The Mephedrone Panic is an Argument for Ending Prohibition

Friday, 19th March 2010

Nikhil Arora at the ASI makes a good and necessary point in response to the mephedrone moral panic:

Realising the danger that ‘legal highs’ pose to their core market of young night-clubbers, cocaine and ecstasy dealers mobilised every lawyer and lobbyist at their disposal to ensure that their rivals’ products are outlawed as quickly as possible.

Quite. Nevertheless, the urge to ban currently legal drugs merely because they may be ill-used or have problematic, even terrible, side-effects will doubtless prevail. It's sad when people die from reactions to the drugs they take (or from mistakes in the taking) but those deaths are not in themselves a compelling argument for yet more prohibition.

But suppose we went the other way. Rather than try and pretend that the demand for chemical intoxication can be suppressed* focus on supply instead. If we abandoned prohibition one can imagine a situation in which the pharmaceutical companies compete with one another to manufacture legal highs that offer the maximum reward for the minimum risk. And, of course, consumers would find it easier to make an informed decision in such a scenario and we'd have endless TV ads for comparethebuzz.com (hosted by some eastern european buzzard perhaps).

Not, of course, going to happen. Eventually, and perhaps pretty soon, we'll reach the American situation in which cold remdies are actually locked away and you have to ask permission and show ID and all the rest of it to buy the stuff. Just in case you're a methhead you see.

Filed under: Britain (679 more articles) , Drugs (84 more articles) , Markets (56 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Keith D

March 19th, 2010 2:49pm Report this comment

Indeed.
If ecstasy or MDMA had been available and properly dispensed these tragic deaths would not have occurred.
That these drugs kill is down to incorrect dosage and their "cutting" with poisons to eke out dealers profit.

That we will never see an end to these tragedies is down to the hypocrisy driving drugs policy written by fools with no street experience.

That the highly toxic and anti social but legal tobacco and alcohol are cash cows for the Government and that clubbers are tarred with the same brush as a hard core smack or crack addict are the primary drivers of failed policy killing our kids.

Lets do away with the dealers instead of our children.
Legalise,control and educate.

Jonathan Woolf

March 19th, 2010 4:05pm Report this comment

More sense from Mr Massie. There are many arguments against drug prohibition, but the key points are that it is very likely to lead to more deaths not less (it does nothing to discourage use, dealers have no liability for any damage caused, and users have no idea what they are really taking making overdoses easier) and it has created a massively rich criminal class in both demand and supply countries. Even if people will not accept this, drug use is so widespread that it is hard to believe legalization would make much difference to consumption levels, and there is now some evidence for this. In recent months the Economist has published the findings of studies in Portugal showing decriminalization of cannabis was followed by a slight drop in usage.

As in many things, I believe a majority of the electorate (young and old) are ahead of the establishment and media on understanding that prohibition makes little rational or philosophical sense. I wonder how many years before the political parties will catch on?

David

March 19th, 2010 5:36pm Report this comment

It the papers wrote scary hysterical headlines everytime a young person died from excess alcohol or a middle aged person died from the effects of tabacco (like the recent headlines over the suspected mephadrone deaths) there'd be no room for any other report in the paper.

This media 'reefer madness phenomenum is such that no reasonable discussion around drugs is ever possible leading politicians to take their cues and legislate based this sensationalist reporting rather than by a proper consideration of harm reduction

Beefeater

March 19th, 2010 10:32pm Report this comment

"It's sad when people die from reactions to the drugs they take (or from mistakes in the taking) but those deaths are not in themselves a compelling argument for yet more prohibition."

It is sad when people die but those deaths are not in themselves a compelling argument for mandatory health insurance.

Michael

March 19th, 2010 11:14pm Report this comment

As an alcoholic, alcohol - the governments chosen legal high which is accepted unquestioningly by the masses, you even get middle age blokes in pubs supping beer claiming - they wouldnt touch "drugs"...
Alcohol must claim hundreds of lives each week in the UK alone yet cannabis which growing of the plant can land you in prison for 14 years has never killed anyone!
Its a laugh these silly laws, if someone drinks too much its there fault if someone has a bad time using drugs, its the drugs fault, when you step back and look at it, its a ridiculous situation...
But then everone knows this, if cannabis was legal most of the violance round where I live would instantly evaporate

Post comment