REGULATION OF DRUGS IS HEALTHIER THAN PROHIBITION

Sir, What a refreshing change to hear such a well argued case for
legalising drugs ("The unwinnable war on dangerous drugs", January 15).

However, there is no evidence to suggest that legalisation would produce
poor results with regard to public health.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to show that drugs prohibition
has an enormously detrimental effect upon public health, particularly in
respect of injecting drug users. For instance, it was the HIV pandemic that
caused the Russian Federation to decriminalise personal possession of all
drugs in 2004. Added to which the Dutch, with a far more available source
of cannabis, have half the level of use compared to the UK.

The logical extension of the argument that prohibition increases public
health would lead us to prohibit alcohol and tobacco, and we know from the
US experience what the consequence of this would be.

We should legalise and regulate drugs precisely because they are dangerous,
not because they are safe. At any rate one has to wonder if an increase in
use is a price worth paying for the vast reduction in organised and petty
crime, street prostitution, street dealing, corruption, civil war, and
support for terrorist organisations that would result from the legalisation
of coca and opium based products.

It is parochial in the extreme to support the global prohibition of a small
selection of psychoactive substances (with all the attendant costs that
this brings, particularly to producer countries) to achieve a marginal
reduction in domestic drug use. At the least the government should
undertake an impact assessment of the costs (and benefits) of our
commitment to global prohibition and the alternatives.

Danny Kushlick, Director, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Bristol BS5 0HE