Dear All
Every now and then, the press run a story where someone such
as an ex police man, ex president or other former official says that the war on
drugs is “completely lost and unwinnable”. It is true, the war was lost right
at the start but it did make a few people very rich indeed. When you consider
the other ‘war’ fought and lost on alcohol, such as prohibition in 1920’s, it
didn’t last long because quite clearly it was seen as a waste of time. The ‘war
on drugs’ is a politicians war, to be seen to be doing something to ‘protect’
society from harm. The problem is that this gives them a purpose, a mission and
something to talk about to justify themselves.
Why do people take drugs, well you could say it is the same
reason they take alcohol, to get a ‘high’ or if you prefer get stoned or get
wrecked. Selling drugs is a profitable business and always will be under the
current setup.
So how do you win the war on drugs?
Make it legal.
You might say is that it, well simply put, yes, make it
legal and tax it, take the tax money and plough it into health, into
infrastructure and rebuild society and people. If you look at Miami , Florida ,
this is a place that was built on drug money; dealers bought condos and
invested in property.
Imagine the number of social houses and flats that could be
built by the tax from drugs?
Jim Duffy, a retired Strathclyde Police officer who now
works for Law Enforcement Action Partnership UK, told MPs at Westminster ’s Scottish Affairs Committee that
the Misuse Of Drugs Act had been an “out and out failure” and said that a
radical rethink is needed.
People love the word ‘radical’ in politics, but making drugs
legal isn’t radical, it is simply a progression towards a more enlighten
approach. Imagine the time saved by the police and courts being cluttered up
effectively chasing something that by a simple act of parliament can be made
legal.
People that want to take drugs will do so regardless if they
are legal or not, just as there is a ban on tobacco advertising, the same could
be done with drugs. We already have legislation in place for people who drive
and take drugs, but we could go further, people in certain professions could
like cyclists or athletes be randomly tested. In this case, I think doctors,
dentists and other similar professionals where judgment could be impaired
should be used as a safeguard.
The biggest obstacle to winning the war on drugs is
politicians, no governing party tends to want to be seen as ‘weak’ and
opposition parties due to the nature of politics see this as a lever to attack
their oppenents.
Hence nothing is done!
What Duffy is suggesting is that by moving towards
decriminalisation of drug use, such as countries like Portugal which did so in 2001,
control can be taken away from criminals.
Crime is a business to these people, and cash flow is
important, by bankrupting the market by making it legal, the cost to risk ratio
becomes a failed business model. The current Misuse Of Drugs Act has been in
place for 48 years and has been an out-and-out failure. But the economic cost
to the State is the point worth noting in terms of time, and in terms of
revenue which could have been collected. Imagine 48 years of legalised and
taxed drug money flowing into the public purse?
This would be a sea of money!
Duffy added:
“Lives are being saved all over the world, in Canada and
America where they’ve legalised it in certain states, there aren’t the same
number of fatalities. When you see what they’ve done in Portugal and what they’ve done in Switzerland ,
there aren’t the same number of people dying.”
This type of evidence doesn’t stir Scottish politicians because
we have a morally bankrupt and un-ambitious political class who have a herd
mentality and are risk averse. So, they sit there taking evidence and do nothing,
not showing leadership but occasionally doing a piece meal job.
Much like someone putting a toe into a hot bath to test the
water but this has been going on for 48 years and more.
Recently a six-month drugs operation across Edinburgh resulted in 95 arrests and the
seizure of £1.2m of narcotics. Most of the people arrested will be the local
dealers probably selling out of their dingy wee flat making a couple of quid
which they blow on rubbish. Maybe a 65” TV, designer trainers, some gold rings,
watches, clothes, some splashing out on a car with alloy wheels and a big
exhaust which makes a racket.
One of the ‘toes in the water’ ideas is that of drugs
consumption rooms, as I said above, the piecemeal approach. Martin Powell, from
the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, said that allowing for the creation of
drugs consumption rooms, such as that proposed in Glasgow ,
could allow Scotland
to explore whether deregulation could be beneficial. There were 934 drug
related deaths across Scotland ;
this is the highest since records began in 1996. Under current UK legislation, it would not be legally possibly
for such a facility to be set up, with the UK government required to give
approval.
Of course given we have a hostile SNP Government unable to
work quietly and jointly with the UK government, and that probably
includes the back channels, we might not even see the idea of drugs consumption
rooms piloted. Powell put the idea this way:
“So, no big bangs, no sudden shocks to the system – a very
careful, cautious, evidence-based approach.”
But the idea needs to be expanded, yes, a drugs consumption
room is a help, but a facility that just does that is doomed to fail, there
needs to be more to it, it has to be a hub where chaotic people can get help in
other aspects of their lives. A place that doesn’t come with a stigma built in
with the bricks. A place of help and also recovery, the amount of people who I
see in wheelchairs minus a leg after drug abuse is shocking in Glasgow .
Finally, Duffy said:
“What we’re currently doing, by prohibiting it, does not
work. So we need to change what we are doing, we need to take it away from the
criminals and bring it back under control.”
Make it legal, tax it and plough the money back into services.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
4 comments:
Look at Colorado with cannabis. The crime rate and the unemployed figures are down.
My brother suggested I might like this blog. He was once entirely right.
This publish truly made my day. You can not believe just how so much time I had spent for this info!
Thanks!
[1/2]
Anonymous wrote about Colorado legalising cannabis and seeing both crime rate and unemployment decrease. But not according to this 2018 article:
‘Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has two facts in front of him: Since 2014 crime has been rising in his state, outstripping the national trend, and since 2014 recreational use of marijuana has been legal.’
(Colorado governor won’t rule out banning marijuana again. Here’s why. McLean, Scott & Weisfeldt, Sara. CNN, 20 Apr 2018.)
And that ‘unemployed figures are down’ might be because they’re totalling themselves in fatal RTAs:
‘Colorado’s traffic fatalities where the driver tested positive for the active form of THC known as Delta 9 more than quadrupled from 18 in 2013 to 77 in 2016, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation.’
(Ibid.)
I’m not seriously connecting decreasing unemployment with RTAs but it illustrates that Colorado is not the unalloyed success story some would have us believe. California is also not seeing the claimed benefits:
‘A billion dollars of tax revenue, the taming of the black market, the convenience of retail cannabis stores throughout the state—these were some of the promises made by proponents of marijuana legalization in California.
One year after the start of recreational sales, they are still just promises.’
(Now for the Hard Part: Getting Californians to Buy Legal Weed.’ Fuller, Thomas, New York Times, 2 Jan 2019.)
See also: The Failed Promise of Legal Pot. James, Tom. Atlantic, 9 May 2016.
The experiences of the above States stem from their decriminalising or legalising cannabis; but our host’s article refers to ‘drugs’ not ‘cannabis’ so legalising all narcotics seems to be being advocated. Heroin, steroids, everything? I’ll not comment further on that aspect without clarification.
It is difficult to gauge the success or otherwise of narcotics prohibition as we do not enforce it with particular zeal. E.g. Metropolitan Police Inspector Paddick admitted his gay lover smoked cannabis in their shared property—a police Inspector allowed someone to possess and use a Class B narcotic (possession of which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both) and suffered neither criminal prosecution nor hindrance to his career. Paddick also unilaterally implemented decriminalisation (Parliament & Law be damned) of cannabis in Lambeth—see ‘Softly softly’ cannabis scheme drove up hospital admissions for hard drugs, study. Bingham, John. Daily Telegraph, 5 Apr 2013. E.g. we give methadone to prisoners to wean them back onto drugs before release. E.g. in 24 months ending Dec. 2018, there were 73,244 convictions for drug offences, with 36% given a community sentence, 10.1% suspended, and a mere 22% custodial. (Table Q1.3, Overview tables, Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: December 2018, Ministry of Justice). This is not serious prohibition.
One cannot judge a law ineffective when it is not properly enforced.
[2/2]
I wonder if increasing calls to legalise or decriminalise various narcotics by our Political Class (e.g. William Hague, Corbyn, Lib-Dem 2017 manifesto, etc.) is actually the next stage of Sam Francis’s description of Late Western Society as ‘anarcho-tyranny’. Just as Prison Officers often turn a blind eye to narcotic use amongst inmates, as with no adequate means of enforcing prison discipline, it’s better that inmates are in a semi-permanent narcotic stupor; so as Late Western Society turns into an ‘open-air prison, perhaps our politicians likewise prefer us inmates to stew in narcotic stupor, à la Huxley’s Brave New World, lest we notice how much they’re screwing us.
I recommend Notre Dame professor Patrick J. Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed (2018), a critique of both modern (l/w) liberalism and of ‘classical’ (r/w) liberalism and thus has drawn qualified praise from both Left and Right, l/w reviewers relishing his criticisms of ‘classical’ liberalism but taking issue with his criticisms of modern liberalism, and r/w reviewers vice-versa. The first three pages or so of the introduction are available here. He describes how Western liberal society has a very different concept of liberty from Ancient Greece and Rome: the Greeks and Romans believed in freeing individuals from the slavery of their appetites; liberalism redefined liberty to mean being free to indulge those appetites. While the Greeks and Romans counselled Climb the mountain!, liberalism counsels Scarf down that gallon of ice cream and BECOME the mountain!
We should be encouraging people to make the most of their lives, to as far as possible fulfil their potential; not encourage their enslaving themselves to base appetites, be it addictions to narcotics, food (‘fat acceptance’), carnal desires or anything else.
Another reason to read Deneen’s book is that, in his questioning the Whig principles underlying Western Society, it could not be more timely in light of increasing ‘populism’, manifested by phenomena such as Brexit, Trump, le Pen, etc. We live in interesting times (in the Chinese curse sense): the post-1789 Left–Right divide is disappearing. Brexit (issue and party) is one symptom showing that the political divide more resembles David Goodhart’s ‘Somewheres’ v. ‘Anywheres’ (The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics, 2017): the ‘Somewheres’ attached to their community, ancestors, tradition and nation; in contrast to the Anywheres with no such loyalties, and best described by Sir Walter Scott.
Post a Comment