Drugs. Aren’t they great, eh? On any given day, you can probably find me in the corner of my room, rocking back and forth in the dark, having a grand old time with my cocaine reserves.
There’s nothing illegal about saying this, or printing it in a newspaper (at least, if you’re reading this), but there is a slight legality consideration when it comes to actually taking them. Drugs are sort of not allowed.
Well, not for long, if government think tank Transform has anything to do with it. This week, they put forward their ‘blueprint’ for drug law reform. Basically, they want drugs to be entirely legal.
Why stop there? Let’s take a few leaves from America’s shining example, and legalise guns too. That way, we’ll always be safe. Would you rob a bank if the lady had an automatic shotgun beside her panic button? They should trial AK-47-toting checkout girls at Sainsbury’s.
Britain could become more independent, too. No longer would we have to see our hard-earned pounds being siphoned off into Nigeria or Afghanistan, but we could grow opiates in our back gardens. Sheffield Smack and Weed of Watford would be proud new additions to our rich heritage of industry. If Transform are to be believed, there are endless benefits.
This is, of course, a ridiculous idea. Legalising drugs is possibly the most brazenly idiotic idea since burning irreplaceable, toxic fossil fuels to power transportation, or electing Tony Blair.
Their reasoning? It would “reduce crime”. Brilliant. That’s some fantastic, outside-the-box, 21st Century thinking. In fact, while we’re at it, let’s legalise prostitution. We could buy a hooker with our milk and bread on our next shop – just don’t go for the Tesco value range.
Of course it would reduce crime. If smoking marijuana, or injecting heroin, was legal, the crime rates would clearly fall dramatically. Drug-use crime would drop by a staggering 100 per cent.
It would lead to other crime numbers dropping too. Drug dealers could have designated crack-points in local supermarkets, safely monitored by police to protect innocent users from harm or extortion. And prices would go down. Selling Es on ebay would make the market more competitive, leaving users with more cash for guns and prostitutes. It would help the economy.
Legalising murder would reduce crime, but that doesn’t mean it’s a brilliant idea. Drugs are illegal for a reason. They are dangerous, addictive and destructive. There’s a world of difference, certainly, between the occasional spliff and a heroin junkie, but drugs are drugs and they destroy people’s lives.
Outlawing drugs was one of the better ideas from the modern era. I’m sure that if heroin, crack and the likes had been widely available (or indeed, in the case of many chemical-compound drugs, invented) hundreds of years ago, they’d probably be legal now.
After all, that body-endangering, mind-warping toxin we know as alcohol has been widely available since civilisation began.
Similarly, the absurdly damaging death-sticks that are cigarettes would never pass the kind of health and safety checks that new products need to pass to make it to our shelves if they were invented today, yet they are easily obtainable. The fact that the governments of the western world actually put a stop to the dangerous drugs vice before it became acceptable is one of the few high points of modern thinking.
Legalising drugs might help save a few people from falling into dangerous drug gangs, and it might make our prisons a little less congested, but it won’t tackle the cause of the problem. If anything, making drugs more acceptable and more freely available will simply lead more people into harming themselves. People can openly buy cigarettes, but this doesn’t ease the problems of addiction or disease they cause.
Similarly, it might save a few quid to stop raiding drug factories or blocking pill traffickers, but this has always been throwing money down a black hole. The key is to spend on persuading people to stop, setting up help schemes and rehabilitation clinics. It may sound clichéd, but this is the only way the war on drugs can be fought; spreading awareness of the dangers and creating help for those who can’t escape them. Transform’s wishes for Amsterdam-style, coffee shop drug-swaps simply won’t achieve this.
So let’s put a stop to the crazy ideas and keep on pushing a sensible ‘No to drugs’ culture. After all, we still have smoking and drinking.

1. Malcolm Kyle
Alex Evans; you are blatantly helping to increase robberies and assaults on innocent people. —The high prices of drugs caused by prohibition force many drug addicts to turn to robbery in order to pay for their drugs. Legalised regulation would drop drug prices. Drug users would no longer need to rob/assault innocent people in order to support their drug habit. This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legally regulated.
Alex Evans; you have helped clog prisons with nonviolent people. —Nearly 50% of all people in prison are serving time for nonviolent drug charges. To house just one prisoner for one year costs the taxpayer more than 50 thousand pounds! The result; Drug use has increased!
Alex Evans; you obviously support organised crime, terrorists and drug cartels. —criminal organizations thrive off the enormous profits caused by drug prohibition. These organizations are responsible for thousands of murders! Many of the people killed or hurt are innocent people who “get in the way” These violent organisations will never be put out of business unless drugs are legally regulated.
Alex Evans; you are aiding and abetting environmental destruction. —Underground illegal cocaine and methamphetamine labs use toxic chemicals to produce those drugs. The wastes are recklessly dumped in forests and streams. These highly toxic chemicals are causing major environmental damage in South American rain-forests. This environmental destruction will stop only if drugs are legally regulated.
Alex Evans; you appear to help lure thousands of young people into quitting school. —It is a fact that thousands of inner-city youths drop out of school to make enormous profits by selling drugs. The incentive to drop out of school would end if drugs were legally regulated.
Alex Evans; you are helping to make/keep drugs easily available for kids. —In spite of what you may believe, keeping drugs illegal does not keep drugs away from children! Drugs are easily obtainable in almost every school in the UK. Legalised regulation would put schoolyard drug dealers out of business! There would be less drugs in UK schools if drugs were legally regulated.
Alex Evans; you are subsidising criminals by letting them reap huge drug profits without paying taxes. —Since drugs are sold anyway, wouldn’t you rather have them heavily taxed so it would reduce everybody’s tax burden? You are giving criminals a free ride and it’s coming out of your neighbor’s pocket. Working people pay 100% of all taxes for the drug dealers! Why do you want everybody else to pay taxes for drug dealers?
Alex Evans; the drug war harms/kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and burdens all taxpayers. The drug war has not reduced, and never will reduce, drug use!
Alex Evans; prohibition is not regulation; prohibition is a dangerous “free-for-all” where all the profits go to organized criminals and terrorists!
For shame on you Alex Evans!
2. Kieran Harwood
@Malcolm
“This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legally regulated.”
No it wouldn’t, you can argue that it would reduce but the idea that it would vanish is absurd. There are muggers who are mugging people to buy alcohol and cigarettes. Clearly legalising drugs will just mean they either need to mug less or will get more.
I don’t understand the logic behind your second point at all, they seem utterly unrelated… Maybe you could explain the connection? Do you mean to say that drug use is related to how much tax people are paying or that the promise of jail time encourages drug use?
Organised crime has many methods of making money… Piracy is an obvious one… They supply a legally attainable product which is of inferior quality but at a reduced price. Legalising drugs will just mean they have to drop their prices. If you think that they won’t be able to undercut official sources (who have to obey rules like not dumping toxic waste) then you are wrong.
On that note, the environmental damage isn’t going to stop through economic measures, they are making it cheaper, clearly this is the case because they are making it as cheaply as possible, and that is bound to be cheaper (unless you are in favour of large government subsidies for creating these drugs)
“The incentive to drop out of school would end if drugs were legally regulated.”
No
“There would be less drugs in UK schools if drugs were legally regulated.”
No. Are you trying to suggest that a product that is legal for adults and illegal for children is less likely to be in the hands of children? How many children have smoked a cigarette compared to taken heroin? This will just mean that it is easier for the dealers to purchase the product, just get their older brother to buy some.
“wouldn’t you rather have them heavily taxed so it would reduce everybody’s tax burden?”
So, wait, you want the drugs heavily taxed… Well, that’ll definitely help out with stopping the illegal drugs undercutting them. Again, look at piracy.
“The drug war has not reduced, and never will reduce, drug use!”
That sounds an awful lot like a statement rather than an opinion. Do you maybe have some evidence?
@Alex
“Drug-use crime would drop by a staggering 100 per cent.”
That’s some sweet statistics there. :-)
Out of interest, would you support a ban on alcohol and/or cigarettes if it came in so as to bring them in line with the “newer” stuff? Saying that they are more of a ‘traditional’ drug doesn’t really justify their continued legality…
3. Lianne Wilson
Only the third body paragraph before the straw men are rolled in? I’m impressed.
I get the impression you’re being purposely obtuse here, too. Legalisation of drugs would obviously not just reduce drugs crime but crime related to drug use, such as violence and theft. Prohibition is dangerous. After all, look at the prohibition of alcohol in 1930s America: gang warfare, Tommy guns and Al Capone. Around 14,000 people have died in Mexico’s drug wars since the end of 2006. When you’re a drugs dealer and someone steals your supply, what do you do? You can’t go to the law, so must make your own ‘justice’; you must seek revenge through violence or take the hit. A legalised system would mean that drugs disputes could be solved through the courts rather than guns. You don’t see pubs engaging in systematic violence.
The reason that legalising drugs is OK but legalising murder isn’t is that murder is inherently immoral. Drug use is not, it is merely currently illegal. You say that drug use is dangerous, so are horse riding, boxing and flying. You say that drug use is addictive, so are caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin and World of Warcraft. You say that drug use is destructive, so are deforestisation, beef burgers and Formula One racing. Besides which, you seem to ignore that in many cases drug use is in fact beneficial: look at MDMA (Ecstasy) and Cannabis.
But, the most compelling argument towards the legalisation of drugs is not reduction of violence, protection of victims through regulation, economic gains, health or that prohibition simply doesn’t work, it’s personal freedom. My body is my body. As long as I harm no others, I can do what I want with it. It is mine to protect, to improve and to damage, as I choose. I can punch myself repeatedly in the head, if I like. It is the same argument, freedom to my own person, that allows me, incidentally, to practise dangerous sports and hobbies, eat junk food, drink alcohol, cut myself , receive euthanasia, commit suicide, engage in BDSM, prostitute myself and take drugs. All these are things I can do to my own body.
To quote John Stuart Mill: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant… Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.
On which note, you say: why not legalise prositution? I say: good point. Why not? If I want to sell my body it is mine to sell. If I want to hallucinate about giant hairy spiders, well then weeble weeble sclup… Incidentally, you mention alcohol and cigarettes. These are legal and harmful. These kill more people than drugs do (much of the harm from drugs, by the way, is caused by them being cut with things like quinine, rat poison and the like, which would disappear if regulated by the authorities and taken from the black market). Would you ban these too?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/legalise-drugs-john-gray http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/heroin_and_cocaine_cost_britai.html
4. Lianne Wilson
Kieran: “That sounds an awful lot like a statement rather than an opinion. Do you maybe have some evidence?”
For your reference, this might be a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Assorted_arguments_against_the_efficacy_of_the_War_on_Drugs
5. Kieran Harwood
Wasn’t it the fourth paragraph? But yeah… Straw man FTW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#The_War_on_Drugs_is_working
(same page… It’s like the article is balanced or something… On Wikipedia! What is the world coming to?)
So from this we can conclude… what? That less people are using the drugs, the drugs are more expensive to produce, the amount of drugs getting through (by cost) is… about the same I guess… The street cost is more which means that the ones who are taking drugs are more violent but there’s less of them so crime rates have dropped?
While we’re on Wikipedia I guess it’s time to go for the obvious picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
So based solely on those two factors there are 6 drugs that are better than alcohol and tobacco (and 2 that are worse than both)
@JSM (I guess): Surely you can harm a society without harming any individuals, and that is a justifiable thing to stop?
6. Rhys
This entire article is just straw manning, miss representing and bad logic. I’m almost thinking that this was done as a joke.
7. Raven
This is a terribly written article. Instead of even pretending to take the impartial line of a journalist, or even the informed tone of an opinion columnist, you have completely failed to engage with the debate. Your long and poorly researched rant completely misrepresents the reasons for legalisation, oversimplifying them to the point where you can mock them rather than form a critique from a position of understanding. Oh dear.
You also betray an abject lack of knowledge of ‘drugs’ as a subject matter, an ignorance no doubt fueled by the enormous propaganda effort that keeps you too terrified to do anything as crazy-rebellious as sip on the end of a spliff at a party lest you wake up tomorrow a crack whore. Crack and heroin make some users steal to fund their habits (behaviour which would decrease dramatically if these drugs were available in limited amounts on the NHS); weed on the other hand chills us out too much to feel like walking to the shops, let alone mugging someone. No-one has ever died from a weed overdose – it’s not possible – so why can I get jail time for carrying it on my person? Cocaine is a party drug; no-one sits in their room and does it on their own. Ecstasy is completely non-addictive and as long as you stay hydrated (as you should do anyway) you’re at no risk at all, except for the likelihood that you will talk a load of incoherent crap, which seems to be your normal state of existence anyway.
As for your argument that world governments have somehow preempted the widespread use of drugs by putting a timely ban on their sale and consumption, again you are showing your ignorance, this time of drug history. Wild organic highs like marijuana, mescaline, and various types of hallucinogenic mushrooms have been in use across the planet since the beginning of recorded history for reasons varying from recreation to ritual and enlightenment; the same reasons why people take them today. The relatively recent prohibition of these substances serves only to deny us another connection to our cultural, ancestral and spiritual heritage; the outlawing of indigenous plants which grow naturally in the ground is just another manifestation of the nanny state. No-one EVER had the nerve to tell my Celtic ancestors that mushroom trips were morally wrong, and no-one will ever convince me of the same.
8. Lianne Wilson
Kieran: Yes, if you count the one in bold. I wasn’t sure whether to, to be honest.
Anyway, hmm, a lot of those points are missing any citations, so they’re hard to verify – the crime rates one is a particularly dodgy claim. The two about producers and transporters “more expensive or difficult methods” are a bit odd, it basically seems to be a case of “we spent looooots of money fighting drugs and successfully managed to make them spend looooots of money making them”. Well done, guys.
Also, I read the study that that picture you linked comes from, I think its worth pointing out that “Crack cocaine is generally considered to be more dangerous than powdered cocaine, but here they were considered together”. That skews it slightly, though at least they’re honest.
It just goes to show how silly the classification system is though. LSD and Ecstasy are less harmful and less addictive than alcohol and tobacco in every way and yet they are both Class A drugs.
In any case, I stand by my argument that it isn’t whether the war on drugs works or whether crime drops or whether the drugs are harmful: it’s that I am free to use my own body as I wish, causing no harm to others.
Since John Stuart Mill isn’t around to answer, can I ask for a clarification of your question? Maybe a relevant example? Would help me defend his corner ;)
Raven: I think the author has a severe case of reductio ad absurdium, to say the least.
Mind you, the lack of knowledge about drugs is not all that surprising. It took me years to realise that not everything I was taught at school was the truth. We had lovely booklets which were laughably entitled “FACT: The Truth About Drugs”. They lied quite obscenely. Drugs can be dangerous, but then most things can. Responsibility and regulation remove many of the risks.
You may have lost me on the spiritual heritage though ;)
9. Kieran Harwood
Well, spending lots of money to make others spend lots of money is the foundation of any good capitalist country, keep the money flowing, sort of thing. ;)
The justification from the home office says that:
“Class A drugs are considered to be the most likely to cause harm.”
err… Moving on…
An example of Social Harm? Well, I’d just go with the one the Lancet uses in their article (see table at the bottom of page 1051):
http://www.lila.it/doc/documentazione/rdd/thelancet.pdf
Continuing whether alcohol and tobacco are okay to keep legal: “In that case, it is salutary to see that alcohol and tobacco—the most widely used unclassified substances—would have harm ratings comparable with class A and B illegal drugs, respectively.”
Just in case no-one realises, I’m totally in agreement at the poor quality of the arguments presented in the article… Maybe it’s written by someone supporting making all drugs legal to make the opposition look a bit silly…
10. Kieran Harwood
That is to say, the article from gair rhydd, not the article from the Lancet.
11. stonedmofo420
the whole article is embarrassing to read.
12. Lianne Wilson
Well, I admit that the social harm area of my argument is one that needs more work, but nonetheless I hope to be able to make a point or two.
Firstly, the section you’re referring to only states that drugs harm society in several ways, it does not state whether this harm is aggravated or mitigated by either prohibition or legalisation. Again, alcohol harms society in several similar ways. Less controversially, cars and computers harm society in several similar ways. Do we ban these simply because they do so? Since the war on drugs is so ineffective (i.e. drug use is still rather rife) and does not seem likely to succeed, drugs will continue to be used; as such, is prohibition or legalisation of drugs more harmful to society? Drugs aren’t going to go away just because they’re banned.
Secondly, from a financial viewpoint, it is quite possible the money saved by ending the war on drugs plus the money earned by legalising drugs may well compensate for any potential, additional costs to health care, social care, etc.
Second-B-ly (:P), I’ve always figured that if people want to smoke there’s no way they should really be able to expect publicly-provided healthcare for problems they get directly caused by their habits. They caused them, they knew the risks.
Thirdly, as Raven says, many of the drugs currently considered illegal come with very few of the social harms listed. Cannabis, for example, causes very few health problems (though there are those caused when it is smoked with tobacco, naturally) and is certainly not known for causing violence, rowdiness, etc. Of course, there are drugs which cause intoxication, rowdiness and violence, but these are rarer than the government would have people believe.
Fourthly, since I’ve mentioned this before and you know what I mean, I can make this point very succinctly: alcohol and tobacco. :P (Although, this is a very interesting article indeed on the health care costs to society of smokers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html)
Fifthly, blood-borne diseases through needle sharing would be severely reduced with legalised drugs. Since drugs equipment is hard to come by due to its association with illegality, users find it hard to get and so resort to sharing dirty needles, etc. This is why places like the NHS provide clean needles to users. Legalisation would therefore reduce the need for needle-sharing and thereby reduce the strain on the NHS due to infection.
Lastly, “Many drugs cause major damage to the family, either because of the effect of intoxication or because they distort the motivations of users, taking them away from their families and into drug-related activities, including crime.” – yes, but this too is a choice. If someone wants to harm their family (I don’t mean by violence but by neglect), they both can and probably will anyway. You can’t tell people how to run their families and you can’t restrict this type of thing based on the idea that some people will be twats with it.
13. Raven
To clarify, Rastafarians, Pagans, Hindu holy men, and by far the majority of indigenous African, Australasian, and North and South American tribal cultures have used psychotropic and hallucinogenic plants and mushrooms as part of religious or spiritual practice throughout their history. To anyone who takes their ancestral spirituality seriously, or who subscribes to a religion which encourages the use of such natural highs for meditation and personal development, this is a big deal. There is a really good book about this called ‘Food of the Gods’ – well worth a read.
Also, in a 2006 study of the effects of psylocybin (the active chemical in magic mushrooms) at Johns Hopkins University in the US, 22 out of 36 – almost 60% – of test subjects reported a “complete” mystical experience. More than one third cited the trip as the most spiritually significant experience of their lives.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9522-magic-mushrooms-really-cause-spiritual-experiences.html
The article contains some predictable mainstream bias against the use of psylocybin mushrooms, but maybe it would be helpful to bear in mind that spiritual experiences can often be profoundly unsettling or scary, as they are often characterised by the experience of powerful forces well outside what you would normally consider ‘reality’. It’s not for you or I (or Alex) to say whether such experiences really are ‘spiritual’ as spirituality is such a subjective area. To me, Christianity has nothing to do with spirituality, however I recognise the right of Christians to disagree with me. But if something has such a profound effect on human culture, and on individuals across the world throughout our history as a species, what gives a government the right to ruin people’s lives for using it? How is it any better to imprison someone for picking ‘Class A’ mushrooms than to imprison them for being Christian or Muslim?
14. Ned
First of all, by “reducing crime” they don’t actually mean crime will be reduced because selling drugs will technically not be a crime any longer, since it’ll become legal, which is what you’re implying with the murder analogy.
You also have a very distorted view of both drugs and their users. The way you tell us that drugs are “dangerous, addictive, destructive,” and that they “destroy people’s lives” is almost patronizing, you might as well have said “drugs are bad, mmkay?” I really suggest you do some research, from unbiased sources that is, not Talk to Frank. And no, not everyone who takes drugs has their life ruined; there exist sensible users, and the irresponsible ones are not a reason to take away everyone else’s freedom.
In regards to legalisation leading people into trying drugs, I wouldn’t have assumed that; it’s not difficult to obtain drugs (have a look at some statistics for the percentage of people who’ve tried certain drugs). I don’t think the majority will start “harming themselves” when they’re legal, although I’m not going to say that none will. See, I’m not being completely biased and totally ignoring the problems as you’re ignoring the benefits.
15. Kieran Harwood
@ Raven (7): You complain about the (kinda obvious) ignorance of drugs but then follow up with a list of facts>
“No-one has ever died from a weed overdose” – this is probably true, it may vary from person to person but the amount required to OD is somewhere around 10,000 that required to get intoxicated (compared to 10 times for alcohol)
“no-one sits in their room and does [Cocaine] on their own.” – Not true
“Ecstasy is completely non-addictive” – Not true (see the Lancet article)
“as long as you stay hydrated you’re at no risk at all” – not true, skipping over the reaction with things such as cardiomyopathy or hypertension, here’s a list of effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Effects Those include some quite harmful things
@Lianne: firstly I guess the obvious thing is to compare the harm to the benefits. I’d put forward the case that computers and cars are much more beneficial than harmful to society (I mean, without computers this discussion would be rather muted). Alcohol I’ll mention later. Presumably the legalisation of drugs will make them more prevalent in society, so the effects will be more pronounced. It is harder to refuse to treat someone for the effects of something they’re allowed to do than something they’re not, so direct health care costs would presumable increase. Does this balance the decrease from having these drugs uncontaminated by bits of glass or similar? That’s a question for some government funded committee, and is probably beyond our ability to predict very well. Similarly for point the second.
As it is, you can’t really justify legalising something that’s bad because “they’ll just do it anyway, and it’s easier this way”.
merging lastly into this, I’d suggest that drugs that cause harm to “family” (although in this sense I’m referring more to friendship groups really) are something that should be banned. A drug that makes the user happy and productive, but unwilling to socialise with other people, is not something I’d want to see legalised at all as it destroys society as a whole (which is one of the main things that separates Homo Sapiens from all those other animals).
onto second-b-ly (I’m jumping around a bit here): I totally agree (with the addendum that the risks need to be made clear, either through wide media coverage or through sufficient labelling)
Skimming together the rest of your points, I’m not saying that some of the drugs that are currently illegal shouldn’t be made legal, but that doesn’t mean they all should (the notion that it’s an all or nothing thing is patently crazy, I mean, coffee is a drug, few think banning that is a good idea, heroin is very bad – 2.78, 3.00 & 2.54 on the Lancet averages I linked to earlier). The drugs that dominate (Multi-objective optimisation reference) both alcohol and tobacco can generally be argued that they should be legalised (for reference, that’s Khat, Alkyl nitrites, Methylphenidate, Ecstasy, GHB & LSD), these arguments are not really applicable for cocaine, heroin, Street methadone or Barbiturates.
I’ll let someone else speak now ;)
16. Raven
Kieran:
Ok, I apologise for occasional exaggeration in my ‘facts’. I was using terms like ‘no-one’ and ‘no risk’ in the casual sense. As in, the vast majority and probably the totality of coke users I’ve ever known do the drug socially, and the risks posed by ecstasy are very very very very low as long as you use it in moderation and keep hydrated. Of course it’s possible to get addicted to anything, including eating potato waffles and posting comments on the Gair Rhydd forum, however of the people I’ve known (who have included some pretty scary crackheads and junkies) I have not met or heard of anyone addicted to E.
17. Kieran Harwood
Oh yeah, it’s possible to get addicted to anything (apart from Uwe Boll films), I was specifically referring to a chemical/physical addiction rather than a psychological one. It isn’t very addictive, but it is a bit.
18. Adam Troth
Well said Lianne. I wish one government had the bravery to stick their neck out and legalise the bloody lot, dedicated to rolling with the policy for a prolonged period rather than scrapping it at the first sign of fickle public outcry and grovelling about how wrong they were and how whatever they do, you mustn’t vote for those horrible nasty extreme-Right thugs.
Again, the author of the article has clearly not broken any new ground and clearly wrote the article with quite an infantile mentality. This is a serious topic. Let’s all treat it with the severity it deserves, rather than making jibes about Tesco Value crack.
19. Lianne Wilson
Ned: That’s the problem with nanny states, they punish everyone and limit freedoms just because some people are idiots and can’t look after themselves. It’s the same with the government wanting a minimum price on alcohol.
Kieran: You mention the benefits of drugs use. OK, what about the benefits to art, culture and science? (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/telegraphdrugs.htm)
Robert Louis Stevenson wrote Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde in six days on a cocaine binge. Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote half his stuff on opium. ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’ was written on mescaline. The Nobel prize winner who invented PCR for detecting trace amounts of DNA has said he doesn’t think he’d have ever invented it without LSD http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015). Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA was apparently on LSD at the time. Then there’s Paul Erdős (see the text starting “After 1971 he also took amphetamines…” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s#cite_ref-6).
These benefits may not quite be as mainstream as the ones from computers and cars (though of course computers and cars are not illegal and therefore benefit from greater numbers of users) but it certainly can’t be argued that drugs don’t have some pretty nice benefits to progress.
After all that, you’ve got the fact that recreation in itself is a benefit which (as I mentioned with a hobby like Formula 1) can often cause many problems. And then of course there’s the medicinal benefits (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/could-recreational-drugs-have-health-benefits-451797.html).
>“As it is, you can’t really justify legalising something that’s bad because “they’ll just do it anyway, and it’s easier this way”.” – No, you can’t. Again, you can’t legalise murder because it happens anyway and it’d be easier if legal, but this is because murder is inherently immoral. On the other hand alcohol certainly prospers whether legal or not (look at the Prohibition) and we’re quite happy to allow that, because although its use causes societal problems, regulation can reduce these problems and alcohol is not inherently immoral. Indeed, banning alcohol causes more ethical problems (with regards to civil liberties and personal freedoms) than not.
Regarding drugs which cause harm to social groups, there are many, many factors which are similarly destructive to these groups which are perfectly fine. For example, becoming engrossed in a new relationship to the minor ‘neglect’ of friends. Or the ever-addictive World of Warcraft. I think you’re perhaps over-inflating the effect of drugs on social cohesion. I sincerely doubt that society would fracture even if everybody used drugs. Most drugs do not shut the user off entirely from others, after all. Indeed, drug-taking is most often a social, group pursuit with users enjoying their experiences together (see the Susan Blackmore link above), often with a sober trip-sitter. Drugs are, as Raven points out, often used as a shared ‘spiritual’ or consciousness-exploring experience in many societies, cementing the ties of a group.
The reason some drugs have connotations of solitude could be many. I for one reckon that a lot of those problems of isolation are due to the lack of support for drug users and the fact that illegality separates the user from ‘law-abiding’ citizens, leaving them with few people to turn to. More often it seems to be the lifestyle of an illegal drugs user that causes the social harm rather than the drugs.
As for your reference to the Lancet ratings, you seem to be saying that legalising drugs like heroin and cocaine is bad because they are harmful to the user, to society and are addictive, am I right? If not (or if there are other reasons), can you tell me why?
Apologies for length (also…).
20. Lianne Wilson
I think the website might’ve screwed up the formatting on that last post of mine, seems to have turned the whole page screwy….. Oops….
21. Kieran Harwood
@Lianne (obviously!) The use of drugs as a medicine is largely irrelevant, as skimming through the list those are nearly all low end (mostly ones that I suggested could be legalised). The fact that they can cure medical conditions is no reason to legalise them (there’s an obvious reference to things such as Ketamine here). Medicinal usage and recreational usage are quite different.
On the benefit to society/culture etc. Firstly the fact that someone was on drugs when they did something doesn’t prove the drugs are the cause (this does, of course, work both ways), but assuming that that was the reason (as Francis Crick et al. claim) LSD is one of the ones I mentioned as being “low” from the Lancet, Amphetamines are not on the list, but they aren’t at the “high” end either, I don’t really know enough about them to know which camp I’d put them in… Opium (in the form used there) and mescaline aren’t there (so I can’t really comment on their comparative effects), which leaves cocaine… It could be argued that there are other, legal, things that do the same job nowadays (I’m reminded of housemates pulling all nighters with the help of Relentless) so maybe it’s role can be replaced.
“alcohol certainly prospers… and we’re quite happy to allow that” – I think that alcohol is so ingrained into (our) society that it’s more a case of “powerless to stop” than “happy to allow”. I guess there’s been so much research into alcohol that it’s a case of “better the devil you know”.
Obviously I wasn’t implying that if you smoke a joint you’ll become a sociophobe instantly. Some (most?) drugs have little negative effect on any kind of social cohesion, that doesn’t mean all of them are like that. Heroin seems to be a poster child for this kind of life wrecking. Anyway, I recall the initial point of that was to suggest JSM was wrong
“Indeed, drug-taking is most often a social, group pursuit with users enjoying their experiences together” – again this tends to be the low end stuff (and obviously includes both tobacco and alcohol!)
“The reason some drugs… ...that causes the social harm rather than the drugs.” – I’d argue the ratios, but there are certainly a lot of factors… Although the support and legal angles would surely mean that all the drugs would be the same, which they aren’t. So you have to argue that there isn’t enough support/there’s extra social stigma associated with some drugs compared to others to explain the differences. I’d argue there’s more government support for the truly hard drugs such as heroin compared to the low end stuff, and that social stigma, although a not inconsequential part of it, is certainly not the main contributor. The lifestyle is a cause/effect question really. Does heroin make people into the stereotypical heroin user, or were they all like that beforehand? Again, bit of both I’d say.
/breath
Nearly there… On the Lancet, I refer to that most because it’s the best stuff IMO. It’s generally considered scientific in it’s approach and methodology, as unbiased as you are likely to find in mainstream stuff and easy for comparative purposes. I don’t think for one second that the factors that they rate drugs on there are the only ones relevant, but they are probably among the most important. There might be other reasons not to legalise heroin/cocaine, but I can’t help but feel that I don’t need to think of more reasons, I already have some. :)
Not directly related to Lianne’s post. There is, of course, the question of how legal to make these drugs as well. The comments on, say, Ecstacy (it’s fine if you take it properly for ~99% of people and potentially fatal for a very small minority) would, IMO, suggest that it should be prescription based (maybe in the future you could play the Viagra/Ecstacy ratio game in your spam folder) whereas Khet and Marijuana are probably more in the tobacco/alcohol area (you can’t just hand it out like candy and giving it to kids is a bad idea, it comes with recommendations for consumption limits that everyone ignores etc. etc.)
Also, there really isn’t enough flaming here, it seems much too civil, maybe we should mention religion (Islam’s approach to drugs is an obvious start point)
22. Lianne Wilson
Kieran: Apologies, I’ll try and restrict my arguments to the top end from now on. Though I do just want to say that Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem ‘Kubla Khan’ (one of his most famous) is directly inspired by an opium-dream, so it seems likely it wouldn’t exist without it.
Also, amphetamines may not be on the list but is on your harm/dependence scale diagram as being roughly the same as Ketamine, only less physically harmful (same harm level as street methadone), you might know the drug better as ‘speed’.
Regarding alcohol as “powerless to stop”, I think that if you asked most people whether they would agree with a ban on alcohol they would think you were mad, whereas quite a number might agree with banning less harmful drugs. I don’t think anyone really wants to stop alcohol, except the health service and a few teetotallers, etc.
Whilst heroin is indeed a nasty drug, there are other factors in this than the drug itself. One of the main problems with heroin is that it is often cut with lots of rubbish. This means that there is a much, much higher chance of poisoning and harm, allergic reactions (such as to quinine) and of getting the dosage wrong due to the wide variations in purity from different sources. Many ‘overdoses’ are also caused by interaction with other drugs. There’s also the factor of what’s called ‘place conditioning’ where an as yet unclear sort of Pavlovian response can greatly increase your tolerance in familiar locations and decrease it in unfamiliar ones.
As you say though, John Stuart Mill was the original point, I’m not sure I entirely agree he’s wrong but I think a discussion of that alone could probably take all day. Unfortunately that probably means we won’t really be able to argue over the harder drugs like heroin and cocaine because (whilst I’m not as set in stone in my opinions as I am with the lesser drugs) much of my argument would probably end up focussing on personal freedoms and my right to my own body, which brings us right back round to society versus the individual again. Might have to save that one for another time :)
Good to see we agree on drugs like LSD and ecstasy and the like though.
Re flaming: you’re a dick, Elvis isn’t dead and all immigrants should be deported ;P
23. Kieran Harwood
@Lianne: And without Kubla Khan we’d lose out on “Welcome to the Pleasuredome” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood, and that’d be a travesty. :)
There is an argument that saying something is okay due to it inspiring music/poetry/whatever is an intrinsically flawed idea, I like Mein Tiel by Rammstein, but don’t really condone killing and eating people… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Teil
I’m taking the point out of context slightly there, but hopefully you see my point.
yeah, I thought when I wrote the alcohol bit that I was not wording it well… Banning alcohol is not really a practical option, and not one that most would want (although I believe that there are more people who, deep down, would like to ban it than you think). I fully agree that many would think you mad for suggesting a ban on alcohol, but the only reason is that, well, it’s always been there, everyone knows about it, it’d be like banning double glazing. I merely mean that (nearly) everyone is powerless to stop it, whereas only the vast majority are happy with it.
The cutting of drugs is an obvious issue, and one that is solved with legalisation (assuming here for a moment that people don’t go for the cheaper alternatives that aren’t legal). I believe (but am not 100%) that the “harm” factors the Lancet used are based on using proper drugs, rather than watered down versions… Not sure though.
The interaction with other drugs thing leads me to another issue that I’ll briefly mention. If you just legalise all drugs that aren’t as bad as alcohol then you hit the problem of cumulative effects… While taking drug A may be okay, and taking drug B may be okay, taking them together can be a big problem (this is not me saying “oh, look, that drug is bad if you do X, Y and Z, lets just ban it”, that’s a stupid, knee-jerk reaction), this is why I keep mentioning an over the counter (or even just limiting it to pharmacies), I mean, seriously, I have enough trouble buying Lemsip from a pharmacy, I can’t imagine the effort of buying LSD from them (“Is this for personal use?”, “Are you on any other drugs?”, “Is there an r in the month?”), maybe that alone will reduce drug use :)
Where was I? Anyway… I believe if these drugs were introduced it would be sheer madness to just let anyone have them, even if that was the end goal. There is plenty of stuff in pharmacies that you can take that are as good as some illegal drugs, seriously (this is not a recommendation to take them!) and I think there’s a chance that some drugs would lose popularity if they were freely available at a pharmacy (tales of getting high on cough medicine are not nearly as “cool”), but this would take time, a nice phased introduction where they are slowly introduced would make the whole thing seem much more mundane.
I agree to not talk about how we disagree on JSM :)
Also, Elvis is dead, but his brain is in a jar and building an army of dinosaurs on the inside of the Earth (which is hollow). I agree on your immigration policy, anyone who can’t trace their ancestry back to Tudor Britain should be loaded on the boats ;)
24. Lianne Wilson
Kieran: I’m not saying that drugs are OK because they inspired art as such, I’m saying that this inspiration is one of the benefits to society that you asked for examples of.
By the by, a friend has told me that the Lancet scale is apparently hideously flawed and quite controversial, though I don’t know how true that it, finding it hard to Google. Found this ( http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/2009/09/a_comparison_of_addiction_and.php ) though: “One of the stupidest plots I’ve ever seen… First, it reduces “harm” to a single dimension, which mixes chronic medical adverse effects (alcohol would be near the top of the harm list and benzos near the bottom), the risk of acute intake itself (GHB can easily kill with only a small overdose but cannabis overdose is generally non-lethal) the risk of acute injury due to actions while intoxicated (ketamine ranks high on this one but is otherwise quite safe). So the “harm” axis is a muddle.”
I agree that letting anyone access drugs would be a very bad idea. It would have to be something strictly regulated, like prescription drugs. The most important thing is to not let them into the hands of those without their own moral culpability and without the capacity for rational decision, such as children. Taking drugs, like many risky activities such as drinking and sex, is a decision which has to be taken by individuals capable of informed choice, consciously, consensually and whilst in possession of all the facts on the risks involved. I’m not quite as sure about restricting drugs for those with pre-existing medical conditions or whatever, though. Though those people would certainly have highly increased risks, it is nonetheless their right to choose as long as they know the risks.
As for the cool factor, I agree that drugs may lose some popularity. Unfortunately, there will always be people looking for taboos. If drugs were legal there certainly would still be some idiots turning to illegal substances and activities just to be rebellious. Sadly, not much can be done about that.
By the way, Ben Goldacre has a very good article on drugs laws and research into the effects of legalisation here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/07/bad-science-nott-drugs
Also, the Earth is not hollow, it is flat. Besides, Elvis’s army of dinosaurs will be no match for the secret army of Aryan clones that Hitler is creating on his moonbase. His moonbase which enforces…. the death penalty which entirely agree with! ZOMG, flamewar! ;)
25. Kieran Harwood
The Lancet may be “controversial” but I challenge you to find anything on this subject which isn’t. You can complain that it isn’t the best possible survey of drugs that’s possible, but as we don’t live in a world where everything exists we have to make do with what we have. If there’s a better survey out there that anyone here wants to link to then I’ll be happy to use that, until then I’ll just stick to the best that there is available.
I actually found that linked website before I found the Lancet article. The graph there is very common on Wikipedia (I know of three separate pages that feature it, there’s almost certainly more, plus it’s in 8 languages). The graph itself is made by Apartmento2, rather than appearing in the Lancet. I assume that the complaint that the poster has is that the graph uses the mean of the three harms mentioned, rather than having each on a different axis… The only sensible way to present that is a 9 dimensional net graph, which would be unreadable with 20 sets on it. An example of just two sets is: https://users.cs.cf.ac.uk/K.G.Harwood/9DimGraph.png and look at that, by using the same data we come up with a different result, as suddenly heroin isn’t dominated any more (due to intoxication). Statistics, is there nothing they can’t prove? :)
“it is nonetheless their right to choose” – we don’t live in that society, we live in this real-world one, where attempted suicide and assisted suicide are illegal.
“there certainly would still be some idiots turning to illegal substances and activities just to be rebellious” – We just need to make sure all the illegal drugs are also incredibly fatal – it’s a problem which solves itself. (joke)
The Earth is both flat and hollow, at the same time. How does a death penalty work amongst a clone army? I mean, if one of them is guilty aren’t all the rest, they are the same person after all…
26. Lianne Wilson
Kieran: Well, I can’t find any better graph to be using either, to be honest. Of course the Lancet isn’t ideal, but, as you say, what is? It’s something to work from, at the least, but it may be not the best idea to draw too many conclusions from it, that’s all. Certainly I’m not too sure that alcohol and tobacco, alcohol particularly due to its high intoxication factor, shouldn’t be higher up the dangerous list. I would have thought, at least, that they’d both be more harmful than Ketamine. But yes, as you say, stick with this unless there’s better.
Nice graph! But yeah, a 9D graph would be rather hideous… but maybe a 3D one would be doable? I think certainly that physical and social harm should be separated out. They’re quite different issues.
“We don’t live in that society, we live in this real-world one, where attempted suicide and assisted suicide are illegal”. Well, I would argue that they shouldn’t be. If we’re in a society that doesn’t allow people the right to ownership of their own body, including the right to terminate it, we’re in a society that’s “doin it rong”. People in possession of all their mental faculties do have the right to their own personhood, whether the government allows them to exercise it legally or not.
Re clone guilt: shut up, you filthy commie.
27. Mark Whiteley
Alex Evans cleary suffers from that condition known as “not having a clue what you’re on about”. The who debate around drugs is fuelled by moral positions not empirical vidence…an information rich but knowledge poor environment. Do some research before you write an opinion piece, so scathing of one or two individuals who might know what they’re talking about. Before you open you’re mouth about drugs and prohibition again 1)read “Heroin Century” 2) don’t use journalism as a form of grandstanding (unless you aspire to being a Daily Mail columnist) and 3) ask researchers here at the Uni. I’d love to debate the issue with you…oh and by the way, pack some solid srguments not rehashed filed policies and moral hypocrisy. Must dash, off to the offie for some Class A alcohol and then round to Fred’s tp pick up a Mach 10. Alcohol, by the current standards deployed (that were rubished by the 2006 Science and Technology Committee as having NO scientific grounds) alcohol should be a Class A and tobacco Class B-
not my opinion, just and example of some of the garbage that passes as SCIENTIFIC evidence. Do you really believe that if prohibition were put to rest, the nation would rush out and score smack. Some of the comments above have been wise in their insight, some not so. Of course my subjective opinion counts for zilch but 40 years of scholarship on the issue of drugs has led us into a dead end where reformists are slagged as pro drug and prohibitionists are still under the illusion that drugs can be policed out of existence. If the heroin trade is estimated at £60 million (Djemil Hussein, 2008) in prisons alone, with all that security, what realistic chance do we have of making prohibition work when it’s within prisons people often pick up their first habit. You need to study up a bit…Transform have a particular view, check out the work of LEAP online…ex DEA who give an incredible insight into the damage prohibition itself has caused, let alone the drugs-they’re just a commodity. And, just a a final comment…when SAS troopers are signing affidavits (TOM Carew in Curtis (2003) Web of Decit) to the effect that they were ordered by the CIA to ignore opium trains crossing Afgahn border into Pakisthan, in whose interests are the international conventions weighted? Prohibition kills.