Heartland

Am I the only one who finds the current political storm and media frenzy over MCAT depressingly familiar? Why, after almost forty years of prohibition, have the government and its so-called advisors failed to learn the singular most obvious lesson; that no product produced by the Black Market is safer? Banning MCAT won’t prevent misuse, all it will achieve is a lower quality product sold, in all likelihood, for a greater price. We’re dealing here with the fundamental issue of supply and demand; the billions of pounds poured into choking off the supply of drugs has failed miserably. Illegal drugs are now cheaper and more freely available than they have ever been. Why? Because of demand.
I don’t profess to have a magic bullet, but it seems to me the money would have been far better spent on education, rehabilitation and improved social conditions. Drying out a heroin addict and then placing them back into the same environment where they still have little or no prospects, their friends are users and they know the dealers is hardly likely to help them stay clean. Rehabilitation should involve more than getting the individual off drugs. It must actively seek to reintegrate addicts into society, to give them a job and a sense of self-worth.
But the truth is that problem drug users are really a minority when placed against the recreational user. Due to the increasing divide between rich and poor in the UK there are thousands stuck either in low paid jobs or without even the prospect of work who need a little something to numb the pain. Call me radical, but I’m of the opinion that this is unlikely to improve while an increasing number of children leave primary education without the fundamental ability to read or perform basic numeracy, or while we slowly slip back into a system where the right to higher education is based on wealth rather than ability.
I may be a left of centre liberal dreamer, but I happen to believe that in an industrialised nation such as ours every child should have the right to a decent standard of education and healthcare. That affordable and good quality housing should be available to all according to their needs, particularly for the young starting out in life.
How, in these dark days of recession, is this to be paid for? Let me see, perhaps replacing Trident isn’t such a priority. Perhaps maintaining troops in Afghanistan isn’t really making us safe in our beds at night from the bogeyman of terrorism. Perhaps decriminalising drugs and spending the money currently used to limit supply on improving health and education might be of some help.
As alcohol, tobacco and trans fats have long proved, people like their pleasures, however bad for them they may be. All you can do is educate them to the risks and ensure they have as clean a product as possible. Far as I’m concerned, it’s up to the individual what he or she puts in there body.

This has been a party political broadcast on behalf of common sense and human decency.

I’ll be with you throughout the run up to the general election, telling you what you need to know, not what you want to hear.

Wouldn’t it be nice if a few of our representatives tried the same thing?

Well said that man.

Richt On Don!

100 % seconded ... legalisation, prevention, controlled sales with a substance quality control... all of this would even create jobs ... ...

I found it particularly galling that when reporting the death of those two lads, they constantly blamed plant food/mephedrone. Not once did they link the deaths to the meTHadone and shed loads of alcohol the lads then went on to neck.

Having lost a friend to that leathal mix I know which one I feel to blame for their loss of life - apart from stupidity but the government can't ban that

Spot on, but I fear that in any competition against "BAN THIS EVIL DRUG" headlines there can only be one loser.

You're probably right, especially since the public debate on this issue has been given up for nearly a decade.

The attention shifted from the War on Drugs to the War on Terror ...

mh wrote:Spot on, but I fear that in any competition against "BAN THIS EVIL DRUG" headlines there can only be one loser.

As political platform I rather fear I would lose my deposit.

That said, we will currently be taking applications for the People's Republic of Don.

The War on Some Drugs (as it should more accurately be called) pours tens of millions of taxpayers' pounds into the coffers of law-enforcement agencies and the prison service. Were prohibition to be ended, a lot of the people that work in these fields would fear for their jobs. Law enforcement already has a (too) powerful political lobby; they would stoke up these fears and apply pressure against any sensible drugs policy.

Current drugs policy also pours tens of millions of users' pounds into the criminal underworld. The criminal underworld uses a proportion of this money to bribe and otherwise corrupt agents of the aforementioned law-enforcement agencies the prison service. It can't be a coincidence that (by all accounts) one of the easiest places to get hold of heroin in this country is inside one of Her Majesty's Prisons. The (admittedly small number) of corrupt cops and prison guards also have a vested interest in the status quo.

Prohibition has been proven not to work. It needs to end as soon as possible. We need to follow the Portugese model at least (complete decriminalisation) although I personally would go one step further and advocate outright legalisation. The taxation raised could be spent on treatment programs for serious addicts, while recreational users will be guaranteed a certain quality standard.

Legalisation would also have the benefit of reducing risk all the way up the supply chain: opium farmers in Afghanistan or coca farmers in Peru would not be forced to deal with paramilitary drug warlords, it might even be possible to set up "fair trade" schemes analogous to those currently in place for coffee, chocolate, etc.

But no. Our government seems to prefer a drugs policy that harms drug users and gives money to organised crime to one which helps users and could be used as a taxation base. Baffling.

Legislation looks set to be rushed through before parliament breaks up for the general election.

I have to say that I tend to waver between decriminalisation and legalisation.
Part of me thinks the availability of methamphetamine and crack cocaine isn't such a good idea, but if you start making distinctions where do you stop?
It could all become rather self-defeating.
As my learned colleague Mr Fiend points out, legalisation would generate large amounts of revenue - certainly far more than any rehabilitation/treatment of addicts.
Having pure product would also lessen the damage done to people's health.
In fact it would doubtless be far less than want we're presently paying for the treatment of alcohol and tobacco related illnesses, though admittedly that wouldn't go away.

It also has the added bonus of protecting children as drugs would be far harder to obtain below the legal age (dealers are no renowned for asking for proof of age).
Fears of "drug tourism" could be alleviated by simply making the products only available to UK nationals.

Sadly, none of the main political parties in the UK have the balls to face up to the facts and actually introduce a drugs policy that would actually lower the number of addicts and pose less of a threat to recreational user's long term health.

Basically advocates of legalisation or decriminalisation need to move the Overton window so that current drugs policy is seen for the mess that it is.

One way to do this is to try to plant the idea from my previous post: Current drugs policy harms drug users and gives money to organised crime; a more liberal policy could help users and be used as a taxation base.

markfiend wrote:Basically advocates of legalisation or decriminalisation need to move the Overton window so that current drugs policy is seen for the mess that it is.

IMHO, that would include first of all making visible the difference between recreational use and addictive use, because non-users
often foster extreme ideas of the effects of various substances, since they are steadily shown deterring pictures of addictive use ...

Good point.

I think perhaps it could be pointed out to the average non-user that they probably know plenty of users without even realising it:

"Your doctor injects himself with medical heroin once a month on a recreational basis. Is he a dangerous drug addict?
The receptionist at your office uses ecstasy once a week. Is she a dangerous drug addict?
Your Bank Manager uses cocaine three or four times a year. Is he a dangerous drug addict?"

Something like that?

Another part of the problem: the big "scare story" type anti-drugs message can backfire; if a young person is told "don't touch drug X because your neck will swell up like a balloon, you'll eat your own teeth and you'll cry so much you'll dehydrate", then takes drug X and finds that none of these things actually happen, they won't trust any kind of drugs advice -- including sensible drug advice.

markfiend wrote:Good point.

I think perhaps it could be pointed out to the average non-user that they probably know plenty of users without even realising it:

"Your doctor injects himself with medical heroin once a month on a recreational basis. Is he a dangerous drug addict?
The receptionist at your office uses ecstasy once a week. Is she a dangerous drug addict?
Your Bank Manager uses cocaine three or four times a year. Is he a dangerous drug addict?"

Something like that?

... ... sounds good, added by something like: and all these loveable and reasonable people are being criminalized ... ... ...

markfiend wrote: Another part of the problem: the big "scare story" type anti-drugs message can backfire; if a young person is told "don't touch drug X because your neck will swell up like a balloon, you'll eat your own teeth and you'll cry so much you'll dehydrate", then takes drug X and finds that none of these things actually happen, they won't trust any kind of drugs advice -- including sensible drug advice.

Depends, kids and youngsters are usually very well aware, who is trying to fool them and who not ...
it's the, say voting (and obedient) majority, rather, who just deny thinking about the issue in general, since they do not feel affected ...

However, the addiction factor is something that needs to be taken serious.

We have all seen alcohol and pharmazeutics addicts in superior positions mistreating their staff for decades without anybody to stop them ....

Because such issues are still sort of taboo within our culture ... except for those who work in this field ...

Which again is no wonder given general historical backgrounds like Don't let your right hand know, what the left one is doing ...

But alas, it's never too late for develpment ... ...

Another resignation from the ACMD only goes to prove my point.
The horror of living in a society where policy is dictated by The Sun's editorial line!


I'm seriously thinking I need to get myself elected.

IMO it's never too late to re-nationalise public transport and the utility companies and create state owned housing.

With regards MCAT I think that given the illegal status of drugs like MDMA, prohibition was the right thing to do. The legal status of the drug should not be different to its alternatives especially given the lack of knowledge about the possible effects. I've never done MCAT, my 'popping pills' phase was brief and ended years ago, but if I was to take some kind of stimulant I'd rather it be MDMA, which I hear this is seen as a cheaper more readily available alternative to. Of course ending prohibition would be the way to go but since this is obviously not going to happen I think equal status is reasonable.