Posted by Cockney Robin | Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales and one of the UK's most senior police officers, will call for an end to "UK drug policy based on "prohibition"."(The Independent) His position:
If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence-based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of harms to society (The Independent)
This pragmatic view isn't likely to be popular with Gordon Brown or the Tories generally, though The Independent points out that there are 'persuasive voices' that will support Brunstrom's arguments. (The Independent).
He cites the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which criticised the Government for failing to switch to an evidence-based policy approach. The report also includes quotes from former home secretary John Reid, admitting "prohibition" doesn't work, and the Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, conceding "it drives the activity underground" . There is also supportive evidence from former Chief Inspector of Prisons Lord Ramsbotham, a retired High Court judge, and Scotland's Drug Tsar, Tom Wood. (The Independent)
As an opponent of prohibition, I find his arguments more persuasive than you might or than others at this blog do. I'm against the use of class A drugs by anyone, not being an alienated adolescent or member of any disenfranchised under-class with no hope of anything better, a reckless fool or self-serving hedonist, or mentally ill, but I don't think prosecuting users is 'socially constructive' as one of my colleagues at this blog likes to put it; and throwing suppliers in jail is like trying to treat a virus by killing off the little sods one by one. Chief Constable Brunstrom points out that Class A drug use costs the UK 17 billion quid a year and that 90% of the cost is due to crime. (The Independent) Furthermore, prohibition has created a crisis in the criminal justice system. (The Independent) It's expensive and time consuming and utimately bloody pointless---this is me talking here, not Chief Constable Brunstrom---to prosecute users for using. You can't control the human heart by throwing the body in jail, and it's stupid and pointless to go on trying (still me talking). Making illegal a commodity that many people--for whatever sad, insane, depressing, nonsensical, or self-serving reasons--- desperately want to buy simply drives the prices up (to the great benefit of the true criminal classes) and makes it more likely that the people who want the drugs will become criminals in order to get them. And the penalties can be harsh (not as harsh as in the US,but harsh: "The maximum penalty for possessing a class A drug is 14 years in prison while supplying it carries a life term." (The Independent)
Getting back to Chief Constable Brunstrom... He argues that by legalising and then regulating currently illegal drugs, the Government will "dramatically reduce drug-related criminality and will enable significant funds to be transferred from law enforcement to harm reduction and treatment procedures that are known to work." (The Independent)
Christ it's all so logical, so compassionate, so respectful of the fundamental human right to behave stupidly and self-destructively, so much better in every way than marginalising and criminalising and prosecutising (all right; I know) the pathetic souls who can't do without their cocaine and heroin that I can't imagine it will succeed.
And naturally I have some of the same reservations as Gordon Brown & company. Heroin and cocaine are dangerous. If they are made legal, wouldn't children such as my own child be at increased risk? I don't know that they would----though I do know that keeping these substances illegal isn't preventing children from getting access to them. And if the resources now devoted to throwing people in jail were devoted to treatment, wouldn't children who do start down this road have a much better chance of getting off it?
But never mind what I think. Britain has followed a policy of prohibition for several decades. Chief Constable Brunstrom considers the policy to be based on an unwinnable 'war on drugs' "enshrined in a flawed understanding of the underlying United Nations conventions, and arising from a wholly outdated and thoroughly repugnant moralistic stance." (The Independent) The standards by which drugs are classified has been said by the RSA Commission to be "indefensible." (The Independent) Those standards are "crude, ineffective, riddled with anomalies and open to political manipulation." (The Independent)
Furthermore:
- Illegal drugs are in plentiful supply and have become consistently cheaper in real terms over the years.
- The number of drug users has increased dramatically.
- rug-related crime
has soared equally sharply as a direct consequence of the illegality of some
drugs.
- The vast profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organised crime. (The Independent)
I'm consistently rather astonished at the degree to which remnants of puritanism survive in Britain, as I thought we'd shipped our Puritans over to you lot back in the day. We're not an especially moralistic people, I'd have said, so I'm not sure where the continuing fear of giving up trying to control other people is coming from.
LINKED:
Legalise all drugs: chief constable demands end to 'immoral laws' (The Independent)
Comments