A reflection on Chris Davies' drugs policy by Simon Davey, as appearing in 'Liberator' Sept 2005.

11.20.56am BST (GMT +0100) Fri 19th Aug 2005

I write to you in the wake of comments by Chris Davies, Member of the European Parliament for the north-west of England and the former Scottish Procurator Fiscal David Hingston, who have called for all drugs to be legalised. They have inevitably faced criticism for expressing these views, but I fully and openly support them. I share their views because the current war on drugs is ineffective and is harming drugs users and the wider communities. I have set out below my arguments and hope it goes some way to fuelling debate on this thorny but immensely important issue.

Just as the end of alcohol prohibition in the USA in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies, the legalistion of drugs could have similar effects, once we provide the murderers and robbers with their drugs, they will no longer wish to kill or rob us. Not least because they will be regulated and legal. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge in the USA, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake".

Current drug law enforcement is costly and ineffective. To begin with, law enforcement officials are spending considerable amounts of tax money on the crusade against drugs. Steven B. Duke, an Edinburgh academic, comments that the current drug war costs upwards of £4billion a year and £2billion from property losses of crime victims. Over £100billion were spent on the war on drugs from 1980 to 2002. The National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse reported that in 1990 six million citizens were steady illegal drug users, double the estimate taken in 1980. The expensive drug war has certainly not reduced drug addiction.

Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross, both Edinburgh academics state that more than half of the cost of law enforcement in the UK is associated with drug-related crimes and that drug enforcement is not self-sustaining. In 1991 the government's drug cash and property seizures totaled just £1million; the government spent £22.5million on drug programs that year. In addition, taxes are high because of the increased police protection.

Not only is the current enforcement costly, but also the great wealth leads to the corruption of police, judges, and elected officials. Law enforcement resources are being diverted as well, especially in the current heightened security environment. The police are unable to deal with serious threats because drug arrests and related crimes use up police resource and energy. If drugs are legalised the police will be able to protect society from real criminals, such as the gangs currently making money from the drugs trade. Drugs users need help and advice, not to be treated as criminals.

News stories tell us that many courts and prisons are overcrowded. The U.K. has the second highest prison population in Europe. Drug convictions caused an 80 percent increase in prison population from 1985 to 1995. In 1990, 52.6 percent of prisoners were drug-related criminals, while in 1996, 59.6 percent were drug-related criminals. Violent offenses decreased from 18 percent in 1990 to 12.4 percent in 1996. Property offenses decreased from 14 percent in 1990 to 8.4 percent in 1996. Most drug offenders were non-violent. The UK population grew by about +25% from 1980 to 2000. In that same 20 year time period, UK prison population grew to over +300% (tripled). The funds needed to build prisons fast enough for more space is not available. To make room for drug users and dealers, violent criminals are having their sentences shortened or are being paroled early. With legalisation, more room should become available in existing prisons for dangerous criminals.

In addition, the legal sale of currently illegal drugs would raise tax revenue. Legalising and taxing marijuana would be a huge benefit to the nation's economy. The new taxes would be similar to those from gambling and from alcohol. Taxes raised from drugs could be ploughed in to anti-drug education programmes and ensuring the legally sold drugs are pure and not mixed with the often dangerous substances with which current street drugs are.

Also, legalisation would reduce the profits of drug dealing. The illegal drug business is very profitable since the price of a product increases when it is made illegal. Whenever there is a great demand for a product and government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand. Yearly drug trafficking earnings average to about £60billion and range as high as £100billion a year. Marijuana is the second largest cash crop in the USA., after corn. For example, revenues from drug trafficking in Miami, Florida, are greater than those from tourism, exports, health care, and all other legitimate businesses combined. The UK illegal drug market is one-twelth of the total world market, making it the third largest illegal drug market in the world. Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Policy in the United States mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our (US) streets and the streets of towns a cities worldwide". Additionally, drug dealers show off expensive jewellery and clothing to young children in our inner-cities. Some of these children are interested in making fast money instead of working on legitimate jobs. Drug legalisation would help remove the glamorous Al Capone-type traffickers who are role-models for the young in many European cities.

Furthermore, if drugs were legalised, drug addiction would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. By selling drugs in registered clinics or stores, the government would be able to maintain control over drug sales. As with alcohol, the Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs would guarantee purity. Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross conclude that drug legalization would result in a reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose. Producers and traffickers currently sell more concentrated, more deadly, and more addictive drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. They are also often mixed with substances such as washing powder or pot ash. Legalisation would allow users to use more pure forms. If drug purities were standardised and clearly and accurately labeled, the likelihood of a person accidentally overdosing would be much less than it is under the present regime. Administration of clean needles would lessen disease transmitted by drug abusers, including AIDS. Pregnant women with drug problems would receive better prenatal care.

United States Judge James P. Gray, an advocate of drug legalization, believes that the only way to solve a progressively unsuccessful war on drugs is to decriminalise it and make it a health issue. Currently, it is difficult for drug users to ask for help or seek treatment because of the criminal status of drugs; drug abuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled criminals and go to prison—with almost no hope of therapy or rehabilitation—while the excessive users of the powerful drug alcohol are considered sick and given help. The government provides very little funding for drug treatment, resulting in the abuse of addicted people. British police imprisons one drug abuser for more than £150 per day, but ignores the need of the user. Convicted addicts without money have to wait at least four months for therapy. Treatment is available for only about 15% of the nation's drug addicts. Recurrently, judges have to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines when prosecuting drug users.!

Drugs cannot be used for medical purposes because of prohibition. Cannabis is a Class C drug, which means that it has no accepted medical uses. The benefits of its use include easing the pain of terminally ill patients. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea.

The Netherlands treats drug use as a health problem, not a criminal problem. Because of the country's decision, treatment for drug addiction is widely available in the Netherlands. In Amsterdam 75 percent of heroin addicts are on treatment living virtually normal lives. HIV infection rates among injective drug users in cities like Amsterdam has dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent and is now one of the lowest in the world.

When the cost of drugs increases, drugs users commit more crimes in order to obtain money to buy the expensive drugs. Legalising drugs would make drug prices fall. Poor addicts would be capable of honest work and would not commit criminal acts to support their habits.

Some consider the war on drugs, at least in the United Kingdom, to be a war on some drugs...and some drug users. Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalise black people more harshly and more often than other ethnic groups, and to penalise the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes. The belief that "hard" drugs such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences than "soft" drugs such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. Not surprisingly, the majority of offenders convicted for selling crack are poor and/or black, while the majority of those convicted for selling cocaine are not. In addition, the convention of selling crack in heavily patrolled neighborhoods makes crack dealers easier targets for arrest than cocaine dealers, who tend to operate in private areas, such as dance clubs and university campuses. If this does not demonstrate that antidrug laws are useless in themselves (so the argument goes), it shows that they are clearly being implemented inequitably.

The United Kingdom's "War on Drugs" has added considerably to political instability in South America, Central Asia and parts of the Middle East. The huge profits to be made from cocaine are largely due to the fact that it is illegal. This drives people in the relatively poor countries of Colombia, Peru and Brazil to break their own laws in organising the cultivation, preparation and trafficking of cocaine to the UK. This has allowed criminal and paramilitary groups to reap huge profits, exacerbating already serious law-and-order and political problems. Coca farming has been practiced for centuries in Andean countries, producing coca leaves which are then chewed for their mild stimulant effect. Many of these farmers' livelihoods (whether or not they are supplying the cocaine trade) are destroyed by UK sponsored herbicide spraying, usually by air.

Furthermore, the sale of the illegal drugs produces an influx of money that is outside the formal economy, and puts pressure on the currency exchange keeping the pound low and making more difficult the export of legal products.

I realise that some of the points I raise will be considered unsavoury by many, but as Chris Davies MEP stated in his recent press release:

"A legalised but regulated market would put the emphasis on harm reduction and undermine the criminal element. Unfortunately most European governments are in a position of insisting the Emperor has got his clothes on."

Mr Davies and Mr Hingston, well done for speaking out on a strong belief and realising that sometimes principle must exceed party policy.