WHY WE MUST THINK TWICE BEFORE LEGALISING DRUGS

Cocaine has scarcely been out of the news in recent weeks and tragic
deaths have led to calls in some quarters for drugs to be decriminalised.

The arguments are as follows: most of the problems attached to drugs
relate to the criminal gangs involved. If these were removed, the
drug content and purity could be monitored, gangland crime would be
redundant and the state would acquire revenue from the taxes.

In addition, users of "soft" drugs would not have contact with
traffickers and so would be less likely to be lured into "hard" drug use.

The impact of prohibition in the US is cited as a lesson that we
should learn from, when the ban on alcohol from 1919 to 1933
resulted in little change in consumption and the growth of gangs
around its illicit production and sale.

Those of libertarian persuasion have additionally contended that, if
people choose to harm themselves, then it is their own affair,
provided nobody else is harmed.

Appealing though these arguments are, they remain superficial and
poorly conceived.

Prohibition in the US occurred in the context of other bordering
countries, such as Mexico and Canada, not having any such
restriction, making the importation of alcohol easy.

There was little popular support for the measure and alcohol had
been a legal substance in most states before that, so the
restriction was new and unwanted.

Illicit drugs are of a different order, since they remain illegal in
almost all countries worldwide, for the very good reason that their
harmful effects are recognised internationally.

So nations are willing to put up with the problem of gangland
warfare, and even tragic deaths and illnesses, in order to protect
that which they see as the greater common good.

Some of the drugs now illegal, such as cocaine and opium, were for a
time legal after their initial discovery, but were then criminalised
when the associated psychiatric and medical problems were identified.

So, in asking the state to now make these legal, we are requesting
that it makes available substances that it knows cause harm.

The libertarian argument breaks down here, since those who are
damaged by drugs require treatment (even if nobody else becomes
addicted) and this impacts on the taxpayer.

Would doctors be excused if they refused to treat those who had
drug-induced psychosis? Or if they prioritised those whose psychosis
arose without a trigger over those whose illness was drug- related?

A further question that the anti-prohibition lobby have failed to
consider is which drugs would be sold legally -- would it only be
cannabis, or would cocaine and heroin also be available? Would the
quantity be restricted?

This would be difficult to support, since those who are addicted
need increasing doses to achieve the same effect -- otherwise
withdrawal symptoms develop, some of which are fatal.

Countries such as Holland, which have had lenient laws towards drugs
such as cannabis and "magic mushrooms" are now rethinking their
policies and have recently reintroduced some restrictions.

Instead of citing Holland as the model, libertarians fail to
pronounce on the Swedish policy of creating a drug-free society.

There, the consumption of drugs, including cannabis, is lower than
it was in the 1970s.

According to a UN report from February 2007, this appears to have
been achieved by a determined policy of "zero tolerance" to drug
abuse and the compulsory treatment of drug abusers, coupled with
harsh penalties for suppliers.

And this from the country that had the most liberal approach to
drugs in the 1960s, such as the infamous Stockholm Experiment in
which amphetamines and opiates were freely available.

Like Sweden, we may have to decide if we should provide free drugs
or be drug free.