Pubdate: Thu, 30 Oct 2014
Source: Independent  (UK)
Copyright: 2014 Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.
Contact:  http://www.independent.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/209
Page: 2

ADDICTED TO IGNORANCE

Let Common Sense Prevail When at Last the Commons Opens Itself Up to 
a Debate on Drugs

Few areas of public policy are as badly served by our political 
classes as that governing drug use. There is very little incentive 
for any politician even to suggest a rational approach to the 
problem. If the press doesn't finish off your career, then your 
political opponents, usually hypocritically, will use the supposedly 
maverick suggestion as a golden opportunity to smear and discredit 
you. If you happen to be a progressive sort, you will be dubbed "high 
on tax and soft on drugs" or the like, quite often by people who are 
even on the left themselves  people who should know better and who, 
in reality, but very privately, most likely share the same outlook.

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, and a few 
other brave parliamentarians are therefore to be congratulated on 
today securing the first Commons debate in decades about drugs.

It will be interesting, and heartening, to see how many of our 
elected representatives are prepared to speak up on behalf of 
constituents who have been so wilfully misled about the war on drugs.

It is no great surprise that Theresa May's Home Office has taken its 
time to publish the latest evidence on this "war". Mrs May is too 
careful a politician to allow herself to be rushed over such a 
radioactive topic.

So far as can be gleaned from a report that appears to have been 
suppressed, it suggests that there is no strong causal link between 
drugs consumption and the penalties for getting caught possessing, 
trading or using them. Well, we knew that. Like much of this kind of 
research, it accords with common sense and everyday experience.

We all know, most likely from direct personal experience, that the 
chances of being convicted of a drug offence are fairly slim, and so 
the scale of the punishment is correspondingly irrelevant. The 
chances of being apprehended, are, in turn, slim to nil. These 
substances, it hardly needs to be repeated, are lucrative to smuggle 
and addictive to their consumers, so it is no great surprise that the 
trade in them will be fairly resistant to the usual strictures of law 
and order.

The profitability of the drugs trade is directly the result of its 
illicit nature.

If it were liberalised the usual forces of competition would apply, 
and the drugs themselves could be more safely controlled and 
regulated to prevent adulteration and variations in strength, the 
causes of many an overdose.

Like alcohol and tobacco, they would remain dangerous and addictive, 
but like those drugs, those that are presently illegal, or at least 
some of them, would be controlled sensibly.

The addictive nature of drugs - an obvious point - is also the reason 
why harsh criminal penalties are ineffective. When a user craves a 
fix and their addled mind becomes distorted by the very drug they 
seek, the reasoning that would usually make a severe sanction 
effective as a deterrent becomes distorted.

Which brings us to the most important failing of the many we have 
suffered over drugs: the failure to see drug use for what it is - a 
health issue rather than a criminal one. Addicts are as varied as 
non-addicts, and each needs their own treatment tailored to them to 
help them beat their habit or at least manage it. They do not need to 
be hit with a criminal record and a jail sentence, neither of which 
are recognised medical solutions.

Again, as is a matter of common knowledge, a prison, with its 
thriving trade in illegal substances, is really the last place an 
addict should be sent. One day such obvious truths will be 
acknowledged. Until then, there will be more suppression of the hard 
truths about hard drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom