Losing the war on drugs

RobertD

Adjust it for inflation and the real price of these drugs has halved over 13 years. Apart from computers, phones, TV's and cheap end clothing there aren't many other products that have fallen as fast.

Suggests plentiful supply in relation to demand.

The only possible positive from these numbers is that the amount people want to consume has not risen as fast as the supply available.

Jon

Time to legalise and regulate all drugs?

David

You can't win the war on drugs. The war on alcohol failed miserably when the US tried it, resulting in a huge rise of criminal activity. The same applies here; it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Trumpeter Lanfried

I blame the Civil Service. They should not collude in the dissemination of misleading information. It is no part of their job to massage statistics for party political purposes.

Kevyn Bodman

Time to legalise and regulate all drugs?
Yes.
Legalise all drugs, get tax revenue, reduce crime by reducing the price and removing criminals from the trade and stop the misplaced moral arguments that people shouldn't take drugs because it's bad for them.
That is nobody's business but theirs.

Matthew Blott

Jon and David both make the obvious point but sadly no mainstream politician will advocate a sensible policy for fear of behing labelled soft in the right-leaning press.

J H Holloway

Legalise? Impossible as long as the content of what you buy on street corner is impossible to ascertain.

But sure, as long as all controlled drugs are manufactured under government inspection, for quality, strength etc.

That the Police are equipped with road-side drug testing kits. That laws are tweaked to ensure they are banned use while operating machinery or whatever.

And that the drugs are heavily taxed to pay for the inevitable Government anti-use campaign because of the medium and long-term damage they cause, just like smoking...

Nicholas

Slightly O/T but very revealing of the New Labour mindset are the responses of Tom Harris MP to a thread of blistering comments (including mine) on the subject of Orwell's 1984 and its relevance to the New Labour government as blueprint rather than warning.

http://tomcharris.wordpress.com/

One thing we should probably not expect from this government or the conglomerate party behind it is any honesty or honest debate. It seems they have an agenda which they will drive by any means, regardless of such trivial complications as manifestos, constituents, or parliaments.

If political blogging against New Labour were not such a crowded house (you can see why they want to regulate the genre) It's almost enough for me to want to establish my own anti-Labour blog.

John Leeson

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that we are still losing the war on drugs. The USA the instigator of the present state of Prohbition we find ourselves in has spent trillions fighting this war on its own turf. It arrested someone for cannabis possesion every 38 seconds last year mostly blacks and hispanics yet consumption has not declined. WIth 10% of our Population using some sort of illicit drug surely it is time we explored alternatives to prohbition. Prohbition immediatly makes any drug far more dangerous as soon as you create a monopoly worth £5 billion pa for organised crime you relinquish any control on purity strength and quality.
In Portugal where all drug possesion has been depenalised there has been a drop in illegal drug related deaths of 50%. We look hypocritical when we suggest keeping drugs illegal is for our own safety many of which are safer than both alcohol and tobacco.
If we really wanted to reduce harm, to protect our kids from predatory dealers then we must end prohibtion. It would be a bitter pill to swallow for many but it would afford greater protection to our citizens and save us billions each year that could be spent on rehabitlitation hospitals and schools. Drug abuse as distinct from use is related to social condtions and education. If we weren't wasting money on Prohibition we could address the causes of drug abuse rather than the symptoms. We would see drug use falling quicker and more sustainably that the current threat of law enforcement patently fails to achi

Matthew Blott

@ J H Holloway

Excellent points and my sentiments entirely.

One further point, I get a little tired hearing drugs are evil. It's a stupid soundbite that politicians think sounds good on TV. The drugs trade - because it is illegal - is run by criminal gangs whose methods of sales and marketing are more robust than your average multi-national. If we banned soda drinks we would no doubt be talking about the evils of fizzy pop.

TGF UKIP

Trumpeter is right this really is no part of the function of the civil service. However, I have long held the view that the two government departments which have been most systematically New Labourized are the Treasury and the Home Office (Education went decades ago.)

The political point once again, though, is they can do this and the BBC will repeat it for them, because they have no effective opposition. The Cameron Tories are, as ever, irrelevant.

floatingvoter

I can't understand the moral argument for legalizing drugs. Yes there would be tax revenue but crack and cocaine is actually very bad for us. They both cause psychosis and cardiac arrests the former being caused by cannabis also.

Heroin is highly addictive but in of itself is not biologically harmful unlike the others.

we really don't want these drugs legalized.

Rob Spooner

The minor consolation I derive from the current crisis here in America is that when the government eventually and visibly runs out of money with which to be stupid, it will be forced to address the failure of its war on drugs. Unfortunately, there is a major industry devoted to its continuation and nearly every politician has taken a stand steadfastly against drugs, so this will be uphill.

John

floatingvoter the moral argument is that how can we as a society accept 2 of the most dangerous drugs alcohol and tobacco as acceptable and their use to be controlled by public health iniatives. At the same time we imprison our citizens for using drugs that in many cases (cannabis and ecstasy for example) are less dangerousn than alcohol or tobacco. Our Hypocrisy is morally indenfensible when our Alcohol swigging politicians go on about the dangers/evils of drugs citing harm as the reason they are illegal when this is patently untrue.Of course drugs such as crack and methamphetamine are more dangerousn but there danger is hugely magnified by prohibiton
It seems to me that our stance on drugs is less to do with reducing harm (patently made worse by prohibition) but about imposing our misplaced morals on 10% of society that choose to use illegal drugs.
We cannot legislate morals. As an adult surely we demand the freedom to have dominion over our own body and what we put in it.As long as such freedom harms noone else and we as society takes steps to reduce harm to those that choose to use drugs while providing education and rehabilitation to the very small minority whose use falls into abuse.
THe moral argument is really the only argument left for continuing Prohbibiton as it fails in all other benchmarks ie reducing harm, protecting society etc etc But this moral stand is hypocritical and really exposoes pour moral bankruptcy on the subject of drugs.
One final point tobacco the most addictive and lethal of drugs freely available yet millions have stopped using without us having to imprison anyone. If we can do this with tobacco then we can do the same with any drug. The cost savings of using a public health approach to drug use rather than the failing one of imprisonment would be enormous both in lives saved aswell as tax.

John

floatingvoter the moral argument is that how can we as a society accept 2 of the most dangerous drugs alcohol and tobacco as acceptable and their use to be controlled by public health iniatives. At the same time we imprison our citizens for using drugs that in many cases (cannabis and ecstasy for example) are less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.How can we morally condone the execution of drug users in other countries who enact the UN convention on Drugs. How can we condone the bombing and wholesale eradication of vast areas of agricultural land only a small amount of which is used for drug production and which is the only souce of income for its people. It is morally indefensible.At home our Hypocrisy is morally indenfensible when our Alcohol swigging politicians go on about the dangers/evils of drugs citing harm as the reason they are illegal when this is patently untrue.Of course drugs such as crack and methamphetamine are more dangerous but there danger is hugely magnified by prohibiton
It seems to me that our stance on drugs is less to do with reducing harm (patently made worse by prohibition) but about imposing our misplaced morals on 10% of society that choose to use illegal drugs.
We cannot legislate morals. As an adult surely we demand the freedom to have dominion over our own body and what we put in it.As long as such freedom harms noone else and we as society takes steps to reduce harm to those that choose to use drugs while providing education and rehabilitation to the very small minority whose use falls into abuse.
The moral argument is really the only argument left for continuing Prohbibiton as it fails in all other benchmarks ie reducing harm, protecting society etc etc But this moral stand is hypocritical and really exposoes our moral bankruptcy on the subject of drugs.
One final point, tobacco the most addictive and lethal of drugs freely available yet millions have stopped using without us having to imprison anyone. If we can do this with tobacco then we can do the same with any drug. The cost savings of using a public health approach to drug use rather than the failing one of imprisonment would be enormous both in lives saved aswell as tax.

David Raynes

The suggestion that legalisation of any of the illegal drugs would remove a black market is ludicrous and those promoting it who know better are intellectually dishonest. More than 20% of the Uk tobacco market is smuggled/counterfeit and the figure has been much higher. All that legalisation would do would increase consumption nad total harm. How do I know that? we have the alcohol/tobacco model. In other words we have evidence. The present rules ARE a public health approach. Less than perfect of course in the outcomes but so much public health advice is less than perfect in what it achieves. Legalisation in the UK of any of the illegal drugs is a dead issue. The suggestion that UK citizens typically get imprisoned for user quantities of illegal drugs is also incorrect.

mary james

whether uk citizens are typically imprisoned is irrelevant when you consider that the young people caught with small amounts will carry a criminal record through their life which will impact on their ability to get the job they want, further damaging the fabric of society.
...and comparing the black market in tobacco is also irrelevant. there would be a black market but it would apply to home growers as it did to tobacco growers 40 years ago. the imported version of golden virginia just would not happen.

Chris Smith

Prohibition leaves only one market for the drugs covered by it, that market is controlled by criminals.
Along with the evidence that prohibition doesn't work, there is evidence that it makes things worse; by criminalising people for a recreational choice, punishing people for trying to remove themselves from the criminal market by securing their own source (growing their own cannabis). And prohibition also allows the harms associated by the criminal supply to be amplified.

Granted the black market would not be totally removed by legalisation.
Legalisation gives a market choice which removes the dangers and desirabilities of the black market option.
A sensible government would place regulations in the legal market to protect minors and vulnerable people, they would also be sensible if they launched an education campaign warning of the dangers of choosing to first use drugs and then of the added dangers of choosing to get those drug from an unregulated, criminal market.

It is intellectually dishonest to call legalisation a 'dead issue' when it is clear that prohibition (the only other real choice) is creating a situation which is worse for individuals and society than legalisation.