to buy drugs...call me old fashioned.

[ratty]

Wow - super sensible debate. I have been working with drug users in various guises for 15 years. I do agree that legalisation is the only way to control the problems caused on society by illicit drug use. The current prohibition has failed as alcohol prohibition failed in the US in the 20s. The problems caused are exactly the same. Poor quality illegal substances produced in non pharmaceutical conditions leading to huge health problems. Illegal control of drug trade (Al Capone anyone?) and the gangs of South London. A huge amount of personal crime is connected to drug use in some way.

However, there is big money in drugs and money = power. There are some big people internationally with a power base part built on this money and they will NEVER relinquish this control. Has anyone noticed how the UN in Afghanistan has totally neglected to do anything about the poppy fields? Ask yourself why! Especially as this was a huge part of their reasoning for invading in the first place. The US has blocked many conuntries previous attempts to decriminalise or legalise certain substances and they will continue to do so by threatening trade bans / sanctions etc.

Maybe a conspiracy, but where this sort of money and power are involved, government is not far in the background!

Shame, cos it would stop a lot of people dying.

[lozzyloz]

The war on drugs is not an issue related to supply and I don't think licencing their supply will make a huge difference except to make them more expensive and just another government revenue earner. Tobacco and Alcohol smuggling continues despite licencing and many controlled pharmaceuticals like Viagra, Temezapan etc being freely available on the black market. The war on drugs IMO relates to ensuring addicts get proper support and that kids get education and information made available to them early on regarding all kinds of substance/drug abuse. They need to know how the use for recreation can lead to destruction and tragedy in their lives and at best a few health problems and a bit of escapism from the drudgeries of everyday life. People that are emotionally strong with a good network of family and friends tend to survive long term recreational use. People from an abusive past with few friends or family tend to fall foul of hard drugs. No one starts out thinking they want to become an addict and we need a system that can identify and support those that are vulnerable. There's a huge industry in rehab clinics mainly because if you want help you need to wait months before you can get a government sponsored place. Most people cant afford the cost of private help and for them often it's too late. I dread to think what my kids will get up to when I think of what I did. Fact is they're going to be (have been) exposed to drugs from a very early age. I've been completely open with my eldest since he was 14 and to date (he's 17 now) he isn't into anything except a good pint, though he's admitted to trying a few puffs. No doubt he'll try more as he gets older but I believe his head is screwed on well enough not to get into too much trouble. And let's admit it, recreational use for all us strong un's is not always warm and cuddly!

[gerry]

Loz

I agree. Should we legalise everything that is not good for society, in an effort to control the problem? Should we legalise guns, for example? I think it would be more useful spend money on rehab, because there we have a chance of making a difference...help the victims of drug usage and help them turn their lives around....the in turn help others, and so on.....we do have to think about our kids and their friends, and as adults we have to educate and protect them....they are our future.

[char1ie]

Horsebox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Charlie,

>

> The prohibition of all drugs has been an absolute

> massive failure. Almost all illegal substances are

> pretty much freely available.

>

> The "War On Drugs" is lost.

>

> You/me/your children can easily go and score

> whatever is wanted.

>

> It will take brave politician to admit this and to

> then drive forward a new way of thinking.

>

> Surely legalised drugs, with licensed vendors and

> applied age restrictions is a fresh and possibly

> more successful way of tackling the problem?

>

> I refer to the tired example of the Nederlands,

> which has a lower percentage of it's youth using

> cannabis on a regular basis, when compared to the

> UK.

>

> I just can't see a logical argument against trying

> another way, when the current attempt is such a

> miserable failure.

>

> Horse.

Horse, the Netherlands has not legalised all drugs. It has decriminalised cannabis. Anybody who recommends the legalisation of all drugs has to consider what effect it would have on usage, and I can't imagine that you think that by legalising crack cocaine and heroin, their usage would go down.

The prohibition of all drugs works quite well. My son can't walk into an off licence and buy a gram of coke, and I wouldn't want him to.

And what "war" are we talking about? I don't think anyone in this country has ever had a war on drugs, more a systematic effort to police, prosecute and control.

Charlie

[lozzyloz]

I love it when people point to the Netherlands as a great example of drug control, citing Hollands relaxed rules on cannabis. That's only part of the picture. Lets not forget that it is estimated that about 70 percent of the confiscated ecstasy-tablets in the world are produced in the Netherlands: that is between 112 and 224 million tablets. The organisation of the trafficking of amphetamines and XTC within Europe is controlled by Dutch criminal organisations, in collaboration with criminal organisations in the destination countries. Would those same people call that a blueprint for the UK? Ever been to Amsterdam and seen people jacking up on the street? Not pretty.

[benjaminty]

I think there is another question to raise here. Why is the UK become the drug users capital of Europe. Why do more Brits than French, Spanish or who ever choose to dabble, become habitual or addicted? What is it about the British psychie that makes us want to get blotto'ed so often. This is pie in the sky stuff but if we find the root cause of this then solve the problem.. Obviously not going to happen but would be nice.

I dont think rehab is particularly good. It only works for those who want the help and even then the religious element of the 12 step program, which is deemed the best mechanism as I understand (I could be wrong) tends to reduce the credibility of the program with those that need the help. I know several people who have paid ridiculous sums of money to the Priory and have come out with little or no change to their routine (and BTW the Priory is rubbing it mitts together with current useage in UK). Only people I know who kick their habits have had to hit rock rock bottom before taking steps to address the situation.

So how will legalisation or decriminalisation help? I just dont see it. Addicts will do anything to address their pangs and what they dont get on that legal basis they will go another route surely.

I would prefer harder policing approach and try to ensure that scoring anything was a lot harder.

My limited experience of Amsterdam was not good.... open hard sell approach by coke dealers walking the streets who wont leave you alone until you tell them you dont have any money and you're not interested. I have to say I'd leave this country if it got to that point.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I agree with a lot of what the posters say here, but think there needs to be a serious look at alternatives to outright prohibition because it has been a total failure.

There is a Lords enquiry into it at the moment I think so I'm going to try to dig out some of their findings as they are often a lot more enlightened and less prone to political cowardice than their counterparts in the commons!

[char1ie]

Amanda, you started this thread by saying you "think all drugs should be legalised." Does this mean that you have changed your stance? And that you now believe that the powers that be need to examine alternatives to prohibition?

A good outcome from an interesting and informed debate.

Charlie

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

haha, isn't that what I said? I think the way they are legalised/licenced etc needs to be very carefully managed.

This is a report on the debate by the Lords

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/11/lords-savage-drug-strategy-consultation.html

Got the wrong Hansard report. Gona try to find the right one.

Ok this is the right one, but you have to press next section to carry on with it as it is quite a long debate. I'm gong to try to read it all because it is actually quite good once you get past the first bit where the Government reels off all their 'proof' that their policy is working.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/71029-0007.htm

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I had to share this class bit of the debate by Lord Mancroft:

"Noble Lords are aware that statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal may be very interesting, but what they conceal is far more important. Over 20 years in the drugs field, I have learnt that the figures that we are given, genuine though they may be, need to be treated with a very large pinch of salt. It is unarguable, however, that by any measure—overall drug use, drug-related crime, drug-related deaths, level of drug seizures, cocaine use, or whatever—the UK has the worst drug problem in Europe by a long measure and the second worst in the world after the United States."

And this

I pray that my children will never, ever take drugs, but I know that a significant proportion of their generation, from all walks of life, do and will take drugs. I would like the Minister to explain, when he comes to answer this debate, why the Government think that it is better for my kids or anyone else’s kids to buy drugs at an artificially inflated price—probably paid for by crime—of unknown strength and purity, which increases the risk of overdose, from criminals who are often armed and dangerous. The Minister could also tell us why the Government think that it is a good idea to follow a policy that benefits only criminals, international drug dealers and the Taliban.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

And Lord Cobbold:

Prohibition was expected to rid the world of drugs by now. It has manifestly failed, and the Government cannot possibly argue that it has been a success. Obviously, no Government like to acknowledge failure but we now have a drugs trade which is reckoned to be the second largest world trade after oil and is totally in the hands of criminals, costing this country up to ?17 billion—or ?19 billion, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has just said. To continue with present policies is to accept and effectively tolerate the existence of the criminal gangs that control the trade.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

From Lord Richard:

Like the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, I recommend that noble Lords look at the document issued by the North Wales Police Authority in response to the consultation paper we are considering today. Its view is clear, and interesting not only for what it says but whence it comes: that that police authority should urge the repeal of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and its replacement with a “misuse of substances” Act based on a new “hierarchy of harm” that would also include alcohol and nicotine. It also advocates that the police authority should seek affiliation with the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, which is campaigning for the repeal of prohibition and its replacement with a legal system of regulation and control. These are bold recommendations, coming from a police authority.

This guy makes sense!

My inclination now is much the same as that expressed recently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in somewhat bold phrases:

“If people are addicted to heroin, give them heroin. I'm not suggesting you sell it at newsagents, but if you were to offer it to addicts in a medically controlled setting, there would be no criminal market”.

That argument seems to me to be unanswerable.

Anyone getting a bit more respect for the dusty old Lords? I did when I started reading some of the Law Lords judgements during my degree. They seem not to be old fusty farts!

[Horsebox]

char1ie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Horsebox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Charlie,

> >

> > The prohibition of all drugs has been an

> absolute

> > massive failure. Almost all illegal substances

> are

> > pretty much freely available.

> >

> > The "War On Drugs" is lost.

> >

> > You/me/your children can easily go and score

> > whatever is wanted.

> >

> > It will take brave politician to admit this and

> to

> > then drive forward a new way of thinking.

> >

> > Surely legalised drugs, with licensed vendors

> and

> > applied age restrictions is a fresh and

> possibly

> > more successful way of tackling the problem?

> >

> > I refer to the tired example of the Nederlands,

> > which has a lower percentage of it's youth

> using

> > cannabis on a regular basis, when compared to

> the

> > UK.

> >

> > I just can't see a logical argument against

> trying

> > another way, when the current attempt is such a

> > miserable failure.

> >

> > Horse.

>

> Horse, the Netherlands has not legalised all

> drugs. It has decriminalised cannabis. Anybody who

> recommends the legalisation of all drugs has to

> consider what effect it would have on usage, and I

> can't imagine that you think that by legalising

> crack cocaine and heroin, their usage would go

> down.

>

> The prohibition of all drugs works quite well. My

> son can't walk into an off licence and buy a gram

> of coke, and I wouldn't want him to.

>

> And what "war" are we talking about? I don't think

> anyone in this country has ever had a war on

> drugs, more a systematic effort to police,

> prosecute and control.

>

> Charlie

Charlie/ Lozzyloz,

I never said that the Netherlands had legalised drugs, nor did I or anybody else use it as a "great example of drug control" - I'm struggling to work out where you got this from? I was merely using that country as an example of having taken a different approach to drug laws/legislation/control, whatever you wish to call it, and a possible benefit of this approach.

Some interesting quotes there, CWALD. One of the problems with anybody in govt, policing, the judiciary etc coming out and saying that drug laws need changing, is that they tend to get vilified by the Daily Mail and the red tops and their career then takes a hammering for proposing a sensible alternative to a failing/failed system.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I think that the total failure of prohibition is making some people in authority look at alternatives but like someone said above, the people making all the money out of the illegal drug trade have enormous power behind the scenes, and are unlikely to allow that power to be watered down without a fight!

[char1ie]

"Total failure of prohibition" isn't actually correct. Prohibition does work to some degree.

Charlie

[blinder999]

char1ie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Total failure of prohibition" isn't actually

> correct. Prohibition does work to some degree.

>

> Charlie

yes, my thoughts exactly. I can imagine things could get a lot worse than they are now.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Even the Police admit it isn't working.