For years I've been hoping that we could have a common sense discussion about drugs in this country, but the trouble is no politician dare start it. Well, not one with any commonsense or a career to think about, hence my heart sank when I heard Bob Ainsworth MP of all people daring to put his head above the parapet last week in an interview with James Naughtie on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme.
A lot of what he had to say I agree with, but why, oh why did it have to be this former deeply uninspiring Defence Secretary? Under some reasonably gentle questioning it was obvious Bob hadn't really thought through the consequences of his general hypothesis that the War on Drugs was completely futile and decriminalisation was a better route. Now this is a huge topic and deserved something rather better than this half-baked 5 minute interview. I know it will be the subject of a Westminster Hall debate, but even so.....
Of course all Bob has succeeded in doing is getting the right wing press over-excited, as with Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph. I try not to read such stuff because it only gets me very annoyed, but I was pleased to read a comprehensive dismantling of Heffers article by Jackhart on his blog here. The sad fact is that the changes made to legislation in the 1960's and which removed drug issues from GP's and the medical profession have been a complete disaster and pretty much resulted in the massive crime wave of the 1980's. For years shoplifting has been synonymous with drug addiction and all the effort put into treatment regimes based on methadone prescribing have failed. The present government have conceded the latter point, signalling an end to 'maintenance' methodone prescribing, but are completely unrealistic in thinking addicts can be persuded to come off everything quickly.
Part of a better answer lies in experiments authorised by the last government into trials involving a return to the prescribing of heroin under medical supervision. If this sounds uncannily familiar, it is and mirrors success in places such as Switzerland where evidence shows addicts are far more likely to make a transition to a drug-free lifestyle under such a system of phased withdrawal. For some though it might mean a maintenance 'script for heroin, but again evidence shows such people can often hold down jobs and carry on with settled lifestyles. There are none of the serious health risks associated with street drugs such as cutting agents and the ever present risk of an unintended overdose with unknown purities. Finally of course, all of the activity is legal, regulated and most importantly beyond the scope of criminal involvement at any stage.
Even this doesn't solve all the problems though. There would remain the issue of how experimentation could be handled. Sophisticated drug gangs are not just going to throw the towel in and go back to other less lucrative activity like extortion or prostitution, they would put renewed energy into recruiting young users and that must remain a big concern. Having said that, most so-called drug dealers that have come my way are in fact people heavily addicted themselves and fund their use typically by supplying small groups of friends and associates. The only real suspected 'Mr Big' that I've ever dealt with was for violence and he never got any conviction for drug-related offences. So much for the 'War on Drugs' and I suspect this is not atypical.
I have deliberately not addressed cannabis here because I'm completely with Professor Nutt in reminding people how vastly more harmful alcohol is. Throughout my career I have never written a report concerning an act of violence committed under the influence of cannabis. There are some dangers of course, but as a society lets tackle the main issue, not the side show.
Like any other aspect of criminality, times and values change. We used to regard sheep stealing as serious and would impose hanging, or if one was lucky, transportation as the sentence. We have moved on. We generally recognise that those with an addiction need society's help. This cannot be delivered by Big Jim up the pub, but by doctors, social workers, probabtion oficers or similar structures. The Swiss have very successfullly regained the control of addicts from criminal gangs. Why can't we even try. Our approach with long term methadone, regularly traded on the streets anyway, has clearly failed. Why is it better for an individual to be habituated to methadone rather than heroin? Surely, the aim has to be to get the individual off everything. Or am I missing something here?
ReplyDeleteWell I think the point I'd make is that since the dawn of civilisation man has been interested in mind altering substances. It just so happens that subsequent societies have decided to make alcohol legal and others illegal. We know that alcohol is fine if used in moderation. Some people might choose to use other substances in moderation also if it was prescribed or decriminalised and regulated.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I don't always comment (or at times agreed), I do read your blog every day (or between OASys reviews). Congratulations on another well written piece.
ReplyDelete