cannabisnews.com: Make Love Not War 





Make Love Not War 
Posted by CN Staff on May 21, 2002 at 21:05:42 PT
Leader: MPs plot a new approach to drugs 
Source: Guardian Unlimited
Like many other decent and developed nations, Britain has spent the past 30 years fighting a war on drugs against an enemy it has never fully understood. It has been a well-intentioned war, and it would have been wonderful if it had been crowned with victory. But it has not been. On the contrary, by almost every yardstick, the war has failed. Those who make policy face a genuinely difficult question. Do they go on fighting a principled but ineffectual campaign, or do they accept the war is unwinnable, and choose the least worst way of living with the existence of harmful drugs? 
Politicians are afraid of being thought soft. So the MPs of the home affairs select committee deserve real credit for being the first serious politicians in decades to break the drugs policy taboo. The report they publish today is neither soft-headed nor reckless. It acknowledges that drug policies that centre on enforcement will not succeed. It faces up to the reality, which many non-users are uneasy about, that different drugs cause different degrees of harm and that most drug users stop of their own accord as they get older. And it concludes that harm reduction, not retribution, offers a more effective way of dealing with drugs. In that spirit, the MPs' key conclusions are that ecstasy should be reclassified downwards and that the highly structured prescription of heroin should be attempted, but that legalisation, though not unthinkable, would be simply too dangerous. The government, headline fearful, has already rejected the new report as too radical. Decriminalisation supporters, too blind to drug harm, will damn it as too cautious. Both responses are gloomy echoes of old failures. The MPs will get a bad press, but they are facing the world as it is, not pretending it can be perfect, and for that they deserve wide support. Related Article: Why We Said Said No To Legalisation...and Yes To a Rational Drugs Policy Based on Harm Reduction By Chris MullinDrugs policy is an area where most British politicians fear to tread. For although it is widely recognised that existing efforts to combat illegal drugs have failed, there is an absolute difference of opinion among experts of every relevant profession - doctors, police and social workers - as to what should be done. Opinions, all advanced with equal passion, range from the argument that prohibition has failed and should therefore be abandoned, to the argument that all drugs are harmful and existing bans should be tightened. The same division of opinion is reflected internationally. Countries such as Sweden maintain a hard line against all forms of drug abuse, while Switzerland and the Netherlands are moving cautiously away from law enforcement towards harm reduction. All three countries maintain that their policies are successful. Witnesses to the select committee I chaired who argued that all or most illegal drugs should be legalised included a former chief constable, a former ambassador to Colombia and a parent who had lost his son to heroin. Legalisation, it was suggested, would enable supply to be taken out of the hands of criminals and regulated, thereby reducing deaths from overdose and adulteration. It would also reduce the level of crime committed by addicts seeking to fund their habit. We acknowledge that these are attractive arguments. The criminal market may well be diminished (though not eliminated); likewise drug-related crime. Harm may well be reduced, though this might be offset by an increase in the number of abusers. It is inevitable, too, that however tightly the sale of drugs was regulated, there would be a significant leakage to underage abusers. We agreed, too, with those who say that legalisation would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs of any sort, partly because they are illegal. Finally, we noted that - however forceful the arguments - no other country has yet been persuaded to legalise. Nor can we foresee a day when it would be possible to legalise a drug like crack cocaine, which often results in violent behaviour. So we came down unanimously against legalisation. That said, however, attempts to combat illegal drugs by means of law enforcement have proved so manifestly unsuccessful that it is difficult to argue for the status quo. So far as heroin users are concerned, law enforcement simply marginalises further people who need help. Nor does it make any sense to pretend that all illegal drugs are equally harmful. They are not. Once these simple truths are grasped, certain conclusions follow. First, harm reduction rather than retribution needs to be the primary focus of policy towards users. Second, law enforcement should concentrate overwhelmingly on the criminal network responsible for manufacturing and importing the most harmful drugs - notably heroin and cocaine. Third, treatment should focus on reducing the harm caused by the 250,000 or so problematic users (mainly of heroin) who are damaging not only their own lives, but those of their families and their communities. Fourth, to stand any chance of being effective, education must be honest, targeted and preferably delivered by someone with street-cred - recovered addicts for example. In line with these principles, the committee has proposed that the Misuse of Drugs Act be amended to downgrade both cannabis and ecstasy. We have also recommended the creation of a new offence of "supply for gain" which would enable the courts to distinguish between dealers and groups of friends who share drugs on a not-for-profit basis. To reduce the harm caused by heroin use we have recommended a network of safe injecting rooms where chaotic users can inject safely, where needles can be disposed of and where those interested can get access to help. We have also recommended a series of controlled experiments, along the lines of those in the Netherlands and Switzerland, in which heroin can be made available on prescription to chaotic users in order to stabilise their lives and, where possible, steer them towards recovery. Finally, we have urged the government to expand investment in residential and non-residential treatment. I believe - and so do 10 of the 11 members of my committee - that a harm reduction approach is both rational and defensible. What's more, I suspect that this view will not be all that controversial. It only remains to be seen whether the government will rise to the occasion. Chris Mullin is chairman of the home affairs select committee. The report of the committee's inquiry is published today and available from HMSO and on the committee's website: http://www.parliament.ukSpecial Report: Drugs in Britain -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/0,2759,178206,00.htmlComplete Title: Why We Said Said No To Legalisation...and Yes To a Rational Drugs Policy Based on Harm Reduction Newshawk: puff_tuffSource: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Chris MullinPublished: Wednesday, May 22, 2002Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Article & Web Site:Drugs Uncovered: Observer Special http://freedomtoexhale.com/dc.htmGPs Voice Reservations About an Expanded Role http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12911.shtmlA Fresh Approach To Clubbers' Drug http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12910.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment