|
|
| A Tsar Abdicates |
|
Posted by FoM on August 05, 2001 at 07:52:13 PT Editorial Source: Daily Telegraph 
Keith Hellawell's tenure as "Drug Tsar" ended ignominiously last week. It was not a success. When appointed by Tony Blair in 1997, Mr Hellawell, who retired as Chief Constable of West Yorkshire to do the job, promised that he would cut the number of people who used cocaine and heroin in half by 2008. By 2001, he had failed to make any significant progress. Drug use, especially among teenagers, has actually gone up over the period he was in charge. The number of addicts is rising, not falling. Every indicator suggests that drugs are now a more pervasive feature of our society.
Mr Hellawell's appointment was a typical example of the only strategy Tony Blair seems to have for tackling social problems: appoint someone to a "special role", give them high-profile coverage in the media, create unrealistic expectations of what they can do - and then walk away when nothing changes, leaving the appointee to take the blame. That's what Mr Blair did to Keith Hellawell. In 1999, the second year into the reign of the Tsar who was to "transform" Britain's relationship with drugs, the Prime Minister announced at the Labour Party Conference a new drugs policy: everyone arrested would have a mandatory drugs test. Mr Hellawell had not been consulted about the adoption of a policy his only strategy document had pointedly avoided advocating. Predictably, the result of Mr Blair's personal initiative on drugs was the same as all the others: nothing. The Prime Minister's fondness for "eye-catching initiatives with which I personally can be associated" has not helped the development of a sensible drugs policy in Britain. Because cannabis is not a substance Mr Blair wishes to be "personally associated" with, it took him no more than a few moments to dismiss the advice contained in Dame Ruth Runciman's Report for the Police Foundation, which suggested that possession of cannabis should no longer be an arrestable offence. Cannabis, as Dame Ruth pointed out, accounts for a disproportionate amount of police time, diverting money and manpower away from the much more important battle in the drugs war: containing the use of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Those drugs pose a much greater threat than cannabis, which, in the context of the havoc wreaked by crack cocaine and heroin, is almost a social irrelevance. Decriminalisation or even legalisation of cannabis use would have no effect, for instance, on the crime wave caused by heroin addicts stealing to fund their habit - which, in some areas, may account for more than two-thirds of all property crime. It would have no effect on the colossal wealth and corrupting influence of the drug barons, most of whose profits come from the supply of hard drugs, or on the scores of murders that are committed in the attempt to control those drugs' supply. Legalising cannabis - as opposed merely to not arresting cannabis users - would of course be impossible whilst Britain remains a signatory to the 1971 Single Convention on Narcotics, and the two UN treaties which follow it, both of which ban signatory states from acting in any way which might further the manufacture and distribution of narcotics. It might also have some extremely undesirable consequences. One would be that Britain would become the centre for the drugs trade: not because more people would use hard drugs if cannabis were legal, but because drug barons naturally congregate where the legal and policing regime is most congenial to their trade. If the case for the decriminalisation of cannabis use is at least arguable, not even the libertarian wing of the Tory Party is seriously considering decriminalising heroin and crack cocaine. That leaves two alternative policies for dealing with hard drugs: either more vigorous policing, with longer and more ferocious punishments for drug dealers, or greater attempts to educate children about the dangers of drugs. The United States has tried draconian punishments - drug dealers can face life imprisonment, users can be sentenced to 20-year terms - without any noticable success: the numbers using drugs continues to climb relentlessly upwards. A more vigorous approach to drug education is, of course, precisely what Mr Hellawell was trying to achieve. His attempts failed to have any effect on drug use. Government pronouncements constantly suggest that some new "eye-catching initiative" will deal with drug use in Britain. But there is no solution to the problem of drug use, and it is frivolous and fraudulent to delude the public into thinking that the Government is on the verge of finding one. Like terrorism or cancer, drug use is something that can only be contained, not eradicated or "solved". To achieve even that modest goal, however, requires a seriousness of purpose on the part of the Government. So far, however - as Mr Hellawell's experience shows - that has been completely lacking. Source: Daily Telegraph (UK) Related Articles: Drugs Tsar Rejects Cannabis Decriminalisation Drug Czar Attacks Cannabis Debate CannabisNews Articles - UK Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #1 posted by Forest Gump on Crack on August 05, 2001 at 20:40:49 PT |
| if you were to make hard drugs legal, they would be cheap and pure, and addicts wouldnt have to rob to fund their habits. Drug addiction only becomes a problem when the addict cant afford drugs. Look how many rich cocaine (and an increasing number of heroin) addicts there are. Its not the drugs themselves that cause problems, its only that they are illegal, which makes them impure and expensive. But try and explain this to the average person and they completely dismiss completely valid and practically indisputable facts. The long arm of the United States has the drug policy of practically the entire world in its icey grasp...The hold is gradually slipping though. I say we need to cut the hand off. Light up and Live [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |