COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE APPROACH ON THE PROBLEM OF DRUGS

IF ROWDY Yates, MBE, intended offence, he has succeeded in his aim. The
parents of Leah Betts have campaigned long and hard against drug abuse
since their daughter's death. To see the aftermath of her tragedy described
as something akin to a publicity stunt can only be profoundly upsetting.
What would Mr Yates prefer? That the image of Leah as she lay on a hospital
bed, attached to a life-support machine, failed to deter a single teenager
from attempting ecstasy? Shock tactics, as Mr Yates himself appears to
realise, have their effect.

Equally, however, the director of the Scottish Drugs Training Project makes
a valid point in his clumsy and insensitive way. Pictures of Leah Betts
aside, it is impossible to dispute that the government's response to the
problem of narcotics is unsatisfactory, selective and, too often, unthinking.

There is more to the issue of drugs than public outrage and publicity
campaigns. The father of Leah Betts, for one, does not need to be persuaded
on that score. In place of a uniform policy we have reactive "initiatives"
and simplistic rhetoric. In place of an understanding of the fact that
addiction embraces a wide range of harmful substances we have moral panics
over a few, well-publicised drugs. As has become increasingly obvious, the
approach is probably harmful and certainly counter-productive.

All of which makes the government's persistent refusal even to contemplate
a Royal Commission bewildering. If the problem is so widespread, and
official concern so great, why is a sensible debate on the relationship
between the law and drugs abuse prohibited? If education is the issue, why
fail to establish the facts? If police resources are limited, why can the
decriminalisation of non-lethal drugs not even find a place on the
government's agenda?

The "war" against drugs is being lost. It does no honour to the memory of
Leah Betts and others like her to refuse to reconsider our strategy.