I hate to admit it (because I really, really, really hate drugs), but the man is right.Decriminalisation is the answer.

I’d rather like it to be in conjunction with legislation to ensure that anyone who commits a crime whilst high on drugs can’t claim diminished responsibility, though – if anything, I’d argue, the penalty should be a lot higher. Oh, and give the NHS money for the inevitably required stop-taking-$drug campaigns, like the current anti-smoking and anti-drinking ones.

*sigh*. Sometimes, Mr. Evidence-Based-Self, I really hate you.

Check out the quote in this article from Julian Critchley, Director, Cabinet Office UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit..

The truth will out!

http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/the-drugs-debate/

“Now it remains to be seen whether the government will listen to this breakthrough in the drugs debate.”

I wouldn’t hold your breath…

The cynic in me says that all this demonstrates is that opposition is easy. Let’s hope I’m wrong and this is the start of a more sensible approach to drugs.

This is great news. If Labour supported legalisation at the next election, I would probably have to vote for them. The damage caused by this single issue is so large.

At last – something we can all agree with!

But what will the Coalition do when the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre directs his hacks to accuse anyone in favour of decriminalisation of being “soft on drugs”?

The Murdoch press will more than likely be in the same corner as the Mail. Has Young Dave got the cojones for that fight? More likely the issue will be shunted off out of the way, perhaps with a Royal Commission to umm and ah over it for a year or two.

I want to be more optimistic about this, but with the exception of cannabis it seems that illegal drugs are one of those areas where you simply cannot have a sensible debate. Those against will literally refuse to do so, ignoring all the points on the pro-legalisation side and instead resorting to listing the harmful effects of drugs, which is not actually the central point of the discussion.

Decriminalisation would probably be an improvement, but it’s not the solution: drugs would remain on the black market, meaning they would continue to be more dangerous than necessary and the state would see no revenue from their sale. What we want is for most narcotics (not those primarily used as weapons) to be legalised, taxed, regulated and restricted to sale to adults only.

As it is, we have a system that wastes state resources, criminalises people who aren’t hurting anyone, creates a breeding ground for genuinely unpleasant criminals, and ensures that addicts can only get their fix dangerously.

“At last – something we can all agree with!”

Absolutely.

Interestingly, Cameron was on a committee looking into the success of drugs prohibition at about the same time Bob Ainsworth was the drugs minister (ie before he became party leader), and he wrote some very thoughtful stuff about it, for a Tory, in his Guardian columns. Presumably most politicians know this stuff, but don’t mention it. Might be worth digging those columns out again.

Of course, Ainsworth didn’t do anything about it when he had the power to (in fact I recollect him as one of the dimmest, shoutiest hangers and floggers in New Labour’s Mail-pleasing armoury), so it’s hard to see it as anything other than a cynical attempt to outrage the Tory hard right into rupturing the coalition.

I think this might be one of those areas where the Lib Dems could pull the government to the left. Not least because of the argument that legalisation and regulation would save money as well as reduce public harm. After all, Ken Clarke has shown himself not to be a traditional “prison works” tory so I imagine that there’s certainly a good chance of the government making some progress on this issue.

What #1 & #3 said

I’d love to see an evidence-base review happen, and I think Labour needs a flagship liberal policy to draw a line under its authoritarian recent past and really start attracting social liberals to the party. (Surely it would be even more uncomfortable for many Lib Dems to keep propping up the Tories if they were having to toe the Government line against liberal Labour policies!) Maybe this could be that policy.

The devil will be in the details of any proposals to take a more liberal approach to drugs – which substances should be made available on prescription, which should it cease to be a criminal offence to possess in small amounts, which should be legally available but regulated in some way?

I remain thoroughly unconvinced that Chaise’s suggestion – “What we want is for most narcotics (not those primarily used as weapons) to be legalised, taxed, regulated and restricted to sale to adults only” – can be right. We have a very good evidence base concerning what happens in Britain, in the long term, when harmful narcotics are legalised, taxed, regulated and restricted to sale to adults only, because that’s the model we’ve adopted with alcohol and tobacco. The fact that those two drugs do many times more harm than all other drugs combined hardly fills me with confidence that extending that model to all other drugs is likely to reduce the harm they do.

(Of course, you could make a libertarian case that the state should simply butt out of people’s decisions about what substances they put into their body, and we should simply accept any costs to society that arise from all drugs being as readily available as Marlboro and Carling – but that case is wholly distinct from a case for liberalising drug policy in order to reduce the harm done by drugs.)

Nahh, no chance. The tories would hang each other if they dared agree with Ainsworth.

@ 13

I admit that I am coming more from the liberal standpoint here. I’d rather a situation where people can legally harm themselves if they choose than one when making that choice leads to the risk of being prosecuted, hurt/killed by a bad dose or made an effectively slave of your dealer. Even given the risk that the overall level of harm done would rise.

I’d also like to see drugs be a major earner for the state rather than a massive expense. There are other arguments, but that’s the long and short of it.

“He says that his departure from the front benches gives him the freedom to express the long held view that”

Why?

Why in hell didn’t he say this when he was drugs minister?

I never expected this from Mr Ainsworth (or, to be fair, Mr Lilley). The man was actually sensible after all – just shows how corrosive the effects of Mr Brown were on his cabinet…

There would be a number of Conservative MPs who supported decriminilisation (Carswell, Davis and or Davies, perhaps Redwood are examples), as would many Liberal Democrats and I assume a fair chunk of Labour MPs.

Then there would be the tradionalists and the paternalists, those who are concerned by the Daily Mail (I think at this point in an electoral cycle, those will be quite few) and those who just think drugs are bad with no further thought. I think you will find those in all three main parties, and especially in Northern Ireland (I cannot guess what the SNP or Plaid will do on this…).

The smart thing for Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Milliband to do with this is perhaps put it out to a royal commission or something (lets get the evidence reviewed so there is something to shove into the faces of Daily Mail readers (or for them to shove into our faces – evidence works both ways…)) and then go from there, but perhaps allow a free vote to allow MPs to represent their consciences/constituents. Issues like this can be about more than party politics.

Oh, and like Alix I can remember David Cameron as a young liberal Conservative with ideas about reducing state interferene and creation of black markets. That was not that long ago, so I would not presume he is in favour of prohibition.

@ 17

“Oh, and like Alix I can remember David Cameron as a young liberal Conservative with ideas about reducing state interferene and creation of black markets”

Ain’t it bizarre that many of the people who make the most noise about government interference in terms of tax, alcohol prices and the smoking ban, including the right-wing tabloids, accept without questioning that drugs are evil and that anyone suggesting legalising them is an irresponsible hedonist?

Part of the reason why “Marlboro” and “Carling” do so much harm is that they are very readily available in Supermarkets and Newsagents. Another alternative is to restrict sales to licensed sellers in the same way that bookmakers and sex shops currently are. That should have a discouraging effect and might bridge the gap between the liberal principle and the potential harm.

I am not so comfortable about saying I want to see drugs being a major earner for the state. Even if we want to permit people to harm themselves, we don’t really want them to actually do so!

Chaise,

Indeed – I’ve always been quite amazed by it. But I suspect that one of the major advantages of this riduculous situation is that suddenly all the people in it will look at each other and say ‘you think that as well?’ and prohibition will be removed. If all that is holding us back is that bit of fear and fake moral outrage, all it takes is one well-placed stone (seems a decent description of Mr Ainsworth) and if you are lucky the dam bursts.

Especially when the government really needs the cash…

Incidentally, I think you’ll find that many of those who call for regulation of drugs are also against say allowing children to drink (another one of my pet hates – the idea that alchohol rather than environment is the problem). Certainly they do not belong to the liberal right (there are liberal arguments against legalising drugs, which generally start with the fact legalisation will imply that taking them is fine and this encourages harm, but these are non-substantive).

What would the point of a royal commission be. other than to create further delay? There have been ample studies and examples of how decriminalisation can work. A short trip to Portugal is the most we might need.

Pardon the typo.

James from Durham,

Part of the reason why “Marlboro” and “Carling” do so much harm is that they are very readily available in Supermarkets and Newsagents. Another alternative is to restrict sales to licensed sellers in the same way that bookmakers and sex shops currently are. That should have a discouraging effect and might bridge the gap between the liberal principle and the potential harm.

You do realise that one of the best arguments for legalising banned substances is that it reduces the market for black-market sales. Whereas strict regulation such as you propose actually increases it, as possession is now less of a problem (it will not be illegal) so there is less incentive not to purchase, whilst supply is limited and difficult to access. Therefore, criminals still have plenty of scope for black market deals, whilst they can also monopolise control over the outlets (who ran most of the early sex shops for example?) through their control over supply. Regulation suits those with monopolies or a willingness to ignore them, not the population as a whole.

Cherub,

Because it is best to have a complete consideration of the evidence gathered together before you go and beat Paul Dacre over the head with it!

This is a contentious issue (God knows why…) and it would be sensible to go in well-prepared. And we do have to consider the possibility the evidence would show something other than what we would want (much as anyone hates to admit this, it does happen…), and it might be advisable to check before making a big (if in my opinion necessary) step?

@ 19 James from Durham

“I am not so comfortable about saying I want to see drugs being a major earner for the state. Even if we want to permit people to harm themselves, we don’t really want them to actually do so!”

It’s up to them, or should be. But the larger point is that people are going to harm themselves anyway. This being the case, we should at least tax it rather than throw money at it while making the harm worse by 1) screwing up people’s lives with criminal records, 2) making it impossible for them to get guaranteed safe products, 3) making it easier for people to use drugs to control others (the dealer/pimp business model, for example), and 4) giving addicts the impression, rightly or wrongly, that if they seek help they will be arrested. And all of this while crushing the right to freedom of choice.

@ 20

This is certainly a good time for a drugs review, economically speaking.

I think the only good arguments for prohibition are utilitarian, and that’s assuming that the evidence would support such an outcome. I’m wary of utilitrianism for many reasons, not least of which is that it can be very supportive of fascism.

Chaise

I don’t disagree with you that it’s up to them!

Watchman

Fair comment, but I was merely pointing out that there are alternatives to the present prohibition and to full liberalisation. Compromises that might add up to a step by step liberalisation and which might stand a slim chance of being implemented by government.

@Tim 16

This is why:

“I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, the government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew the government’s policy was actually causing harm.”

Julian Critchley, Director, Cabinet Office UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit. 13-08-08

Pedantry: decriminalisation is not the same this as legalisation and regulation. Actually, this isn’t pedantry, it’s a very important distinction.

@16:

Why in hell didn’t he say this when he was drugs minister?

Oh that’s easy – because if he had, he wouldn’t have stayed drugs minister for more than 24hrs, and would never have held another ministerial post again.

It’s always nice to see an MP get something right for a change, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for anything to come of it…

I do understand the persuasive pragmatic and libertarian arguments for decriminalising drugs but few in this debate take on board the additional costs to the NHS of treating however many new drug addicts result and the social costs of coping with addicts while they are cured.

“Labour leader Ed Miliband and a Labour MP who has led anti-drug campaigns moved swiftly to distance themselves from his ‘irresponsible’ ideas.

‘Bob’s views do not reflect Ed’s views, the party’s view or indeed the view of the vast majority of the public,’ a spokeswoman for Ed Miliband said.”

Lol – Even the daily fails public poll has 45% support for this, the top rated comments are quite refreshing compared to what the readership generally thinks.

@30 Bob

The “war against drugs” costs UK £19 billion per annum. The financial argument is one of the strongest in favour of this. We will save billions.

Aren’t we actually bound by some international agreement or other to keep a certain list of narcotics illegal? Possibly one of the Geneva Conventions? I have a vague memory of being told that’s why cannabis is decriminalised in the Netherlands rather than legal.

There is a UN treaty thing we’re signed up to, yes.

But then so what?

Also worth noting that Gary Becker (OK, so he’s over on my side of the right/left range but he’s also a Nobel Laureate) argues that legalisation and taxation would/could lead to a reduction in usage, not an increase.

I must admit I nearly fell off my chair when reading this on the BBC earlier, until I realised it said “former” minister… but agree with the main thrust of above comments: if this helps put more sanity in the drugs debate it can only be a good thing. As for Dacre & the rest of the scummy tabloid press: I think it’s time to turn the tables. Let’s reframe the, ahem, narrative: “ If you, Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail, support the continuing criminalisation of drugs, then you also support gangs making profits from drug-running, child prostitution, and murder.” Too far? Not half as bad as when the Mail calls govs (all of them, any colour) “soft on drugs” for being willing to even talk about decriminalisation etc.

‘Why in hell didn’t he say this when he was drugs minister?’

Could be ‘collective responsibility’, could be cowardice, could be he just changed his mind when he saw the evidence.

Don’t really care – why be churlish if he’s now on the right side?

I think this might be one of those areas where the Lib Dems could pull the government to the left.

No chance. And it is indeed a shame that Ed Miliband isn’t taking these proposals seriously, but I suspect it would be a liberal step too far for the New Labour generation

Chaise @ 15

“I’d rather a situation where people can legally harm themselves if they choose than one when making that choice leads to the risk of being prosecuted, hurt/killed by a bad dose or made an effectively slave of your dealer. Even given the risk that the overall level of harm done would rise.”

Sure – if the only harm done by drugs was done to the users, there’d be no substantial case against making their possession and use legal for adults (especially if they could be taxed so as to meet the additional costs to the NHS etc.). It’s when you factor in the harm done to other people that the picture gets muddied, since typically it’s thought legitimate to restrict people’s freedoms broadly insofar as their exercise of those freedoms would tend to impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. So very plausibly people have a prima facie right to put whatever they like into their own bodies, but pretty obviously they *don’t* have the right to neglect their children, beat their wives, burgle people’s houses, drive dangerously, launder money etc. Insofar as the use of a substance tends to increase such forms of harm done to third parties, therefore, plausibly there is a case to restrict people’s rights to use that substance.

Now obviously one of the main arguments for liberalising the use of drugs is that it might well *reduce* some of the harm presently done to third parties as a result of the criminal status of certain drugs – e.g. we might expect a reduction in the rate of drug-related burglaries and organised crime. But it’s not at all obvious that *every* sort of harm done to third parties as a result of the use of *every* drug would be reduced by its legalisation. (Surely alcohol’s legal status doesn’t reduce the overall level of harm done to victims of spousal abuse, parental neglect, violence at the hands of stangers, car accidents etc.?)

This is why I say the devil will be in the detail of any proposal. I don’t see how anyone can think the alcohol model is such a roaring success in terms of reducing harm done to third parties it should simply be replicated for every other drug.

G.O.

The alchohol model was not a roaring success no, but have you ever heard how much worse it was when a major western country tried to ban alchohol in the same way as drugs?

The point here is that there is most likely more harm done through criminal networks, inflated prices (its a seller’s market (sometimes)), sub-standard goods (apart from anything else, I want to see trading standards checking the quality of coke…) etc at the moment than through consumption. Especially when there is the question of whether consumption (which is high at the moment – and therefore doing harm in the way you say under the current system) would actually increase to answer – legalising something does not necessarily increase the uptake of it.

The devil is in the detail, but to suggest caution on the basis of potential harm, I think we need a plausible case that harm will be increased, as on the (limited) knowledge I have at the moment, the reduction in harm from legalising drugs would be immense.

Hang on.. Aren’t they removing the need for Politicians to be justified by science?

@1 “I really hate drugs” The problem is, you can hate heroin, or cocaine, or if you must, magic mushrooms, but “drugs” doesn’t really exist. It’s far too abstract and poorly defined to be something capable of being hated in itself. Each drug is very different, which was the whole point of what David Nutt was trying to say.

[37] “it is indeed a shame that Ed Miliband isn’t taking these proposals seriously”.
There is not a snowballs chance in hell that EM will get behind this – at the moment he probably believes he has far more important (economic) battles to fight.
When Johnno caved in to the Mail contingent it confirmed all my worst fears that NuLab are no less idiotic than all of the other politicos hell bent on perpetuating the futile ‘war on drugs’ paradigm.

I have long advocated introducing strategically situated warehouses choc-full of drugs, akin to up market opium dens – those who want to make drugs their life would be able to do so without the sysphian dimension associated with maintaining a serious drug habit (robbing, prostitution, health problems, etc, etc).

The more discrete user could take the gear away and apply it to whatever social situation demanded the use of psychoactive substances.

Don’t really care – why be churlish if he’s now on the right side?

That really has to be ironic, coming from you shatterface.

Aren’t we actually bound by some international agreement or other to keep a certain list of narcotics illegal?

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

@ 38

What Watchman said. Additionally, I think banning things because they *might* lead to other people being harmed is a dangerous road to go down, especially when the item in question isn’t principally used to do harm. I don’t particularly like the idea of wrapping the world in cotton wool, if you see what I mean.

Have to say it was amusing listening to Peter Hitchens on R4 this morning arguing that actually we haven’t had a war on drugs because sociology graduates had infiltrated the police and possesion laws were not enforced.

I read this statement by Ainsworth and agreed with it. I checked every major news outlet in the UK and saw that good majority of those commenting also agreed with it. We’re in the incredibly sad position of public opinion not being reflected well in the media, and very poorly in politics.

I wrote to both Bob Ainsworth and James Brokenshire to let them know how I feel. If everybody does the same them maybe the crack will get bigger.

“maybe the crack will get bigger.”

We can only hope. (Bdm-tsh!)

Excellent work by Bob Ainsworth, Paul Flynn and Caroline Lucas in the debate this afternoon.

James “Broken Britain” Brokenshire was at his unsufferable, preppy, puce-faced best. He has the bureaucrat’s intensely boring style. He bores you into silence.

That’s what he’s counting on though, that we’ll all just go away and he can get on having a fun time spending billions on his war.

We mustn’t let him get away with it.

I seem to remember being flamed on this website for once suggesting that drugs should be legalised, because the harm that you do massively outweighs the benefit of criminalisation.

The only benefit of criminalisation, as I can see, is that it has prevented some people from gaining access to some drugs, and so has perhaps led to fewer drug addicts. But the downsides are numerous – gang wars make certain parts of our cities unsafe to go after dark, our prisons are taken up by people who pose no real danger to the public at large (possession of heroin is punishable by up to 7 years in prison) meaning early release of those who ought to be locked up, theft and burglary rates are higher than they would be, people die of overdoses caused by poor quality drugs and I could go on (I’ve not mentioned the harm our drugs prohibition causes in places like Colombia).

All of this is the price of keeping drugs away from a few people (and it is a few, hands up if you don’t know where you’d go if you wanted some class A drugs?). Of course, Ainsworth isn’t the only one to air these views (a certain Milton Friedman was championing this cause a long time ago) but the more politicians on board the better.

The important point is that we aren’t arguing that all drugs are safe, far from it. But by banning them, and driving them underground, you cause much more harm than good.

Obviously Mr Ainsworth is correct and Britain amongst the larger nations should lead the way in decriminalisation. You know what? Others will follow and treaties and conventions are only pieces of paper. However, politicians who stick their necks out will come up against the huge vested interests who have skin in the game in continuing our criminally insane ‘ War on Drugs’. From customs, police, social services, legal profession, criminal justice system, prisons all depend on the current situation, and quite literally pimp off prohibition. With any drug currently available to anyone who wants to buy them there is no rational argument in favour of prohibition.

If the Daily Mail is a problem, I have a solution. Ban the Daily Mail instead of narcotics. Only kidding with that one.

Don’t get your hopes up. Logic gets nowhere on this one.

It would be interesting to know the real reason why this is. I suspect it might be because a logical approach related to the harm to society would put more restrictions on alcohol sales, and upset some very large businesses.

@ 52 Tony

“It would be interesting to know the real reason why this is. I suspect it might be because a logical approach related to the harm to society would put more restrictions on alcohol sales, and upset some very large businesses.”

I don’t think it’s even that sinister. I suspect that a) mainstream politicians see being soft on drugs as a vote-loser, even if that isn’t the case, and b) pro-drug policies have historically risked angering the US.

Watchman & Chaise

“The alchohol model was not a roaring success no, but have you ever heard how much worse it was when a major western country tried to ban alchohol in the same way as drugs?”

Sure, but that was an attempt to lock the stable door after the horse had bolted (since alcohol use was near-universal when it was prohibited). I’d be interested to know what happened in any cases in which alcohol went from being an illegal ‘underground’ substance in a society to being a legal, readily available one. My guess is that some forms of harm would have been reduced (those associated with an illegal market) while others would have increased (those associated with heavier and more widespread use).

“The point here is that there is most likely more harm done through criminal networks, inflated prices (its a seller’s market (sometimes)), sub-standard goods (apart from anything else, I want to see trading standards checking the quality of coke…) etc at the moment than through consumption.”

Absolutely – *at the moment*. Plausibly, though, certain forms of legalisation for certain drugs could tip the balance the other way.

“Especially when there is the question of whether consumption (which is high at the moment – and therefore doing harm in the way you say under the current system) would actually increase to answer – legalising something does not necessarily increase the uptake of it.”

No, but it’s a possibility that can’t be ignored. People like drugs and seem to use those drugs that are readily and legally available in large quantities (if the cases of alcohol and tobacco are anything to go by). And in relative terms, I’m not convinced consumption *is* that high at the moment. In fact I’d be very surprised if alcohol wasn’t at least ten times as widely used as any illegal drug.

“I think banning things because they *might* lead to other people being harmed is a dangerous road to go down, especially when the item in question isn’t principally used to do harm. I don’t particularly like the idea of wrapping the world in cotton wool, if you see what I mean.”

I do see what you mean and I’m sympathetic to your point; but if we’re pretty damn certain, on the basis of good evidence, that allowing persons A, B and C to take action X is likely to result in harm being done to one or more of persons D, E and F, we must have some sort of obligation to prevent that harm, perhaps even if that means restricting the freedoms of A, B and C in some way. (Certainly that’s the principle behind many things that liberals typically think are acceptable – gun control, speed limits, licences to practice medicine or sell alcohol, etc. etc.)

“The news literally brought tears to my eyes. We have fought so long for such progress.”

I wouldn’t get your hopes up, the news has barely reported on it. Channel 4 news went a whole hour without mentioning the story once.

and Channel 4 news are well into drugs..

Surely this is what is actually going to happen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/dec/06/1

A plan to remove the legal minimum number of scientists from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs risks further harming relationships with scientists and with evidence

@

“I do see what you mean and I’m sympathetic to your point; but if we’re pretty damn certain, on the basis of good evidence, that allowing persons A, B and C to take action X is likely to result in harm being done to one or more of persons D, E and F, we must have some sort of obligation to prevent that harm, perhaps even if that means restricting the freedoms of A, B and C in some way. (Certainly that’s the principle behind many things that liberals typically think are acceptable – gun control, speed limits, licences to practice medicine or sell alcohol, etc. etc.)”

Yeah, that’s legitimate. The fact that the political mass referred to as ‘liberal’ is the one that generally takes an illiberal approach to gun control is revealing. I’m painfully aware that many arguments I use to support drug legalisation are ones I’d be arguing against when it came to gun legalisation.

I think it partly comes down both to what you mean by “likely” in the post above. Making heroin more widely available but not free to addicts would almost certainly increase the likelihood of people committing crimes to pay for heroin (I’ve cleverly hidden one possible solution to that in this very sentence), but perhaps wouldn’t increase crime so much as to justify banning the substance. Another point (one done to death in this thread already, of course) is that as you’re now arguing from the pragmatic rather than the idealistic POV, the amount of harm that is done by NOT legalising drugs could well be argued to be greater. At that point, obviously, we’re down to arguing over the numbers.

I also admit that a lot of my thinking on drug laws is intuitive. For example, the idea that you can ruin someone’s life simply for using a substance you consider might turn them to the dark side seems very, very wrong. I instinctively don’t like the idea of turning to some promising young person who’s been made unemployable by the criminal record you’ve given them and saying: “Ah, but in taking that cocaine you irresponsibly raised the chances that you would eventually commit burglary by X%! You’ve got no-one to blame but yourself!”