LEGALISING DRUGS IS A SAFE OPTION

I can only imagine Steve Robertson was joking in his recent letter about
using the criminal law to deal with drug addicts. Not only does his
argument not stand up, he even completely contradicts himself in the space
of a few sentences. How can he claim that having a drug addiction does not
mean you can't know right from wrong, and then claim that government
control of class A drug supply would lead to more drug addicts killing
people "because they are so high on drugs they haven't a clue what they are
doing"?

It's commonly assumed that government control and taxation of the drug
supply would lead to more addicts and more overdoses, but the research
shows that levels of drug use are completely unrelated to the application
of the criminal law. As the tragic case of the young girl in Staple Hill
taking ecstasy showed recently, drugs are cheaper than ever and easily
available, even to the young. Sentences for dealers have only got tougher
in recent years, and still availability rises and prices fall.

Before heroin prescription was banned there were around 1,000 addicts in
the UK, now there are over 250,000. Are these signs of a successful
approach to drugs?

Government-regulated supply would also allow greater contact with addicts
to get them off their habit in a supportive environment rather than an
overcrowded prison.

Addicts with clean needles and a clean supply would no longer get the
infected veins and blood-borne diseases that are currently common place
and, most importantly, would have no need to commit crime to fund their
addiction.

As Mr Robertson so rightly points out, addiction to sex or chocolate has
not resulted in an old lady being killed for UKP5, while drug addiction
has. But which of these addictions are legal, and which is the odd one out?

Gez Smith,

St Werburghs.