Source: The Economist Magazine
Contact: http://www.economist.com/

Britain: Shopping for a drugs policy

Britain's Labour government wants to do a better job of tackling the problem
of illegal drugs. How about legalising them? COPYING other countries'
successes can be a good idea. Copying their failures is daft. But that seems
to be the British government's intention when it comes to the problem of
illegal drug use. Two weeks ago, Tony Blair, not for the first time going
where America has gone before, invited applications for a new post of drugs
"tsar", to take charge of cleaning things up.

On the same day, in a blatant bid for streetcred, Mr Blair welcomed Noel
Gallagher, star of the rock band "Oasis", to a Downing Street party for some
of Britain's performing artists. It was Mr Gallagher who famously said that
taking drugs was "like having a cup of tea in the morning".

Nobody has accused Tony Blair of putting a spliff to his lips, let alone
inhaling. But the contrasting signals sent out by these two events suggest
that his thinking on the issue is at least as muddled as that in the White
House. Neither the British prime minister nor the American president wishes
to be seen to be "soft on drugs", but neither gives the impression that, in
his heart of hearts, he actually believes there is much wrong with them, at
least when used by the successful. What troubles them_quite rightly_are the
drugsrelated problems of the inner cities.

The drugsrelated murder this month of a fiveyearold child in Bolton has
led to calls for Mr Blair to adopt a very different policy on illegal drugs
to America's. Brian Iddon, one of the town's Labour MP s, has called for a
Royal Commission to consider drug legalisation. Several of his colleagues
agreed. Moreover, the Liberal Democrats have long advocated a review of
drugs law, and several prominent Tories have shown a desire for fresh
thinking_most notably Alan Duncan, the party's new chief spindoctor, who
has argued with vigour for drug legalisation. A growing number of the "great
and good", from police chiefs to church leaders, want a new approach, too.
This suggests that there now exists an opportunity to build a crossparty
coalition for change strong enough to defeat the failed prohibitionism
hitherto supported by most ordinary Britons.

Any debate on drugs law should start with a fundamental question: why are
some drugs illegal in the first place?

The usual answer is that illegal drugs are illegal because they are
dangerous. The figures, though, do not really bear that out. The danger
varies widely from drug to drug. The least risky is cannabis, which has
never been shown to have killed anybody (indeed, it is widely canvassed for
its medical properties, see ). The most dangerous are opiates (ie, heroin
and methadone), which kill about 1.5% of their users each year, according to
London's Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence. Tobacco kills 0.9% of
its users each year and alcohol 0.5% of them. Ecstasy, about which there has
been huge controversy, kills 0.0002% of its users each year. A motorbike
journey is three times as likely to kill you as taking a tablet of street
ecstasy and_astonishingly_flying on a civil airliner is oneandahalf times
as dangerous as dropping an "e".

A second response is that illegal drugs are addictive, and so the rules
about freedom of choice do not really apply: legalise them and millions of
people might become hooked, suffering longterm damage to their health
(particularly their brains) even if they do not die as a result.

There is some truth in this_at least for opiates_but no more than for
alcohol and nicotine, which are both notoriously habitforming. The
physiology and psychology of addiction are imperfectly understood, but if
addictiveness is truly the criterion for a ban, then booze and cigarettes
should be banned, not cannabis and ecstasy.

A further argument is that drugtaking is not a private matter, but has
social consequences. True, again_but not enough to justify the current list
of illegal drugs. The National Health Service has to cope with many
accidents and diseases that are largely selfinflicted (not least from
tobacco and alcohol). Those caused by illegal drugs are a small fraction of
them.

Against these arguments, the case for legalisation comes in two parts: the
ideological and the pragmatic. In principle, in a free society, people
(adults, at least) should not be prevented from doing something if it does
not harm others. If they harm themselves, provided that they have not been
deceived into doing so, that ought to be their problem, not the state's.

The pragmatic case is multifaceted. First, prohibition has failed. Over 60%
of British 2022yearolds say they have used an illegal drug, almost half
of them in the past three months. Even the Draconian antidrug laws in
America have not stemmed the flow of drugs. Why not try a new approach, if
only as an experiment?

Legalisation would, if accompanied with suitable regulations, result in a
safer product. Many drugrelated deaths and injuries are caused by the use
of adulterated materials or, more rarely, stuff that is stronger than the
user realises.

And legalisation would stop the police and Customs & Excise from wasting
time and money chasing users and traffickers. It could cut Britain's prison
population by up to 10% at a stroke by ending the imprisonment of those
convicted of possession or dealing. By cutting the price of drugs, it would
mean fewer crimes caused by the need to pay the current inflated prices
(although, almost certainly, lower prices would mean more drug use, too).
Reducing the risks and profits that proscription brings to traders might
eliminate the violence that often accompanies drug dealing.

As well as the money saved from not having to enforce antidrug laws_£500m
($780m) in Britain last year_the drug trade would provide a source of
revenue for the government. Fourfifths of the price of a packet of
cigarettes is tax, and so is 60% of the price of a bottle of whisky. Similar
levels of taxation would no doubt apply to newer entrants to the legal
recreationaldrugs market. Customs & Excise seized more than £500m worth of
smuggled drugs in 1996 (and several times that amount are thought to have
got through), and around £250m worth of ecstasy was sold in Britain last
year. Even though legalisation would bring the price down, tax revenues of
between £500m and £1 billion might be realised.

It is possible that the world would be a better place if nobody took
anything that could harm them. Failing that, the leastworst outcome may
well be one in which most, if not all, of the popular recreational drugs are
legally available, and where people understand the risks associated with
them, just as they (supposedly) understand the risks of alcohol and tobacco.

Getting there would not be easy, and the journey should be undertaken
gradually. Ideally, the established regimes for alcohol and tobacco would be
replicated, with licensed salesoutlets and minimum ages of purchase. For
synthetic drugs such as ecstasy, licensing manufacturers to ensure the
purity of their products would be wise.

The question of product liability would be best left to civil law. The
balance between caveat emptor and caveat vendor would have to be slugged out
in the courts, as is now happening with tobacco. But, beyond making sure
firms keep to the terms of their licences (particularly on the question of
sales to children), the government could reasonably leave well alone.

Initially, the new licences should be restricted to cannabis and ecstasy, as
these are the most widely used and also the safest substances. There would
also be a wider consensus supporting this limited action because many of
those who argue for legalising "soft" drugs do so in the hope that it would
stop people coming into contact with street traders who peddle the more
dangerous materials. If the experiment worked, it could be extended.

Such gradualism would also allow for a necessary shift in attitudes, so that
currently illegal drugs come to be regarded in the same light as their
cousins, tobacco and alcohol. Both of these substances have wellestablished
conventions for their use, and these conventions limit their social
sideeffects. Nosmoking areas are accepted as legitimate by most people.
Drinking in the morning is usually frowned upon. Driving under the influence
of, say, cannabis, would have to carry the same stigma (and sentence) as
driving under the influence of alcohol. Such shifts in etiquette have
happened before_the introduction of cigarettes changed many of the
conventions that surrounded the smoking of tobacco.

Legalisation would certainly be a leap in the dark. There would be
unpredictable consequences as well as predictable ones. But that does not
argue for doing nothing, or talking tougher. Tony Blair wants to make his
mark on a wider stage than that provided by Britain. Why not show the world
that the best way to deal with drugs is to topple the tsar and embrace
freedom?