Victims of a failing war on drugs

Laurie

Of course it has nothing to do with events in Afghanistan that might otherwiswe have been avoided.

RW

The five women concerned were *not* "victims of a failing war on drugs", which is a muddled and emotive generalisation. As adults they decided to take drugs and to resort to prostitution to pay for them. It was a conscious choice of a particular way in which to live. They *were* the victims of a serial killer, which is an entirely different proposition. They chose to take drugs and become prostitutes. They did not choose to be murdered.

Slim Jim

Fraser, I believe that this case highlights the ineffectiveness of prohibition. If these young women had access to professionally supervised and administered medically pure drugs, alongside a rehabilitation programme, perhaps they would not have had to resort to their 'trade'. Unfortunately, the problem will not go away, no matter how high we classify drugs. Society bit the bullet with alcohol, and decided that it could not prevent its use, but addressed the problem sensibly by controlling the 'sale and supply' of alcoholic liquor. How many people will stop using cannabis if it's reclassified back to class 'B'? It will make good headlines in the Daily Rant, but the problem will continue regardless. It's time for the political establishment to pull its head out of its backside and look at sensible alternatives to prohibition. Of course, many will argue that legalisation/decriminalisation will encourage more people to use drugs, but do they know how many are currently using them? Did legalising alcohol encourage more people to drink? Would prohibiting its use have lowered that number? There's no easy answers, but the usual knee-jerk reactions are simply wasted efforts. Time to get real.

Border Reiver

We are loosing the War on Drugs from Afganistan to our children's bedrooms. Nationalise narcotics. It will become so prosaic and expensive people will find more interesting things to do. I blame the swinging 60s cultural elite. They made it cool to experiment with drugs and be "rock'n'roll". Today the cultural elite still make it 'wicked' - The movie Trainspotting, though visceral in it's portrayal of junkies, still ran ads around London proclaiming of heroin, "Imagine your best orgasm and multiply it by a thousand". Mick Jagger smoking dope on a Persian carpet is a far cry from the sad, bleak streets where those girls met their fate. The policy to combat these problems, I couldn't possibly imagine. Full decriminalisation, with subsequent tax-revenues being used for effective education and rehabilitation seems politically impossible. I guess that like in the 18th century we will reach a crescendo of vice and there will be a backlash - a decadence crunch, if you will. However, the narcotics industry, along with other nefarious trades - organised crime, prostitution, Islamo-fascism- thrive in this globalised world.

Slim Jim

RW - I used to be addicted to tobacco, which is available legally. If it was prohibited, my addiction would still exist. Yes, I chose to take that particular drug, but I also chose to break the cycle of addiction. To say these women 'chose' their way of life is rather a simplistic way of putting it. My point is that they would not necessarily have chosen prostitution if there was an alternative and effective way of dealing with their addiction.

Fraser Nelson

Laurie, the Taliban cut opium production to almost zero in 2000, and UK prices didnt budge (as you can see above). Other countries stepped into the market and the UN shows the worldwide flow has been constant. Pretending the Taleban were promoting drug production when the precise opposite was one of Blair's worst pre-war lies. RW, I take your point - but when a gram of heroin becomes cheaper than a night on the tiles then vastly more people will be sucked into this trap.

CT

Good point, RW.

David

We have the wonderful experiment of prohibition to show us what happens when a substance is prohibited then made legal, in particular the effect on crime. Why will we not take the lesson?

mike

All governments have lost the war on drugs. Make them legal and help those that want help. Much like fags, we all smoked once, same with drink driving it was all the rage when I was young and now it's frowned upon. Need to do similar with drugs, only a minority will get into the habit, plenty of publicity showing the effects would do the trick in time. I gave up fags after seeing a telly ad showing a women in her 40's struggling to breath, and a machine pumping away in the corner of the room. It finished with chilling message that she had died shortly after being filmed. Few of my friends now smoke and fewer drink and drive. Does Ken still sell fags for that little bit extra that makes his life comfortable, anybody ? He was once something to do with the Tories health thingy when they were in power I believe, am I right ? One important achievement you can say about New Labour they won the war on cigarettes.

dexey

"One important achievement you can say about New Labour they won the war on cigarettes."

What war? I gave up when Dennis Healey made them 10 shillings for twenty. Pure economics; £3 10s a week from a £30 wage wasn't sustainable.

Fergus Pickering

Labour won the war on cigarettes? You cannot be serious. Most young people smoke. I can see them smoking. Cigarettes are now very expensive so people smuggle them in and go to Belgium legally to buy £500 worth. Doesn't sound as if the war is won to me. Anyway, I take the libertarian position. Let people smoke and/or drink if they want to. It is not true that society as a whole loses through this. It gains lots of revenue for all those nice things (whatever they are) that Labour wants to spend money on. Without smokers and boozers I don't know what they would do.

Peter O'Loughlin

It is not so much a question of losing the 'war on drugs', but rather the ineffective manner in which this Government seeks to 'treat' addicts, and their failure to introduce effective prevention methods. The decision to use drugs is not influenced either by their legality or otherwise, but is influenced by the desire to change the way one is feeling; a spiritual concept that is neither moral or immoral. No one sets out to become addicted and that state is not so much dependent on quantity or frequency of use as it it on the effects that drugs, illicit or otherwise has on the individual. For a variety of reasons some people are more vulnerable to addiction than others. The problem we face in this country is the failure of the National Treatment Agency,(NTA) refusing to acknowledge the condition of addiction, which in itself is universally recognised as a mental disorder and irreversible condition. That does not mean that people cannot recover from addiction, but it does mean that they are unable to control their usage, therefore the only sure route to recovery is abstinence focused treatment, which should include the simultenous addressing of co-occuring mental disorders which almost inevetiably arise from bot misuse and addiction. Because of their failure to acknowledge the condition of addiction, the NTA has made little or no provision for the treatment of those affected. The NTA abandoned the goal of abstinence focused treatment some years ago, in favour of so called 'harm reduction' theories, the hypothesis of which is that those addicted can learn to cut down on the quantities and frequency of use. Such a theory not only contradicts universal evidence to the contrary, but fails completely to address the co-occuring conditions referred to earlier. Science has established that the ongoing ingestion of drugs by those who become addicted increases the severity of the condition to the point that the individuals free will is destroyed. Both the Government and the NTA are aware of this, but up until now have chosen to ignore it. The result of their failure is the increasing number of addicts, and the ever younger age in at which people are experimenting with drugs, as the direct result of 'drug education' which preaches the 'safe way' to use drugs. There is no safe way to use toxic, psychoactive, addictive drugs, but that is what children are being led to believe. Whether or not drugs are legalised would not in anyway alter their addictive properties; suggestions that they coul then be rationed in some way do not stand up to scrutiny. It is the war on addiction and prevention that this governent has surrendered to having sought to pursue policies that are as about effective as trying to teach someone how to forget to ride a bike.

Kevyn Bodman

Legalise drugs, license the production and trade and then tax it all as legitimate business. There will still be health problems as a result of drug abuse, but fewer than now because because the strength and purity will be more reliable. There will be fewer social costs than now because it'll be taken out of the criminal sphere. Prohibition will *never* work, so let's do the best we can to minimise the damaging effects of drugs on society.

Max Kaye

Time to repeal this 'prohibition'. Legalize, regulate and (lightly) tax drugs and most of the social and criminal problems associated with drugs will be greatly reduced.

BTW, I also agree with RW above that the 5 women who died were victims of a sick murderer, not drug use.

Allen M

People say that maintaining the Status Quo is not an option, that enforcement does not work and the only way forward is to legalise and regulate. Well try and control a crack users drug use. Alternate prescribing there isn't anything. As for regulating it well lets use alcohol as an example - because its sales are prohibited does that mean that the UK hasn't got a problem with under age drinking? Of course not - legalising drugs is only an option for those naive enough to believe that we can control a £700 a day crack user. Come on wake up and smell the coffee.

Concerned mother

Middle class teenagers who are bright, have money in their pockets and think they are indestructible take heroin. They start off smoking, move on to cannabis, then skunk and then herion. To most of them £40 is pocket money and the parents don't have a clue what is going on. In a radio programme last week, a private rehab clinic said that heroin was now the middle classes drug of choice and they were dealing with the fall-out. Teenagers will lie to their parents and most parents don't have a clue. They smell their breath for alcohol and watch for signs of drunkenness - that's what they understand. Skunk and heroin is a different ball game. They think the signs of heroin use/addiction is just part of being a teenager. Money goes missing or the teen says he needed the money for food, trips out etc, silver foil disappears quicker than the use for cooking, pens lose their innards, the teen loses interest in 'nice' friends and hobbies, school work takes a dive, the school calls the parents about low achievement ... all the signs to look out for. Not activities that the parent would associate with heroin. How do we combat it? Big ad campaigns aimed at parents to watch for the signs, more drug counsellors in schools, compulsory drug testing and sniffer dogs in schools. It's time for a wake-up call. Do you know where and what your children are doing? In my view, this downward spiral started with the de-classificatio of cannabis that gave a strong message that it was ok to take drugs. The police tell me that this was the worst piece of government legislation in the past 11 years. Gordon Brown was part of that cabinet decision making process and he needs to act fast to counter this evil trade. How do I know? First hand experience.

Aethelbald

I've smoked pot on a daily basis for 15 years in my youth and occasionally since. It is clear to me that many who offer their opinions on pot either do not know what they are talking about or are cynically exploiting a career opportunity. I put Concerned Mother in the first category and the applicable police in the second. The most insidious effect of prohibition is contempt for the authorities.