Pubdate: Fri, 15 Mar 2002
Source: Spectator, The (UK)
Copyright: 2002 The Spectator
Contact:  http://www.spectator.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1927
Author: Katie Grant

A FIX FOR THE MIDDLE CLASSES

Legalising drugs will help the well-to-do, says Katie Grant, but drive the 
poor deeper into despair

Bruce Anderson called in last week's Spectator for the legalisation of 
drugs, and his remarks were timely. In Scotland, Dr Richard Simpson, the 
Holyrood Parliament's deputy justice minister, has echoed Mr Anderson's 
sentiments, if not his solution, by drawing an official line under 
Scotland's 30-year war on drugs. 'The only time you will hear me use terms 
such as "War On Drugs" or "Just Say No" is to denigrate them,' he said. 
When Bruce Anderson, a glowering bull mastiff on a short fuse, and Richard 
Simpson, a gentle bearded collie with herding instincts, find common 
ground, something is clearly up. What is up, of course, is that both men 
have been upset by the images of the black and bloated body of a pretty 
girl killed by a bad heroin fix.

Doubtless both Mr Anderson and Dr Simpson -- and the LibDems, who have just 
called for the legalisation of cannabis -- will be congratulated by 
professionals who are fond of a decent spliff, toss down the odd E and have 
no wish to see their experimenting children turned into criminals. But 
their contributions, while worthy, ignore the great big difficulty that 
lies at the very heart of the drugs debate. Drugs are a class issue. If 
everyone were as clever and well-to-do as Mr Anderson, or as educated and 
thoughtful as Dr Simpson, we could legalise drugs tomorrow. Everybody would 
have an equal opportunity to take them or to resist them. The libertarian 
argument that forms the core of the legalisers' camp -- that the state has 
no place in regulating the private behaviour of individuals -- would be 
unanswerable.

Yet while flawless logic and consistency of approach -- the academically 
unimpeachable grounds on which Mr Anderson stands -- are splendidly 
appealing to those sneaking a post-glass-of-claret snooze behind copies of 
the Times in the Reform Club, they look quite different if you are sitting 
on a grimy copy of the Daily Record eating a poke of soggy chips in a 
bleak, rubbish-strewn stairwell on one of Glasgow's desolate peripheral 
estates. A mother watching her newly literate four-year-old spelling out 
'fuck the Pope' or 'Lesley's a f--- c---' from the graffiti which, along 
with used syringes and the odd condom, decorate the slide in the derelict 
park, will not be persuaded by Mr Anderson's solution to the drugs problem.

To many of the parents on Scotland's sink estates, the fact that the law 
does not work is irrelevant. To them, it is the one thing that stands 
between their children and the pusher. Take away the sanction of the law 
and they know, with almost religious certainty, that the drugs problem will 
get worse. To these women, legalisation is the path to hell, and they are 
already halfway there. They may well be open to debates about how the petty 
criminality that funds a drug habit should be dealt with, but they see 
debates about legalisation as being the middle classes at play.

Groups such as Mothers Against Drugs laugh when you say that at least the 
supply of heroin will be controlled if it is legalised. Controlled for 
whom, they ask? For the middle classes, perhaps, who would go to official 
outlets to get their fix. But the plight of the socially excluded, the 
underclasses, those whose chaotic lives suit street dealers perfectly, 
would be no better off. Drug barons, unwilling to give up without a fight, 
would simply undercut the official outlets using the existing networks. A 
UKP1 coin may not be much to a doctor's daughter, but it is a lot to a 
22-year-old on benefit. If using cheaper heroin meant taking a bit of a 
risk, they would think the risk worth taking, just as they go to a loan 
shark instead of to the bank.

This is how, in socially deprived communities, the current debates about 
drugs are seen: as the middle classes taking care of their own. So long as 
middle-class youngsters can take heroin, cocaine or Ecstasy safely 
(E-safety kits are very much in vogue at the moment), then the drugs 
problem will be deemed to have been solved. If the risks to their children 
posed by impure heroin are removed, Tory grandees and New Labour groupies 
will be satisfied -- particularly since, if the children of the well-to-do 
fall into addiction, they can always be sent by their parents into private 
rehab centres. Addicts from the underclasses will, of course, not be so 
lucky. Places on state-funded rehab or detox courses are few and far between.

Of course there is an argument that legalising drugs would cut crime. But 
is this not just a fudge that allows politicians and society, on the back 
of blissfully decreasing crime statistics, to ignore with clear consciences 
the underlying causes that lead to drug-taking on sink estates: lives 
bereft, generation after generation, of any meaning or structure, appalling 
living conditions, dismal, third-rate education, poverty of aspiration, 
moral turpitude and welfare dependency?

But perhaps this is the point. Who really cares if coarse, foul-mouthed, 
feckless single parent Karen McNumpty and her hideous boyfriend die in the 
gutter of a long-term heroin addiction funded by pimping and prostitution? 
If legalisation does not help them, so what? The unspoken thought seems to 
be that the important thing is to help others who are more deserving; 
others, indeed, such as Rachel Whitear, a middle-class girl whose 'sweet 
face sang of the hope and joy of youth', to quote Mr Anderson. She has 
elicited his sympathy in a way that Karen McNumpty -- graceless at 12, 
pregnant at 16, an addict by 19 -- never could. Mr Anderson thinks that 
legalisation might help girls like Rachel -- and indeed it might. But where 
does that leave Karen? Should a civilised society enact legislation that is 
really designed to help only one of its constituent parts?

By the age of 15, nearly all children in Scotland have been offered drugs. 
Some will swell the ranks of the 56,000 addicts already registered. Of the 
2.6 million offences committed each year in Glasgow alone, 90 per cent, 
according to police, are drug-related. One child in every 100 takes drugs 
before their 11th birthday. Clearly, a new strategy is needed.

But let us never forget that there are two worlds out there, one that 
operates through logic and consistency and another in which things are much 
more chaotic and complicated. Those pushing for the legalisation of hard 
drugs must not let their view of how things should be prevent them from 
seeing how things are. All middle-class parents want reassurance that, 
should their children take heroin, they will not die. All middle-class 
taxpayers want the crime statistics, and therefore their insurance 
premiums, to fall. But although our world is run by the middle classes, it 
is those whose lot in life is rather less comfortable who would bear the 
real brunt of moves towards the legalisation of hard drugs. They do not 
seem to be full of enthusiasm for the idea. As one addict, now on his 
second methadone programme, told me last week, and I paraphrase for ease of 
comprehension, 'Legalisation? What a joke. Christ! What planet are they 
living on? God, those bloody chatterers. They'll be the death of us all.'
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom