LEGALISE DRUGS TO BEAT TERRORISTS

The UK government is considering reclassifying cannabis from a class
C drug to a class B drug, carrying higher penalties for using and
dealing. As an economist with a strong commitment to personal liberty
and responsibility, my preference would be to see all illegal drugs
legalised. The only exception would be substances whose consumption
leads to behaviour likely to cause material harm to others.

Following legalisation, the production and sale of these drugs should
be regulated to ensure quality and purity. They should also be taxed,
as are tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. Greater resources
should be devoted to educating the public, especially children and
teenagers, about the health hazards associated with the drugs; more
money should be spent on the rehabilitation of addicts.

Ideally legalisation should occur simultaneously in a number of
neighbouring countries, preferably at the level of the European
Union. When the Netherlands became an enclave of tolerance of drug
use, drug users from all over Europe congregated there.

The principle-based argument for legalisation is that behaviour that
harms others ought to be criminalised, not behaviour that hurts only
the person engaged in it. It is not the government's job to protect
adults of sound mind from the predictable consequences of their actions.

If the public is ill-informed about the consequences of drug taking,
there is an educational role for the state. Children should be
protected from drugs, as they are from tobacco and alcohol. So should
the mentally ill and mentally incapacitated. Parents should be
paternalistic, but when it comes to mentally competent grown-ups the
state should not be. It is not the responsibility of the state to
ensure our "happiness" - whatever that is. That is the road to a
Brave New World.

The argument that countries with publicly funded or subsidised
healthcare have the right to proscribe the use of drugs likely to
cause harm to the user is a ludicrous misuse of the concept of an
externality. Should we ban rugby because it is more dangerous than
tiddlywinks? If it is considered unfair that those who do not use
drugs end up subsidising the care of those who do, this is an
argument for the National Health Service to develop a policy of
discriminating among patients on the basis of how they have
contributed to their illnesses.

A pragmatic argument against criminalising drugs is that
criminalisation creates vast rents and encourages criminal
entrepreneurs to use violence, intimidation, bribery, extortion and
corruption to extract these rents. Another pragmatic argument is that
it is pointless to waste resources fighting a war that cannot be won.
The losing war on drugs wastes resources that could be used to fight
terrorism and other crimes.

Another important argument for legalising, in particular, all
cultivation of poppy and of coca (and their illegal derivatives) is
that this would take away a vital source of income and political
support for terrorist move-ments, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda
in Afghanistan, and Colombia's Revolutionary Armed Forces (Farc) and
various paramilitary groups.

The United Nations estimates that opium production in Afghanistan
grew to more than 6,000 metric tonnes last year with a value
exceeding $3bn. It is the origin of more than 90 per cent of the
world's illegally consumed opiates.

A significant portion of the profits flows to the Taliban, who act as
middlemen in the opium business. They combine extortion and threats
of violence towards the poppy farmers with the sale of protection to
these same farmers against those who would destroy their livelihood,
mainly the Nato allies and the Afghan central government.

Following legalisation, the allies in Afghanistan could further
undermine the financial strength of the Taliban and al-Qaeda by
buying up the entire poppy harvest. If a sufficient premium over the
prevailing market price were offered, the Taliban/al-Qaeda middle-man
could be cut out altogether, and thus would lose his tax base.
Winning the hearts and minds of poppy growers and coca growers is a
lot easier when you are not seen as intent on destroying their livelihood.

This proposal for legalising poppy growing regardless of what the
poppy is used for is much more radical than the proposal from the
Senlis Council to license the growing of poppy in Afghanistan only
for the production of essential medicines. The Senlis Council
proposal would not end the problem of illicit poppy cultivation
co-existing with licensed cultivation. With the illicit price likely
to exceed the licit price, the Taliban would retain a significant tax base.

Is legalisation of all opiates an integral part of the proposal that
the allies procure the entire poppy harvest in Afghanistan? Consider
procurement without legalisation. The allies would find themselves
each year with the largest stash of poppy the world has ever seen.
What to do with it?

The entire global medical demand for morphine, codeine and other
legal poppy derivatives could be satisfied - possibly even free of
charge. The global demand for medicinal opiates at a zero price would
greatly exceed the current medicinal use of opiates, since many
developing countries are either in effect priced out of the legal
market altogether or are, for budgetary reasons, restricted to
purchasing inadequate quantities that leave widespread, unnecessary
suffering among poor patients. Supplying the world's demand for
medicinal opiates free of charge would create economic problems for
the current licit growers of poppy for opium, in Turkey, India and
elsewhere; well-targeted develop-ment aid could address this issue.

If poppies could not be profitably turned into biofuel and if opium
and heroin remained illegal, the rest of the allies' poppy stash
would have to be destroyed. This would drive up the street price of
opium and heroin and create even more massive rents for the remaining
suppliers. Poppy growers would try to withhold poppy from the allies'
procurement round in order to sell it later in the illicit market.
The Taliban would retain a tax base. Legalisation is crucial for the
success of this squeeze play on the Taliban.

If opium and heroin were legalised, the allies' stash could be sold
to regulated producers/distributors of opium, heroin and other
formerly illegal poppy derivatives. Our chemical and pharmaceutical
industries, and indeed our cigarette manufacturers, would be
well-positioned to enter this trade. The profits made by the allies
on the sale of the stash could be turned over to the Afghan
government. It surely makes more sense for the government to tax the
poppy harvest than for the Taliban to do so.

So legalise, regulate, tax, educate and rehabilitate. Stop a losing
war, get the government off our backs, beat the Taliban and deal a
blow to al-Qaeda in the process. Not a bad deal!