ONLY CRIMINALS GAIN FROM DRUGS BAN

A DISTURBING trend has emerged in relation to recreational drug use
in Ireland and the State's response to it.

It appears that a new hard-line approach has been adopted towards this issue.

The U-turn on caution rather than prosecution for cannabis possession
and the prohibition of magic mushrooms represent a step backwards in
that it will do little apart from criminalise otherwise law-abiding
citizens. Both of these substances are natural; they are plants that
grow in the ground.

From a philosophical point of view, there is an element of King
Canute in the idea that humankind can ban a plant. Will the State
prosecute landowners if this nefarious fungus is found growing on
their property?

The furore surrounding Trinity College's research on ecstasy-users
defies logic.

How can we understand the long-term effects of this synthetic
substance if we do not investigate these effects? Surely a study that
may yield valuable data on the physiological, neurological and
psychological effects of this substance is to be welcomed, not condemned.

Debate continues within the scientific community as to the possible
harmful effects of cannabis and mushrooms. For instance, the argument
that cannabis use can lead to psychosis may have a degree of
validity, but this is not a proven fact.

What is beyond dispute is that humans have been using these and other
drugs ritually and recreationally for thousands of years and the vast
majority of recreational drug users do not suffer adverse consequences.

Conversely, the prohibition of certain drugs results in a situation
whereby supply is in the hands of criminals who will bulk up the
substances with all manner of fillers, so greatly increasing the risk
to the health of users. I am not so naive as to believe that
recreational drug use is a risk-free and harmless activity, yet the
matter of personal liberty and freedom over one's own body must be
taken into account.

Does the State have the right to tell citizens what they can and
cannot put into their own bodies? The patent failure of
prohibitionist policies to reduce, let alone eliminate, illicit
recreational drug use suggests that State interference in citizens'
personal lifestyles is a fruitless and costly activity.

Resources wasted in this moralistic crusade might be better employed
in assisting people through educational and public health programmes
targeted at reducing the harm associated with drug use.

Due to the potentially harmful effects of psychoactive substance
(used until death), debate on this matter can be fuelled more by
emotive reactions than rational analysis.

One would not wish to cause distress to the families and friends of
people who have died from drug-related causes, yet the argument that
the prohibition of certain drugs might save lives is spurious given
the availability of illegal drugs and the near impossibility of
cutting off supplies.

The issue can also be exploited politically because to be seen as
tough on drugs is a potential vote-harvesting strategy. Neither of
these reasons, however, forms a valid basis for the formulation of
policy in this area.

It seems now that the various organs of the State are implementing a
'mammy knows best' approach to this area of social policy and, in so
doing, are driving drug-related problems further underground, wasting
garda time and resources, criminalising drug users, and maintaining
an Orwellian interest in the personal habits of citizens.

Pat Leahy, Department of Applied Social Studies, University
College, Cork.