Okay, let's be clear. I am not a fan of the government's drug policy. I believe Gordon Brown's refusal to consider other regulatory approaches endangers this nation's health, our security, our economy and any ambitions he might have for a better society.
But I do think that some of my drug policy reform colleagues have misjudged both public opinion and the interests of public safety on the mephedrone issue. I have no reason to assume that Alan Johnson has done anything but follow the advice given to him by Les Iversen, the current chair of the ACMD. Teenagers have been taking mephedrone in alarming numbers. Whether this is due to misplaced confidence in the drug's safety due to its legality, or whether they were excited about the prospect of doing something they knew to be bad with no risk of punishment, it was essential for the government to intervene to restrict access and take action that they hope will cause these teenagers to return to drug-free lives.
And the government has got many aspects of the action right. The action to ensure destruction of any detected mephedrone imports is a strong signal that importation is now no longer viable. While traders may object on the grounds that it was legal when they ordered it, I am in no doubt that their contentment with their requirement to sell the drug without any health advice to buyers of any age could in no way be regarded as ethical. Had they been able to provide health and consumption advice and been able to do all they could to ensure their customers' safety then their trade could very well have been considered ethical. But the lack of such safety advice meant the dealers were ethically no better than the illegal dealers dealing similar illegal drugs. I would be delighted to see the expression on the faces of the dealers trying to stockpile as much mephedrone as possible before its prohibition when they learn of the destruction of their newly priceless shipment.
The government has also taken the right action (once prohibition was the decision) in banning all cathinones. Just banning mephedrone would quickly have resulted in the market shifting to any of a large number of other cathinones with a myriad of unknown effects to investigate and for society to deal with. I am unsure where drugs like butylone and the cathinone-containing plant "khat" are left by this action, but the blanket ban on cathinones seems like a wise decision at this stage.
Having said all this, I have great concern about the role the ACMD has played in this decision. The ACMD made the extremely sensible "Class D" recommendation when it was asked for advice on BZP and Spice. A "D" class would have allowed legal, regulated sale of the drug to over 18s and with the best advice available on safe use while the effects of the drug were investigated thoroughly. The recommendation was rejected for BZP and Spice. Was it offered as a solution to the mephedrone situation? If it was not then I would assert that the ACMD has lost its spine and can no longer be relied upon to stick to its guns on these important issues in the interests of public safety. To not offer the "Class D" solution is to pass responsibility for mephedrone from unregulated legal dealers to unregulated illegal dealers. Any teenager who still fancies getting hold of the mephedrone they have developed a taste for, will now have to find an illegal dealer. That dealer might just have a financial interest in introducing them to heroin or crack.
This entire episode which may become known as "the mephedrone bubble" should be seen as a disastrous warning on the failings of the Labour party's "head-in-the-sand" approach to drugs policy. All the illegal drugs consumed in this country are being consumed in an environment of government-mandated ignorance. Any new legal highs which emerge will - like mephedrone - again have to be consumed from bags marked "not for human consumption". It is time the politicians and the media in this country grew up and realised that it is ignorance and lack of regulation that makes drugs dangerous. We need to take this opportunity to learn from the mephedrone bubble and look again at what can be done to safeguard our population from the harms of drugs.
Surely it would be appropriate to call for a broad-ranging public inquiry into the drug policy disaster that is "the mephedrone bubble".
Showing posts with label drugs prohibition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs prohibition. Show all posts
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Police spending cuts don't have to hurt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8389844.stm
The government have just asked police forces to find more than £500 million in savings each year up until 2014. Suggested solutions include cutting overtime and making officers patrol alone "to make them more accessible"
There is another option for saving money, a policy that could reduce acquisitive crime by over 50% and domestic burglaries by around 80%, thus freeing up tens of thousands of police for joint patrols or other priorities. Bringing drugs under the control and strict regulation of government gives us an opportunity to make heroin and crack users able to feed their habit without having to commit crime or prostitute themselves to fund it. The vast majority of addicts arrested for these crimes get released a few months later and then are back inside not long after that. The whole debacle reminds me of the You've Been Framed classic in which a small child keeps picking up a fish and putting it in a bucket of water only for it to jump right out again seconds later.
Surely the police force will be far better placed to keep communities safe while enduring these cuts if we removed the burden created by stubborn, cowardly and utterly self-defeating drugs policy.
The government have just asked police forces to find more than £500 million in savings each year up until 2014. Suggested solutions include cutting overtime and making officers patrol alone "to make them more accessible"
There is another option for saving money, a policy that could reduce acquisitive crime by over 50% and domestic burglaries by around 80%, thus freeing up tens of thousands of police for joint patrols or other priorities. Bringing drugs under the control and strict regulation of government gives us an opportunity to make heroin and crack users able to feed their habit without having to commit crime or prostitute themselves to fund it. The vast majority of addicts arrested for these crimes get released a few months later and then are back inside not long after that. The whole debacle reminds me of the You've Been Framed classic in which a small child keeps picking up a fish and putting it in a bucket of water only for it to jump right out again seconds later.
Surely the police force will be far better placed to keep communities safe while enduring these cuts if we removed the burden created by stubborn, cowardly and utterly self-defeating drugs policy.
Friday, 13 November 2009
Is this the book to save us from the Tory Menace?
Transform yesterday launched "After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation" at the House of Commons. Having read most of it, I am confident it can be employed to great effect in backing up a Liberal Democrat policy of strictly regulating a legal trade in drugs.
This document is undoubtedly tough on drugs and I will be writing to Nick Clegg to inform him of this and to encourage him to act in the strongest possible terms. This book, to be blunt "covers our ass" on the issue with its sober, rational examination of the options for leading the world into a post-prohibition reality. It is now time to take off our gloves and mercilessly attack the prohibitionist policy that sacrifices untold numbers of children at the altar of the UN narcotics conventions and the dangerous, hysterical rantings of wrong-headed Daily Mail columnists. I will not stand by as prohibition pushes our desperate, vulnerable youth into the arms of the pushers, pimps and the vicious criminal profiteers who currently terrorise our communities. Far from creating drug-ridden anarchy, this book allows us to see that a legal drugs market can help create a better, safer world, where children and young people are protected from harm, and ignorance of the risks of drug consumption can no longer ruin lives.
These are genuinely exciting times in British politics. The Lib Dems have an opportunity to restore faith in politics by presenting a policy that will save billions of wasted pounds and create a paradigm shift in society that again casts the police as servants, not persecutors of the people and can allow previously cowering communities to escape the dispiriting influence of drugs and crime.
We now have all the tools necessary to build the Britain we want to live in, and perhaps the most finely crafted can be found here: www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm
We now have all the tools necessary to build the Britain we want to live in, and perhaps the most finely crafted can be found here: www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm
Sunday, 8 November 2009
How do we open up a home front against the Taliban?
In World War II it seemed the whole of society was mobilised to support the war effort around the world. As we remember today the men and women who have fallen in all the wars this nation has fought, it is time to ask whether we are doing all we can to support our effort in Afghanistan.
The uncomfortable truth is that there are around 250,000 of us who are actively undermining that effort. People who, when combined with their fellows around the world, provide around 50% of the Taliban's funding. For the vast majority it is not their intention to fund the insurgency of religious fundamentalists, and even if you told them they were funding the Taliban, they would struggle to stop. These people are heroin addicts. 92% of the world's heroin originates in Afghanistan, and the Taliban's taxes on the trade and heroin stockpiles are what accounts for around 50% of their income.
So what is the best way of breaking this link between British heroin addicts and the Taliban?
We have tried eradicating poppies in Afghanistan, an act which unfortunately has much the same impact as disrupting trafficking in and around the UK. Namely, the price for the remaining heroin goes up and the Taliban makes the same amount or more money. Indeed the Taliban themselves suppressed opium growing in Afghanistan in 2000 and apparently reaped great financial reward from their efforts "The total farm-gate value of opium rose from US$56 million in 2001 to US$1,200 million in 2002" (UNODC (2004), ‘Presentation to the International Crisis Group on Afghanistan’, Brussels, 5/VII/2004). http://bit.ly/19OsRn
Efforts to get addicts off heroin have been successful up to a point, but methadone is a more harmful drug to an addict's health, and is often ineffective in reducing demand for street heroin. Prison is an ineffective deterrent, and rehab is expensive and often unsuccessful.
There is one option available to us that we have yet to try on any great scale. Opium poppies are already being grown in Britain to provide medical opiates in the treatment of our sick. If we were to expand the growing of opium poppies and treat our addicts medically with prescribed heroin, and if other countries were to do the same, we could remove the demand for Afghan opium, and so remove half of the Taliban's current funding, reducing their ability to buys guns, explosives and bullets with which to resist democratic reform and attack British soldiers trying to help Afghanistan rebuild after Taliban rule.
It is the government's short-sighted drugs policy that is funding the Taliban, not the hapless drug-addicted wretches in our cities and towns.
The uncomfortable truth is that there are around 250,000 of us who are actively undermining that effort. People who, when combined with their fellows around the world, provide around 50% of the Taliban's funding. For the vast majority it is not their intention to fund the insurgency of religious fundamentalists, and even if you told them they were funding the Taliban, they would struggle to stop. These people are heroin addicts. 92% of the world's heroin originates in Afghanistan, and the Taliban's taxes on the trade and heroin stockpiles are what accounts for around 50% of their income.
So what is the best way of breaking this link between British heroin addicts and the Taliban?
We have tried eradicating poppies in Afghanistan, an act which unfortunately has much the same impact as disrupting trafficking in and around the UK. Namely, the price for the remaining heroin goes up and the Taliban makes the same amount or more money. Indeed the Taliban themselves suppressed opium growing in Afghanistan in 2000 and apparently reaped great financial reward from their efforts "The total farm-gate value of opium rose from US$56 million in 2001 to US$1,200 million in 2002" (UNODC (2004), ‘Presentation to the International Crisis Group on Afghanistan’, Brussels, 5/VII/2004). http://bit.ly/19OsRn
Efforts to get addicts off heroin have been successful up to a point, but methadone is a more harmful drug to an addict's health, and is often ineffective in reducing demand for street heroin. Prison is an ineffective deterrent, and rehab is expensive and often unsuccessful.
There is one option available to us that we have yet to try on any great scale. Opium poppies are already being grown in Britain to provide medical opiates in the treatment of our sick. If we were to expand the growing of opium poppies and treat our addicts medically with prescribed heroin, and if other countries were to do the same, we could remove the demand for Afghan opium, and so remove half of the Taliban's current funding, reducing their ability to buys guns, explosives and bullets with which to resist democratic reform and attack British soldiers trying to help Afghanistan rebuild after Taliban rule.
It is the government's short-sighted drugs policy that is funding the Taliban, not the hapless drug-addicted wretches in our cities and towns.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Belittling the link between cannabis and schizophrenia should come second to ensuring education at point of sale.
I was disappointed to read the following in Mark Easton's blog today, especially having witnessed at first hand what schizophrenia can do to a family.
"Professor Nutt accepts there is a link between cannabis and mental ill-health. He cites research suggesting that "smokers of cannabis are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers".
But he points out that "you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke tobacco than if you don't." In other words, he says, "(T)here is a relatively small risk for smoking cannabis and psychotic illness compared with quite a substantial risk for smoking tobacco and lung cancer". "
Given that risk of schizophrenia for a sibling of a schizophrenic is around 10%, I would have been very grateful for the information that joining my friends in smoking cannabis as a teenager might have increased my risk of psychosis to around 1 in 4. Very grateful indeed. Schizophrenia isn't comparable with lung cancer. Lung cancer generally affects people in old age (though of course you can get it younger if you smoke), schizophrenia generally strikes in your late teens or your early twenties and is very capable of radically altering your personality to one that your friends and family find bewildering and frightening. It can lead to a lifetime of exclusion, torn between the drugs that numb your emotions and the exciting delusions that keep your mind busy, but that can severely impair your social functioning.
I wrote the above earlier, and now that I've just finished watching question time, I'm dismayed by the pride in stupidity that Jacqui Smith, the tory, the Plaid guy and John Sergeant displayed. If cannabis is so very dangerous then you need to educate people about the dangers and be in a position to help them if they get into trouble. Making it more illegal doesn't have any effect on levels of use and will only make them less likely to seek help if they get into difficulty. What is perhaps more important, is that their friends, who are probably in the best position to guage their changes in personality, are going to be less likely to seek help on their behalf if they witness problems emerging. The best way to keep our young people safe is to ensure that education on risks is provided every time a purchase is made (as is the case currently with tobacco, a more addictive drug, so presumably a less effective deterrent than would be the case with cannabis. The cannabis education should be more extensive than "You'll Go Mad" on the side of the packet though). The pharmacist, the doctor, the police and the family need to be seen as friends and allies in this, not the enemy to be avoided and deceived.
I have seen what happens when schizophrenia is not caught early, and I would not wish it on my worst enemy, not even Jacqui Smith. The enemy in all this is ignorance, and the best way to combat it is to seize the market from organised crime, and ensure the strictly regulated trade in cannabis has education at point of sale at its core.
"Professor Nutt accepts there is a link between cannabis and mental ill-health. He cites research suggesting that "smokers of cannabis are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers".
But he points out that "you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke tobacco than if you don't." In other words, he says, "(T)here is a relatively small risk for smoking cannabis and psychotic illness compared with quite a substantial risk for smoking tobacco and lung cancer". "
Given that risk of schizophrenia for a sibling of a schizophrenic is around 10%, I would have been very grateful for the information that joining my friends in smoking cannabis as a teenager might have increased my risk of psychosis to around 1 in 4. Very grateful indeed. Schizophrenia isn't comparable with lung cancer. Lung cancer generally affects people in old age (though of course you can get it younger if you smoke), schizophrenia generally strikes in your late teens or your early twenties and is very capable of radically altering your personality to one that your friends and family find bewildering and frightening. It can lead to a lifetime of exclusion, torn between the drugs that numb your emotions and the exciting delusions that keep your mind busy, but that can severely impair your social functioning.
I wrote the above earlier, and now that I've just finished watching question time, I'm dismayed by the pride in stupidity that Jacqui Smith, the tory, the Plaid guy and John Sergeant displayed. If cannabis is so very dangerous then you need to educate people about the dangers and be in a position to help them if they get into trouble. Making it more illegal doesn't have any effect on levels of use and will only make them less likely to seek help if they get into difficulty. What is perhaps more important, is that their friends, who are probably in the best position to guage their changes in personality, are going to be less likely to seek help on their behalf if they witness problems emerging. The best way to keep our young people safe is to ensure that education on risks is provided every time a purchase is made (as is the case currently with tobacco, a more addictive drug, so presumably a less effective deterrent than would be the case with cannabis. The cannabis education should be more extensive than "You'll Go Mad" on the side of the packet though). The pharmacist, the doctor, the police and the family need to be seen as friends and allies in this, not the enemy to be avoided and deceived.
I have seen what happens when schizophrenia is not caught early, and I would not wish it on my worst enemy, not even Jacqui Smith. The enemy in all this is ignorance, and the best way to combat it is to seize the market from organised crime, and ensure the strictly regulated trade in cannabis has education at point of sale at its core.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
You cannot change demand for prostitution without first tackling supply
Below is an edited e-mail I have just sent to someone organising the Demand Change campaign: http://www.demandchange.org.uk/ Their calls to criminalise paying for sex, while well-intentioned, would make life more dangerous for many prostitutes. Only by tackling supply of prostitutes by strictly regulating legal supply of heroin and cocaine - and removing the need to prostitute to fund a drug habit - can we produce an environment in which the most horrific instances of sexual exploitation can be effectively tackled.
"Having read further on the issue of prostitution, I also have to say that I cannot support the Demand Change position any longer. Reducing demand without reducing supply has apparently led in Sweden to prostitutes accepting customers they previously would not, lowering prices and generally feeling more at risk. Although I respect greatly the work of Eaves and have been defending you vigorously on the online Lib Dem Voice forum, I cannot support a blanket ban on paying for sex.
I have however settled upon a compromise solution that I hope you will consider. I believe it might be more effective than clause 13 in tackling trafficking and pimping, and it also might be acceptable to those few prostitutes who make considerable money from prostitution and assert they have a right to sell sex.
The starting point of the plan would be to bring about a strictly regulated legal drugs market that would alleviate the need to find considerable amounts of money for drugs that motivates the vast majority of street prostitution. There would also be a considerable reduction in acquisitive crime that would in turn free up many thousands of police for other priorities. I feel strongly that one of these should be a concerted effort to raid and close brothels, providing support to those women and girls who are freed and making Britain a very unwelcoming destination for sex traffickers. This effort could be supported by a toughening of clause 13 to make it illegal for anyone to pay for sexual services in a brothel.
I would hope this plan would reduce the number of street prostitutes, so allowing any remaining to be more careful when accepting clients and to charge higher prices. I suspect though, that many established red-light districts would simply collapse if the number of prostitutes went below a certain level.
I also hope it would be effective in tackling brothel-keepers and pimps whose activites are currently illegal but bizzarrely appear to be being tolerated by the authorities. While street prostitution is dangerous, the worst-case brothel is the site at which the most horrific abuse is being perpetrated and I hope you would agree it should be the focus of our attentions.
This all leaves the problem of where the demand goes for sexual services and whether lone working prostitutes can keep safe. To improve the safety of independent prostitutes I believe the law should specifically allow two women to work from the same premises, ideally with extensive support from social and emergency services. Keeping the number to two I believe should minimise the opportunity for control to be exerted and should allow for clear distinction between a working partnership and a brothel in the eyes of the law.
I hope you'll understand that I deeply respect the work that Eaves does, and that this proposal is a genuine attempt to come up with a plan that will maximise the safety of prostitutes who want to work, while doing all we can to save others from suffering further horrific abuse.
Thanks and best wishes,
Ewan Hoyle.
"Having read further on the issue of prostitution, I also have to say that I cannot support the Demand Change position any longer. Reducing demand without reducing supply has apparently led in Sweden to prostitutes accepting customers they previously would not, lowering prices and generally feeling more at risk. Although I respect greatly the work of Eaves and have been defending you vigorously on the online Lib Dem Voice forum, I cannot support a blanket ban on paying for sex.
I have however settled upon a compromise solution that I hope you will consider. I believe it might be more effective than clause 13 in tackling trafficking and pimping, and it also might be acceptable to those few prostitutes who make considerable money from prostitution and assert they have a right to sell sex.
The starting point of the plan would be to bring about a strictly regulated legal drugs market that would alleviate the need to find considerable amounts of money for drugs that motivates the vast majority of street prostitution. There would also be a considerable reduction in acquisitive crime that would in turn free up many thousands of police for other priorities. I feel strongly that one of these should be a concerted effort to raid and close brothels, providing support to those women and girls who are freed and making Britain a very unwelcoming destination for sex traffickers. This effort could be supported by a toughening of clause 13 to make it illegal for anyone to pay for sexual services in a brothel.
I would hope this plan would reduce the number of street prostitutes, so allowing any remaining to be more careful when accepting clients and to charge higher prices. I suspect though, that many established red-light districts would simply collapse if the number of prostitutes went below a certain level.
I also hope it would be effective in tackling brothel-keepers and pimps whose activites are currently illegal but bizzarrely appear to be being tolerated by the authorities. While street prostitution is dangerous, the worst-case brothel is the site at which the most horrific abuse is being perpetrated and I hope you would agree it should be the focus of our attentions.
This all leaves the problem of where the demand goes for sexual services and whether lone working prostitutes can keep safe. To improve the safety of independent prostitutes I believe the law should specifically allow two women to work from the same premises, ideally with extensive support from social and emergency services. Keeping the number to two I believe should minimise the opportunity for control to be exerted and should allow for clear distinction between a working partnership and a brothel in the eyes of the law.
I hope you'll understand that I deeply respect the work that Eaves does, and that this proposal is a genuine attempt to come up with a plan that will maximise the safety of prostitutes who want to work, while doing all we can to save others from suffering further horrific abuse.
Thanks and best wishes,
Ewan Hoyle.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Practicing running rings around Melanie Phillips' drugs arguments
As I gear up to bring the Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform website online, I thought I'd practice ripping apart the arguments for retaining prohibition. Here's one from Melanie Phillips:
The pimp state
Daily Mail, 18 December 2006
"The idea that legalising drugs would get rid of crime is simply risible. Legal drugs would always be undercut — both by lower prices and higher strengths — by a black market. The only way to eradicate such an illegal trade would be to supply unlimited quantities of all drugs totally free of charge."
If this paragraph contains Melanie's argument for prohibition then I do believe we've won. All the commonly abused but illegal drugs except cannabis would I presume be manufactured pharmaceutically were they to be legal and regulated. They would therefore be required to be without contaminants and essentially be as pure as is possible. I would be very impressed if the illegal market could produce product stronger than pure so as to draw customers away from the state. I can envisage a few desperate street pushers trying to market "110% heroin", but I doubt they would last very long.
In the case of cannabis, I would hope that pharmacies would stock a range of strengths and active ingredient ratios to suit every taste. While some customers might enjoy the lucky dip aspect of their dealer telling them "this is the good shit right here", I feel most would find their favourite legal strain and stick to it for the most part, maybe changing up for special occasions.
On the price point Melanie makes, we have to examine what motivates the drug dealer. Melanie may think they are hell bent on destroying the British way of life through any means, but the reality is that they are motivated by profit. The state on the other hand is free to set prices at whatever level they see fit. They need not necessarily profit, although it would be a lot easier to do so without the risk premium that is integral to the illegal trade. They could appoint an independent body to monitor levels of use and the level of illicit trade and to set prices designed to restrict growth of both of these factors.
I'll admit eradicating illegal trade completely might be tricky, but there aren't many people pushing alcohol on the streets of our cities, perhaps because people can be fairly sure off-licence bought booze is only going to contain the poison they enjoy and isn't going to be fortified with meths and other nastiness.
Tomorrow I plan to critique a conservative home submission by a barrister, former chief of staff to David Cameron and "World Universities Debating Champion". He'll be well used to putting together persuasive arguments that are wrong then.
The pimp state
Daily Mail, 18 December 2006
"The idea that legalising drugs would get rid of crime is simply risible. Legal drugs would always be undercut — both by lower prices and higher strengths — by a black market. The only way to eradicate such an illegal trade would be to supply unlimited quantities of all drugs totally free of charge."
If this paragraph contains Melanie's argument for prohibition then I do believe we've won. All the commonly abused but illegal drugs except cannabis would I presume be manufactured pharmaceutically were they to be legal and regulated. They would therefore be required to be without contaminants and essentially be as pure as is possible. I would be very impressed if the illegal market could produce product stronger than pure so as to draw customers away from the state. I can envisage a few desperate street pushers trying to market "110% heroin", but I doubt they would last very long.
In the case of cannabis, I would hope that pharmacies would stock a range of strengths and active ingredient ratios to suit every taste. While some customers might enjoy the lucky dip aspect of their dealer telling them "this is the good shit right here", I feel most would find their favourite legal strain and stick to it for the most part, maybe changing up for special occasions.
On the price point Melanie makes, we have to examine what motivates the drug dealer. Melanie may think they are hell bent on destroying the British way of life through any means, but the reality is that they are motivated by profit. The state on the other hand is free to set prices at whatever level they see fit. They need not necessarily profit, although it would be a lot easier to do so without the risk premium that is integral to the illegal trade. They could appoint an independent body to monitor levels of use and the level of illicit trade and to set prices designed to restrict growth of both of these factors.
I'll admit eradicating illegal trade completely might be tricky, but there aren't many people pushing alcohol on the streets of our cities, perhaps because people can be fairly sure off-licence bought booze is only going to contain the poison they enjoy and isn't going to be fortified with meths and other nastiness.
Tomorrow I plan to critique a conservative home submission by a barrister, former chief of staff to David Cameron and "World Universities Debating Champion". He'll be well used to putting together persuasive arguments that are wrong then.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Taxpayer's alliance utterly abandons the interest of taxpayers on heroin prescription issue.
The taxpayers alliance aren't representing me with this article. Are they representing you?
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2009/09/poverty-and-addiction.html
Here is my comment in response to the blog post that I have posted on their website:
There are several problems with your arguments against prescription. Firstly, not including the criminal act of taking heroin, nearly all of heroin addicts' crimes will be acquisitive crimes to fund the drugs that will cost them around £400-£600 per week. If you reduce the cost of this habit to zero, you remove the need to commit crime to fund it and so are likely to greatly reduce your criminal activity. Yes, some will still occasionally commit crime, but I suspect this is only because they have been driven to break the moral taboo of criminal activity by the inflated costs of prohibited heroin. Simple economics of scale should reduce rapidly the £15000 per year cost of the scheme if it were expanded. If the cost is what you object to, why do you not suggest solutions to this? Finding alternative sources of heroin, direct purchase of opium from Afghan farmers for example, would greatly reduce costs. Can we not exempt addictive drugs from free prescription charges and allow the addict to at least partially fund their provision?
If heroin prescription is expanded to all users who currently commit acquisitive crime to fund their habit, there is the potential to reduce domestic burglaries by 80% and bring two thirds of street prostitutes off the street corners. Billions could be cut from criminal justice costs, not counting the massive benefits to the taxpayer of being freed from the fear of crime that addicts currently create by their actions.
Your shortsightedness on this issue is massively failing the interests of the taxpayers you claim to represent.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2009/09/poverty-and-addiction.html
Here is my comment in response to the blog post that I have posted on their website:
There are several problems with your arguments against prescription. Firstly, not including the criminal act of taking heroin, nearly all of heroin addicts' crimes will be acquisitive crimes to fund the drugs that will cost them around £400-£600 per week. If you reduce the cost of this habit to zero, you remove the need to commit crime to fund it and so are likely to greatly reduce your criminal activity. Yes, some will still occasionally commit crime, but I suspect this is only because they have been driven to break the moral taboo of criminal activity by the inflated costs of prohibited heroin. Simple economics of scale should reduce rapidly the £15000 per year cost of the scheme if it were expanded. If the cost is what you object to, why do you not suggest solutions to this? Finding alternative sources of heroin, direct purchase of opium from Afghan farmers for example, would greatly reduce costs. Can we not exempt addictive drugs from free prescription charges and allow the addict to at least partially fund their provision?
If heroin prescription is expanded to all users who currently commit acquisitive crime to fund their habit, there is the potential to reduce domestic burglaries by 80% and bring two thirds of street prostitutes off the street corners. Billions could be cut from criminal justice costs, not counting the massive benefits to the taxpayer of being freed from the fear of crime that addicts currently create by their actions.
Your shortsightedness on this issue is massively failing the interests of the taxpayers you claim to represent.
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Lib Dems should urgently grasp the drugs nettle
With The Observer editorial and contributors calling for reform of drug policy over the last couple of weeks and The Independent yesterday announcing the resounding success of heroin prescription experiments, the time is right for the Liberal Democrats to rethink their approach to drugs policy for the next election.
In 2002 The Observer published a poll that suggested that 2% of the population believed heroin should be legalised or decriminalised. In August of this year, a survey by PoliticsHome suggested 19% of the population supported legalisation of all currently illegal drugs, and over half the population supported legalising some of the currently illegal drugs. It appears attitudes to prohibition are changing, and changing fast. Our current policy was formulated in 2002. If it took popular opinion into account at that time, these polls suggest that popular opinion has moved on, and so should we.
We have the opportunity to lead public opinion on this issue. We can revive faith in politics by presenting intelligent policies for the good of the people and then try persuading them to vote in their best interest. While Labour and the Tories pander to the loudest man in their focus group sessions, we can show that we have the courage to stand up, tell the truth about the policies we need, and lead.
Below is the text of the flier for the only drugs policy fringe event at the coming conference. If you want to contribute to the debate, please come along.
Sunday, 20th 18.15 - 19.30
Bournemouth International Centre (BIC),
Durley Suite
Liberal Democrats For
Drug Policy Reform
Present:
What Can Be Gained From
Thoughtful Drug Policy Reform?
What Can Be Gained From
Thoughtful Drug Policy Reform?
Chaired by: Dr Evan Harris MP.
Speakers include: Francis Wilkinson, former chief constable of Gwent police, Danny Kushlick of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Graham Watson MEP, and Ewan Hoyle of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform.
In March of this year The Economist’s cover story was “Prohibition
has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution”. Esteemed
columnists such as Polly Toynbee, Nick Davies, Johann Hari and
Simon Jenkins, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Lord
Adair Turner and Tory leader David Cameron have all recognised
prohibition as a failure and called for legalisation to be considered.
But just how damaging is prohibition to our society? How should
we regulate a legal trade in drugs? And can a policy of regulated
supply be a vote winner at the coming election?
Useful links:
Transform website: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/
Leaked drugs report:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/07/05/Report.pdf
Recent Pro-legalisation articles in:
The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6733950.ece
The Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/486fb0d8-7ca3-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0.html
The Independent:
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/index.php?subject=drugLegalisation
David Cameron MP’s views:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-contender-calls-for-more-liberal-drug-laws-
505824.html
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/03/fear-prevails-at-un-as-voices-for-drug.html
An excellent book on prohibition by Mike Gray, author of The China Syndrome:
http://www.libertary.com/book/drug-crazy
For further information or to join
Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform
e-mail ewanhoyle@gmail.com
Saturday, 5 September 2009
A solution to our drink and drug problem?
Just as sometimes it is necessary to be cruel to be kind, on the issue of drug and alcohol abuse, I feel it may be necessary to be illiberal to be liberal. In the run-up to my presentation at the fringe event "What can be gained from thoughtful drug policy reform?" I have been struggling with the question of how to regulate the sale of drugs. I have to balance the goals of keeping drugs away from children, eliminating illegal markets, protecting our European neighbours from hard drugs from our cheap, legal market, discouraging drug tourism and presenting a regime that would be acceptable to British voters.
For all of these goals I feel strict regulation is required and the strictest of regulation can be achieved by total state control of the trade. I cannot leave these substances in the private sector and our young people at the mercy of their marketing techniques and profit motive.
I suspect the people of the country would rather we err on the side of more state control rather than less. The whole policy would be quickly endangered if any newspaper could print the headline "Drugs epidemic sweeps country". It is for this reason that I am seriously considering recommending a kind of ration book/ID card. Yes you're all liberals and ID cards are evil, but please hear me out on this.
Any UK resident could apply for a card (drugs tourism already covered). It could be argued that no identifying demographic information should be linked to the card. Rather the card is just a means by which excessive purchasing could be prevented and health interventions could be offered. We would need to prevent people buying quantities that could only be interpreted as being for resale. For example, customers could be sold a week's supply of cannabis, a weekend's supply of ecstasy or cocaine etc. (exact quantities would have to be determined by people more knowledgeable than myself). When customers are identified by the computer system as being regular and/or heavy users, the pharmacist could be prompted to discretely offer an appointment with a suitably trained professional in which health and social issues stemming from drug use could be discussed. The system would also allow statisticians to effectively monitor drug use among different demographic groups and suggest health and education interventions to ensure people are kept safe in areas of concern. For example, if there was a rise in ecstasy purchases in an area, the pharmacists could be checked for best education practice, and the clubs could be assigned health workers to distribute education material about safe use. If any drugs epidemic were to threaten to appear, the knowledge on where and in which demographic population would be vital in organising a suitable response.
I would also suggest extending the card purchasing scheme to off-license and supermarket purchases of alcohol (and cigarettes?). Firstly, it would reduce the stigma of holding the card. Many young people would dread certain relatives finding a card that identified them as a drug user. If the card also allows sale of alcohol, then many parents would deem it acceptable, and so young people would be more likely to turn to the newly legal drugs market. Secondly - and this is where you might think I'm getting too illiberal - this scheme could be very effective in keeping drugs and alcohol out of the hands of the under-age. If each drugs or alcohol purchase was recorded by this card system, then it might be possible for separate packages of drugs or alcohol to be identified as being purchased by a specific person. Say the police come across some under-age drinkers in a park, they could scan an identifier on the drinks container and find out that Joe Bloggs of 10 Bloggs Road purchased that beverage in the last few hours. Legal purchasers could be strongly discouraged from providing any drug to the underage by this system. I am by no means committed to this idea, it is just something I think could be considered (it does after all mean that identifying demographic information would have to be linked to the card, which contradicts my earlier point). The shock of this could be lessened somewhat by allowing the nearly of age to consume under suitable adult supervision. For example, lowering the drinking age to 16 for specially licensed premises. Most voters would probably agree that children should be prevented from taking drugs. This might be the best way of making this happen.
To cover the point about leakage overseas, I would suggest heroin should not leave the clinic at which it is sold or prescribed, and problem crack and heroin addicts could be sold cocaine or heroin with a subsidy that diminishes over time to encourage cessation of use. No drug that could leave the premises would be sold at a price that would so undercut the illegal market as to make export worth the risk. Again, I am not completely committed to this either and would be interested to hear what others think.
For all of these goals I feel strict regulation is required and the strictest of regulation can be achieved by total state control of the trade. I cannot leave these substances in the private sector and our young people at the mercy of their marketing techniques and profit motive.
I suspect the people of the country would rather we err on the side of more state control rather than less. The whole policy would be quickly endangered if any newspaper could print the headline "Drugs epidemic sweeps country". It is for this reason that I am seriously considering recommending a kind of ration book/ID card. Yes you're all liberals and ID cards are evil, but please hear me out on this.
Any UK resident could apply for a card (drugs tourism already covered). It could be argued that no identifying demographic information should be linked to the card. Rather the card is just a means by which excessive purchasing could be prevented and health interventions could be offered. We would need to prevent people buying quantities that could only be interpreted as being for resale. For example, customers could be sold a week's supply of cannabis, a weekend's supply of ecstasy or cocaine etc. (exact quantities would have to be determined by people more knowledgeable than myself). When customers are identified by the computer system as being regular and/or heavy users, the pharmacist could be prompted to discretely offer an appointment with a suitably trained professional in which health and social issues stemming from drug use could be discussed. The system would also allow statisticians to effectively monitor drug use among different demographic groups and suggest health and education interventions to ensure people are kept safe in areas of concern. For example, if there was a rise in ecstasy purchases in an area, the pharmacists could be checked for best education practice, and the clubs could be assigned health workers to distribute education material about safe use. If any drugs epidemic were to threaten to appear, the knowledge on where and in which demographic population would be vital in organising a suitable response.
I would also suggest extending the card purchasing scheme to off-license and supermarket purchases of alcohol (and cigarettes?). Firstly, it would reduce the stigma of holding the card. Many young people would dread certain relatives finding a card that identified them as a drug user. If the card also allows sale of alcohol, then many parents would deem it acceptable, and so young people would be more likely to turn to the newly legal drugs market. Secondly - and this is where you might think I'm getting too illiberal - this scheme could be very effective in keeping drugs and alcohol out of the hands of the under-age. If each drugs or alcohol purchase was recorded by this card system, then it might be possible for separate packages of drugs or alcohol to be identified as being purchased by a specific person. Say the police come across some under-age drinkers in a park, they could scan an identifier on the drinks container and find out that Joe Bloggs of 10 Bloggs Road purchased that beverage in the last few hours. Legal purchasers could be strongly discouraged from providing any drug to the underage by this system. I am by no means committed to this idea, it is just something I think could be considered (it does after all mean that identifying demographic information would have to be linked to the card, which contradicts my earlier point). The shock of this could be lessened somewhat by allowing the nearly of age to consume under suitable adult supervision. For example, lowering the drinking age to 16 for specially licensed premises. Most voters would probably agree that children should be prevented from taking drugs. This might be the best way of making this happen.
To cover the point about leakage overseas, I would suggest heroin should not leave the clinic at which it is sold or prescribed, and problem crack and heroin addicts could be sold cocaine or heroin with a subsidy that diminishes over time to encourage cessation of use. No drug that could leave the premises would be sold at a price that would so undercut the illegal market as to make export worth the risk. Again, I am not completely committed to this either and would be interested to hear what others think.
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Who will help me bring our girls home?
My argument for bringing drugs under effective legal control is not a libertarian one. I have never taken drugs and never intend to in the future. Nor do I wish for anyone else to take drugs. My argument comes from my experiences watching television documentaries, weeping as I witness the emotional pain presented, and wanting to do something to prevent such pain happening again. My empathy with the people I see perhaps comes from my own experiences witnessing my brother descend into psychosis three times in my teenage years and the effect this had on my family. While I have tried to find the answer to psychosis, and believe I have some ideas that may be very useful in improving treatment, I am perhaps too emotionally attached to the subject, and with my chronic fatigue, I fear the frustration of not being able to communicate those ideas effectively, and any rejection of those ideas. That is a fight I simply do not have the energy for.
The solution to psychosis is far from simple, which sets it apart from a problem I was presented with in harrowing manner by the Cutting Edge documentary "Killer in a Small Town". The film presents the stories of the young women who were murdered in the space of a month by Steve Wright in Ipswich in November and December of 2006 and one sequence particularly affected me. Three women that were reported to be prostitutes had been murdered in Ipswich in recent days and the police were asking the girls who worked the town's red-light district to stay at home. In an interview with an ITV News reporter when asked "Despite the dangers, why have you decided to come out tonight?" one of those young women replied "Because I need the money. I need the money." That young woman was 24-year-old heroin addict Paula Clennell, who was to become Steve Wright's 4th victim. As I watched this I was thinking "Just give her the drugs. Can the police not give her some drugs, just to keep her safe until the killer is caught?" But they couldn't do that. Heroin is illegal.
There are thought to be 80,000 prostitutes working in the UK. 93% of them are using illegal drugs. Studies suggest that two thirds of prostitutes are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. You'll probably all have heard of PTSD in the context of soldiers coming back from the horrors of war, yet only 1 in 8 soldiers returning from Iraq meet the criteria for the diagnosis and the British deployment was never more than 45,000. Our soldiers have the comfort of knowing they fight for Queen and country, as our prostitutes are raped every night by our mistaken belief that they can just say no to drugs, or that prohibition works and everything will be ok if we just get tougher. As the bodies of our brave soldiers are flown back from Afghanistan there are growing calls to "Bring our boys home". Where are the marches asking for the government to bring our girls home?
For more of my views on drugs see http://forum.libdemvoice.org/ I proposed a motion for the coming conference in the policy forum and my ideas on the effective control of drugs are presented there. I am currently trying to put together a fringe event at the coming conference with the working title of "Can bringing drugs under effective legal control improve our society, save billions and win votes?" and could do with some moral support, practical help, useful advice, whatever.
Ewan.
The solution to psychosis is far from simple, which sets it apart from a problem I was presented with in harrowing manner by the Cutting Edge documentary "Killer in a Small Town". The film presents the stories of the young women who were murdered in the space of a month by Steve Wright in Ipswich in November and December of 2006 and one sequence particularly affected me. Three women that were reported to be prostitutes had been murdered in Ipswich in recent days and the police were asking the girls who worked the town's red-light district to stay at home. In an interview with an ITV News reporter when asked "Despite the dangers, why have you decided to come out tonight?" one of those young women replied "Because I need the money. I need the money." That young woman was 24-year-old heroin addict Paula Clennell, who was to become Steve Wright's 4th victim. As I watched this I was thinking "Just give her the drugs. Can the police not give her some drugs, just to keep her safe until the killer is caught?" But they couldn't do that. Heroin is illegal.
There are thought to be 80,000 prostitutes working in the UK. 93% of them are using illegal drugs. Studies suggest that two thirds of prostitutes are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. You'll probably all have heard of PTSD in the context of soldiers coming back from the horrors of war, yet only 1 in 8 soldiers returning from Iraq meet the criteria for the diagnosis and the British deployment was never more than 45,000. Our soldiers have the comfort of knowing they fight for Queen and country, as our prostitutes are raped every night by our mistaken belief that they can just say no to drugs, or that prohibition works and everything will be ok if we just get tougher. As the bodies of our brave soldiers are flown back from Afghanistan there are growing calls to "Bring our boys home". Where are the marches asking for the government to bring our girls home?
For more of my views on drugs see http://forum.libdemvoice.org/ I proposed a motion for the coming conference in the policy forum and my ideas on the effective control of drugs are presented there. I am currently trying to put together a fringe event at the coming conference with the working title of "Can bringing drugs under effective legal control improve our society, save billions and win votes?" and could do with some moral support, practical help, useful advice, whatever.
Ewan.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
The Home Office is far, far wrong on drugs
Quotes from a home office statement in reply to Transform's “A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of the Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs”
1 "Drugs are controlled because they are harmful.
2 "The law provides an important deterrent to drug use and legalisation would risk a huge increase in consumption with an associated cost to public health.
3 "The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals - neither ; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime."
"Drugs are controlled because they are harmful.”
The notion that illegal drugs are in any way “controlled” is utterly preposterous. The very essence of the illegal market is that it is carried out without any government regulation or control. Controlling illegal drugs is exactly what the reform advocates are proposing, and regulating manufacture and retail of drugs will considerably reduce the harm they can cause. All the illegal drugs are harmful it is true, but they are made considerably more dangerous by accidental or deliberate contaminants, inconsistent preparation strengths and ignorance of safe use.
The harm caused by cannabis and the skunk varieties in particular is causing great debate in the media. There is a strong likelihood that the skunk situation has been brought about because of simple production economics. Cannabis plants have been selectively bred and grown to maximise profit for the number of plants you are able to grow. Skunk is the strongest variety you can grow, so you will make more money growing and selling skunk. Were cannabis to be legalised, I would hope that a wide variety of strengths and active ingredient ratios would be on offer, so that the customer has the option of choosing the mellow, giggly cannabis variety rather than the anxiety, paranoia, delusion and perhaps mental illness inducing varieties that may be dominating the illegal market (certainly the press).
There is also a strong possibility that users of heroin will be able to move away from injection, the current likely method of administration. Injection of heroin maximises the delivery of the drug to the brain for each unit purchased. With prescribed or cheaply available heroin this cost consideration is no longer relevant, so users could employ safer, if less efficient, methods of administration.
“legalisation would risk a huge increase in consumption”
The likelihood of increased consumption is very small.
Currently, the vast majority of people's first exposures to any drug will occur in a social environment, most likely coinciding with the consumption of other drugs with which the person is already familiar (alcohol being the most likely). The person offering the drug experience will probably, in the case of “low-harm” drugs such as cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy or cocaine be using their access to drugs as social currency. It is unlikely that they will be seeking any financial benefit, rather they are just showing off and wanting to make friends. A naïve, inebriated party-goer might judge this drug-provider as someone with connections, someone they would rather not offend, or they might just be curious about the drug experience and be unsure when another opportunity to experiment might arise.
Consider now a similar scenario in an environment of regulated drug supply. The person with drugs is now just some guy who went to the chemist. They need not be especially well connected, they have nothing to brag about and they are altogether less interesting. The person being offered drugs knows that they can go to the chemist themselves the next day if they are really interested and would know that the person offering the drug is committing the offence of unlicensed supply if they accept.
The current common scenario with heroin and crack is that the benign show-off of the soft-drug example is most likely themselves addicted to the hard drug being offered and is now more interested in making customers than friends. Such people will routinely seek out vulnerable young people and offer them some heroin or crack, often without disclosing the drug's identity, in the hope of recruiting them as customers for the drug they are selling to fund their own habit.
If prohibition was to end then heroin and crack addicts would have nothing to gain from exposing others to the drugs they use. Their drug of addiction would be either available on prescription or at an affordable rate that need not be funded by criminal activity.
I suspect and hope that the culture of drug use at social gatherings will become the far more mature and responsible “get your own” model that currently applies to alcohol at student parties. Such a rule for drugs would also be much easier to maintain as the drugs being used would not need to be kept in the fridge and can be safely stored in a pocket or purse.
If all drugs were legalised and regulated there would be no formal marketing and any unlicensed supply would be illegal and should be heavily punished. Anyone interested in obtaining drugs would have to go to a licensed pharmacy where they should be given the necessary educational material to allow them to make an informed decision on whether to proceed. I feel it wise that a request for heroin by any customer be followed by a week-long cooling-off period similar to those required when purchasing firearms in the USA. It is not desirable for anyone to be able to obtain such a powerful drug for recreational use on a whim or a “bad day”.
"The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals - neither ; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime."
There are so many things wrong with this presumption. Criminals are in the illegal drug trade because it is easy, highly profitable and, on examination, no more morally wrong than working in an off-license.
Drug-dealing is a victimless crime, at least in the eyes of those involved in the transactions. Each criminal event is not going to be reported or even detected if the dealers have any sense, so the likelihood of punishment is extremely small.
The average organised career drug-dealer probably sees himself as just another businessman supplying goods in response to demand. If demand for illegal drugs plummets (as it would if drugs were legalised and regulated) then there isn't going to suddenly be another illegal commodity that will appear to take their place in the market, certainly not one that will be so demonstrably worth the risk. If these gangsters have guns kicking around left over from their wars for drug-dealing territory, I suppose it might be plausible that they turn to armed robbery or other crimes requiring intimidation, but this example and any other alternatives would be considerably more risky than their former lifestyle and would quickly be rejected by the vast majority.
The only potential growth area of criminality that might fit the drug smugglers skills and experience would be sex trafficking. With the legalisation of hard drugs there would be a considerable drop in the number of prostitutes working to manage their addictions. I do not know if this would suddenly cause an explosion of demand for new prostitutes, but it is possible. I would hope that the huge gap in moral acceptability between drug and sex-trafficking would be one that the organised criminals would not care to cross, but this is an eventuality which has to be anticipated. Certainly those police units formerly employed in combating the drug trade would be much more usefully employed preventing the rape and imprisonment of young women.
Desirable features of the post-prohibition environment:
Newly legal drugs should only be available from licensed pharmacies from pharmacists trained in the risks, safe use and possible side-effects of the available drugs.
A wide range of cannabis varieties should be available to allow users to choose their favourite experience and to ensure pockets of illegal trade do not survive to plug gaps in provision.
A cool-off period (a week?) should be initiated before a naïve customer can get heroin from a pharmacy. For all other drugs a naïve customer should be given educational material that should be read through before completion of the sale on top of safe use and risk information vocally provided by the pharmacist. Pharmacists should refuse customers suspected to be already under the influence of any drug or suspected to be buying either for another person or, in the case of naïve customers, following encouragement by another person.
Penalties for unlicensed supply should remain at current levels in an attempt to ensure that everyone receiving drugs gets the appropriate educational material and pharmacist advice.
To be considered:
All existing heroin and crack addicts be prescribed maintenance doses to immediately take the bottom out of the illegal market.
Amnesties for firearms and other offensive weapons on the end of prohibition. Paying the bearer of the weapon a reasonable price for the weapon might encourage cooperation.
If people formerly involved in the drugs trade want to go clean they may need help with issues such as CV preparation and employment, and psychological therapy. The state should aid with their transition into a non-criminal lifestyle. Some might be usefully employed in the manufacture of the newly legal drugs. Others might require assistance in presenting the business skills they have acquired as skills relevant to employment. Large gaps in employment history might be a problem that would need addressed.
The more help we can give to drug criminals to assist their integration into society, the less likely would be a turn to other crimes following the lifting of prohibition.
The end of prohibition should have major impacts on:
Public Health
Prostitution
Numbers of children taken into care
Prison overcrowding
Respect for the police
Public finances
Foreign relations (Afghanistan and Latin America will be very happy)
Acquisitive crime and the fear of crime
Struggling urban communities
For more information the “Transform” blog is an excellent source.
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/
1 "Drugs are controlled because they are harmful.
2 "The law provides an important deterrent to drug use and legalisation would risk a huge increase in consumption with an associated cost to public health.
3 "The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals - neither ; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime."
"Drugs are controlled because they are harmful.”
The notion that illegal drugs are in any way “controlled” is utterly preposterous. The very essence of the illegal market is that it is carried out without any government regulation or control. Controlling illegal drugs is exactly what the reform advocates are proposing, and regulating manufacture and retail of drugs will considerably reduce the harm they can cause. All the illegal drugs are harmful it is true, but they are made considerably more dangerous by accidental or deliberate contaminants, inconsistent preparation strengths and ignorance of safe use.
The harm caused by cannabis and the skunk varieties in particular is causing great debate in the media. There is a strong likelihood that the skunk situation has been brought about because of simple production economics. Cannabis plants have been selectively bred and grown to maximise profit for the number of plants you are able to grow. Skunk is the strongest variety you can grow, so you will make more money growing and selling skunk. Were cannabis to be legalised, I would hope that a wide variety of strengths and active ingredient ratios would be on offer, so that the customer has the option of choosing the mellow, giggly cannabis variety rather than the anxiety, paranoia, delusion and perhaps mental illness inducing varieties that may be dominating the illegal market (certainly the press).
There is also a strong possibility that users of heroin will be able to move away from injection, the current likely method of administration. Injection of heroin maximises the delivery of the drug to the brain for each unit purchased. With prescribed or cheaply available heroin this cost consideration is no longer relevant, so users could employ safer, if less efficient, methods of administration.
“legalisation would risk a huge increase in consumption”
The likelihood of increased consumption is very small.
Currently, the vast majority of people's first exposures to any drug will occur in a social environment, most likely coinciding with the consumption of other drugs with which the person is already familiar (alcohol being the most likely). The person offering the drug experience will probably, in the case of “low-harm” drugs such as cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy or cocaine be using their access to drugs as social currency. It is unlikely that they will be seeking any financial benefit, rather they are just showing off and wanting to make friends. A naïve, inebriated party-goer might judge this drug-provider as someone with connections, someone they would rather not offend, or they might just be curious about the drug experience and be unsure when another opportunity to experiment might arise.
Consider now a similar scenario in an environment of regulated drug supply. The person with drugs is now just some guy who went to the chemist. They need not be especially well connected, they have nothing to brag about and they are altogether less interesting. The person being offered drugs knows that they can go to the chemist themselves the next day if they are really interested and would know that the person offering the drug is committing the offence of unlicensed supply if they accept.
The current common scenario with heroin and crack is that the benign show-off of the soft-drug example is most likely themselves addicted to the hard drug being offered and is now more interested in making customers than friends. Such people will routinely seek out vulnerable young people and offer them some heroin or crack, often without disclosing the drug's identity, in the hope of recruiting them as customers for the drug they are selling to fund their own habit.
If prohibition was to end then heroin and crack addicts would have nothing to gain from exposing others to the drugs they use. Their drug of addiction would be either available on prescription or at an affordable rate that need not be funded by criminal activity.
I suspect and hope that the culture of drug use at social gatherings will become the far more mature and responsible “get your own” model that currently applies to alcohol at student parties. Such a rule for drugs would also be much easier to maintain as the drugs being used would not need to be kept in the fridge and can be safely stored in a pocket or purse.
If all drugs were legalised and regulated there would be no formal marketing and any unlicensed supply would be illegal and should be heavily punished. Anyone interested in obtaining drugs would have to go to a licensed pharmacy where they should be given the necessary educational material to allow them to make an informed decision on whether to proceed. I feel it wise that a request for heroin by any customer be followed by a week-long cooling-off period similar to those required when purchasing firearms in the USA. It is not desirable for anyone to be able to obtain such a powerful drug for recreational use on a whim or a “bad day”.
"The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals - neither ; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime."
There are so many things wrong with this presumption. Criminals are in the illegal drug trade because it is easy, highly profitable and, on examination, no more morally wrong than working in an off-license.
Drug-dealing is a victimless crime, at least in the eyes of those involved in the transactions. Each criminal event is not going to be reported or even detected if the dealers have any sense, so the likelihood of punishment is extremely small.
The average organised career drug-dealer probably sees himself as just another businessman supplying goods in response to demand. If demand for illegal drugs plummets (as it would if drugs were legalised and regulated) then there isn't going to suddenly be another illegal commodity that will appear to take their place in the market, certainly not one that will be so demonstrably worth the risk. If these gangsters have guns kicking around left over from their wars for drug-dealing territory, I suppose it might be plausible that they turn to armed robbery or other crimes requiring intimidation, but this example and any other alternatives would be considerably more risky than their former lifestyle and would quickly be rejected by the vast majority.
The only potential growth area of criminality that might fit the drug smugglers skills and experience would be sex trafficking. With the legalisation of hard drugs there would be a considerable drop in the number of prostitutes working to manage their addictions. I do not know if this would suddenly cause an explosion of demand for new prostitutes, but it is possible. I would hope that the huge gap in moral acceptability between drug and sex-trafficking would be one that the organised criminals would not care to cross, but this is an eventuality which has to be anticipated. Certainly those police units formerly employed in combating the drug trade would be much more usefully employed preventing the rape and imprisonment of young women.
Desirable features of the post-prohibition environment:
Newly legal drugs should only be available from licensed pharmacies from pharmacists trained in the risks, safe use and possible side-effects of the available drugs.
A wide range of cannabis varieties should be available to allow users to choose their favourite experience and to ensure pockets of illegal trade do not survive to plug gaps in provision.
A cool-off period (a week?) should be initiated before a naïve customer can get heroin from a pharmacy. For all other drugs a naïve customer should be given educational material that should be read through before completion of the sale on top of safe use and risk information vocally provided by the pharmacist. Pharmacists should refuse customers suspected to be already under the influence of any drug or suspected to be buying either for another person or, in the case of naïve customers, following encouragement by another person.
Penalties for unlicensed supply should remain at current levels in an attempt to ensure that everyone receiving drugs gets the appropriate educational material and pharmacist advice.
To be considered:
All existing heroin and crack addicts be prescribed maintenance doses to immediately take the bottom out of the illegal market.
Amnesties for firearms and other offensive weapons on the end of prohibition. Paying the bearer of the weapon a reasonable price for the weapon might encourage cooperation.
If people formerly involved in the drugs trade want to go clean they may need help with issues such as CV preparation and employment, and psychological therapy. The state should aid with their transition into a non-criminal lifestyle. Some might be usefully employed in the manufacture of the newly legal drugs. Others might require assistance in presenting the business skills they have acquired as skills relevant to employment. Large gaps in employment history might be a problem that would need addressed.
The more help we can give to drug criminals to assist their integration into society, the less likely would be a turn to other crimes following the lifting of prohibition.
The end of prohibition should have major impacts on:
Public Health
Prostitution
Numbers of children taken into care
Prison overcrowding
Respect for the police
Public finances
Foreign relations (Afghanistan and Latin America will be very happy)
Acquisitive crime and the fear of crime
Struggling urban communities
For more information the “Transform” blog is an excellent source.
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)