Prohibition

Just so you know, when I was eleven, at prep school, I used to have two knives.

One, a "Swiss Army Knife" was a thing of pride - everyone vied to get one with as many different gadgets on as they could. That one I used to carry in my pocket all the time; you just never knew when you would come across a pencil that had not been turned into "pencil cricket" or a desk with a screw that could do with being removed for the delectation of watching the next occupants of it have it collapse on them...:)

The other was one of those "Ray Mears" type things - it folded its four inch blade, kept razor sharp (because there wasn't much else to do with it and one of those sharpening blocks), into its wooden handle. It was meant for whittling my woggle with or whatever it was that we Scouts did, but it occasionally came in handy for cutting up sticky-backed plastic or something like that!

Come to think of it I must have had another one as well - one that had a fixed blade and was worn in its scabbard on my belt whenever I was in uniform. Oh, and if I recall, I bought them all, with my saved up pocket money, myself, and whilst I may well look a decade older than I am now, I did not, I assure you, at eleven!

And the most memorable book I read at school that year?  The Cross and the Switchblade .

I don't remember anyone, ever, getting stabbed, except perhaps by accident when their woggle was whittled too much. We soon grew out of them, when we graduated to the CCF and started playing with guns instead! But I do recall some of the Duke of Edinburgh types remained loyal to their knives. So, blame the Duke of Edinburgh maybe, or Peter Duncan definitely, but the knife itself - what a useful piece of equipment!

Don't they have pencil cricket or woggles that need whittled, any more?

Oh, and I still have a fold-away thing for my pipe that has a blade and a stiletto type poker thing on it - am I going to gaol?

...but if some of you arrived here because of a scurrilous Labour leaflet trying to discredit me because of my opinion on drugs issues, I wanted to settle your minds, I hope, with a synopsis of my position...

I am indeed in principle in favour of legalizing the vast majority of recreational drugs - for adults. Once legalized, their supply should be regulated, controlled through a licensing system, and taxed - which can help fund more treatment instead of prison cells. It is not the state's job to prevent adults in particular choosing to put something into their own body, or indeed, like dangerous sports and so on, what they do with their own body, if others are not harmed by that. Such laws actually remove the ability of the individual to be morally responsible for what they themselves do.

That is not to say that I want to see an increase in drugs use. Just that I believe that it is the current approach, the "war on drugs", that creates and sustains an illegal underground market that encourages people into multiple addictions and puts people into the hands of criminal suppliers who could not care less about the health of their customers so long as the money rolls in. It was recently suggested that the international trade in illicit narcotics is now the world's third largest trading sector, after I think it was financial services and energy. When heroin was legal in this country we had 18 registered addicts in the country - despite it being used in common, over the counter, drugs such as cough syrups. Make it illegal and we have seen the level of addition soar exponentially.

This is a long considered and pragmatic position, that agrees with many professionals in the fields both of law enforcement and drug treatment. Basically, that the current system, based on criminal enforcement, puts far more people in danger from drugs - it makes it easier to peddle to children, because the peddlars are unseen and uncontrolled (and sometimes children in the schoolyard themselves). It creates the core of gang and gun culture. It makes it harder to seek help when, in doing so, you have to out yourself as a criminal.

From Colombia to Croxteth, Afghanistan to the Aylesbury Estate, more people die because of the criminal networks engaged in the drugs trade than from the drugs themselves. Our politicians know this and continue to pursue the obviously failed "war on drugs" strategy because it is a populist one that's sure to get some people huffing and puffing and voting for them - don't fall for it - they are nothing short of accessories to murder! We need a mature debate about these immoral laws (any law that actually colludes in and creates the environment that breeds killings in our communities is an immoral law).

Nonetheless, as the desperate Labour party scaremongers know, my theoretical position on drugs is not one that has much relevance in the role of a city councillor, which is why we Lib Dems have decided not to rise to this astonishing personal attack, marring as it does what has been a reasonably well conducted campaign so far, and concentrate on the positive things we wish to do within the remit of the city council. I do not want any more people, and predominantly younger people as many of the victims of the current drugs system are, dying because of a populist and immoral set of laws that create more problems than they fix.

Now, perhaps you will stick around a bit and read up on my positive ideas for the pressing problems on which Oxford City Council could have an influence, such as affordable housing, and partnership working to bring a bit of business sense and community ownership into the management and development of community owned assets - in the process, I hope, giving more opportunities to people to do something fruitful with their lives and leisure time and not get onto drugs in the first place!

A: Before the government bans their legal substance of choice...

It was probably too good to be true, a "legal high" giving similar effects to ecstasy. And so it proves to be. The government, following orders from the bansturbators at Euro High Command (who says we still have control of our own domestic laws any longer?) is to move to ban BZP, Benzylpiperazine. According to the Guardian it is likely to become a class C substance by the end of the year:

Move to ban stimulant BZP | Science | The Guardian:

Owen Bowcott

The Guardian, Tuesday March 4 2008 Article history

BZP, a psychoactive stimulant promoted as a legal alternative to ecstasy and amphetamines, is to be banned in Britain. The government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs will today begin the process of making it a controlled substance, following a recommendation from the European Union. It is likely to become a class C drug before the end of the year. BZP was once almost marketed as an antidepressant until its similarity to amphetamines was noted. It has been associated with vomiting, anxiety, insomnia, mood swings and seizures. It is already a controlled drug in eight EU countries. The EU action is binding and requires all EU member states to take legal action within a year. There has been no direct evidence of BZP causing death, although it has been linked to several fatalities in the UK.

I haven't tried it yet. I was going to a few weeks ago when I felt a bit down and thought it might be safer than trying to get a black market ecstasy tablet or some MDMA - it's really good for social situations that make me nervous and where I would not want to get drunk just to be able to strike up a conversation with strangers.

The whole sorry saga highlights just how idiotic the drugs laws are, and in particular the British classification system that Jacqui Smith has recently re-inforced with her deadly new death strategy. If BZP becomes a class C drug, while those it seeks to emulate are class B, amphetamines, and class A the even less harmful MDMA/ecstasy, where is the science behind that? Yup, you're right, there isn't any.

They may as well make sugar and chocolate class Bs on a whim if you ask me. Both are "linked" to several thousand fatalities each year in the UK. There's better science there it seems to me to justify that. But more than this, no doubt the search will go on for another substance, as yet uncontrolled, that will give similar effects, and the drugs laws will play catch up once again after legal businesses have built up a good trade in unadulterated doses because they can operate in country in clean, clinical lab factories and not kitchen top clandestine chemistry sets.

Yeah, okay, it's a bit of hyperbole, perhaps, but I simply cannot fathom why someone who is presumably deemed bright enough by her colleagues to manage law and order in this country cannot understand how drugs prohibition worsens the problem and leads to deaths, from violent street crime in the gangs that fight over patches where they sell drugs, via the dangers of adulterated or unknown strength products, to ignorance of what to do in reaction to symptoms of drugs and the inability to admit you have a problem because it marks you out as a criminal.

And our lawmakers are directly responsible for all these deaths. They could begin to take the supply chain out of the hands of the real criminals, disarming the streets. They could regulate and control the quality of substances so that people know what it is they are getting and taking. They could make it so much easier for people to access treatment where they develop a problem, and remember not all drugs users do develop a problem, simply by removing the stigma of criminalization, freeing up people to admit to friends and family, to stop hiding until it's too late.

Channel Four News has just run a package talking to teenagers who started various drugs in their early to mid teens. This is a problem, but it is far more difficult a problem to tackle while the whole supply chain is criminal, hiding from the law not operating within it and subject to proper scrutiny like alcohol and tobacco sales. And I'll bet you that in any community in the country there are more drugs dealers hiding, especially if you include 'social suppliers' who just sell to a close circle of friends, than there are outlets for the legal drugs of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. How are you supposed to police that. How are you supposed to police the international trade in heroin when you realize that a month's supply for an individual addict can be concentrated enough to fit under the postage stamp on a letter?

And now, in addition to all the deaths and misery that prohibition causes, the government wants to overturn a central tenet of nearly all legal systems - that one is innocent until proven guilty - by seizing assets when someone is arrested on suspicion of supplying drugs rather than on conviction. We have truly entered a police state.

Jacqui Smith...I hope you are prepared, just as the Defense Secretary should do to returning coffins of our service personnel from theatres of operations, to attend every funeral of a drug related death of someone's son, someone's daughter, someone's husband or wife, look their relatives in the eye and tell them you're doing everything possible. Because you're not. You're exacerbating the problem and making rich some very nasty people. Prohibition kills, just as surely as if you strapped them to a chair and plugged them into the national grid, and you are perpetuating those deaths.

I don't suppose young Jonathan Matondo will make as much of a national stir in death as the even younger Rhys Jones a couple of months ago, but it appears the "thoroughly repugnant moralistic stance" on drugs prohibition to quote from Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales, last week, has claimed yet another innocent victim.

Sheffield boy, 16, shot dead in play area - Times Online:

Local resident Douglas Johnson, an advice worker, said everybody in the area thought the death was related to drug dealing.

“This is what happens when drug dealing activity goes on. Kids get involved and start playing with guns,” he said. “It’s a very sad case. It’s very shocking. It’s quite a good area really. It’s had its bad reputation, and obviously something like this does not help, but it’s really not typical.”

You have one more day to help put an end to this murder directly caused by the approach the world's governments take on the failed "war on drugs" in the Home Office consultation on their review of the drugs laws here. Please, do the right thing to prevent more young lives lost and ruined, of users, innocent kids, poverty stricken "mules". All these deaths can be traced right back to the steps of the Home Office and the populist, moralising, interfering politicians, accessories to murder all of them, who occupy it.

Now that Bloggers for Burma Day is past, my attention has been drawn to an article written thirty five years ago by Milton Friedman as then President Nixon was preparing to step up the "war on drugs". I think it appropriate today as President Brown prepares also to step up the "war on drugs" here at home (at the same time as the Czech Republic apparently starts the process of decriminalizing). You'll find it, which I reproduce in full below, along with lots of other useful documents and research hosted at the Schaffer Library of Drugs Policy:

Prohibition and Drugs

by Milton Friedman

From Newsweek, May 1, 1972

Stop Cannabis Prohibition
Originally uploaded by Professional Recreationalist

"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and com-cribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."

That is how Billy Sunday, the noted evangelist and leading crusader against Demon Rum, greeted the onset of Prohibition in early 1920. We know now how tragically his hopes were doomed. New prisons and jails had to be built to house the criminals spawned by converting the drinking of spirits into a crime against the state. Prohibition undermined respect for the law, corrupted the minions of the law, created a decadent moral climate-but did not stop the consumption of alcohol.

Despite this tragic object lesson, we seem bent on repeating precisely the same mistake in the handling of drugs.

ETHICS AND EXPEDIENCY

On ethical grounds, do we have the right to use the machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict? For children, almost everyone would answer at least a qualified yes. But for responsible adults, I, for one, Would answer no. Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But I believe that we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs.

I readily grant that the ethical issue is difficult and that men of goodwill may well disagree. Fortunately, we need not resolve the ethical issue to agree on policy. Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse-for both the addict and the rest of us. Hence, even if you regard present policy toward drugs as ethically justified, considerations of expediency make that policy most unwise.

Consider first the addict. Legalizing drugs might increase the number of addicts, but it is not clear that it would. Forbidden fruit is attractive, particularly to the young. More important, many drug addicts are deliberately made by pushers, who give likely prospects their first few doses free. It pays the pusher to do so because, once hooked, the addict is a captive customer. If drugs were legally available, any possible profit from such inhumane activity would disappear, since the addict could buy from the cheapest source.

Whatever happens to the number of addicts, the individual addict would clearly be far better off if drugs were legal. Today, drugs are both incredibly expensive and highly uncertain in quality. Addicts are driven to associate with criminals to get the drugs, become criminals themselves to finance the habit, and risk constant danger of death and disease.

Consider next the rest of us. Here the situation is crystal clear. The harm to us from the addiction of others arises almost wholly from the fact that drugs are illegal. A recent committee of the American Bar Association estimated that addicts commit one-third to one-half of all street crime in the U.S. Legalize drugs, and street crime would drop dramatically. Moreover, addicts and pushers are not the only ones corrupted. Immense sums are at stake. It is inevitable that some relatively low-paid police and other government officials-and some high-paid ones as well-will succumb to the temptation to pick up easy money.

LAW AND ORDER

Legalizing drugs would simultaneously reduce the amount of crime and raise the quality of law enforcement. Can you conceive of any other measure that would accomplish so much to promote law and order?

But, you may say, must we accept defeat? Why not simply end the drug traffic? That is where experience under Prohibition is most relevant. We cannot end the drug traffic. We may be able to cut off opium from Turkey but there are innumerable other places where the opium poppy grows. With French cooperation, we may be able to make Marseilles an unhealthy place to manufacture heroin but there are innumerable other places where the simple manufacturing operations involved can be carried out. So long as large sums of money are involved-and they are bound to be if drugs are illegal-it is literally hopeless to expect to end the traffic or even to reduce seriously its scope. In drugs, as in other areas, persuasion and example are likely to be far more effective than the use of force to shape others in our image.

As a side observation, the self same predictions as Milton makes here, 35 years ago, have been repeated just this week as Trading Standards officials fear the recent increase in the age at which youngsters can buy tobacco products will lead, as it will inevitably, to rogue traders flogging them fake fags over the school fence to get round the law. As the Schaffer library presents in a different article, the banning of something that is itself addictive is fraught with so many dangers as to make it nigh on impossible and certainly counter-productive. For those of us who already understand this, it's like watching a horrific train crash happening in slow motion knowing you are unable to prevent it.

...but will the politicians listen? Somehow, I doubt it!

Since I wrote my piece on gangs and drugs on Saturday I've seen a steady trickle of hits from Google searches about Rhys Jones and I've kept an eye on the search terms and found I was pretty well alone in voicing the opinion that drugs policy plays the biggest part in the gang gun deaths that stalk some of our estates. So it is with some relief that I find Johann Hari is another voice of sanity in today's Independent:

Johann Hari: Tragic victims of a self-defeating policy:

This is the story of two victims of a war that cannot be won and should not be fought. You have heard of the first: Rhys Jones, the 11-year-old in Liverpool who was shot in the neck as he played on his bike. You have not heard of the second: Andres Sauzo, a 24-year-old Mexican man who had his arms, legs and head chain-sawed from his body, and was found rotting in five bin bags scattered across his home town of Zihyatanejo. They are casualties - either direct or indirect - in a war that kills tens of thousands of people a year, and could end tomorrow, if we chose to.

Rhys and Andres were killed because of a political decision by the US government to wage a global "war on drugs", and demand other governments fall into line. When you criminalise a massive and growing industry – some 5 per cent of the world's entire economic activity – it does not go away. It is handed to armed criminal gangs, who flood the streets with guns to secure a slice of the riches.

Aside from also citing Milton Friedman, he goes on rightly to criticize the British political reaction to the events of the past week. I hope some of them are listening, and can hear over the noise of their knees jerking and their bandwagons' creaking...

The scattered proposals tossed out this week to deal with drug gangs are elaborate evasions of the real issue. Banning gang videos on YouTube is barely even a sticking plaster, while the Cameroonian idea that gangs are the rancid afterbirth squeezed out by single parents simply doesn't match with the facts. Denmark has the highest rate of single parenthood in Europe – but it has virtually no gangs, except among recent immigrant communities, who overwhelmingly consist of stable two-parent families.

No: if we want to stop gang culture, we need to take back the industry that makes gangs rich, and give it once again to doctors, pharmacists and off-licenses. Legalizing drugs rips the spine out of gangs. Of course they will try to move into other industries – protection rackets, cigarette smuggling and so on – but these have far lower profit margins. In a legalised economy, the gangs would no longer be the richest kids on the estate, and could barely afford firepower, so the core of their glamour would melt away.

We should be outraged. In my opinion our governments, acting in our name, are knowingly complicit in the suffering and the deaths that all this causes, for little benefit and certainly with no liberal philosophical justification. We should be demanding action now, not only to save future Rhys Joneses, but to save what is estimated at £18bn a year in domestic policing and criminal justice costs alone.

A poll published in Tuesday's Guardian apparently shows that most people feel that we have enough prison places and don't need to build more, and should find other ways of punishing people:

More prisons are not the answer to punishing criminals, says poll | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited:

A Guardian/ICM poll published today overturns the assumption that the public think tough prison sentences are the best way to tackle crime. It shows that a majority of voters think the government should scrap its prison building programme and find other ways to punish criminals.

Politicians in all parties routinely assume that voters think prison works. But 51% of those questioned want the government to find other ways to punish criminals and deter crime.

Of course many are in prison for offenses related to drugs consumption and the crimes many commit to satisfy addictions to substances that are artifically highly priced and because they are an illegal market. This illegal market itself creates more criminals and is the core of organized crime. Legalizing most of these substances would at a stroke enable us to empty the prisons of the hapless and hopeless addicts and enable them to voluntarily seek help knowing that they won't be treated as criminals for doing so, and if they didn't they could always manage their addictions more safely and affordably without resorting to crime to do so. And in the process, we'd free up prison space for real criminals.