A HARDLINER REPENTS

The International War On Drugs Is Lost

Ten years ago Sir Keith Morris, the British ambassador to Colombia,
was a firm believer in the war on drugs being waged by the US with
the support of Europe against the drug barons of Latin America. Ten
years on he has concluded the war, which still continues, "is
unwinnable, costly and counter-productive".

In his article today, he describes the devastating effects which the
drug war has had on Colombian society, but also recognises the
cultural change which has taken place towards recreational drugs in
the developed world. He wants a new debate about how drugs could be
controlled more effectively within a legal framework.

More controversially, he rules out decriminalisation as "an
unsatisfactory halfway house because it would leave the trade in
criminal hands, give no help at all to the producer countries, and
would not guarantee consumers a safe product or free them from the
pressure of pushers".

The debate which Sir Keith wants to spark will be welcomed by many
people in the drug treatment world.

The international war against drugs has always been as doomed to
failure as the domestic war played out on British streets.

The criminal syndicates are too well dug-in, the profits too
enticing, and the demand from consumers too widespread for effective
criminal sanctions.

More serious still, even if President Bush's father had succeeded in
ending the Colombian drug trade, that would not have resolved the
problem. Given the resources available to the multi-billion pound
criminal industry, it would not have taken the traffickers long to
produce some synthetic substitute. As Ben Whittaker noted in his book
The Global Fix over a decade ago: "We can no more hope to end drug
abuse by eliminating heroin and cocaine than we could alter the
suicide rate by outlawing high buildings or the sale of rope."

Sir Keith would like to explore some form of legalisation. There are
strong arguments, which rightwing journals such as the Economist and
Sunday Telegraph were pushing as long ago as 1988: the failure of
successive wars on drugs over 20 years; the criminalisation of young
people; the contamination of drugs which unregulated trade by the
criminal underworld allows; as well as an increase in crime by users
needing to pay high prices for an illegal product.

Legalisation would improve the purity of the products and offer the
chance of taxing the producers to provide more resources for
treatment.

But there are equally strong arguments against.

Legalisation would increase addiction, offer fewer incentives to stop
taking drugs, and multiply the damage that is already being wreaked.

Remember, many addicts want to stop. The harm which crack, cocaine
and LSD cause is serious. Moreover, addicts are not just hurting
themselves, but others too: in road accidents, passing on the habit
to others, loss of family income. There are also serious problems
raised by international law. As a signatory to international treaties
dating back to 1920 but including three separate UN conventions
(1961, 1971, 1988), the UK is obliged to make trafficking a criminal
offence.

Moreover, legalising hard drugs, would not stop criminal syndicates
producing alternative illegal substitutes.

Yet, as the Police Foundation's independent inquiry into our outdated
current laws noted last year, international law allows considerable
leeway on how domestic law deals with users.

This is where the debate could begin.

The government's response to last year's Runciman report was
pathetic, rejecting 24 of her recommendations. But that was before an
election. Viscountess Runciman's report, which reordered the
classification of drugs by modern analysis of their harmfulness,
would be a useful starting point.

It could move on to make the possession of certain drugs - cannabis
for a start - legal.

The current lord chief justice floated just such an approach in 1993.
It is time the debate began.