I suggest that any progress against those who peddle dangerous and illegal drugs is to be welcomed. So the claim by the Britain’s Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) that it is making serious inroads on the cocaine market has to be welcomed. However the BBC was quick to invite Danny Kushlick, of the drug policy think tank Transform, to posit an alternative view, namely that it might be best to make all drugs legal. It’s an odd counter-balance as one could equally argue that Soca and government could do MORE to combat the narcotics trade as opposed to suggesting nothing be done. Perhaps there may be a few at the BBC who take a liberal approach to drugs?
THE WAR ON DRUGS
Bookmark the permalink.
Danny Kushlick was an inspired choice to answer Soca’s ridiculous claims. What’s more, he accurately shredded the case against continuing the dangerous and lost ‘war on drugs.’
What was wrong with this story was the BBC’s naieve reporting of Soca’s ‘success’ in the first place. Soca discovered that; a) wholesale cocaine prices are up 25% but retail prices are not,and; b) street prices have remained the same but the produc
t is increasingly adulte
rated. These two phenomena are comprehensively exp
necessary or, by Occam’s Razor, wanted.
Now, as for the argument itself, as a father of two daughters, of course I don’t want them using drugs. But equally it’s perfectly clear that the ‘war on drugs’ doesn’t stop the drugs supply but does a) cost a lot of money and b) allows organized and violent crime to prosper at the terrible expense of our urban youth. I’d have thought it obvious that legalisation is the easiest way to get rid of the crime, even though not the drugs. Further, I’d have thought most responsible non-drug-taking adults could understand this argument. Mind you, having said all that, I still want Broadcasting House torn down and the ground it stood on sown with quicklime.
Sorry: comment got garbled. Point was, the 25% rise in ‘wholesale’ price of cocaine, coupled with the no price change/increased adulteration at street level is wholly and completed explained as the impact of the devaluation of the pound against major currencies. Obviously. It beggar’s belief that the BBC couldn’t spot this, but instead chose to swallow SOCA’s line about it being a victory in the war on drugs.
My favourite BBC twat Sheena Easton was spouting on about how terrible it was that Cocaine was being cut with other substances.
Poor beeboids. It must be terrible that Cocaine is so unreliable these days.
Oh and real classic. Nicki Campbell turned up at an awards ceremony last night wearing his wife’s clothes.
“An accident” he claimed.
Not being funny wouldn’t you know if you have your wifes 2 piece instead of you suit?
And people wonder why I call him the Queen of breakfast radio!!!!
Michael Taylor
Absolutely spot-on. Kushlick made mincemeat of the case for the continuing “war” on drugs. He pointed out that the illegal (ie non-therapeutic) drug trade is a $160 billion industry fully under the control of criminals and that rises in street price would only provoke more crime from addicts seeking more money for their next dose.
Although the drugs trade is a “market”, the price system acts in a perverse way because the demand of the ultimate consumers is price inelastic. Low prices attract potential addicts into consumption but high prices don’t necessarily push them out – they’re addicts after all.
SOCA’s line is swallowed (or snorted) because the BBC has decided that the argument is “settled” and that legalising – together with controlling and taxing – drugs is not on the consensual agenda: remind you of anything else on the BBC agenda? Mind you, having Kushlick on Today talking sense about drugs is the equivalent of interviewing Freeman Dyson concerning MMGW: it was a mistake – it won’t happen again.
Michael and Umbongo
Excellent comments, fully agree.
I too heard the gentleman in question and thought his comments well thought out and presented.
The problem is how do you “legalise” something that is accepted as harmful? Who do you get to supply it – Boots over the counter? We have the fine example of tobacco where the courts hold those supplying it liable for damages for the health consequences. Would the sale of tobacco be legalised today if it was currently illegal and we knew of the health problems associated with it? Effectively we are in a Catch 22 situation because no sensible plc is going to want to supply it and the law could not presumably condone supply via the present route such that quality is not maintained, “profits” are not taxed and tax and N.I. contributions paid by those involved.
If someone can explain who can or is likely to be willing to “legally” supply such drugs I would be interested to hear.
So as a result of a recession, the cocaine market feels the pinch. In steps soca with lots of spin to claim credit. LOL
When the recession is over, will we continue to “win the war”? I doubt it.
So are people suggesting that anything that can’t be controlled be legalised? What about child rape? That goes on. Perhaps we should legalise kiddie porn then?
Here’s a thought. Drag all the drug addicts and dealers into town centres every week and get some of our bushy bearded friends to behead them in public.
I wonder how long the drugs trade would last if a few thousands severed heads were stuck on poles in every town and village?
I’m not joking by the way.
There are plenty of Countries around the world where crime and the drugs trade is very low. They tend to be Countries where your head or hands get hacked off.
Martin,
This is always a divise issue but I line up much closer to your stance. I think illegal drugs ARE a menace and I don’t buy this “make it all legal and then it will get better” argument.
Gerald Brown –
We at Transform are currently producing a book that will look at all the different ways in which drugs could be regulated. It will be published by the end of November so we will have more answers for you then. If you are interested in what work we have already done you can check out our website
http://www.tdpf.org.uk
With reference to tobacco – smoking is falling and that is largely due to stricter regulation (not being able to smoke in pubs etc) and a lot of money being put into education warning about the dangers of smoking.
If drugs were legal and regulated by the government then all taxes could be directed into treatment, education and the NHS. Better than handing it over the organised crime and ‘terrorists’ surely?
Oh Martin, just when I felt our bromance blossoming…
What people do with their own bodies is their business. No government has the right to dictate to people on this issue.
Legalise it and tax it (if you must). Treat drugs as controlled substances similar to booze and cigs. If somebody is caught supplying a child with smack, lock the scumbag up for 30 years. If somebody steals to fund their habbit, lock them up and force them into a year of treatment inside, paid for by the tax on smack.
The whole ‘war on drugs’ is a joke. If anybody reading this blog wanted heroin, they would take heroin. It isn’t hard to come by – ask your local tramp.
IMHO the war on drugs is just another tentacle of our totalitarian masters.
There are other fish to fry in this debate and it’s to do with the timing of SOCA’s report being published.
SOCA is riven with competing factions.
This article in the Times alludes to the problem.
Failing Serious Organised Crime Agency to be overhauled.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6272391.ece
.
In April 2006 SOCA was formed from four other organisations and elements of three others.
Until March 2005, when I retired, I was employed in one of those organisations and could see, like most of my colleagues, the impending disaster coming.
Introducing red herrings like talking heads from drug charities who have no understanding of the strategic issues takes away from the real debate of government and Whitehall incompetence.
There is a midpoint between total war and total legalisation.
Declare drug addiction to be a sickness. Then operate a registration system where addicts convince a panel that they are addicted and can’t or won’t break the habit. Medically correct doses of the drug of addiction are administered by medical personnel to the the registered addicts when required.
Advantages:
*Limits the criminal elements in the drug trade to the point where it may become uneconomic.
*Drug addicts no longer commit crimes to raise drug money.
*Drug addicts receive their dose, and no more, on the spot avoiding a secondary drug trade as happened with Methadone.
*Less strain on medical facilities from overdose, infection and toxic additives as the dose administered would be medically pure.
*Less police corruption.
*Some drug addicts may be able to contribute to society (i.e. work) while receiving a daily fix (think of insulin dependent diabetics, as a model).
*Some drug addicts may conquer their addiction.
*Test projects may be conducted in a limited geographic area.
*Accurate figures on drug addiction and therefore on the relative success or failure of the project.
*Reduces the glamour but doesn’t eliminate the stigma of drug addiction thus dissuading at least some newcomers from drug experimentation.
*Ultimately may be the cheapest alternative to either war or legalisation.
Disadvantages
*No actual data that any of the above would work.
*What would Beeboids do without their cocaine?
I’m old enough to remember the pre-1960s drug regime in the UK which contrasted favourably with the then failure in the US. In 1962(?) there were about 600 registered addicts in the UK who were prescribed drugs by any doctor whose patient they happened to be. I also remember that one of the more unpleasant sights in London for teenagers at the time was to go to Boots in Piccadilly Circus around midnight and watch the addicts queue up so that their drugs could be dispensed just after midnight.
A few idiot doctors who over-prescribed “illegal” drugs (plus the usual moral panic in government) led to a complete overhaul of the system and led inexorably to the present position. The criminals who became involved involved couldn’t believe their luck since a business was thereby created where the drugs were effectively only accessible through them. Like good businessmen they set about expanding the business which effort, helped by the “anything goes” groovy crapola of the 60s, was amazingly successful.
I don’t know what the solution is but, whatever is being tried now, it ain’t working. A legal drug supply administered through the state (yes yes I know but maybe this could become one of the state’s worthwhile functions) would certainly remove a vast amount of income from criminals: if nothing else that would be a benefit of legalisation. However IMHO B-BBC is not the forum for a discussion of these matters – but our state broadcaster should provide such a forum as (probably by accident) it did this morning.
There are plenty of Countries around the world where crime and the drugs trade is very low. They tend to be Countries where your head or hands get hacked off.
4:07 PM
What – like Afghanistan?
DV – you dont really get libertarianism do you? It is just a flag of convenience. There are plenty here who do though, ask them – you might learn something.
Grimer: There is an argument for allowing some legal use of say Cannabis. But hard drugs have no place in society.
I could wipe out illegal drugs in the UK in 48 hours. Yes, there would be a lot of blood, severed head and hands lying around, but non the less it would be sorted.
We have spent far too long going soft on crime.
A question to all those who argue make drugs legal blah blah and they can be controlled. Do you really truly believe that? Cigarettes are legal but there is a widescale blackmarket for them. How about booze? So do you think that all the drug dealers today will just think ‘oh well, cant sell my drugs now might as well get a job at Tescos’? How about the supply of cocaine and heroin at source? Lots of very poor people who are routinely murdered if they dont play the game.
Drugs are generally more addictive than booze I believe. How many drinkers become alcoholics? How many drug users in comparison become addicts?
I have seen 14 yr olds selling drugs and are completely out of it and their whole world is lost. Even though most teens nowadays drink alcohol, not many of them are already lost in it.
“So are people suggesting that anything that can’t be controlled be legalised? What about child rape? That goes on. Perhaps we should legalise kiddie porn then?”
That’s a lurch into nonsense. Tell you what – how about we introduce Prohibition and ban tobacco.
____________________ “sniff”
corr blimey
I am certainly not a socialist. I am a conservative, but first and foremost a constitutional libertarian.
In other words I dont really care that much about the precise wording of any given constitution or really who controls or runs it. As long as it makes 100% certain that things in general are as libertarian in principle and reality as humanly possible or is practical.
It gos without saying that people like me are never going to be exactly happy with things in general, even at the best of times. However in times such as these, it takes a heart of steel, not to simply go for the painkillers and sleeping tablet solution. I personally went though the total despair pain barrier many years ago. Therefore absolutely nothing disappoints, surprises, or shocks me anymore.
Thus we get onto the subject of drugs and their criminalization or otherwise.
What we currently have, is the worst of all possible worlds.
Where the highly organized criminals and their servant politicians get rich, and tax payer funded security guards.
We get a criminalized section of our community, that otherwise would not have harmed a soul or stolen a dime. Prisons full to overflowing. So much so we don’t have space for the real crooks, like for example our entire political class, and other highly organized criminals like international illegal drugs importers, etc etc etc.
The establishment, very much in common with its mouth-piece The BBC, do not want currently illegal drugs made legal, neither do they want a properly orchestrated and effective prohibition.
What they want is the status-quo on this particular subject.
Which is to keep the price of recreational illegal drugs high, but not too high, and the cost to society and the tax payer, as high as can possibly be justified, and a fair bit higher then that.
Hopefully I have already explained why.
Atlas shrugged
“I could wipe out illegal drugs in the UK in 48 hours. Yes, there would be a lot of blood, severed head and hands lying around, but non the less it would be sorted.”
You need to take a chill pill old boy.
Seriously, if you outlaw a $160 billion industry, you hand immense wealth and power to the very worst people in the world. And we call this a policy?
Michael Taylr and the other folks who believe we should surrender the war on drugs should read the following article by Melanie Philips:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=622
It’s not a war on drugs though is it? It’s a war against our own people.
I have nothing against responsible people who can afford drugs taking them – toffs, tele-presenters, whoever – its their money its down to them. What I have a problem with is riff-raf who can’t afford drugs taking them, and making everyone elses life a misery due to having to rob and steal £100 a day every day, from us.
A clue how to deal with drugs came from the event a few years back when one morning there were bodies everywhere in the Kings Cross area, after some abnormally pure heroin got into the system, and some dealer wipoed out his entire client base. Replicate that across the country, and lo and behold, no drugs problem.
To Paul, Having read the Mel Philips article, I gladly join you in recommending it, as it is primarily a summary of how utterly and damagingly we have lost the ‘war on drugs’. I’m for protecting my children and others from the violence and organized crime which is the main product of the ‘war’. That’sall .
DV,
Drugs are a “menace” because they are illegal resulting in a crime wave.
Prohibition in the US created organised crime there and the illegality of drugs *is* no different in effect.
GBS
All drugs should be legalised. its about time we ended this farce.
for starters, those Afghan poppy farmers would start selling opium to us rather than the Taliban.
want to stop the terrorism? legalise drugs.
1960s when you could get heroin from your doctor – hardly any hard drug crime.
after the ban – drug crime goes through the roof.
Anyone with a brain can see that it hasnt worked. legalise it, tax it and if folks get caught up in it, make sure you have treatment programs. Banning stuff only makes the gangsters into millionaires.
and before anyone jumps on me – please cast your mind back to the reign of Queen Victoria.
late 19th century.
ZERO drug laws.
and we built an empire that conquered about 1/3 of the planet.
we survived for centuries without “drug laws”.. we can do so again.
I would legalise drugs to the point where there would be no restriction on them in any way. I would have them sold at cost + minimal margin from post offices to start with, and, when the market price had dropped, I would allow everyone and his dog to sell them.
This would remove the drug problem and the crime associated with the drugs almost over night!
If anyone can do any drug of choice at the same price as a bag of sweets, why would they want to commit crime to raise the money?
If it was so cheap, with a minimal margin, why would the criminal element want to be involved? They like high margin risks.
Finally, there is the issue of quality. That is where the companies who supply it make up their margins. If they have a higher quality, their brand would become stronger, which justifies a higher price – although, seeing the way the tobacco market has gone, I doubt there would be a huge difference between the top and the bottom of the market.
There will be a few saying that heath would be a concern. In true scientist mode, I would point out that the majority of deaths marked as drugs related tend to be due to abusing it – mainly through doing too much, which is a possibility with everything, even water (Lea Betts)! That is a question of education, not laws!
So – would the BBC be interested in pushing this idea? I doubt it, they like the idea of relaxed drug laws, but hate the idea of no regulations – this one could make a few heads explode!