It is not drugs that cause the problems, it’s the wholly unwinnable war on drugs

Nora Delvin

James,

A good article but not all drug taking is recreational as you know. My sister is a heroin addict. It came out of nowhere and has blindsided us for the last three years. Her primary focus at the moment is harm reduction - her eyes lit up when I told her that in Switzerland they administered heroin to users in a controlled environment. Addiction is treated as a medical condition and is seen as one.

The reason we have to take the time to 'fight nature' is because the reality of addiction today is that it takes lives. It always has and it will continue to do so unless we can raise awareness and work on de-stigmatise it (as has been debated this week with the release of Sinned and Sinned Against: The Stigmatisation of Problem Drug Users: http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/resources/Stigma_Expert_Commentary_final.pdf).
I write about what its like to stand on the sidelines of addiction in a blog. Online I have found a circle of supporters and most of us affected say the same - there isn't much we can do for our loved one ourselves but we can certainly try and change perception. However slightly. www.worksaside.wordpress.com

Cuvyblonde

You speak the truth - now let's all respond to the new HMG's 2010 Drug strategy consultation paper and see if we can change this absurd, destructive, no-hope policy.

Something's got to give.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/

EyeSee

Hmmm. Unfortunately the usual reasoning behind all this 'logic' is contained here. You quickly dismiss the harm drugs may do to your children, that is OK as long as they are enjoying a selfish, self-satisfying hit, but you don't want them to have a criminal record. It isn't the Middle Class who are prudish and 'imposing' their will against drug use, it is the Middle Class 'libertarians' who are trying to make normal anything they do. 'It can't be illegal' they say, 'because I want to do it'. These are the new foppish wasters that the Left breed, the very same Left that claims toffs are foppish wasters.

You may wish to doubt my ability to speak on the subject as I have never so much as even considered trying any drugs, but then I've never murdered anyone either and I have pretty strong views on that too. However, it seems to me that the aim of using drugs is to selfishly, singly seek to wipe out all conscious thought and, to use the patois of these denizens of civilised society, get wasted. I drink alcohol. I don't binge drink rather preferring a small amount, but with company and conversation. You enjoy a 'spliff', whoopee do. I would enjoy being rich but I care about how I obtain that money, the end doesn't justify the means. I suggest you rethink your attitude to your children. It might be better to teach them morality and concern yourself with their health before you legalise drugs with side effects that you wouldn't accept from a doctors' prescribing. It's not the alcohol that causes the problems on our streets, it is the attitude of the people drinking; they have been taught that they are hugely important and they should do anything they feel like doing. The same attitude that asks for drugs to be decriminalised. Drug based crimes like shoplifting, theft, robbery etc do not exist because drugs are illegal, or we should have no criminal law and watch a perfect society emerge. You are right about Roger Scruton's genius, you are wrong to doubt him on this.

McD

Politics… Who needs ‘em? Well, it might just be everyone in this case. There are some intelligent and perceptive people making policy decisions in the US and at the UN (which is really the same thing). They know they have been defeated in their War on Drugs and must find the fact acutely embarrassing. As a rule, people don’t like losing fights or wars and, having done so, saving face becomes highest priority. Defeat has been indirectly admitted by the Obama administration: ‘We no longer call it the War on Drugs.’



The Russians don’t seem to have got the message, though. I’m sure there are plenty of intelligent and perceptive people in the Kremlin, as well as the White House, but they don’t have the same experience of defeat as the Americans do. (They have their own, which is no less valuable.) They’ve gone into ‘moron mode’ in their approach to drugs, just like their counterparts in the West did some thirty-odd years ago. This is something the Russians are extraordinarily good at… And human rights.



The appointment of Yuri Fedotov to the UNODC Boss job is a cause for great celebration for those who are eager to change current international drug policies. Not only does it underline the Americans’ admission of defeat in one of their most ridiculous holy crusades (The War on Drugs) but it has finally set the stage for the repeal of the (US/)UN(/UK) (Axis) ‘Narcotics’ Conventions of 1961 and ’88, which in turn should lead to a number of other equally important and similarly obstructed measures.

Look around outside the box - you don't even really need to think, just open you eyes - and consider an internal dialogue: ‘We’ve lost. What can we do?’


‘Blame it on the Russians.’


‘No-one’s going to buy it.’


‘Make ‘em beg for it.’


‘How so?’


‘Flood the country with heroin so that they have no choice but to demand responsibility for stopping it. That way we kill a whole bunch of birds with one stone:


1) we save face by distancing ourselves from defeat without even ever actually openly admitting defeat;


2) they take over, assuming the same position that caused our defeat, making the same mistakes until they’re forced - just as we have been - to come to terms with defeat; that way they take the blame and get called fools for repeating the mistakes which we can claim to have innocently made and they’re seen as idiots for repeating our mistakes; and the really, really good part is that we can then say, ‘Ah, yes, but you see, we’d already understood what we'd done wrong and started to embrace harm reduction before those idiots took over and made a mess of the good work we’d started to do, and we only let them because we’re such good, kind and trusting souls - always willing to give them enough rope to hang themselves - and they pressured us so hard to do so.';


3) when they’ve made such a mess of it that they’re crawling away on their knees, just like they did from Afghanistan twenty years ago, then we can waltz back in as heros, repealing the Conventions, replacing them with new ones to our liking, minimizing damage to our good selves, maximizing damage to them, thereby strengthening our position at the centre of the Axis. How’s that for a strategy?’


‘Let’s do it!’



Personally, I don’t believe the Americans are as stupid as one might be led to believe by a simple analysis of their holy crusades, particularly the War on Drugs. Once they’ve managed to pull off something like the plan outlined above, I’m sure they’ll take a more intelligent approach to the new and improved Axis ‘Narcotics’ Conventions. Having lived and worked in Russia and the ex-Soviet Union for several years, however, I’m afraid I can’t find the same confidence in the Russians’ capabilities. I don’t think I’m revealing anything other than the obvious here. It won’t be long before the Russians have dug a hole for themselves so deep that their infractions of human rights become intolerable and they’re forced to retire from their fantasy role as ‘savior of traditional values’. As far as I can see, this is the only way the Axis is able to deal with the defeat it’s suffered. And it’s not a bad plan.



So take heart those of you who await intelligence from our masters. I see light at the end of the long, long, dark and decaying tunnel which has caused such horrific pain and suffering.

Bob B

Nora,

I'm sorry to hear about the difficulties your sister is facing. I work in the drug and alcohol field and see on a daily basis the impact of drug and alcohol use/abuse. However, I disagree with your statement of 'fighting nature' - it isn't nature that needs to be fought. This nature provides a defence mechanism that kicks in when reality is too difficult to face and an escape from it is needed. What needs to be addressed are the reasons for this defence mechanism to be activated in the first place - factors in the home and family, issues and conflict around identity and belonging, socio-economic conditions and the like. My personal opinion is that too much focus is placed on the substances and the 'addiction' (which is a very loose concept) and not enough on the conditions I mentioned as to address these takes effort, courage, and the desire for change which most people don't want to have to do.

Straydingo

I normally totally agree with James views...but cant say I agree with you on this one.

I think EyeSee makes some good points and as someone who as dabbled I am not particular proud and certainly would not encourage my two baby boys.

If we were serious about wiping out serious drugs we would wipe out the kingpins...literally...but we don't because we are soft and we have to protect their human rights.

I do agree that users should not be dealt with as harshly as they are though

ub313

I often wonder how such disparate and contradictory positions can be contained within conservatism.

The rational individualism seen here somehow cohabits with the rampant, statist collectivism of nationalism, old style Tory authoritarianism and the parochial normative conservatism that believes that drug use releases some mythical miasma which magically undermines society.

I commend Mr. Delingpole for, at least, adopting the intellectually coherent (though not comprehensive) ethical position of libertarianism.

Interesting that EyeSee accuses Dellingpole of wanting to make legal all those vices of which he partakes, whilst failing to notice that s/he is comitting that very error in an all together more miopic and egocentric way. "My drug use", EyeSee seems to say, "is the only acceptable drug use since I do it "with friends and conversation""!!

Probably the weakest anti-drug argument that: all drug use (except mine) is a self-indulgent retreat into oneself, a form of self gratification that willfully dismantles social relationships.

On the contrary, not only does the vast majority of recreational drug use take place in a social setting, but it is the increasing emphasis on socialising and social life that is causing any increase in the use of social drugs like alchohol, cocaine, ecstasy and (to some extent) cannabis.

But then EyeSee freely admits that, like most of the normative conservative brigade, s/he has absolutely no knowledge or experience of the subject about which s/he nevertheless feels qualified to moralise.

Anon

Some of these comments are austounding. Firstly, let me say I agree 1000% with James. It is the prohibition that is the problem, and always has been. The effect on us is incredible. Leading users to accept criminal behaviour is probably the worst. And soft drugs don't particularly lead to hard drugs - it's the association with criminals who deal hard drugs in order to get your soft drugs that leads to hard drugs.

To attempt to reply to some comments:

"not all drug taking is recreational as you know. My sister is a heroin addict."

I have to agree. Addiction is terrible, beit alcohol or heroin. Heroin is worse because the victim is classified as a criminal at the same time, and help is very limited. Making it legal will help addicts, and not create more (as has been shown in Portugal where all drugs are legal).

"You quickly dismiss the harm drugs may do to your children, that is OK as long as they are enjoying a selfish, self-satisfying hit, but you don't want them to have a criminal record. It isn't the Middle Class who are prudish and 'imposing' their will against drug use, it is the Middle Class 'libertarians' who are trying to make normal anything they do."

I'm not sure there is an adequate response to that. You object to drug use because some people you find politically offensive don't object? Hmmmm, back to the analyst couch, my friend!

"as someone who as dabbled I am not particular proud and certainly would not encourage my two baby boys. "

Of course not, but when they are adults, are you going to let them find out for themselves, aor are you going to teach them responible drug use, just like responsible alcohol use? I know what I will do for my children when they are adults!

Make them all legal. This was the recommendation I heard from a MAGISTRATE who never touched drugs, but was utterly sick of punishing otherwise very valuable members of society and forever tarnishing their reputation by giving them a criminal record. A probation officer told me that the only advice he could give regarding cannabis use was not to get caught.

The people dealing with the effects of the loony laws don't want those laws, let alone the ones being penalised by them. Think about that. The only ones who seem to approve are the police, and in my experience that has more to do with power and initimidation than actual control. They do as many drugs as the average person, and often get it free by stealing from users anyway.

Bill Z

My experience with dabblers of illegal substances is that eventually each dabbler finds that magic substance against which they are helpless. A good number of these folks are dead, overdosed, traffic accidents. Jail time for some is respite from dying; it's the only time they aren't killing themselves. For some, being held in the legal system until they are of an age to wise up is the happiest result.
I wonder about the brave new world of legalized narcotics. Narcotics would probably sell better than Coca-Cola! That would be quite a gauntlet folks would run to come out of the other end with their health and sanity intact.
Another consideration is the effect of narcotics on the brain. The centers of the brain we associate with "free will" are negated by the effect of narcotics on more primitive portions of the brain, such as the limbic system. In effect, it's similar to legalizing self-lobotomization.

Beatrice

Quite right James. I drink socially and tend to smoke when I drink; both are drugs and disqualify me from pontificating about the private habits of others. Make the various substances legal and let people make their own choices. Life is not about being nannied.

Spinage

Great article on the whole, but I’m baffled as to the connection you seek to make between, on the one hand, middle class people who take drugs but believe ‘The Poor’ need to be protected from their own appetites and, on the other, those of us who take the threat of climate change seriously and hence think that people in general need to be protected from each others’ appetites. Drug taking does not in itself physically harm anyone but (sometimes) the drug taker whereas pollution, like robbery or violence, harms others, which is why there should be stricter controls on it.

Veronica

Perhaps, James, you and everyone else are missing an important dimension?

Every time a Serious Investigative Journalist traces the supply lines 'upward', they always arrive at the door of the CIA.

(The CIA is, of course, the same thing as "MI6" and "Mossad")

Google "Gary Webb" (American Investigative Journalist) as a prime example. And then what happened to him. "Suicided" ... with no less than TWO ... SHOTGUN ... wounds to the HEAD. Huh? How??? ("Oh, I just shot myself in the head, but I haven't killed myself ... so I'll have another go" ... we are supposed to believe? Yea ... I'll buy that ... have two gift-wrapped, please)

According to the son of the US Ambassador to South Vietnam, during the 1960s Vietnam War, his father told him "This is all about keeping the drugs supply lines open".

The Taliban cracked down on the poppy production, which reduced the crops to 1% of the world's supply. Now it's back up to some 60% or thereabouts.

I suggest you research that, and figure it into the equation.

And ask yourself "Why?"

Andy Holt

Well said James. Prohibition, thou shalt not, will never work. Why one person should be criminalised for the possession of one drug and free to take another more destructive one openly beggars belief. We would be better off spending our time trying to figure out why we take drugs and finding a way to work with what appears to be an inbuilt tendency in nearly all of us, except liars.

Maverick

My brother died of a drug overdose. He previously went to prison for being a user. (Possesion of heroin).

I am staggered that people can't see the lesson of recent history - prohibition in the U.S., creating the Mafia. Regulate it, collect taxes on it, make it safe (your hairy biker's QA is not exactly at the Roche of Switzerland standard) and then leave people the hell alone to either become addicted or not.

It is hilarious to see the finger waggers telling teenagers that drugs are dangerous, not realising that that is precisely why they want to try them. If teenagers thought they were naff they wouldn't be anywhere near them.

Thanks for the article, we need the powers that be to face reality.

J. S. Mill, look on and be proud.

Finally some sense.

Renato Araujo

James,

I agree that the end of prohibition is the ultimate solution for the drugs problem. But, how would it work in practice? Considering that it is impossible to achieve world, our even European consesus on that matter, what would be the consequences of UK adopting that measure unilaterally?

david hawcroft

I didn't take drugs because they were dangerous. I was apprehensive because of that. I took them because I was urged to do so by good friends. But, yes, I think Maverick is right on. Just stop pushing people around. Let them do what they wish and help them do it safely.
It's trite, maybe saccharine and yukky, but love is the answer, not war.
:)