I was listening to the radio today and it appears that there is a recommendation that Ecstasy is downgraded from a class A drug to a class B drug. It appears the government has refused to listen to this advice. What are we to make of this? Well personally I don't really understand the difference between the classifications. Surely something is either illegal or it's not. If you were to ask the majority of parents if their child should go to prison for possessing a small amount of illegal substances, most would say no. If you asked them whether a dealer selling their child an illegal drug should go to prison, you would probably get a different answer. We all know that some drugs are illegal. The question we should be asking is what are we trying to achieve? Why are drugs illegal?
If I were to ask you why drugs are illegal, you'd probably say "To stop people taking them". The trouble is it doesn't. If we are inclined to take procure and take drugs, we will. The law doesn't change that, it just makes the trade uncontrollable. It also makes it extremely lucrative for criminals. Policy towards drug misuse needs a radical overhaul. Firstly we should decide exactly what we are trying to achieve. Secondly we should decide what is realistically achievable. Once we've figured that out, then we should design our rules and regulations.
So what are we trying to achieve? Well as I see it there are two major downsides to taking drugs. Firstly they can be detrimental to your health. Secondly they can seriously damage your financial situation. I've had close friends who've died through drug misuse and close friends who've lost their livelyhood/house/car etc through drug misuse, so I'm well aware of the downsides. Our aim should be to minimise the damage to individuals and the effect on society in general. What is realistically achievable? I don't believe we'll ever live in a drug free world. I think that realistically all we can do is the following :-
a) Remove the profit element of drug distribution for criminals
b) Minimise the health risks for drug users
c) Educate people as to the risks of drug use
d) Provide support mechanisms for drug addicts
e) Control the supply and quality of drugs
f) Ensure that drugs are as hard as possible to obtain by young people
Making drugs illegal achieves non of the above. Legalisation would by an extremely risky option, although I believe it would be preferable to the existing system, in as much as the criminal elements would be removed. I have been convinced by the arguments for controlled legalisation. I support a system whereby anyone over 18 could legally purchase drugs, providing they have registered as a drug user. This would enable users of addictive class A drugs (such as Heroin) to purchase the drugs in Boots. With chip & PIN technology the amounts could be monitored, reducing the possibilty of resale. Illegal sale would be monitored and enforced by customs and excise. Profits from sales would pay for the scheme. It would be possible to undercut the criminal elements controlling the trade and ensure proper quality control. The vast majority of profits for drug barons are made through hardened users and if this lucrative market was destroyed, then the risks would no longer be worthwhile.
A licensing scheme would also bring users within the system. Their health could be monitored and their quality of life improved. As with other medical conditions, those unable to work would receive the drugs on presciption (under supervision). I firmly believe that this will reduce crime.
As to education, I'd like every child to understand what taking up drug abuse as a hobby means. If you get really good at your hobby, you could lose your life, your home, your dignity. Over 90% of prostitutes are addicted to hard drugs and generally the hard drug usage came first.
Finally we need to decide what constitues an illegal drug. I'd abolish the class A/B/C system. It just confuses people. I'd say that we agree that Alcohol and Tobacco are legally accepted in the UK. These have downsides, but we tolerate these.
I'd say that any drug which causes less damage than these statistically should be legal. Any drug which causes more damage becomes illegal. If you want to take them, you register, pay a fee, get information about there effects, and if you still want to damage yourself, that's your choice as an adult. If you sell the drugs on, you go to prison. If you want to come off them, you enroll in a program and when you are clean you deregister. You'd divulge your usage on a CRB form, so if you want to become a bus driver, you have to clean your act up.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's not a perfect world. In my opinion only a pragmatic approach will work.
No comments:
Post a Comment