WILL LEGALISATION WITH THE WAR ON DRUGS?

Dear Danny

I suppose you do not deny that legalisation of cannabis would lead to
greater use? Certainly this was the case in Holland. By saying that it is
now all right to smoke cannabis without fear of arrest, the government is
effectively saying we are no longer taking the problem of cannabis
seriously, which means more people, especially the young, trying it, which
in turn means more going on to hard drugs, more cases of cannabis psychosis
and more crime to feed the habit. No wonder the World Health Organisation
has condemned the move. It will be easier for the dealers too because there
is no law of substantial possession so, no matter how much cannabis you are
carrying, you cannot be arrested even if it is obvious that it must be for
supply. How dumb can a Home Secretary get? Yours, Ann

Dear Ann

The government is reclassifying cannabis and has made it very clear that it
is not decriminalising possession and certainly not legalising its supply.
This is a mistake. Reclassification takes us into a legal grey area that
could well benefit dealers. The sensible route would be to legalise cannabis
and put in place appropriate regulation. This would not only put criminal
dealers out of business but would allow the government to control
availability, price, strength and health information on packaging, thus
helping to protect young people.

There's little evidence to suggest drug laws have significant impact on
levels of use. Cannabis use has increased in all European countries since
the 70s, including the UK, which now has one of the highest rates in Europe
and nearly twice as many young people using it as in Holland. A common-sense
policy would accept the reality of drug use and manage it effectively, so as
to reduce the harm it causes to users and the communities they live in. This
means legalisation, regulation and education, not the criminal free-for-all
we have now, or the muddled compromise being pushed through by David
Blunkett. Danny Kushlick

Dear Danny

I am glad you agree that the reclassification policy will benefit the
dealers. However, I do not accept that legalisation is the answer. Do you
really suppose the drug dealers will just go home to tea? They will instead
put all their efforts into peddling hard drugs, which is where their profits
will then lie. If you look at the figures following legalisation in
Amsterdam you will see that BOTH soft and hard drug use rose. Is that what
we really want here? When I went to Amsterdam I was told endlessly that the
UK should be wary of following their example.

The real truth is that we have had no serious war on drugs for many years.
Mayor Giuliani had a real impact in New York. The statistics show that
illegality still acts as some sort of barrier and once that is lost we can
never go back to it. Yours, Ann

Dear Ann

I support the regulation and control of all currently prohibited drugs
through licensed sales, prescription and pharmacy sales. We expect this to
happen by 2020, partly to reduce the opportunities that the war on drugs
creates for criminals and unregulated dealers. And no, current dealers won't
just go home for tea. But should we inadvertently gift them the drug market?
Why not criminalise tea and they can sell it as well as drinking it?

Using the US and Holland as examples of good and bad policy seems a strange
choice. In Holland the average age of heroin users is near 40 and rising, in
the UK it is under 25 and falling. The US war on drugs costs around $40
billion a year: they have 1.5 million drug arrests a year, more drug
offenders in jail than the entire prison population of Europe, and still one
of the highest rates of drug use in the developed world.

Successive UK governments have been deeply committed to a global war on
drugs that has destabilised most of Latin America, Afghanistan, the
Caribbean and brought mayhem to every major city in the UK. When we
eventually control and regulate drugs, no one will want to go back to the
chaos and anarchy that prohibition has brought. Best, Danny

Dear Danny

You have either misunderstood my point about Holland, which was that there
was a correlation between soft and hard drug use following some degree of
legalisation, according to studies carried out by the University of
Amsterdam. As for licensing the sale of all drugs, including heroin and
crack cocaine, I can think of nothing more irresponsible. You might well
argue that it would benefit the seriously addicted (although that does not
mean I accept the argument), but what about the first-time user? Are you
going to supply him with such drugs and thereby license the creation of a
drug habit? If so you are horribly complacent; if not, you leave the drug
dealers with a market anyway.

The point I made about the US was extremely specific. It was about the
impact Giuliani had in New York. The same approach is not applied everywhere
in the US, so taking the wider figure is simply dodging my argument. Thank
heaven Blunkett has not gone as far as you want to go; and are you going to
answer my observation about the views of the World Health Organisation?
Sincerely, Ann

Dear Ann

Looking forward to you responding to my points too - here goes. Use of drugs
has risen in Holland but is still at a lower level than in the UK, which has
the highest levels of use in Europe. Use would probably rise
post-legalisation, but the question is: do the benefits that accrue from
legalisation outweigh the costs? No drug is made safer left in the hands of
unregulated dealers, but, under the prohibitionist regime, first-time users
get their drugs from them. Your argument is based on the idea that
prohibition protects people when, in fact, it does the opposite. Were my
daughter ever to decide to use drugs, I would prefer that she could get them
from a regulated source. And I agree with the WHO that all drugs (including
cannabis) can be dangerous, but I also believe that legal control and
regulation makes them safer.

The impact that Giuliani has had in New York has been at the expense of
civil rights and has further marginalised drug users and the poor. I believe
prison does not work, in direct contradiction to the views of a colleague of
yours, whose name shall not be uttered, but who has "something of the night
about him". Sincerely, Danny

Dear Danny

I can see no benefits arising from legalisation. You have already admitted
use would rise. That means more at risk from the effects of cannabis and
more going through the gateway to hard drugs. Meanwhile, you want to
legalise hard drugs as well and seem to admit that use of those would rise
too. If use rises following legalisation, then the inescapable logic is that
criminalisation does act as a barrier and does protect people who would
otherwise get drawn into drugs.

Once you have legalised - or even merely decriminalised - you cannot
reinstate prohibition, no matter how harmful the effects may prove to be. A
huge industry and employment would grow up around cannabis and hard drugs,
as it has around cigarettes and alcohol. Evidence is emerging at a fairly
rapid rate that cannabis is not the harmless substance it was once thought.
When I was young, ordinary tobacco smoking was not even universally accepted
as addictive and its dangers were only partly understood - no one had even
heard of passive smoking. I would not like to think that 30 years hence we
might look back and say: "If only we had known, we would never have
legalised this."

The surest way to avoid that likelihood is to continue with prohibition,
make a more serious attempt to enforce the law and continue to educate
people about the consequences of drug-taking.

I have enjoyed our exchange but our only view in common appears to be the
comfort the home secretary is about to give to drug dealers. Yours, Ann

Dear Ann

I have nothing but respect for your willingness to debate an issue that most
of your colleagues have denied is even taking place. However, I am
disappointed that you can see no benefits arising from legalisation. History
teaches us that no commodity has ever been successfully prohibited. When use
reaches the level that it has, the negative consequences of attempted
prohibition are catastrophic: crime, corruption, civil rights abuses, social
exclusion. Successive governments should be ashamed for being so unwilling
to question the prohibitionist regime. Let's get the sham of
reclassification out of the way and begin a big conversation about dealing
with the poverty and lack of opportunity that underlie problematic drug use.

In 30 year's time we will look back and say: "If only we had known, we would
never have prohibited this."

Sincerely, Danny

Ann Widdecombe MP is a former Home Office minister; Danny Kushlick is the
director of Transform, the campaign for effective drug policy.