GHoSToKeR
09-22-2004, 06:10 PM
Harry Shapiro, director of communications at Drugscope, summarises the arguments for and against reform of the drug laws
"I say legalise drugs because I want to see less drug abuse, not more. And I say legalise drugs because I want to see the criminals put out of business"
- Edward Ellison, former head of the Scotland Yard Drug Squad
Over the past five years, there have been growing calls for reform of the drugs laws from sections of the media, from drugs professionals and campaign groups, from members of the police and judiciary, and even from a few politicians. Now David Blunkett has become the first home secretary in 30 years to countenance even minor reform, moving cannabis from Class B to Class C and issuing guidelines saying people should no longer normally be arrested for possessing small amounts of the drug. However, the possession of cannabis will still be a criminal offence and the array of complicated and â?? some say â?? draconian laws on other drugs will remain in place.
The debate is complex. Some reformers are in favour of legalisation, meaning that some or all drugs should have the same legal status as alcohol or tobacco â?? although as with those drugs, there would be controls, for example to protect children. Others recommend decriminalisation, meaning that possession (but not usually dealing) would not be a criminal offence but might be subject to penalties like those imposed for speeding. The final category is depenalisation, which would involve keeping the laws in place but reducing the penalties â?? for example, by moving some drugs to less dangerous categories within the Misuse of Drugs Act, as Mr Blunkett has done with cannabis. A number of European countries such as Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy have changed their approach to drug possession or are considering changes.
The following is a snapshot of the arguments on both sides of the debate for and against more radical reform of the drugs laws.
the individual and the state
For reform: People should be able to do what they like as long as they don't harm others.
Against: The state has a duty to protect its citizens, even from themselves. The laws on the use of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are one example of this. Governments should be concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number even at the expense of personal liberty. You can argue that drug use is a matter of personal choice, but how much choice does someone have if they are dependent on a drug?
crime and criminalisation
For reform: The worst aspect of prohibition is the way it hits the user. Many users have been saddled with criminal records or even sent to prison just for possessing drugs. Enforcement of the drug laws causes tensions between the police and otherwise law-abiding citizens â?? especially in the sensitive area of race relations. Also, prohibition brings in its wake violence and corruption on a huge scale, while making massive profits for organised crime. And users have to come into contact with criminal networks to obtain drugs. We should at least decriminalise possession for personal use.
Against: Anybody who uses illegal drugs knows the price of getting caught. People should take responsibility for their actions. What's more, decriminalisation might be even more damaging than legalisation. It would do nothing to undermine the illicit market while introducing more people to drugs. Users would still have to contact criminals to get their drugs â?? it's just that there would be more of both.
For: Despite all the billions spent by governments, enforcement doesn't work â?? the use of illegal drugs has increased.
Against: But the laws against drug use prevent even more people becoming involved.
economics
For reform: Legalisation would transfer huge revenues to government because it could tax drugs. Eradicating the illegal market would also bring enormous savings in the costs of enforcement, criminal justice and imprisonment. Many Western governments are wedded to the merits of free-market forces and know how difficult it is to 'buck' the markets. Yet they unrealistically believe they can use the law to suppress the illicit market in drugs.
Against: How realistic is it to imagine drug syndicates would melt away if drugs were legalised? Given the way economics and politics work in the West, it is unlikely that legalised drugs would become state monopolies. The drug business would just become another lucrative legal investment for organised crime.
supply and demand
For reform: We would be able to control legal supply more easily than illegal supply and stop drugs reaching the young or vulnerable. An unregulated market would be replaced by a regulated one.
Against: The reform lobby goes on about legalisation and regulation without answering practical questions like: Which drugs? Who is going have access to what? How do you control manufacture and distribution, the time and place of sales, marketing and sales to minors, and so on? And how successful have we been at stopping alcohol and tobacco being used by the young?
For: More availability doesn't equal more use â?? cannabis use did not escalate in the 11 US states that decriminalised the drug in the 1970s. Nor does more availability mean more addiction. During the Vietnam war many US soldiers regularly used heroin; most stopped when they returned. Heroin was easy to obtain in Vietnam, but the main reason soldiers used it was because they were in a war. Once they got home, they didn't use it even though they could have done so.
Against: That's wishful thinking. More availability does mean more use and that means more problems. What the Vietnam experience shows is that when drugs are freely available, more people use them, and more become addicted. You only have to look at the numbers who smoke and drink as opposed to the number who use illegal drugs to know this must be true. Then look at the massive problems we already have from tobacco and alcohol. There is good evidence that the more drinkers there are, the more problem drinkers there are.
health
For reform: A legal market would ensure that users were getting drugs produced under proper manufacturing conditions with quality control, and that there were fewer problems caused by dirty equipment and shared equipment. There might still be a danger from overdosing on pure products, but at least there could be proper guidance issued with a drug as happens now with prescribed medicines. Also, if drugs were legal, people wouldn't be reluctant to seek help in emergencies. Finally, there would be less likelihood that people would have inadequate or misleading information about drugs.
Against: Illegal manufacturers would still sell adulterated products because these would be cheaper than the legal alternatives, which would almost certainly be highly taxed to curb use. For example, unlike tobacco, cannabis can be grown anywhere, so there is every chance that the illicit market would continue, undercutting legal supplies. People might not delay in seeking emergency help if drugs were legal, but there might be more emergencies. And these days good information about drugs is widely available anyway.
For: What constitutes a 'dangerous' drug is simply a value judgement that changes across cultures and eras. At various times since the Middle Ages, drinkers of alcohol and coffee and smokers of tobacco have been punished for their indulgences. At the same time, cannabis, heroin and cocaine had (and still do have) legitimate medical uses. Now, despite the enormous harm alcohol and tobacco cause, they are freely available, and cannabis is not. It makes no sense and brings the law into disrepute.
Against: Current laws reflect the fact that people can get into serious difficulties with drugs such as heroin and cocaine far more quickly than with alcohol and tobacco. There are significant pharmacological differences between drugs and to suggest, for example, that crack is the same as coffee is ridiculous. Even if illegal drugs were 'only' as harmful as alcohol and tobacco, why make even more harmful drugs available?
For: The attempt to ban alcohol in America in the 1920s was a prime example of how the law harmed people's health. Many died through drinking 'bathtub gin' and other poorly made alcoholic drinks.
Against: From a public health point of view, Prohibition was more successful than generally assumed. The number of heavy users fell, as did the incidence of cirrhosis â?? only to rise when alcohol was re-legalised.
cannabis: a special case?
For reform: By keeping cannabis illegal and to that extent treating it the same as heroin and cocaine, we undermine the credibility of drug education â?? and of the law â?? in the eyes of young people.
Against: Any government legalising cannabis would be sending out the message to society that intoxication is OK.
Once you start talking about legitimising the use of cannabis, you are sending out a signal to young people that it's an OK thing to do.
Ann Widdecombe
For: Cannabis is not a 'gateway' drug, leading to other drug use. Only a small proportion of those who use cannabis go on to use heroin. Although it's true that most people that use heroin have previously used cannabis, they have also previously used tobacco and alcohol. No one suggests that tobacco and alcohol are 'gateway' drugs. Indeed, the fact that cannabis is illegal may be what leads some people to try heroin, because they are more likely to come into contact with someone who sells it.
Against: The 'gateway' theory cannot be dismissed so easily. Some people do progress from cannabis to other drugs, so the sensible thing is to try to deter them from using cannabis in the first place.
a political agenda
Whatever your feelings about the force of the various arguments, it's certain that the drugs scene has changed enormously since the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971. There has also been a great deal more research. But, with the exception of the recent relaxation of the laws on cannabis possession, governments have consistently refused to consider changes. Most UK politicians are anxious not to appear 'soft' on the issue.
Meanwhile, on the broader stage, what seems to drive international drug policy is not so much the health agenda we hear so much about, but the tangle of conflicting and vested interests of international diplomacy and geopolitics. The war on drugs is in many ways a political war.
"I say legalise drugs because I want to see less drug abuse, not more. And I say legalise drugs because I want to see the criminals put out of business"
- Edward Ellison, former head of the Scotland Yard Drug Squad
Over the past five years, there have been growing calls for reform of the drugs laws from sections of the media, from drugs professionals and campaign groups, from members of the police and judiciary, and even from a few politicians. Now David Blunkett has become the first home secretary in 30 years to countenance even minor reform, moving cannabis from Class B to Class C and issuing guidelines saying people should no longer normally be arrested for possessing small amounts of the drug. However, the possession of cannabis will still be a criminal offence and the array of complicated and â?? some say â?? draconian laws on other drugs will remain in place.
The debate is complex. Some reformers are in favour of legalisation, meaning that some or all drugs should have the same legal status as alcohol or tobacco â?? although as with those drugs, there would be controls, for example to protect children. Others recommend decriminalisation, meaning that possession (but not usually dealing) would not be a criminal offence but might be subject to penalties like those imposed for speeding. The final category is depenalisation, which would involve keeping the laws in place but reducing the penalties â?? for example, by moving some drugs to less dangerous categories within the Misuse of Drugs Act, as Mr Blunkett has done with cannabis. A number of European countries such as Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy have changed their approach to drug possession or are considering changes.
The following is a snapshot of the arguments on both sides of the debate for and against more radical reform of the drugs laws.
the individual and the state
For reform: People should be able to do what they like as long as they don't harm others.
Against: The state has a duty to protect its citizens, even from themselves. The laws on the use of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are one example of this. Governments should be concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number even at the expense of personal liberty. You can argue that drug use is a matter of personal choice, but how much choice does someone have if they are dependent on a drug?
crime and criminalisation
For reform: The worst aspect of prohibition is the way it hits the user. Many users have been saddled with criminal records or even sent to prison just for possessing drugs. Enforcement of the drug laws causes tensions between the police and otherwise law-abiding citizens â?? especially in the sensitive area of race relations. Also, prohibition brings in its wake violence and corruption on a huge scale, while making massive profits for organised crime. And users have to come into contact with criminal networks to obtain drugs. We should at least decriminalise possession for personal use.
Against: Anybody who uses illegal drugs knows the price of getting caught. People should take responsibility for their actions. What's more, decriminalisation might be even more damaging than legalisation. It would do nothing to undermine the illicit market while introducing more people to drugs. Users would still have to contact criminals to get their drugs â?? it's just that there would be more of both.
For: Despite all the billions spent by governments, enforcement doesn't work â?? the use of illegal drugs has increased.
Against: But the laws against drug use prevent even more people becoming involved.
economics
For reform: Legalisation would transfer huge revenues to government because it could tax drugs. Eradicating the illegal market would also bring enormous savings in the costs of enforcement, criminal justice and imprisonment. Many Western governments are wedded to the merits of free-market forces and know how difficult it is to 'buck' the markets. Yet they unrealistically believe they can use the law to suppress the illicit market in drugs.
Against: How realistic is it to imagine drug syndicates would melt away if drugs were legalised? Given the way economics and politics work in the West, it is unlikely that legalised drugs would become state monopolies. The drug business would just become another lucrative legal investment for organised crime.
supply and demand
For reform: We would be able to control legal supply more easily than illegal supply and stop drugs reaching the young or vulnerable. An unregulated market would be replaced by a regulated one.
Against: The reform lobby goes on about legalisation and regulation without answering practical questions like: Which drugs? Who is going have access to what? How do you control manufacture and distribution, the time and place of sales, marketing and sales to minors, and so on? And how successful have we been at stopping alcohol and tobacco being used by the young?
For: More availability doesn't equal more use â?? cannabis use did not escalate in the 11 US states that decriminalised the drug in the 1970s. Nor does more availability mean more addiction. During the Vietnam war many US soldiers regularly used heroin; most stopped when they returned. Heroin was easy to obtain in Vietnam, but the main reason soldiers used it was because they were in a war. Once they got home, they didn't use it even though they could have done so.
Against: That's wishful thinking. More availability does mean more use and that means more problems. What the Vietnam experience shows is that when drugs are freely available, more people use them, and more become addicted. You only have to look at the numbers who smoke and drink as opposed to the number who use illegal drugs to know this must be true. Then look at the massive problems we already have from tobacco and alcohol. There is good evidence that the more drinkers there are, the more problem drinkers there are.
health
For reform: A legal market would ensure that users were getting drugs produced under proper manufacturing conditions with quality control, and that there were fewer problems caused by dirty equipment and shared equipment. There might still be a danger from overdosing on pure products, but at least there could be proper guidance issued with a drug as happens now with prescribed medicines. Also, if drugs were legal, people wouldn't be reluctant to seek help in emergencies. Finally, there would be less likelihood that people would have inadequate or misleading information about drugs.
Against: Illegal manufacturers would still sell adulterated products because these would be cheaper than the legal alternatives, which would almost certainly be highly taxed to curb use. For example, unlike tobacco, cannabis can be grown anywhere, so there is every chance that the illicit market would continue, undercutting legal supplies. People might not delay in seeking emergency help if drugs were legal, but there might be more emergencies. And these days good information about drugs is widely available anyway.
For: What constitutes a 'dangerous' drug is simply a value judgement that changes across cultures and eras. At various times since the Middle Ages, drinkers of alcohol and coffee and smokers of tobacco have been punished for their indulgences. At the same time, cannabis, heroin and cocaine had (and still do have) legitimate medical uses. Now, despite the enormous harm alcohol and tobacco cause, they are freely available, and cannabis is not. It makes no sense and brings the law into disrepute.
Against: Current laws reflect the fact that people can get into serious difficulties with drugs such as heroin and cocaine far more quickly than with alcohol and tobacco. There are significant pharmacological differences between drugs and to suggest, for example, that crack is the same as coffee is ridiculous. Even if illegal drugs were 'only' as harmful as alcohol and tobacco, why make even more harmful drugs available?
For: The attempt to ban alcohol in America in the 1920s was a prime example of how the law harmed people's health. Many died through drinking 'bathtub gin' and other poorly made alcoholic drinks.
Against: From a public health point of view, Prohibition was more successful than generally assumed. The number of heavy users fell, as did the incidence of cirrhosis â?? only to rise when alcohol was re-legalised.
cannabis: a special case?
For reform: By keeping cannabis illegal and to that extent treating it the same as heroin and cocaine, we undermine the credibility of drug education â?? and of the law â?? in the eyes of young people.
Against: Any government legalising cannabis would be sending out the message to society that intoxication is OK.
Once you start talking about legitimising the use of cannabis, you are sending out a signal to young people that it's an OK thing to do.
Ann Widdecombe
For: Cannabis is not a 'gateway' drug, leading to other drug use. Only a small proportion of those who use cannabis go on to use heroin. Although it's true that most people that use heroin have previously used cannabis, they have also previously used tobacco and alcohol. No one suggests that tobacco and alcohol are 'gateway' drugs. Indeed, the fact that cannabis is illegal may be what leads some people to try heroin, because they are more likely to come into contact with someone who sells it.
Against: The 'gateway' theory cannot be dismissed so easily. Some people do progress from cannabis to other drugs, so the sensible thing is to try to deter them from using cannabis in the first place.
a political agenda
Whatever your feelings about the force of the various arguments, it's certain that the drugs scene has changed enormously since the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971. There has also been a great deal more research. But, with the exception of the recent relaxation of the laws on cannabis possession, governments have consistently refused to consider changes. Most UK politicians are anxious not to appear 'soft' on the issue.
Meanwhile, on the broader stage, what seems to drive international drug policy is not so much the health agenda we hear so much about, but the tangle of conflicting and vested interests of international diplomacy and geopolitics. The war on drugs is in many ways a political war.