WAR ON DRUGS HAS ALSO BECOME A WAR ON FREE THINKING

THE war on drugs has failed. That is the stark and uncompromising
conclusion of the Global Commission on Drugs Policy, which reported
last week. The Commission, which comprises a stellar line-up of
international leaders, argues it is time to accept that the "war"
launched by President Nixon 40 years ago has been lost. Not only have
the supply and consumption of illegal drugs continued to rise
inexorably, but the social and financial costs for governments and
families the world over demand radical new thinking.

This matters in Scotland. Our problems are statistically worse than
England, Ireland, Finland or Denmark. We have pockets of extreme
deprivation where drug abuse is most damaging. Our most commonly used
drugs are cannabis (one in three of us will take it at some point),
followed by cocaine and ecstasy, which are both also increasing in
usage. We also face the problem of how to tackle the controlling hand
of organised crime, and the global market which makes that task so
hard. Up to 60,000 children in Scotland (one in 20) were estimated in
2000 to experience a drug problem with one parent or more. The
problem is international but the impact local, and often deeply personal.

Remember too that the cost of "problem" drug use every year in
Scotland is UKP2.6 billion. In these financially troubled times,
that's a big number.

The Scottish Government launched a new strategy in 2008 with the
emphasis on recovery - in other words, giving those with a drug
problem the tools to break the cycle of decline. That strategy
contains an impressively holistic approach, looking at everything
from the Curriculum for Excellence in schools to job creation and
service provision.

But as useful as all of that is, this new report is dealing with
matters on a much bigger stage. This is about challenging the whole
concept of criminalising those who use drugs. It is about accepting
that drug use is a permanent feature of our 21st-century world and
therefore trying to deal with the worst aspects of that through a
more realistic approach. "Zero tolerance" now has zero relevance.

Instead, the principle urged upon the international community is of
ending the criminalisation of those who use drugs but do no harm to
others. The Commission produces evidence that the costs - social and
financial - of incarcerating millions of people are massive, and does
nothing to restrict or reduce the flow of drugs. It argues that
turning a blind eye and focusing those resources elsewhere is now the
imperative. Bold stuff.

But there's more: the Commission wants governments to experiment with
different models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine organised
crime, particularly as regards cannabis.

It also wants to offer a greater variety of treatment - not just
methadone but heroin-assisted treatment programmes such as those used
in Canada.

For many, these proposals will be offensive. They will provoke anger.
They will draw accusations of raising the white flag and of weakness.
Governments around the world have already rushed to condemn. But in
doing so they make the Commission's point entirely. The problem
around the world is precisely that lack of thought. There is no
honesty and no desire to challenge the orthodoxy which has so palpably failed.

Some of the examples cited by the Commission must give pause for
reflection. For example, what about the heroin substitution programme
in Switzerland which reduced property crime by 90 per cent? Or the
approach to medically prescribed heroin in the Netherlands which has
delivered the lowest percentage of people who inject heroin in the
EU? What do we think about the reduction of heroin use in Portugal
after the controversial decriminalisation of the use and possession
of all illicit drugs in 2001? Each of those is deeply controversial,
but aren't any worth a second look?

The serious response is to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by this
Commission and to start from first principles working our way through
the legal and moral maze. Do we accept that there will always be a
market for illegal drugs, and if so, why is it wrong to seek to
regulate that in an effort to protect users and diminish the power
and wealth of organised crime? What in that new landscape are the big
public policy objectives? Should we legalise all drugs, and if not,
which ones and why? That's the real debate, so why can't we have it?

Mainly the silence is because this issue is a guaranteed vote loser
which brings only the certainty of dividing opinion. Remember Dr
David Nutt, the former government drugs adviser sacked for daring to
think outside the box? Or what about the hurried reversal by New
Labour of a decision to reclassify cannabis to a class C drug? This
timidity has to end - it is simply offensive that the failure of our
drugs policy over generations has become a no-go area of radical debate.

In Scotland, of course, we have the added anomaly of Holyrood
controlling policing, criminal justice and the courts (which allowed
previous successful initiatives such as drug courts) but not drug
classification and regulation of offences and penalties. Clearly that
must change.

Much less clear is whether any future Scottish Government would use
new powers to challenge some of the old certainties which have failed
too many for too long. It's time for the war on drugs to become a
battle of ideas.