Is the UK surrendering in the "War on Drugs"?

Great Debates
1

For those of you who don’t follow UK drugs policy (I know there are a few), there have been a few momentous developments here.

Firstly, following a succesfull pilot in Lambeth (South London), posession of cannabis is no longer an arrestable offence. Offenders risk having their stash confiscated and being issued a written summons. In reality the police have been told to ignore personal use. De facto legalisation if not de jure.

The first Amsterdam type “coffee shop” opened in Manchester (it has since been closed, but no legal action is to follow). The publisher of “Trainspotting”, in an irony free moment, is planning to open a similar establishment in Edinburgh. Not ten minutes from where I am typing this there is a shop in Kings Cross openly selling cannabis for “medicinal use” and it has not been bothered by the police (who have a police station opposite).

There is broad agreement from all the major parties that this is about time and no one will be campaigning on a platform of re-criminalising cannabis.

Secondly one of London’s most senior policemen has stated that he would prefer it if his officers didn’t go after weekend users of cocaine and ecstasy. He stated that if these drugs were only used part time and paid for out of legitimately earned income he saw no point in pursuing the users.

He has since been contradicted in a very lukewarm way by the Chief Constable. However it is quite clear that he speaks for the majority of police commanders and this is the approach that is to be adopted.

So is Britain about to go to hell in a handcart? Will our very timid experiment have any impact overseas?

The real tragedy of all this is that it has happened since I have given up taking drugs.

2

Well you could always restart. But I once read an interview with a brain specialist, who compared humans addling their brains with drugs to elite athletes slashing their muscles with a knife.

Working all her life with the human brain, which she found fascinating and complex, she could not understand how anyone would want to risk endangering it.

But back on your post: it’s my prediction that the UK will start to follow the experiments of countries like Australia, which despite being conservative is trialling “legal” shooting galleries, where addicts can go to inject heroin with medical supervision, free from fear of interference by the police.

Any users travelling to it with drugs they intend to shoot there are also supposedly immune from prosecution.

Arguably it has saved lives, but it’s also made things easier for drug dealers. Firstly a ring of drug dealers moved right in next door the minute it opened (though were caught) and secondly dealers get the same immunity travelling to the centre carrying drugs, because in small quantities how can the police differentiate who’s on their way to use, and who to sell?

3

I don’t know whether legalisation of cannabis is a good thing or a bad thing from a medical point of view, as I don’t know the facts. However, I don’t believe it leads onto “harder” drugs as some critics claim, in the same way that enjoying a pint of beer does not automatically lead onto drinking a bottle of meths night.

More importantly, the way that this is being handled is the area that gives me most concern:

In both these instances, it is the police who have decided to effectively legalise the drugs in question. The Lambeth “pilot” was purely due to the fact that the police chiefs decided to see what happened. Similarly, it is police chiefs again who have decided to turn a blind eye to ecstasy use.

Call me old-fashioned, but it is the job of Parliament, not the police to decide on the laws of the land. “Freeing up manpower” is NOT an reason for the police to decide to start ignoring certain laws; the police are there to enforce the laws of the land, not arbitrate.

If the government want to legalise the drugs, then fine. Debate it in Parliament, and repeal the necessary laws. Do not make half-arsed measures and rely on blind eyes being turned.

Of course, a cynic might argue that the whole thing is just another Blair-ite way of ducking the big issues by letting others take the flak, then changing the law if everything proves to be OK.

4

First discussed here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=94966
I had a little more info later so followed up with this in thisthread a couple of weeks ago :

"Speaking as someone currently reduced to tears at witnessing the acute pain of a grandmother in decline, I’d like US dopers to read ** THIS ARTICLE**:

The war against cannabis/marijuana is over in the UK and much of Europe – there simply is not enough public support for current legislation and as the above article indicates, the future may well allow for a very dramatic assessment of the drugs medicinal potential.

It’s worth noting that, in May, the US Supreme Court ruled against clinical research into the possible benefits of cannabis/marijuana in relation to pain relief, easing the condition of Multiple Sclerosis suffers, etc.

Further, I feel it’s important to add that those involved in the world’s largest clinical trial are keen to stress that the means of administering the drug is via a spray under the tongue. Also, the trial companies are keen to point out that the ‘high’ associated with cannabis/marijuana is almost completely absent from the spray – they term the ‘high’ as “an unfortunate side-effect”.

Professor Lester Grinspoon from Harvard Medical School PhD MD (interviewed in the programme linked to above) said that, in his opinion, Cannabis/Marijuana was going to be the “wonder drug” of the early part of the 21st century.

I hope for the sake of US dopers and their parents that the US Supreme Court ruling is challenged once the trials are concluded and the evidence bears out the early results because it is not pretty to watch grandparents in absolute, unimaginable pain, know there is something that could be done but isn’t – not quite yet, anyway.

Frankly, I don’t care about other drugs at this point."

It’s not about the “UK” “giving up” – who is the ‘UK’ ? and I’m not sure politicians think in terms of ‘giving up’ – but, IMHO, about accepting the public don’t support the law as currently constituted and also preparing the ground for the results of the on going clinical trials. As is much of Europe.

5

As far as cannabis goes, ISTR that the idea of it as a “gateway” drug - that cannabis use inevitably leads to stronger things - has been pretty much exploded everywhere except the tabloid press. (I remember Keith Hellawell - who knows as much as anyone about UK drug problems - getting a lot of stick from said tabloids when he denied the existence of the “gateway effect”).

And the position that cannabis, in itself, poses a significantly higher danger to public health than alcohol or tobacco is also pretty much untenable. All this and the police attitude suggest that legalisation of cannabis is just around the corner… though it will take a Home Secretary with a bit of backbone to introduce the legislation…

As to the medical use of cannabis - it astounds me that there’s even a debate on this issue. I don’t care if it’s aspirin, cannabis, or plutonium-flavoured LSD, if it has legitimate medical uses, it should be available for those uses. (Hell, we already allow doctors to prescribe diamorphine - heroin - here in the UK, don’t we?)

6

From The Economist:

This was in Mid-October, and IIRC (sorry, no cite), Blunkett has actually re-classified cannabis since then.
The police chiefs seem to be jumping the gun a bit on ecstacy, but the new cannabis policies are in accord with the duly legal action of the Home Secretary.

Sua

7

What blind eyes ?

No, it was just standard political behaviour. You dip your toe in – preferably indirectly – and gauge reaction.

Why would any political party take one large radical step (in this case to legalise) when there is a perfectly good half step available ? ‘De-criminalising’ is just a wholly appropriate, politically risk-averse and expedient measure (given clinical developments) and is in line with other European approaches.

It’s a democracy: slowly, slowly catchy monkey.

8

Considering the U.S.'s staunch anti-drug stance, I hope we Americans don’t decide to wage a Holy War against Great Britain now. :eek:

9

Sounds as though the UK is coming to its sences. Wish the US would.

10

I agree with hazel. The war on drugs is pointless. We obviously aren’t winning, and it’s not really worth fighting over something like marijuana, which is less harmful than alcohol. I can understand trying to get rid of cocaine and heroin, which have devastating effects, but it’s obvious that we aren’t winning the war.

11

I’m gonna jump right in here and posit that this is one of the classic situations in which public perception and reality don’t jive. I checked two government sites, and since I’m such a retard that I can’t link them, I’ll just post the addresses for y’all to check them out. Seems that marijuana, as the most frequently used drug among teens, is vastly underestimated by same in potential health risks. Further seems the costs of illegal drug use to society at large are quite significant. Just a few I picked up from the first cite:

25-50% of all incidents of domestic violence are drug-related

Child welfare agencies indicate that 81% of families with child maltreatment reports have substance abuse problems

75% of male adults in NYC arrested for violent crime tested positive for illegal drugs

Now I know all the fine people who use any illegal substance and post to the SDMB are hereby exempt from the risks and effects in the two below listed cites, so let’s not argue that old “it doesn’t hurt me” refrain and stick to the numbers. You may have found contradictory stats, and I’ll check them out if posted. I will go on record as saying that these appear to be highly credible cites. My opinion, of course. I don’t know if marijuana is/is not a “gateway” drug, don’t care. It seems to be harmful enough to merit some degree of legal restriction. I further don’t have hard and fast opinions on the specifics, but I would venture to say that just 'cuz the Europeans have taken a certain tack does not on the evidence indicate we Americans are ass backwards if we choose differently. Kinda get tired of that, actually.

So. What does everyone say now? Still want to hold that marijuana in specific, and other currently illegal drugs in general ought to be subject to individual use and responsiblity? I’m curious to hear the answers.

Oh, yeah, those cites:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofax/infofaxindex.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/use.htm

12

Did your source happen to give any indication as to whether they are including alcohol in these statistics? I rather suspect that they are.

That a high percentage of violent criminals are illegal drug users does not mean that a high percentage of illegal drug users are violent criminals.

13

MEBuckner, perhaps you’d care to take a look at the cites I posted. In the summary page, from which I quoted the stats above, the first paragraph does specifically refer to illicit drugs, and further down mentions specific illegal drugs. Reading the stats alone, I’m struck by the difference in the choice of words, i.e., substance abuse v. illicit(illegal) drugs. Seems to me a reasonable conclusion that the former refers to alcohol, the latter to strictly illegal drugs. I’m willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, however.

Regarding your statement that high percentages of drug users don’t automatically equate to high percentages of violent criminals - it was not my intent to state such. I merely post the data which appears to show a link between crime and drug use. It would take a review and analysis of the other data supplied in the two cites I posted to arrive at any conclusion with a high degree of certainty.

If you read the rest of my post, I indicated that the data in these two government cites appears to indicate to me at least that, and I quote myself, some degree of legal restriction is necessary. In other words, full and unequivocal legalization does not appear to be a satisfactory response to the stated argument that America is losing the war on drugs.

14

Actually, I was already doing just that before you posted again.

It’s good that you’re struck by the difference in the choice of words, because I think your friendly government agencies are trying to mislead you.

We have this factoid, “81% of families with child maltreatment reports have substance abuse problems”. (I suspect the following analysis also applies to the factoid “25-50% of all incidents of domestic violence are drug-related”.) The source for this statistic was the DEA. The DEA in turn traces it to a report issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (better know as the office of the “Drug Czar”). The ONDCP report gives this footnote as the source of that statistic (and possibly of the “one-fourth to one-half of all incidents of domestic violence” statistic as well).

Let me repeat that title, with emphasis added this time:

The Relationship between Parental Alcohol or Other Drug Problems and Child Maltreatment

The DEA does not have a mandate to enforce prohibition of alcohol. We tried outlawing alcohol consumption and, despite the undeniable bad social and health consequences of alcohol consumption, we as a society decided outlawing it was worse, and there seems to be very little support for returning to alcohol prohibition today. The DEA and the ONDCP have no business using taxpayer dollars to put out this kind of blatantly misleading information in support of their particular bureaucratic mandate.

You need to be very, very careful with that sort of “link”. Most violent criminals are men, but most men are not violent criminals. Do you even want me to bring up race?

Alcohol causes vast social and health problems. Its use not only can harm the user, but can lead to anti-social behavior which harms others. And it is subjected to some degree of legal restriction–kids can’t buy the stuff, for example. But it isn’t outlawed. Not only is possession and use legal, but manufacture, distribution and sale are legal.

15

Good posts, MEBuckner!

I’d say that the degree of restriction needed for marijuana would be about the same degree of restriction as we use re alcohol.

Well… actually, we probably need less restriction re marijuana. It really does seem to be less harmful then alcohol. But I’m quite willing to accept the same degree of restriction in order to get it decriminalized.

16

MEBuckner, now we’re getting somewhere. Yes, as I already mentioned, a careful analysis of the data provided in these, as well as any other cites one wishes to identify, is needed in order to arrive at any reasoned judgement regarding drug use and legalization. I already mentioned, twice, that I have few hard and fast opinions on this subject, but because some people want to declare marijuana no more dangerous than cigarettes and hence to be legalized, I wanted to post a contradictory source of information which might have cautionary influence on the course of the thread, which seemed to this point to be more or less a statement that because Britain has taken a lenient response to marijuana, it automatically followed that it was the correct action and America should quickly follow suit. Let me put it this way: because millions of Americans handle all types of alcohol responsibly every day, does not mean that ALL Americans thus can and will do the same. Or are capable of the same. Right? That’s the point I attempted to make with regard to the OP. I can handle it, I have no problems, therefore it should be readily accessible and freely available without fear of criminal prosecution. Wrong.

Same goes to the connection between drug use(shall we call it drug abuse) and violent crime; don’t try to paint me into a corner I never started in. The use of the data doesn’t necessarily indicate cause and effect, and you know that. Now you know that I know that, too. It does tend to indicate a relationship, which must be considered in concert with other data to determine validity.
I don’t take any one set of data, any one source of statistics as gospel, as absolute truth. These are two serious, governmental agencies with statistics that can be measured and weighed. That’s my point in posting them.

I’d personally be pleased to see more research put into this before judgements were made on the issue. By anyone. But hey, that’s just me.

17

I’m not really following you here. Are you arguing that we should outlaw alcohol?

18

You are one aggravating man, MEBuckner, do you know that? You probably do.

No, my point wasn’t that alcohol should be made illegal. My point was that society already has to deal with the effects of alcohol abuse. Do we need to add to that? Really? Add up those tallies of lost productivity, lost wages, loss of life due to alcohol and drug abuse and tell me why we should not discourage their use.

19

Well, I do try.

One problem with hypocrisy, in addition to any philosophical objections, is that people are perfectly capable of seeing the hypocrisy for themselves, which can lessen their respect overall for the person or institution which is acting hypocritically. I think it’s inherently very hard to enforce a policy of “these potentially harmful chemicals are illegal, whereas this potentially harmful chemical is advertised on television”. And having one set of laws which are seen as hypocritical and are widely disrespected and disobeyed lessens respect for the law in general.

Oh, I’m a Big Government, bleeding-heart liberal. I’ve got no problem with discouraging drug use. Bring on the state-supported rehab programs for people who are ready to enter them; the state-sponsored educational and public advertising campaigns (of course the truth always works better in the long run than sensationalism or lies); the state-mandated warning labels and disclaimers. Support it all from taxes on the substances in question. But discouragement is not the same thing as throwing people in jail.

And I would point out that there are costs of outlawing drugs as well as costs of legalizing them. Much of the harm and ruined lives caused by illegal drugs comes from putting large numbers of people in jail, and giving them permanent criminal records, who have not committed any violent crime. (And any enterprise which is criminalized will inevitably become violent, since it lies outside of the police protection of the state, so that violent people can push out nonviolent ones, and the nonviolent people have no place to turn to. The sale and production of illegal drugs is not inherently any more violent than the sale and production of legal ones, beyond the simple fact that they are illegal.) Much, though certainly not all, of the health risks of illegal drugs come from the fact that they are unregulated–people are more likely to accidetnally overdose if they don’t even know how much of a given chemical they are taking, or even which chemical they are taking. When vices are outlawed, they tend to create illegal economies and organized criminal enterprises, which are notoriously corrupting to the law enforcement and judicial systems. Finally, there is the harm to our civil liberties and our privacy. I’ve never had an employer demand to search my house or property to make sure I haven’t been receiving any stolen property or stashing any bodies around the place as a condition of employment, but I did have to pee in a cup to get my present job, which (if you’ll pardon the expression) sort of pissed me off. And lots of people have been subjected to far, far worse abuses of their civil liberties or privacy than I’ve ever faced in the pursuit of our “war on drugs”. Related to this is the philosophical objection to making something illegal if it doesn’t harm or infringe upon the rights of others (which clearly wouldn’t apply to laws against drunk driving or to laws against assault or theft, whether caused or motivated by substance abuse or plain old meanness and greed).

20

More excellant posts from MEBuckner!

I would add this. There seems to be a widespread belief that if we decriminalize any currently forbidden substance, there will automatically be a big increase in problems resulting from the use of the substance. I disagree.

IMO, problems with marijuana (for individuals and for society) result mainly from its being illegal. Decriminalize it, and there will be fewer problems, not more. (I think this goes for hard drugs, too. But we’re talking about pot here.)

I also disagree with the assumption that decriminalization would result in a big increase in marijuana use. This is based on the (IMO incorrect) assumption that the current prohibition law is working. It isn’t. Anyone who wants pot can get it, and is getting it. I suppose there might be a small increase due to people trying it out of curiosity, but I doubt it would amount to much.

I think any increase would be insignificant – and would, in any case, be matched with a corrresponding decrease in alcohol consumption. This would be a good thing. IMO, if someone who commits a real crime (one that causes actual harm to another person) is under the influence of anything, it’s much more likely to be alcohol then pot.