Mainlining subversion

field

No I don't agree Melanie. There is no reason to suppose that illegal street drugs would undercut a state monopoly. There is no evidence of that in Scandinavians countries where the state acquired a monopoly. Where the state is acquiring the raw materials legally it doesn't have all the on costs of smuggling and paying of bribes. If the state had a system of licensed street dealers those street dealers, who would only deal in legal drugs, would quickly identify any unlicensed dealers (i.e. competitors) in their area for the authorities to deal with. Licensed street dealers would also have an incentive not to sell to underage kids (the incentive being retaining their licence). The state could limit sales to a relatively small range of drugs of high purity and with known effects. The drugs could be sold with health information leaflets in standard measures. As for celebrities, I think their influence is fairly marginal. Drugs culture is really something that has spread from other parts of the world thanks to international trade and more recently jet travel. In the UK it's merged with the long established alcohol tradition. There is no evidence that prohibition of alcohol in the USA led to less alcohol abuse. It quite possibly led to more. Legalising drugs won't make much difference in terms of use. It will however make it easier to stop under age kids getting hold of drugs directly (as they now do). It will also allow us to pursue health objectives. In any case there is no reason why you can't combine legalisation with a tough anti-drugs programme in schools, included mandatory testing of children and targetted treatment for anyone testing positive.

David M. Hartzell

I would suggest that she attend at least a few speakers meetings of Cocaine Anonymous. She might learn of the horrible cost of more widespread use of this very addictive drug. I'm told by members of CA that even seeing a pile of powdered sugar or a white-painted wall is enough to trigger a relapse.

Jon_Boy

These people think that drugs are new and that a new way is needed to deal with them. Drugs have been around for a long time and our rules have evolved over the years to illegalisation. Ok a few middle class kids with an inherited sense of self preservation experiment even with strong drugs and survive. But there are may who don't and don't have family money behind them to not be working and to also pay for expnisve rehab. These people need protecting. It is all dogma along the lines of prison doesn't work therefore no one should go to jail or be meaningfully punished and 'right wing Islamism is the new messianic socialism until it effects me and I lose my money and wealth.' These are all typical dogmas of the frightening new religious dogmas of the 21st century and champagne socialim and are a result of decadence run wild. Only economic recession can help kerb such madness before it all leads to war.

field

Sorry - typed to fast: I was referring to Scandinavian state monopolies on alcohol, not street drugs. David Hartzell - there are lots of fat eople who can't walk past a cream cake without wanting to stuff it in their face. Obesity is a real and undoubted killer. So are you going to ban cream cakes? It's not a ludicrous question since there are plenty of health fascists who secretly aim at banning high fat foods in the next few years - supposedly for "our own good". There must be millions of people in the UK who have tried cocaine or used it quite frequently and are still holding down a job etc. Although cocaine is an awful drug it is not a one way ticket to hell. However, there is no doubt the illegal trade and associated gang culture is doing terrible things to our society as well. The idea that you can eliminate the illegal trade in a free society is rubbish.

Lance Grundy

Your post echoes my thoughts when I read this ridiculous article yesterday.

Richard Baxter

Cavendish's comment "most of my generation thinks of cocaine much as our parents thought of single malt" is risible and is merely indicative of the company she keeps. Drug users tend to associate with other drug users and thus are able to convince themselves that their behaviour is normal or ubiquitous. The vast majority of British people under the age of 40 do not use cocaine (even if they can afford to do so) and do not mix socially with those who do.

Ray

It's amazing that whether one is a liberal or conservative, one can always find something to control in another person's life in the name of “their own good.” God forbid that people should be free to make their own decisions on what to put into their bodies (and, yes, free to pay the price for it, too). I'm not sure how it is over there, but go to any school over here (the U.S.) and ask the students which is easier for them to obtain - drugs or alcohol - and they will tell you that it is much easier to obtain illegal drugs than legal alcohol. The drug laws are not working and are costing our society billions of dollars and untold amounts of human capital. Legalization cannot make it worse than it is now.

Max Kaye

Prohibition is not working and is not the answer.

field

Yes, the USA is an object lesson. It's difficult in many parts to get access to alcohol but illegal drugs are readily available despite billions and billions of dollars being poured into burning coca and poppy plants in poor countries, trying to disrupt supply lines and sending dealers to prison for many years. It's all bull. If you're really interested in stopping drug use you need a proactive testing and educational initiative in schools. Of course teachers, being some of the biggest drug users going, aren't going to be signing up for that any time soon.

john doe

First of all, the blanket term 'drugs' is silly and absurd. These substances are very different from each other with radically different effects. It's ignorant and simplistic to condemn outright the use of ALL these substances, not all of which result in anti-social behaviour. Melanie, you need to cite one single case, incontrovertibly proven, of someone committing a crime in a 'frenzied and psychotic' state as a result of cannabis use. And finally, I feel you have it the wrong way round. As 'drugs' are already illegal, given your aversion to allowing people the freedom to alter their consciousness,and your concern over crime and deaths, you should be campaigning vociferously for the criminalisation of alcohol and tobacco.This reminds me of the dynamic involved in targeting only Israel for human rights abuses and ignoring Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia and the myriad other barbarous social systems in the world.

Nick Kaplan

I’m not convinced of the legalisation argument but we do have to realise that, sadly, we have comprehensively lost the war on drugs. In the case of the article you are referring to the problem is really that this ridiculous woman seems completely unable to form a coherent argument, but this does not mean one does not exist. There are some good reasons to legalise drugs. For example 2/3’s of all property crime in the UK is motivated by drug addicts trying to raise the necessary funds for an expensive habit, legalisation would help this problem as it would make drugs cheaper. In addition the government could raise fairly large revenues which I would argue should be used to fund rehabilitation. At the moment i think it is utterly disgraceful, given limited resources, that any of the health budget should be used to fund treatment of people who have chosen to break the law. However if drugs were legalised people could effectively pay for their own rehabilitation through the tax they will need to pay. Any left over money could be put towards educating children as to the dangers of drugs and why they should not be taken. On the other hand I am not convinced this is enough to make up for the damage drugs do independently of the associated crime, or the risk of increased drug use. However a new approach is certainly needed, what we are doing atm is not working, does anyone have any suggestions?

Thom

"...but she doesn’t see the frenzied and psychotic killings by people off their heads with crack or cannabis." These numbers wouldn't change if drugs were legal or not; causation of such incidents has more to do with the biochemistry and psychological function and you cant study this effectively whilst the people involved are still criminalised by their drug use and not their violent actions. As for you citing that drug use would increase if legalised I could draw your attention to recent coverage associated with the decrease in cannibis-fueled crime along the time line of declassification (though I am quick to point out this is merely observation, not indicactive), I would prefer to point out to you the Rat Park Experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park As for your first point regarding black markets in a legalised world this really does show an incredibly naive view of business enterprise as well as history; yes there is a black market in alcohol and tabacco but mostly it is caused by stiff regulation on imports and unfair tariffs and taxation in the form of doubly taxed alcoholic products by VAT AND DUTY. Some idiot making moonshine in his basement could never compete on the same level as Tennants or any of the other massive breweries - the same goes for the present illegal drug industry when confronted with BigPharma's worldwide distribution, refinement and research systems; transport, research and pharmaceutical standards are managed for legal pharmaceuticals - why not recreational drugs too? I have a lot of respect for you Mel; your coverage on the Arab-Israeli conflict is amazing and I agree with (but examine) every word you say, but you are way out on drug legislation; the only people who benefit from such laws are baptists and bootleggers - baptists (of which I am one, wholeheartedly) from being morally righteous without having to put in any hard work telling the people why they are wrong about drugs (and to live a better way), and bootleggers who make a killing (many times quite literally). For The Record: I do not use drugs, but I have done in the past and regretted it; I now tell everyone they are bad news but make it clear that I respect their autonomy, just not their stupidity.

D. Stevens

Frenzied and psychotic are not words that make any sense when talking about cannabis, though they can apply to crack, or free base cocaine users. Melanie, you just have no idea about 'drugs' at all, and yet you continue to write about something you are woefully ignorant about. It is a complex subject, there are many sorts of 'drugs', with very different affects. My granny, bless her heart, took laudanum, as did many women in her day. She brought up three children, ran an upper middle class household, played the stock market with extraordinary success, and died, after a full life, at the age of 92. Laudanum is a tinture of opium, and very nice too. By the way, you won't get frenzied and psychotic from that either.

Mokuska

I'm not sure this particular slice of logic works: But deaths associated with drug use are only ‘miniscule’ compared with alcohol and tobacco because alcohol and tobacco are legal. Legalisation=greater use=greater harm and misery. Duh! There was a far more widespread history of tobacco and alcohol use before the negative effects became universally known and acknowledged. Yes, cocaine was once used as medication and no doubt has a long history of recreational use, but not as widespread as tobacco and alcohol. Having said that, I agree that the Cavendish piece was manifestly idiotic.