CRACKING THE PROBLEM

Will Legalisation Win The War On Drugs?

Ann Widdecombe And Danny Kushlick Try To Smoke Out A Solution

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