Ainsworth has a point

Frank Sutton

We must take the trade away from organised criminals...
Oh well, that will put an end to their criminal activities!

alexsandr

Who are these muppets? Have they not had teenage kids and had the angst of coping with their drug experimenting? And do they not have friends in their 50's who have been doing drugs for years and see them as a shell of their former selves?
Children in their teens are not equipped to make a reasoned decision about introducing addictive and mental disease inducing chemicals into their bodies - it is the duty of the state to protect those kids with a proper border control and proper police action to catch the criminals who seek to expolit them.

Naomi Muse

He should have come out of the closet on this when it was on his watch.

Whatever he really thinks, his timing indicates an attempt to steal the limelight, not be honest as to his true appraisal of the situation.

2trueblue

Yes, he has a point, a stupid one. So just how is this change going to prevent people from becoming drug addicts?
When asked how it would work, Ainsworth had no idea. If that is the best one of Liebores failures can do on our national radio, it says more about our vacuous media that anything else. Interesting that even in our prisons we fail to prevent people from becoming addicts. Our concentration should be on rehabilitation and prevention. For goodness sake get a grip.

AlanL

Drugs and crime are the two areas where the Right acts on pure ideology, regardless of the evidence. For the Left, the equivalent is tax rates on top earners.

If our preferred outcome were to price out drugs, then we should buy them at source for considerably more than the drugs value chain can bear. That would result in billions going to poor Afghan farmers (and them appreciating the West as an added bonus), leaving the drugs pipeline to either become efficient (cut overheads? yeah, right) or charge more.

This would undoubtedly work (as it has many times in the free market), but breaks far too many idealogical taboos to be considered.

Of course, it would also result in a long term farming subsidy for crops we do not want - just like the CAP. I would rather send our CAP money to Afghanistan than France.

Rhoda Klapp

Modest proposal. What we need is a national drugs service. An office in every town, by the post office. Run by Post Office Counters Ltd using their expertise. Every user has an account. With a list of OK drugs prepared by, say, NICE. Limited hours and only one counter open at lunchtime.

Paul Grant

its quicker to get drugs delivered to your door then to get a pizza the drugs policy is not working, my suggestion would be to legalize the selling of drugs but make it illegal to buy that way the price would full through the floor because its the end user that's taking the chance not the dealer. or you could state control drugs just like cigs n booze and trust the population to consume sensibly just as the vast majority do now. or leave it as it is with gangs controlling prostitution guns stabbings and cutting drugs with a variety of nasty substances which are the real harm to the end user.

alexsandr

2trueblue@December 16th, 2010 11:54
Yes. we need to reform prisons so drugs are eradicated there.
Prison is too easy an option and the prison service needs to get a grip.

Beast of Bangkok

And how exactly would those qualified to dispense drugs know whether or not their customer was a fit person to consume them? And who would authenticate the quality of the supply ie check to see that it had not been cut with dubious substances? And who would ensure that the suppliers were of sufficiently high 'elf 'n' safety standards? And who would be responsible for those consumers who committed crimes whilst under the influence?

This just another idiot liberal dream. I live in Thailand. A few years ago, the government here initiated a shoot-to-kill policy on drug dealers. It was very popular (although not amongst drug dealers) and well over 2,000 people were shot dead during the process. Drug taking abated for a while, although it soon came back when the policy ended. I realise that shooting drug dealers is politically incorrect, but it is the best way of dealing with the problem. Together with cold turkey treatment for anyone committing a drug-related crime.

Why are we so ineffectual and so limp-wristed over this? Alcohol use is largely controllable. Drugs use would not be. Legalising drugs would be the rot that finally destroyed the western world.

Holly ......

Stupid man,stupid point.
Much stiffer sentences for the pushers of illegal drugs and rehab for the users.
Proper controls and some education in our PRIMARY schools with visual proof from addicts and ex addicts of what ALL drugs can do to you,INCLUDING prescription drugs.

Pete

Drugs war latest - Drugs Win.

RMH

Any idea of the rise or fall on the cost of Ecstasy?

alejandro

Where did they get those figures from. They look 10 years behind! I heard in london
West people can pay between £250-300 for a herbal oz?

AF

It might have some appeal on the surface,but
it would only be fair to tax it as any other stimulant,in order to create a level playing field with tobacco and alcohol,
and there's the nub,once you tax it you welcome the street traders come gangsters selling cheaper than the authorised outlets.
Your back to the begining.

CUFFLEYBURGERS

Ainsworth was a deeply unimpressive minister but this is a very move and hopefully will start the process towards a more sensible policy.

The current situation is quite clearly a disastrous expensive failure.

Such an intelligent intervention could not come from the government benches of either side because od the political capital as well as the financial capital invested in the insane "war on drugs". It could only come from an ex-minister in an ill-disciplined opposition - well done Ainsworth.

Tom

There was very little trouble with drugs in England before the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act.
Anyone who thinks that it worked is an idiot.

dearieme

If the filthy stuff can't be kept out of prisons how on earth can it be prohibited elsewhere? Repression only makes sense as a policy if it works - ineffective repression just gives us the worst of both worlds.

Vulture

Pete Hoskin calls Ainsworth 'a high profile political figure': I almost pissed myself laughing.

Ainsworth has the intelligence of a plank of wood. People of his mental incapacity should not be allowed to even vote - let alone take up a political career.

mike2R

alexsandr, you are missing the point. Or at least answering the wrong question.

Your answer is great, if you were being asked whether we should wave a magic wand and make drugs disappear. But that isn't the question because we cannot. We have to assess our current policy objectively, not indulge in flights of fantasy.

Your teenage children did their experimentation despite the fact of prohibition. Your 50 year old friend screwed his life up despite the fact of prohibition. Ask yourself this, does he have a criminal problem or a medical one?

The simple fact is that prohibition doesn't work. It does not prohibit in fact, it distorts the health message with a lot of moralising (people ignore moralising of course, and the health message along with it). And it has created a multi-billion pound illegal industry with massive associated crime.

No one is talking about heroin being available from the local off licence, but it is time to accept that the criminal route hasn't worked, isn't working, and will continue to fail to work. It has been a complete and utter failure, and sticking to it because "drugs are bad" is stupid and simply causes even more harm.

RKing

Ever heard the saying
"It's better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool rather than open your mouth and let them know that you are."

Think Ainsworth!!

Publius

Another of those silly Spectator get-paid-by-the-number-of-angry-responses posts.

@Alexsandr
Agreed. The luvvies don't get it, as usual.

Richard

There is nothing new under the sun where social policy is concerned.
In his book "Not with a bang but with a whimper" Theodore Dalyrimple tells of a real-life instance of this type of liberal policy being implemented in an African country where he was working, and its disastrous outcome.

The Bellman

Mr Ainsworth might have a point - it might even be a good one - but he also has the most ridiculous moustaches in the realm. It is impossible to take seriously anything this ludicrous figure, with his Boulting Brothers petty bureaucrat appearance, says.

normanc

Alexandsr: 'Have they not had teenage kids and had the angst of coping with their drug experimenting?'

You do realise the best way to entice kids to experiment with illegal drugs is to make them illegal and taboo?

If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that the current policy is designed specifically to get kids to try drugs - and it's been a runaway success, which would be a first for anything government does so there goes my conspiracy theory.

Graham Allaway

I listened to Bob Ainsworth on Radio 4 this morning and he has a point. The drugs trade is as strong and robust as it ever was which suggests that the strategy used over the past few decades does not work. If you make the drugs harder to get and thus more expensive then the criminal activity to get hold of them will just increase. There are two separate areas here, helping people not to become addicts (health/education) and dealing with the suppliers (criminal activity). What Ainsworth is suggesting is to take the trade away from the criminals, a major step. He's not suggesting he has all the answers but that the debate should at least be had. We need a new way of dealing with this problem, some 'out of the box' thinking is maybe what is required.

rifat mehmet

yes legalise all drugs will stop a lot of crime,will stop criminals making fortune,give it to addicts for free,those who say go to war on drugs are a joke ,as no chance of winning that war

Michael

I've often wondered about being operated on by a surgeon under the influence of drugs. With alcohol, it's easy to tell and the staff would, one hopes, prevent an operation taking place but with drugs...
I've used that as an example, but there are many others, air traffic controllers, drivers generally etc. etc.
Regain proper control of our borders, and the problem will diminish anyway.

Peter From Maidstone

I agree with Vulture and most others. What evidence is there that less children would experiment with drugs if they were legal? I would have thought that the opposite would happen and most children would become experimenters and many more would become addicts.

Since when has the fact that there are problems eradictating anti-social behaviour and crime meant that we should give up trying. How is that that my kids know all the houses where drugs are dealt in our estate but the police seem not to?

Any immigrant caught handling or dealing in drugs should be expelled immediately. That would help. And immigrants should not get citizenship after a couple of weeks as at present, that would help. And dealers should get very long sentences. That would help.

Marc Jones

The cannabis price graph is disingenuous.

The early years track the price of solid cannabis (hash, avg 5-8% THC), £10-$12 for 1/8th of an ounce.

Since 2004ish, 'sensimilla' (known colloquially as 'skunk', 10-15% THC) has exploded, much of it being grown in the UK itself now, instead of imported solid from abroad. being double the strength, it is roughly double the price of the 'regular' cannabis.

Skunk has been readily available well before 2000, but was rare and expensive, and would not have figured much in the average price. You can imagine a second cannabis curve at around double the cost of the early cannabis years for the skunk prices back then.

The rapid rise is therefore symptomatic of the shift from the solid form to the locally produced skunk.

Read like this, both forms of cannabis reflect the general downward trend the same as the other substances, and the average you are using here is confused by the changing volumes of consumption.

You can liken this to the rise in hard liquor (gin, whiskey) that America experienced during the Prohibition. Stronger product = smaller volumes to transport = less risk. The maths of prohibition serves to increase potency.

Grumpy Optimist

Well well. Bob Ainsworth presents as very second rate and did his reputation no good when made Defence secretary. My view of him now is that he is an intelligent and serious politician. Good on you mate.

Quite clearly to decriminalise drugs has to be the answer as the current policy is failing. And wow - just think what it would for the deficit - taxes raised, prisons and police budget cut.
But of course it won't happen - as the politicians will run a mile.

Well done Bob - you have risen in my estimation immeasurably.

Paul James

"Children in their teens are not equipped to make a reasoned decision..."

Cannabis should be made legal in the same way that tobacco is. That way children (on the whole) won't be making the decision.

I'd prefer my child smoked the odd joint, and much prefer they popped the odd pill, compared to smoking cigarettes daily. Much less risk of health problems. I can never understand why so many parents struggle to consider the dangers of drugs objectively.

AF

Of course you could get tougher on these drug addicts and even tougher on the suppliers,but nowhere in the UK or Europe have you got a polititian with the gonads to deal with a ruthless business in a ruthless manner, the kind of currency they recognise.These addicts have a choice,it makes my blood boil to think of the money spent and invariably wasted on druggies,and then there's cancer victims,many with no choice denied drugs on the grounds of cost.
There are young men and women out there who would otherwise be quite capable who are not only dependent but also psychotic,
needing benefients,housing,medical care and a team of social support officers,probally for the rest of their lives.sorry for the rant.
grrrrr I need a drink....

Ian Walker

AlanL - not a bad idea, but you could subsidise the farmers to grow a different crop instead.

In fact, we do this already in Afghanistan.

simcal

When 93% of drugs are not interdicted, we can hardly claim we are winning a war. This war is costing billions of pounds to wage with very few victories. Legalise and control would remove the criminal elements, no more pushing to kids. Reduce crime by addicts trying to get money for the next fix. Spend a fraction of the money saved on rehabilitation and you would go a long way to solving a problem that is blighting society.
Then again not only are the drug barons against this policy, because they would lose their business model, so are major sections of law enforcement and other vested interests who would lose their rationale to exist along with their jobs.
So, keep kidding yourselves that existing drug policy makes sense, pay the bill for your war and keep losing.

wrinkled weasel

Journalists commenting on whether they approve of legalising drugs is like Gary Glitter commenting on abolishing the sex-offenders register.

steve vowles

Anybody know of an example of legal prohibition of a substance or activity that gives pleasure to some people actually succeeding?
Care to share?
Anybody know of an example of legal prohibition of a substance or activity that gives pleasure to some people actually reducing crime?
Care to share?

se1man

Let's try out legalisation in one part of the country and see what happens.

How about Brighton? I wonder if Caroline Lucas would support it...

Graham Allaway

By taking the supply away from the criminal underworld and having it controlled by the health department, in other words supplied on prescription by hospitals and doctors, we could then get an accurate picture of how many addicts there really are, at the moment its an unknown, and you could control the quality of what's prescribed, no more lethal additives to bulk it out. This subject needs serious debate. Street prices for the likes of heroin and cocaine are falling which suggests that supply is either improving or that the quality of what is on the streets is so poor because of all the crap that's added to it that its doing even more harm. Either way the current strategy does not work! This needs a serious 'blinkers off' debate. I was not a fan of Ainsworth as defence secretary but hats off to him for at least trying to ring this out into the open.

alexsandr

simcal@December 16th, 2010 12:56pm
Tell me. how would legalising stop people commiting crime to pay for their fixes? They would still have to pay for it, along with the drug tax and VAT etc.

David Ossitt

“We must take the trade away from organised criminals”

Peter Hoskin is absolutely spot on with the first part of his sentence above.

We must take the trade away, at, or a little earlier than, when we take their life, a death penalty for dealing would cut the trade down somewhat.

Not only does Ainsworth not have a point but there is no point to Ainsworth.

Mike Thomas

Decriminalise Class B and C drugs in terms of licensed sale of a standardised product and weight. Decriminalise possession of this quantity on the person. Any VAT should be hypocated for treatment and catching Class A dealers.

As for the rest, they should remain illegal and full sequestration of all associated assets used to pay for treatment.

2trueblue

We live in the real world, someone who has an addiction problem does not. If drugs were available legally who is going to pay for them? Is there any gaurantee that they will not be sold on?
We have contraception available to underage girls and that has not markedly diminished our underage pregnacy figures or our numbet of abortions, alcahol consumption amopngst the young is at its highest ever, obesity is a problem, the list is endless. This the result of a lack of personal standards, ambition, aspirations or whatever.

michael

Legalise then demonise.

CW

Questions and answers.
Q.How many drug users are there in the UK ?
A.Don't know.
Q.What quantity of drugs arrives on UK shores every year ?
A.Don't know.
Q.What are the full social effects of drugs on UK society bearing in mind a the possibility a majority of drug users may otherwise be law abiding ?
A.Don't know.
Q.What is the full total income recieved from the sale of illegal drugs in the UK ?
A.Don't know.

I'm sure we could all think of more questions if required.

Anyone who thinks they can answer all these questions correctly is either misinformed or lying.

Slim Jim

Very interesting comments. As usual, they are becoming very polarised, but one thing that most can agree upon is that prohibition doesn't work! For those who propose 'legalising' drugs, there is no clear policy emerging. Of course, it's a very difficult and politically problematic issue, but I would advocate the use of coffee shops to sell marijuana/cannabis as a starting point, as they have done in the Netherlands. Alcohol licensing is all about the control of the sale and supply of alcoholic liquor. Why not try the same with weed? After all, you can't buy pure spirit in the pub, so why would you expect to buy a syringe of heroin in the cafe? A line of coke? Of course, we plebs will never get a say; this is on the same shelf as abortion, capital punishment, the nuclear deterrent and Europe...

timbo_123

The charts showing the fall in price of cocaine and heroin will in part be down to a drop in quality as it becomes harder to import to the UK.

The technologies employed by law enforcement worldwide are now more advanced than ever and mean that consumers are forced to pay for drugs that have been cut with other substances that often pose an even greater risk to health than the active ingredient.

Remember the meow-meow saga? How many more chemical replicas do we have to go through before goverments (and some people on here) realise that a proportion of the population will ALWAYS want to get high and that it's better to have it out in the open than hide it under the rug?

CS

***Who are these muppets? Have they not had teenage kids and had the angst of coping with their drug experimenting? And do they not have friends in their 50's who have been doing drugs for years and see them as a shell of their former selves?***

What a curious social circle you have, Alexsandr. No, I don't have friends wrecked by years of drug taking. But I do have family members dead from years of smoking nicotine. I do have a friend who's child was killed by a drink driver.

simcal

alexsandr@How would you pay for it........

With the money not being wasted on the war on drugs. We spend billions on prisons, police, courts etc, not to mention the cost of crime. Divert some of those resources into rehabilitation and maintain those addicts on prescription with the same rules as for all prescription drugs. Unemployed would pay nothing, but have to engage in rehabilitation. Employed people would have to pay. The only difference would be that drug barons would not make the profits and would be undercut from the market. This would protect the next generation from those scum. Also, instead of bombing Afghanistan, we could buy legal supplies from them, giving work for the farmers and reduce aid. This might even push the Taliban out of the drugs market. But you miss the point 93% of drugs get through anyway, the war cannot be won on these terms. When this had a limited trial in Australia it was considered a success. The problem was the USA who threatened trade sactions if the Australians did not stop the trials. Nothing is perfect and details need to be worked out, but when a war that started in the 70's is still being fought in 2010, 40 years later perhaps a new stratergy should be tried. Unless of course we want a repeat of the 100yrs war.

Taylor

As the father of two teenage daughters. . . . I have to say Ainsworth is right, on two counts, possibly three.
First, as far as the actual drug 'experience' is concerned, it's no concern of the state what an individual does to his/her head-state. It really isn't. You or I may disapprove of how it 'feels' when you've taken drugs, but it's not part of the State's function to police that feeling - it just isn't. On the other hand, if he/she breaks the law or is generally a nuisance when he/she is doing it - being off your head must never be an acceptable excuse. So develop rules - as we have done with alcohol. Only enforce them (unlike the strange and unwished-for abandonment of policing drunken behaviour).

Second, what is absolutely unacceptable, indeed horrific, is the violence and organized crime which currently is associated with supply of drugs. The culture of violence that has grown up around drug dealing is absolutely and completely unacceptable. It is, moreover, a far more immediate physical danger to our young people (and the rest) than actually taking the drugs. Putting the drugs on the pharmacy shelf would go a long way to undercutting that issue - Al Capone and all that.

And possibly the third reason Ainsworth is right? Simple economics - the drug gangs fight over the profits. So should the taxman.

saddleworth

Current drugs policy doesn't stop consumption but makes criminals very wealth and wastes vast amounts of Government spending. The amount of criminal wealth is a further destabilising factor in society.
The policy is an utter failure.
Find another one.
Frankly making drugs available through a legal market, thus not providing an immense source of wealth for criminals, does bear thinking about. We get the same effect on users, but less criminal involvement.
It won't work if neighbouring countries continue wasting vast sums of money on their own failed wars on drugs, as their users will commute here (not what the EU envisaged as free movement of citizens).
If someone wants to f**k up their life with drugs the present policy doesn't stop them so stop wasting my taxes trying.

simcal

Ian Walker@
There is more acreage under poopy cultivation now. Under the Taliban regime it was nearly eradicated. The truth is trying to get farmers to grow any other crop has been a complete failure. The taliban now encourage poppy cultivation as a means to pay for the war. If Nato forces can't even operate outside their bases, who exactly are going to engage in poppy eradication? The Afghan government cant even operate outside of Kabul.

Andy Leeds

I have thought drugs should be legalised for years. I've said so often enough - even when sat at dinner with High Court Judges. A large proportion of crime is drugs related, perhaps 70%, so if it were legal a huge amount of this would disappear. And in a free society - a liberal free society - do we really have a right to stop people smoking dope ? If they want to kill themselves with drugs surely that is their right. I merely make two provisos: they should interfere with me, and shouldn't expect me to pay for their habit or their treatment. Let them get on with it.

strapworld

Prohibition never works. It is as simple as that.

Prohibition is a licence for criminals to make money..BIG money.

Prohibition is for the little people- the users- to fall foul of the law. How many 'big boys' have ever been prosecuted? You can count them on the fingers of two hands only!

Prohibition does not work.

In my previous life I have arrested many pushers (small time criminals- feeding their own habits) and users (small time criminals who have ruined their lives by having a criminal record!).

I must admit that I have changed my opinion totally since those days. We could wipe away the criminality immediately. Put those big boys out of business- yes they will move on to something else- drugs should be administered by doctors. That would help the users and be far cheaper for society in general. Savings in crime, police and court time and less people criminalised.

I do have to hiccup sharing my view with Colonel Blimp but on this he is right!

Verity

I think it was Pete Townsend, who, in a moment of lucidity, said it was much harder to quite smoking than to quit drugs.

He should know.

David Hart

Slim Jim: For those who propose 'legalising' drugs, there is no clear policy emerging.

You might like to take a look at this book, which aims to do exactly that: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm

Graham Allaway

From reading all the comments posted one thing is obvious, the current prohibition strategy DOES NOT WORK!, and has never worked. The drugs trade is as robust as it ever was. That's not to say that the legalisation route is necessarily the correct one but it is reason enough at least for the DEBATE to take place. I have three 'kids', now in their early 20s, thankfully none of them fell foul of drugs but I know people whose kids have. Something has to be done and the way we have been tackling it just ain't the solution!

Cynic

The Dutch have hash cafés, but haven't they started to rethink?

IXION

Please don't make it legal, as acriminal lawyer, I would be out of a job.

TomTom

Time to stop drug-testing in the Armed Forces and supply metamphetamines as in the last war. Surprised IMG Bob didn't do this when he was Defence Secretary

yank

First thing's first... decriminalize drugs, or at least take the edge off them, certainly at street level. The money saved here, through reductions in policing and prosecuting and imprisoning, might better go towards educational programs. Drug sales to minors might retain the original harsh penalties.

A tough bunch of questions here. I don't disparage anybody thinking outside the box, because that's what we need above all, I'd think.

Peter N

It flies in the face of everything we know about sales, marketing and supply chain to believe that improved supply will not result in increased use. But it's not just about the addict stupid - it's about the families, friends and colleagues around them. For every addict there are multiple family members affected by a spouse's, parent's, child's addiction. (counts for alcohol too - but with some drugs even worse effects on behaviour and subsequent emotional damage to others )

David Lindsay

There has been no "War on Drugs", really ever, but at the very latest since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Can you guess which party was in government in 1971? Can you name a prominent lady Cabinet Minister in that year? Lord Hailsham duly sent out the order that no one was any longer to be imprisoned for the possession of cannabis, and look where we are today.

All cheered on by the likes of Bob Ainsworth's International Marxist Group. But voted against, like so much else (the Bill replacing of O-levels with GCSEs, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Bill automatically halving every sentence the moment that it is passed, the European Communities Act, the Single European Act, and so on, and on, and on), by the party that was overthrown and supplanted by the likes of Bob Ainsworth's International Marxist Group. Here's to electoral reform, and thus to that party's restoration.

andrew

Don't tar them all with the same brush, legalising cannabis is politically possible, hard drugs are not politically possible. Separate cannabis from this debate, it can and has been legalised elsewhere with success. Lets just start with that and take it from there...

AF

Has anyone stopped to think of how much money the drug barons can throw at any government schemes to counter their efforts.
not least the unrestrained muscle to back it up.
They have been reported to have left millions of dollars rotting away in cellars,
they can and will match fifty-fold anything authorities throw at it.
The way the western powers go about it we're on a hidding to nothing.
It's a sick joke to think we've got good men and women giving their lives in vain in a war thats supported by drugs whilst our govt's pussyfoot about.

AF

Simcal,
If america had some sixty thousand dead on its shores in three years, which roughly extrapolates to the twentysix thousand that have died(druggies,drug traders and many drug enforcement agents)in its nieghbouring
country Mexico then I'm sure they'ed get to grips with their snorting nations problem.

Kittler

Are drug consumers a danger to society? Don't they just quietly dwell in their own wee world. The alcohol drinkers however, they can be a serious menace.

AF

Cynic,
yes the dutch cafe experiment has been corrupted with hard drug pushers,and their muscle.Also the cannabis they started out with is far more potent today,with the psychotic effects that follow,it's as good as any hard drug.
The Dutch are renownd for their green fingers,whats good for tulips works with pot.

daniel maris

Half-hearted prohibition is probably the worst of all worlds - the one we have now.

If you really want to curb drug use, testing of school students would probably the best. But that could be effective whether or not there was legal prohibition.

Personally I favour the state getting involved in production and licensing of sales. This would allow for the products to be standardised and for them to carry health warnings. Any profits could be ploughed back into drugs education/treatment. The Police would be relieved of enforcement duty and addicts could receive proper treatment.

Ed

alexsandr: What beautifully emotive rhetoric, you're missing the point however, prohibition does not eliminate supply, nor does it decrease demand! If you've experienced the "angst" of teenagers on drugs, then you've seen prohibition fail.

Regulate, 21+ only. Limit access to kids, done.

Ed Benton

@PeterN

Firstly, supply and demand are independent variables. Look it up on wikipedia, one does not influence the other.

Re:marketing - making something seem "dangerous", taboo, prohibited only increases its appeal to youngsters.

re: the people involved in an addict's live, beautiful picture, but I'm sure giving the addict some hard time in jail will make the family feel so much better.

The reasonable conclusion here is that drugs are a health issue, not a criminal one. Your sensationalist drivel is without any basis

Christopher B

The Tory and Labour front benches have already made it be known they disagree with Mr Ainsworth's comments and stated they believe the public do not agree either.

Judging by the comments on here and other newspapers, I should say the public very much agree with Mr Ainsworth and it is the Government (as usual) that is out of touch.

Rob

Surely making the drugs cheaper is good. Before world war one opiates were dirt cheap and were barely considered a problem in Britain. A gram of heroin costs 40-60 pounds due to the dealers pushing prices up, when in fact the real price is closer to 3 quid. An addict needs roughly half a gramme a day. If we regulated it at 3 pounds we wouldn't have as much crime. You don't see alcoholics robbing to pay for their habit - that's because booze is cheap.

yank

AF,

In pure numbers, Mexico's recent drug violence isn't anything different than we've seen here for some 4 decades, although theirs is more wholesale than our retail.

The US has something like 25-30,000 homicides each year, most of them drug related. The jails are as full as any country on earth, and upwards of 80% of the imprisoned are drug law offenders.

We've attempted to "come to grips" with our snorting problem, and the attempts aren't working, and the people are still dying. Mexico's high drug violence death rate will likely slow, after the narcos stabilize their cartel structure, and the politicos sign off, as historical. The recent violence is more of an anomaly, and only arose because the narcos threatened the politicos' monopoly on violence, and their very authority, as Colombia. Hell's fire came down on them, when they did. They'll be fine, when they get back into their box.

The US drove them out of the Caribbean routes, as those were over water and technologically vulnerable (you've all seen Miami Vice, I'm sure, back in the day), and so today, Mexico is the chosen route. Being a civilized people, they'll find ways to peacefully accommodate the industry eventually.

The drugs are going to move. It's that simple. No sense denying that.

Baron

War on drugs? Where? Here? In wars people get killed, in Britain if anyone dies in this phoney ‘war’ it ain’t because of warring, but because of an overdose.

Beast of Bangkok @ 12.04 tells you what we should do if we were to be serious about eradicating the menace. This, of course, could never happen here what with uman rights and stuff. It’s a lose-lose issue in the current set-up.

The good news is that the pseudo-liberal elite, the largest consumer of the stuff, will push the de-criminalisation through, the unwashed will have finally enough and will revolt, and revolt big and only then will common sense kick in.

Dave the Hamster

I'd like to know where the researchers are getting the drugs from that are cheaper? I can assure you they are going up in price, not down. Good quality Cannabis used to be £25 for 3.5g, it currently goes for £10 per gram in most areas. Cocaine, MDMA and E pill prices stay the same but the purity becomes less and less, often being replaced with cheap imitations like 4-MMC and Amphetamines passed off as the original. My concern is not so much profiteering but the dangerous chemicals being used in the place of the less harmful originals or the "brick dust" and other things added to cannabis to increase its weight. Ignoring the recreational use of these drugs in favour of focusing on their medicinal benefits will not solve the problems caused prohibition.

In2minds

It's at this point we should remind ourselves that is was Nulabour, the same party to which Ainsworth belongs and when in government he was a minister, that gave the UK the age of cheap alcohol. The legalisation of drugs is all very well as a concept but involving the state in the distribution could just give the same sort of people who sat back and watched the present mess develop another opportunity to do just that all over again. The sort of policy proposed by Ainsworth has worked in some countries but there is not the tradition of rational thinking in the UK as seems to be the case in Holland for example.
Also Ainsworth has not mentioned prisons, in the typical UK prison all manner of drugs are available. So here is a case of the state being in full control, or one would have thought so, and prisoners lives are further damaged, despite, or perhaps because of, the state being in control. Finally in the link above (to the original BBC news item) there is a quote from Prof David Nutt, a man given a hard time for his views when Nulabour was in government by none other than Ainsworth!

Mr L

I'm disappointed that Coffee Housers are 'playing the man'.

I can tell you that many magistrates, who get to deal with the consequnces of present policies, are in favour of legalisation (AND regulation) rather than the present situation which is no use to society, the users or anybody else - it's just a charter for the dealers.

Cabbie

Slightly modified from something I posted earlier on a thread by Ms Philips.

Politicians are normally scared of tackling these topics. The experts, police and judiciary are not. A zero tolerance policy is very expensive and needs political backbone

Reluctantly agree with Ainsworth.Despite everything else he has done, freed from office he has shown he can think and has some balls.

Prohibition does not work. Organised crime blights peoples lives. Those involved in it abuse and terrorise users of these drugs. The small time users also make peoples lives miserable. Their crimes are also an economic drain upon society at several levels.

Prison is expensive and the only reason the buffoon Clarke wants to free everyone is because we cannot afford to lock so many people up. There are too many petty drug users in prison because of crimes carried out to pay the professional criminals who supply, abuse them and who do not pay taxes.

By not locking up so many petty users and addicts we could afford to fill our prisons with violent pathological and career criminals, rapists and muggers for a long long time and it wouldn't cost anything extra in taxes difficult times.

Large numbers of people want to use drugs. Let them.Young people face the problem of using adulterated substances which can kill them due to adverse drug interactions. Treatments are expensive. Doctors and pharmasists providing the drugs will ensure they are unadulterated.

We can also tax them and maybe even hypothecate the tax take to provide rehab at no cost. I guess the tax take would be as valuable as that for tobacco and alcohol to the Treasury at budget time so there would be plenty left over!

We don't need a 'Spiritual Gin' to keep 3 million people quiet. Officially- provided drugs will do ok. With trash tv and good drugs we wouldn't even have to worry about the masses rising up and taking away our possesions-let's face it that's why we have the kind of welfare state we have- not a safety net. A maliable mass would even mean we could save on welfare.

Now I don't suppose the latter few points would get much support for the obvious reasons that anyone supporting them would be pilloried by the left media chattering classes but the rest is correct enough for many to support.

Yes we've had problems with youngsters in our family abusing drugs. Adults as well-different substances. Yes we have had someone in the family die as a result and Yes I know of a couple of people made gravely ill due to taking contaminated substances-tragic. Yes I know of someone beingterrorised by dealers.

An independant economic study of the overall economic benefits and freeing up of prison places should do the trick for garnering more support.

AF

Howdy yank,
perhaps you'vd proved a point,
top 'em all let God sort it out.
It's a sure fire way to get rid of the client base.
Apart from the cost and strain on resources these people first bring misery and shame on their families and thereafter anyone in their wake who comes into contact with them.

John David Barnett

Mr Ainsworth deserves our thanks.

Colin

Battling Bob finally comes through!

What a breath of fresh, enlightened air!!!!

I'd go further, not only would I legalise all drugs, I'd give them away free to anyone who wanted them.

The war on drugs has been lost. Forty years of centre left politics has seen to that.

The reality is that their are no barriers to drug use in the UK any more. Anyone who wants to consume illegal drugs, can do so -fact!

What Bob says is merely a statement of the bleeding obvious -good on him. If government were serious about tackling drug abuse, we'd have the death penalty for supply AND consumption and we'd be at war with several countries. None of these things will ever happen, so let's stop pretending. On economics alone, he's right; never mind the sad fact that thousands of ordinarily law abiding families are needlessly exposed to ruthless criminality as a result of government's abject failure to deal with the crime associated with drugs.

The reaction and lack of reaction from politicians is indicative of the mediocre, craven, corrupt and careerist, self serving, survivalist nature of politicians and politics in the UK today.

Will Shepps

Good on you Bob. It's about time we started involving evidence in this debate rather than the same old prejudices running rife. Man has been altering his perception through psychoactive chemicals since the year dot. This is not going to change. To discourage use we need to alter the way drugs are perceived by the future generations. Recreational drugs should be in the hands of the men in white coats to help the next generation associate drugs with hospitals rather than street corners & house parties. Pharmaceutical drugs like Prozac don’t garner a great amount of interest in the drugs scene because people associate it with illness. Let’s do the same to cocaine, heroin and other dangerous Class A’s. Everything else should be completely decriminalised, controlled and available to those who really want it.

AF

Cabbie and others here seem to overlook a critical point.
Once you legalise and tax these drugs you start a competition with the drug barons and street traders,just as it is with alcohol and tobacco.
Do you believe that only users that pay the govm't tax should be treated by virtue of the tax paid,how could you differentiate.
Needless to say you've still got to deal with the majority of addicts, they still have to fund their habit,invariably through crime.
The celebrities that use can easily afford drugs and put themselves into rehab health spa's.These guys with the help of the media glamorise the squalid problem.Thats why in my opinion when caught they should be made an example of, jail every time and plenty of it.

DZ

Many of you mention the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act, but when Lenny Bruce came over here to try to perform at the Establishment Club in 1963(?) he was allegedly amazed that there were only 1500 registered addicts in UK and hard drugs could be legally purchased. That is according to my recollection of Albert Goldman's book, anyway.

I can't see that legislation has improved the social scene since then. Quite the reverse, in fact. All that happened was that the nanny state took over and told people what they could and could not do. And they could no longer do drugs so a supplier crime wave started, now reaching some sort of peak, perhaps.

Many of you mention the fears for your children (me too), but was the risk greater in 1963 or now? My guess is now. Time for a re-think? Is the big State always right? Has legislation worked?

Thought not.

malcolm kyle

If you support prohibition then you're either a black market profiteer, a terrorist, a corrupt politician, a sadomoralist, a wing-nut socialist or a fake-conservative.

If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history, raising gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging..

If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

If you support prohibition you've helped to prevent the sick and dying from obtaining safe and effective medication.

If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

If you support prohibition you've helped escalate the number of people on welfare.

If you support prohibition you're responsible for the horrific racial disparities which have breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised minorities.

If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

If you support prohibition you're promoting a policy which kills our children, endangers our troops, counteracts our foreign policy and reduces much of the developing world to anarchy.

Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them; the concept of a "Drug-Free Society" is a neurotic fantasy and Prohibition's ills are a product of this psychotic delusion.

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, corrupt or criminally insane.

If you support prohibition then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, and the complete loss of the rule of law.

Will J

People who talk about decriminalising drugs should be careful to explain what kind of thing they would replace it with, since otherwise it just sounds likes they're advocating a free for all.

Clearly the point of decriminalising is to undermine the criminal market - a worthy goal. It is not to encourage drug use, indeed it is hoped it might discourage it. To do that it would need to be done in the right way. Michael has made the best point so far: legalise then demonise. What those who advocate decriminalisation need to do is make some good suggestions for how that "demonising" might be done.

For example, the need to use drugs (especially addictively) could be treated as an illness, which the state supplies the drugs for as part of the "treatment", but also has programmes to try to move people away from it. Indeed, is this not essentially what the state already does with methadone?

Doe

Canada comes to mind... If I remember right, dealers couldn't manage with the renewed demand. Anyway, until pharmacists/ doctors pop round for a beer and a chat and catch a game I guess it ain't going to work...

Frank P

David Raynes has posted over on Melanie's blog relating to the same topic. Good man Mr Raynes! Knows what he is talking about.

Frank P

malcolm kyle

WTF are you on, Malcolm? Is your electronic tag chafing, old chap? Get some germoline FFS.

N J Mayes

"If that's what a war on drugs achieves, then perhaps – as Ainsworth suggests – it is time for a ceasefire." Alternatively, perhaps it's time to bother fighting, rather than the all-but-ceasefire that exists currently.