Anatole Kaletsky
Fighting Fit
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From The Times
August 30, 2007
Give peace a chance. Forget the war on drugs
We need a radical approach to tackling crime on British streets
When a newly appointed minister arrives at his office in Whitehall, the first thing his permanent secretary gently tells him is to avoid simple answers to complex problems.
What I am about to say therefore guarantees that I will never be asked to join a government advisory panel or Royal Commission; but since I can earn a decent living without having to impress politicians, let me break the taboo. The fact is that many complex problems do have simple answers. What politicians mean when they say “there are no simple answers” is that the simple answers are not the same as easy ones. The easy answer to almost any political problem is to highlight its complexity, plead for patience, appoint a policy czar and set up a Royal Commission. The simple answer is often to do something bold and previously unthinkable. In other words, to cut the Gordian knot instead of trying to untie it.
Simple answers have resolved many of most intractable problems. Gordon Brown should know this better than anyone, having rescued Labour’s economic reputation by the simple, though far from easy or riskless expedient of Bank of England independence. John Major, by contrast, allowed his Government to be paralysed because he rejected the simple answer to the ERM currency blunder, which was to pull Britain out voluntarily before it was expelled. That experience was eerily reminiscent of the far greater interwar disaster of deflation caused by the gold standard, ultimately resolved in the same simple way — by pulling out. This action prompted Sidney Webb’s famous lament on behalf of the ruined Labour Government: “Nobody told us we could do that.”
Simple solutions are just as important in diplomacy as in economics. The simple answer to Hitler was the one urged by Churchill, but rejected by Chamberlain: urgent rearmament. The simple answer to the reconstruction of postwar Europe was the Marshall Plan: instead of demanding reparations from Germany, give it aid. The answer when George Bush asked for Tony Blair’s support in his ill-considered Iraq invasion should have been even simpler: Just Say No.
This famous slogan from America’s War on Drugs brings me to my main subject. As has been so apparent from the past week's events, Mr Brown now faces a host of problems more daunting than any he imagined at the Treasury. Yet there is a common thread linking the British Army’s failure to bring order to large parts of Afghanistan controlled by the Taleban and the British police’s failure to bring order to large parts of our inner cities controlled by gangs of gun-toting youths. That common thread is drugs.
The UN report published this week on the huge expansion of opium production in Afghanistan’s lawless Helmand province has turned into common knowledge what British diplomats and generals have been whispering for years: the Taleban and al-Qaeda are making vast profits from the international drug trade. Official efforts to eradicate poppies are not just failing but are actually promoting more opium production by turning many remote regions of the country into anarchic no-go zones, completely beyond the control of coalition forces. The anti-drug campaigns are also strengthening the Taliban militarily by turning local populations against the allied forces and the Afghan Government, since these threaten the opium farmers’ meagre livelihoods.
Under these conditions, it is hardly surprising that efforts to promote economic development, education and political reconstruction in Helmand are failing. Such efforts may be necessary to win the “hearts and minds”, but development campaigns cannot even get started so long as local people see government officials and British soldiers as alien interlopers, bent on destroying the only economic and social structures that actually work in their communities, which happen to be based on drugs.
Back on the streets of Britain we see a similar process. Why have the police lost control of the streets in so many British cities to armed gangs with easy access to weapons and growing propensities to violence? Partly, perhaps, the violence is due to failures in the criminal justice system: mismanaged police priorities, excess bureaucracy, lax sentencing and so on. Partly, the inner-city anarchy stems from poor education, joblessness and family breakdown. Rampant consumerism, our winner-takes-all culture and violence in music and videos no doubt play a part. The list of underlying causes for social breakdown and teenage alienation is endless.
This complexity would seem to suggest that we cannot even think about the violent crime wave, until all of our society’s manifold economic, psychological and educational problems can be resolved. That, of course, means we must cede our city streets to gangs more or less for ever — which is precisely the attitude adopted by many police forces, judges and politicians until now.
But what if, instead of looking for the root causes of crime and social breakdown, we consider what might have changed in recent years to encourage more teenagers to carry weapons? The answer then becomes much simpler. As in Helmand, many inner-city estates have created an alternative social order where the economics of the hugely profitable drug trade are far more attractive than any other choice.
And just as in Helmand, the efforts to suppress drug-use and trading have distracted the police and the courts from the infinitely more important tasks of preventing violence and keeping control of the streets. For example, tougher sentences for carrying knives or guns are pointless when the law already imposes even longer prison terms — up to life for large quantities — on people who carry drugs, which many of the teenage gangs habitually do. Similarly, zero-tolerance policing, which could certainly help to get weapons off the streets in the right conditions, is of little use if prisons are so overcrowded with drug offenders that there is no room for violent criminals carrying knives and even guns.
All these observations point to a simple conclusion: simple, though not easy. The global war against drugs is in contradiction to the war against violent crime at home and the war against terrorism internationally. Legalising, or at least decriminalising, drugs would, not on its own, end terrorism or gang violence — and it is no substitute for long-term measures to promote development abroad or improve education at home. But a ceasefire in the war against drugs would at least give peace a chance — not only in Afghanistan, but also in the streets of Britain.
At the time of writing (155 comments), 70% were in favour of legalisation, 19% against, and 11% expressed no clear opinion.
The point was made several times that both the enforcement agencies as well as the drugs barons benefit from the continuing illegal status of drugs.
The point was also made that addiction should be dealt with in the same way as with alcohol and tobacco.
So which brave political party in this democracy is going to bite the bullet and implement the wishes of the majority?
Dave, Southampton, UK
Of course the thing which isn't mentioned is that most of the deaths are DUE to the illegality of drugs. Dirty needles, overdoses from unpredictable concentrations of drugs and impurities in the supplies are a direct consequence of this insane law.
Nick, lancashire,
Well, I think the author of the article is right. But, of course, decriminalization doesn't have to mean removing the safty net from people with drug-adiction problems. It means they have to be treated in hospitals and not in prisons. Like ill people, and not like criminals.
And, anyway, let's not forget that criminalization of drug use is a NEW thing. A late 20th century thing. Why not accept that it could have an effect in the growing gang-violence, worldwide?.
Don't forget that when you criminalize, you are giving a monopoly of that trade to the gangs. Economically (and that's all they could care about) there's nothing better for them.
Cristina, Santiago, Chile
The gangs on estates were there long before drugs became such an acute problem the misery was just less visible. It is the increased availability of guns that has led to the problems becoming noticed. Yes we need more radical solutions in Hellmand such as purchase for pharmecutical use but we also need to tackle the problems in the Balkans and the flow of now redundant arms from Ireland and other sources of weapons.
Criminal activity will continue and legalising drugs will not solve the problems those have to be tackled in a variety of other ways.
Tim, March, UK
How will this work? Dead straight forward if we don't try to second guess the process and make it too 'precious' Will it be necessary to establish a state monopoly? I very much doubt it... the state has good points but it has never been a paradgim of economic efficiency. So why would existing suppliers want to be legit? Well I bet a surprising number would just love to not have to launder the returns from their enterprise. They will also be able to sell product on the basis of quality - ie compete.This will be at the cost of paying tax etc. Once they are legit they will be unwilling to risk their legit status with risky criminal activity. This will inevitably lead product quality, supplier liability etc (which most pro and anti appear oblivious to). However the more that our social structures degenerate, the less advantage there is in being legit, and degeneration is definitely on the agenda.
Terence Park, Burnley,
The U.K doesnt have to look too far for a solution to the problem.Holland.The war on drugs only drove the prices up and up,making dealing in pot etc more and more attractive to the gangsters.If there were little profit to be made,they wouldnt be interested in it.The British government should consult their neighbours...
ostevo, hualien, taiwan
I think that the solution is not just to decriminalise drugs but for the government to give the drugs to addicts. This will mean there is no profit in being a drug dealer as you cannot under cut free. This should reduce crime commited by addicts to fund thier addiction.
The other solution is to buy the poppies off the afghan farmers, give them more than the Taliban do and then we cut a major source of money to terrorists making society the winner. I accept that the gangs will not just go away but will try something else to make money ad maintain there status, but whatever that is will have to be dealt with, and doing nothing because the criminals will change their actions is no answer
Dave Richards, Chesterfield, UK
I think, young people are especially sensitiv to violence, in our world. So I see the increasing violence within as reaction to the increase of violence in or world in gereral (War on Terror). The simpelest solution (in my eyes) would be if mankind would manage to build a worldwide peaceful society.
Bob Steward, London, England
This is a hardy perennial. There is some truth in it, of course, but drugs are not commodity X. One of the major appeals of cannabis is that it is illegal. That's why taking a joint is seen as an intense social experience. Take away the illegality, and young people will find some other way to express their natual urge to defy authority.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
Excellent article and good to see the considered support in the forum.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation provide a more detailed analysis for the reform process, how a post prohibition market will operate and the political tools for bringing it about:
www.tdpf.org.uk
Steve Rolles, London, UK
Yes, drugs are a major social problem - but there is no reason why they should be a criminal problem as well (as many correspondents have pointed out). Ask the police which substance gives rise to the most trouble - alcohol without a doubt. All societies do their best to cope with the problems of alcohol and, broadly speaking, some sort of balance is achieved although some individuals will always drink themselves to death. I agree with FDR's sentiments - "if the policy isn't working let's say so frankly and try something else." Clearly present policies are not working : a radical rethink is long overdue.
David Thomas, Burnham, UK
What of the anti-social collateral damage? I live in Bath and I'm tired of the spaced-out junkies demanding money, being aggressive, scaring tourists and so on. I certainly don't want more of that. I think I'd prefer the drug gangs shooting each other.
Tom, Bath, UK,
Well said. I would say that most drugs are already legal. Take for example all the drugs sold by the big pharmaceutical companies to make us 'better' when we are 'not well'. It seems any drug that taken to make us feel 'better' than when we are well is considered illegal. It's a strange world.
James, Hove, UK
Well - you stop short of the answer don't you Mr Kaletsy. The answer is indeed simple. Make the government the monopoly supplier of currently illegal drugs which can only be purchased by registered users over the age of 18. Ensure quality and price to legal users and show zero tolerance and very harsh sentences for pushers and users of drugs not purchased from the monopoly supplier.
This will cut crime perpetrated to fund drugs use or protect economic rights on its supply it will reduce drugs supply to the under age users and lead to a wholesale increase in welfare across the nation.
Prohibition does not work in a democratic society, has never worked in a democratic society, will never work and can never work in a democratic society - its just a question of how much crime and suffering we are happy for others to tolerate to accommodate the comfortable prejudices of the "upstading" members of our society.
Kieran, London, UK
Of course. Go into partnership with the farmers and warlords: Thus solve the problem of the world shortage of morphine: Give heroin on prescription or sell and tax it like any other drug: Get rid of dealers and the romantically tacky drug culture. The EU could set up its own Opium Poppy business which would have the advantage of annoying the Americans intensely and make money for the EU. It is such a win/win situation that no government will ever do it.
Jeremy James, St Maurice de Lignon, France
Where's the solutions ? You have a War at your own turf and yet you are fighting 2 meaningless wars overseas ! Where's the think tank and your WAR PLAN to tackle this vicious violence tearing Modern Britain apart ? Politicans do theie usual useless talks , judges far removed from the ground could only perfunctorily lament about it and the poor police force and their forensic team have to face the gory aspects of such mindless violence day in day at ground zero out and can only a sense of helplessness and wonder why they are in such horrible jobs not to mention the psychological damage. Well you are spot on on some of the root causes but your solutions take time to kick in for not an overnight vicious problen and you don't have the luxury of time ! Something must be done NOW for they are long overdue otherwise Modern Britain will be another cowboys town !
Ian, Singapore, Singapore
Reading Mr. Kaletsky reminded me of watching my annual pick in the Grand National: starts well, picks up a fair pace and manages the hurdles well; finds the right line through the tangle of opposition then, when the finish line's in sight, makes a break for the line only to do a 'Devon Loch' and inexplicably fall splay-legged with mere yards to go in finding the winning flourish. If only he'd gone on to follow the logic of his argument in this article he'd have said "legalising ..." rather than the already tried (and untrusted) "decriminalising..." The IHDC, in 1895, recommended the Indian governments approach to drug use and tolerated it and also taxed drug use in a system which benefitted everybody concerned and didn't provide the breeding ground for crime and social disorder which are the rewards for years of governmental duplicity on the problem: cut the Gordian knot all the way through next time, Mr. Kaletsky - don't just hack at it with blunt rhetoric.
Jack Lynn, Leicester, England
Just who would sell the drugs? To whom would they be able to sell them? Would you try and enforce a ban on selling drugs to under 18s (if not wouldn't the problem of drug gangs still be there) . Would you allow new drugs to be developed that are even stronger and/or more addictive than the present ones? - surely any business would want to steal market share by offering 'better' drugs! Would you give free drugs to addicts who can't afford to buy them without stealing, if not how would decrimilisation reduce the amount of associated non violent crime? Would there be more or less addicts if drugs were legalised?. Is the death on 20 or so (I'm guessing) drug dealers and a few innocent bystanders each year better than the death and wasted lives of 100s of extra addicts? Perhaps you could give simple answers to these question in your next column.
Jason White, Paris,
...but what we're actually doing is arguing over whether cannabis should be class B or class C!
Dave, Southampton, UK
This approach has already been tried hasn't it? This government downgraded Cannabis and the result was a huge expansion of Cannabis use.
The reason gangs are operating in this country is far more complex than just drugs. They are operating in areas of hopelessness, fecklessness, poor education and poverty. The solution is far from simple and will be very very expensive. Failure to tackle it however will result in increasing anarchy and lawlessness. No simple solutions.
But here is one simple idea. If our prisons are full why not build more? Does the government not realise this is an option?
We need new ideas to bring youth back onside. Zero tolerance is one. Then, when they behave antisocially force them to clean up the results of their behaviour dressed in bright orange, uncool jumpsuits. Make them do nasty, dirty unpleasant jobs dressed this way in what used to be their spare time. Give them real consequences for their actions. Kids hate to be uncool above all things.
Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK
There should be a trial period of nominally five years, or the duration of the next parliament, during which drugs would be decriminalised in order to test the effect on the supply trade under actual conditions.
No changes in the law are irrevocable, and if the experiment were not a success, the law could then be revised accordingly.
Dave, Southampton, UK
If we legalised drugs we could control the purity and supply taking it away from criminals. Also, just think of how much tax the government could raise. But could we use drugs in an enclosed public place?
Mike Harrington, Portsmouth,
Guns are a tool. A means to an end. The reason guns proliferate today is to self-regulate the distribution of drug markets that otherwise have no regulation.
The drug market self-regulates with guns because there are no democratic institutions for distributors to depend upon to settle market disputes. Guns protect profits and markets under prohibition because banks, business associations and business law do not protect them.
Regulation, licensing and taxation are tools of democracy used to mitigate the predatory anarchy natural to free enterprise. The unregulated $ 300-500 billion a year global black market for drugs is in a state of anarchy because politicians abdicate their democratic responsibility to regulate the anarchy out of the intoxicant drug markets.
Prohibition is an admission of a lack of confidence in democratic institutions by politicians. They simply refuse to accept that there could be a safe responsible middle ground of drug use between no use at all and abuse.
Pat Rogers, Allentown, PA, USA
When police chiefs complain that the middle classes are the ones supporting criminal gangs through their use of drugs, I'm always tempted to make the point that they don't want to, but that they can't buy what they want through a legal supply. If only they could....
Andrew, London,
Legalisation/ decriminalisation is not the only way forward. We need a government that is brave enough to introduce a New Deal for drug users: drugs on prescription as long as the user does two things. One, attends drug awareness counselling with the aim of lifestyle stabilisation and drug use reduction, and secondly the user must stay clear of crime.
Ultimately, this is the best way of removing drug use's 'rock and roll' image, which is the real root of the problem. Teenagers find them too attractive not to experiment with.
It won't be easy though as we are governed by politicians more interested in the latest quick fix ie let's reclassify cannabis or the old chestnut let's bring in longer jail sentences.
Until we stop voting for the failed policies of the past we will be forever forced to suffer their associated problems and be unable to move forward to a better future.
Gordon Callan, Shanghai,
Finally someone talking sense. This should be compulsory reading for all in Europe, including the UK and the USA.
Elizabeth , Haslemere, United Kingdom
You are brave man, and absolutely right. Sadly nobody is listening. Joe Public is too worried about their 'little Tommy/Jenny' getting their hands on heroin to care about the chaos, and sometimes devastation, that prohibition itself casuses at home and abroad. Politicians are too afraid of explaining the hard facts to Joe Public, and as you have pointed out, instead they go for the easy answer. How about another simple solution: drug producing countries should legalise the trade unilaterally and let drug consuming countries deal with the problem at home as they best see fit. At least this would get rid of one half of the problem. While this is a simple answer it will not be easy as long as consuming countries fight their 'war' abroad and not at home.
J, London,
Hmmm. The problem with any kind of decriminalisation has always seemed to me that criminals, once established in a career, are loath to retire. They'll simply move onto selling even nastier drugs. Decriminalise those, and they'll move on again. Eventually there will come a point where they are dealing in something out-and-out lethal, at which point decriminalisation starts to look more like one of your "easy" solutions than one of your "simple" solution.
As for poppies, I seem to recall that last year it was said that the increase in area under cultivation was partly due to the traffickers paying farmers much less per ton than before. I don't know the exact numbers, but if poppies are getting less and less profitable, can't the Fairtrade people do something in Afghanistaon? I know I'd pay a premium for "Reconstruction Cotton" or whatever, and I imagine other people might too....
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
Brave article. Shame we don't have brave politicians to implement such an idea.
De-criminalise all drugs and make them freely available on prescription from g.p.'s and pharmacies.
And of course, tax them. Huge money-spinner for the Treasury coffers and undercut the illicit trade in its entirety. Also the efficacy of these drugs will be guaranteed thus making them far safer.
Why oh why can't this be done. After-all we tolerate that great family and health-wrecker: alcohol, so why not?
charles, london,
Anatole pointed out some of the root causes of violent Britain
but offfers no tangible solutions.
His proposed solutions for example education and correcting
broken homes ( but did not say how ? ) take time to kick in and yet wanton and mindless violence/intimidation are tearing the fabrics of Britain apart.
This terrible vicious situation is not an overnight thing -- mind you, you are only seeing the beginning effects of a long festered/still festering situation -- politicians as usual do their
usual useless talks , judges lament about it but hardly able to grasp it and the poor police helpless about it whilst having first hand taste of the most gory aspects of such violence when they visit the crime scenes and not to mention the forensic teams daily encounters and a voice inside them wonder why they are in such awful jobs ?!
Really is this what Modern Britain is about --- where is your
Blueprint or more precisely Warplan to tackle this WAR at your own turft and yet Afghan/Iraq ?!
Ian, Singapore, Singapore
I agree 100%.
We cannot continue with the delusion that drugs are not here to stay. We simply need to accept that fact
james Mackay, rotherham, Yorks.
The drugs trade is a fine example of the free market economy in action... where there is a demand a supply will fill the gap. The only way to have any control over an underground black market is to bring it into daylight, regulate the marketplace and introduce effective controls as is in place for other legal substances. Tax revenues could be in the billions.
The war on drugs policy is a farce, We spend millions with no tangible results, no reduction of the amount or availability of drugs. Prices are dropping and the profits that can be made drive whole sections of our intercity into a lawless quagmire.
The media and society have given a gloss to drugs which does not run parallel with "drugs are bad say no" policies. People are not so stupid as to what the actual effects of drugs are.. People take drugs as they enjoy the effects, they know that its safe if they take precautions and have enough factual information on what they are taking.
or well carry on regardless
Ben, BELFAST, antrim
Exactly! The traditional approach has obviously failed, with increasingly ominous consequences.
Dave, Southampton, UK
Drug legalization is too complex for a 1000 word essay which ignores one reason why drugs are illegal: a parent who is high on drugs (or drunk on alcohol) is unfit for their responsibilities. We already have plenty of problems that are rooted in alcohol abuse; I say let those who want to choose drugs over family choose to loose their fertility permanently. I fully support legalization of drugs -- just don't expect to hold a job, receive social benefits, or raise a family. My point is that it isn't fair to children for the voting public to give adults the liberty to raise them in a failed home environment. I see a trade between personal freedom and responsibility. Choose one. Make the decision permanent.
Paul, Akron, Ohio, USA
War on Drugs?
What war on Drugs, I haven’t seen one.
Whatever happens the legalisation of Class 1,2 and 3 Drugs should never take place.
Alcohol and Tobacco are both fully legal.
There is a roaring black market trade in both, led and run by vicious violent organised crime gangs.
Legalise the Drugs trade and it opens up even larger areas for Crime Gangs.
Lets have a real war on Drugs… Zero Tolerance of all drugs with real draconian sentences for possession, dealing and supplying.
These sentences should include everything up to and including the death sentence.
Not so attractive then for the Sink estate bullies.
Matthew Hopkins, Sanity, Hope
Hear, hear! Prohibition didn't work with alcohol in the US and led via intergang warfare to more powerful gangs. legalise drugs and control the quality. An education policy similar to the one against tobacco is more likely to reduce the consumption than existing policies.
andrew, hitchin,
Why is that politicians refuse to accept this obvious and sensible solution?
Kiffer, Paleochora, Crete
Imagine you are an Inuit community leader. Your people have no inherited tolerance of alcohol. You see alcohol abuse destroying people every day. It is the leading cause of death from accidents, cirrhosis, people just freezing to death while drunk. Foetal alcohol syndrome is wrecking the future.
Imagine now that you have criminalized alcohol. Your police force just barely keeps it under control. However, your country's neighbors are awash with it, and its smuggled in all the time. This leads to an ongoing war especially in some sections of your community.
Now along comes Anatole Kaletsky, consultant. He says, look, you can stop this war. Just legalize it.
You smile wearily. You have always understood that legalizing alcohol would stop the war. Your concern is what it would do to consumption in your people. You are afraid it would soar. You fear that the war is doing less damange than unrestricted consumption would do.
Take a chance, says Kaletsky. Do you?
Frederick DesLauriers, London, England
Legalisation does not mean freely available. It can mean available free of charge on prescription from Substance Maintenance Centres run by the Home Office.
This removes the profit from importing and distribution of drugs so the gangs have nothing to fight over. It also means that addicts do not need to steal or prostitute themselves to get the money to buy drugs
Thomas Tierney, Camberley,
Places like Singapore, Malaysia and China execute drug dealers. They have minimised their potentially very serious drug problems. We prefer to leave our children prey; their deaths, like those of two addicts in Bristol recently or a girl in the Shetlands, are apparently preferable to those of dealers, whose human rights must be protected. And we consider ourselves morally superior, too.
Mike Evans, Midsomer Norton, UK
People should be allowed to make informed choices about their own behaviour where the effects can be limited to themselves. If people want to use drugs, drive cars, walk on the sunshine, sit under trees and they have taken time to understand what the risks are and deem them acceptable.. then let them. It should not be acceptable for someone else to prohibit people from acting on their own will.
Jeff G, London, UK
Since morphine is expensive and in short supply in many plaves in the world.Why don't we buy the opium and use it to relieve pain.The old system of registering addicts ,instead of criminalizing them and doing effectively what prohibition did in the US, would be a better solution. Illegal but largely available substances lead to gang violence and competition to supply.
kay, leeds,
If drugs were legalised then we would know who the druggies were, then we could control them and educate them to come of the drugs.
The saying comes to mind. "Better to know your enemy."
Sam, Mossley, UK
Thank you Anatole, you have joined a small but growing number of respected commentators who see through the drug problem as one of practicality, rather than as some moral red line in the sand which then bedevils any reasonable and logical discussion of the subject. Unfortunately the vested interests in keeping the WoD alive and kicking are very powerful and it will take a long and hard campaign to even get legalisation/decriminalisation onto the agenda, let alone implement it. Just gauge the difficulties by the number of negative reactions you get to your piece on this thread, based on the 'moral' case for maintaining the clearly-failed status quo.
Nick, Doha, Qatar
Now, where is there a politician with the courage to take AK's advice, and the ability to put his ideas across to a frightened and sceptical public?
Gordon Cardew, NORWICH, UK
The solution is so simple that it is hilarious. Give drugs to addicts for free. This takes all the money out of the system and will abolish marketing and corruption; thereby reducing the number of new users.
Sick people take drugs. Label them sick, which is not cool, and deal with the causes of people's disenfranchisement and resultant depression . Empower people and stop scaring them.
America becoming a democracy would go a long way towards solving its problems. One person one vote. Ban corporations and the wealthy from funding the process. Ban political advertising. Let the people decide.
Dr Ai Rui Sheng, Shanghai, PRC
Legalisation means that criminals, with their
infrstructure in place, shift to other illegal activities
e.g. guns, etc. In other words, don't seek simplistic,
tidy solutiions, there aren't any.
Pablo, Edinburgh, Salmond Republic
Amen. You have only to examine the failures of the US DEA policies to see exactly what is wrong. For all the decades that the US government has been pursuing its War On Drugs, there has been no real change, merely status quo, the equivalent of trench warfare. On the other hand, Holland which has a more enlightened approach, does seem to be doing better.
Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland
Everyone knows this argument is an easy and obvious solution to the drugs problems, and was eloquently articulated at the beginning of the film Layer Cake.
Indeed, the anomolous situation where alcohol and nicotene are legal throughout the world, yet other, far less harmful drugs are prohibited tend to lend colour to the persuasiveness of this argument. Furthermore it is true that alcohol, being the cause of much direct violence and nicotene's impact on the national health costs have far greater impact on any society than all the illicit drugs put together.
However, one of the principle remits of government is to protect people from themselves. A significant minority's inability to do so is surely the reason why mediciene is issued by prescription rather than the population being able to buy them over the counter.
Until the populus can exercise self-restraint, a government can never legalise drugs, no matter how obvious or expidicious the solution may at first appear.
Stuart Robb, Dublin, Eire
If the government controlled the supply of all drugs and the law was removed from the equation completely, all heroin could be bought from countries other that Afghanistan.
Afghanistan can then start producing biofuel instead of growing poppies.
Involving the law in drugs has just made the situation completely hopeless.
Simon PD, London,
Other countries have found that it is impossible to suppress the drugs trade, however severe the penalties. Legalisation is therefore the only way to invalidate the economics of the drugs trade.
Dave, Southampton, UK
The drug barons are a bigger menace to society than the drugs, so it should be clear how to proceed.
Dave, Southampton, UK
The police will never give up the right to arrest a member of the public for any action which will be upheld in court and thus go down as a 'collar' on the officers record.
Evidence of this was highlighted only last week when a man was arrested for using a householders broadband connection. A crime which hurt nobody and the householder would have been ignorant of what had happened as all broadband connections are paid for on a fixed monthly amount. BUT A COLLAR IS A COLLER.
Much easier to arrest people armed with laptops than guns.
G J BUNTON, SLOUGH, BERKSHIRE
Nicely put, but nothing new here. The problem is finding a UK government that wants to solve problems, rather than posturing about being "tough on drugs". There isn't one in sight, despite the allegedly extensive personal drug experience of politicians of all hues - and look at them, they haven't turned out so badly, have they?
richard haggis, Oxford, UK
If the government set up free distribution centres to economically break the drug trade. If the government then tried to discourage the use of drugs and dry out the victims. That is treat all users as being sick instead of criminals.
When the illegal trade dried up for lack of customers, crimez would drop, the prisins would empty etc. The number of new users would not necessarily increase so long as social welfare went hand in hand with the free distribution.The government need not approve of drug users any more than it need approve the insane.
Mind this simple step needs a political courage that ministers are incapable of.
Christopher Rose, Orleans, France
Just what I was thinking myself, after reading about the latest gun murders. The police are completely incapable of winning the 'war on drugs' and drugs are now so easy to buy that prohibition is pointless. As long as criminals have the prospect of profits from the drugs trade, violence and murder will be a way of life. Decriminalising drugs is not just the simple way, but the only way to solve the problem.
In my view, legalisation, regulation, licensing and taxation of the heroin, cocaine and cannabis trades would be better at removing profits from gangs than just decriminalising.
The message that drugs are bad for mental and physical health can be made through education and regulation which has worked well in reducing tobacco usage over the last 40 years.
A Clarke, London,
Agreed. The 'war on drugs' has been lost - at home and abroad. Dealing with the 'supply side' has cost billions of pounds, many lives, and has failed. Let's spend a fraction of that amount on the demand side - helping addicts beat their habit and providing adequate housing and rehabilitation - it can be seen to work in (sadly, too few and too small-scale) great examples with charities like Brighton Housing Trust. The pushers would gradually lose their market. It would, of course, take time but so has the 'war on drugs' - with no good result.
Michael, Aston Clinton Bucks, England
M Fisherman missed the point. Mr Kaletsky is proposing that illicit drugs/agents ought to be brought into the mainstream and be to controlled, regulated and taxed. It is not for legislators to determine what are is appropriate behaviour for the citizens of any nation state and it would certainly make sense if the British government entered an arrangement with the Afghani government to purchase all opium produced and then destroy the whole crop.
No body bags, no support for the Taliban and enough income to try and tackle the problems Afghanistan has inherited since 1979. What does cause me concern is that since the occupation of Afghanistan heroin has become more freely available on the streets of British towns and in real terms is 50% less expensive than 12 months ago. My front garden has become an al-fresco shooting gallery, dia-morphine is more readily available than ganga but I have never felt threatened or fearfull when out late at night. I live in Brixton
d, london sw9 7nd, uk
Very brave Mr Kaletsky! Let us hope some more of the Establishment spot the elephant in the room and break ranks...
DoTW, Tunbridge Wells,
No way should drugs be legalised, instead security cameras should be put in place, every where, not just in white only communities, crime is a problem in areas where there are no security cameras, where the criminals thrives, because they know detection is zero. I find it bizarre that 'socialist' mayor livingstone, can find millions of pounds to fund congestion and speed cameras, to hound motorist for minor offences, but will not fund security cameras to detect, drug dealers, and gun crime, perhaps the cameras will reveal something else that is at play? 'Death squad' with the official nod from the top.
Carol, London, England
AK is right up to a point, but who has the courage to introduce de-criminilisation? Prohibition doesn't work - banning alcohol in the USA bankrolled the Mob & the outcome from banning drugs is identical. Drug use in deprived areas is at root an economic, not a social problem. You cannot support a £100/day habit on benefits, thus you fuel the majority of low-level crime in the UK, yet pharmaceutical-grade heroin costs a fraction of the 20% pure stuff on the streets - so why not restore the 'English Treatment' and provide the stuff under regulation? That said, the use of cocaine amongst the so-called educated & affluent classes is widespread & probably provides as much profit to dealers, but snorting a line through a £50 note is fashionable whilst sharing needles beneath an underpass is symptomatic of a disintegrating society - go figure.
jon, Bath, UK
What does AK mean by a "ceasefire"? Legalising or decriminalising drugs would lead to a larger market (we have the tobacco/alcohol model to demonstrate) and much more personal & social harm (again alcohol & tobacco show what would happen). Neither action would take criminality out of supply. Illegal traders can always undercut legal traders (that is unless government gives drugs away!). More than 20% of the UK tobacco market is smuggled, counterfeit or both (and it has been higher and is higher in some other countries with lower taxes!). Use reinforcing substances will always appeal to criminality. Legalisation with age restrictions, would lead to even more criminality with more targetting of those excluded by age, to supply of something "a bit stronger" than legal supply. We rely on AK for economic analysis, this superficial piece does not reflect an understanding of the economics of the criminal market. This is "flat earth" type thinking.
David Raynes, Bath, UK
Why as a country are we persecuting smokers for taking part in a legal activity when we do little or nothing to to stamp out that which is illegal?
It's an easy option for the politicians that's why.
Legalise it, then you can control it, it's obvious.
Well said Anatole
Bill, Hampshire,
It is hardly bold to surrender. Ending the 'war on drugs' would hardly deal with drug abuse - the end of prohibition in America didn't exactly banish alcoholism to the history books either. Nor did it end organised crime. Proponents for decriminalisation seem to believe it would magically solve problems of violent crime without explaining how, preferring - it seems - to rely on the argument that it is too hard to enforce laws against drugs. This is not a courageous approach, however much they claim it is. Nor is it correct - Singapore and other countries demonstrate that it is possible to maintain public order and restrain drug crime.
David Richards, London, United Kingdom
Mike (hanover) is right - the govt does not have the balls to do it. They should get pissed and do some coke, then they'll be up for anything. Decriminalisation/legalisation is the only way forward. There are so many hypocracies in the govts current policy; the main being a very unhelpful distiction between alcohol and drugs. I work with addicts, thats drug users, in the criminal justice system, but am not allowed to offer my support to alcoholics, even if they were past drug addicts. This population are often more violent, cause more crime and damage themselves much more. Excessive drug taking is usually symptomatic of illness, whether thats mental or physical and jail does not, obviously, help this. Drugs are good, they work for people and until you offer them a more attractive alternative, they will keep taking them. Start at the birth Mr Brown, with support, not when people are ill, using punishment.
Rob, Newcastle, UK
Took a while to get there but the central tenet is sound. Prohibition funds criminality. Current "anti" drug legislation has served merely to inflate the tax free profits available to the most ruthless members of our society. The greatest fear of the high level drug supplier is the (as yet) slim chance that legislation be passed which would allow the low level addict (typically a weak and vulnerable character to be pitied rather than demonised) to satisfy their addiction without reverting to criminal activity.
The Home Offices' own figures suggest the majority of domestic burglaries, street robberies, acts of prostitution and low level drug supply are all committed by desperate addicts seeking to satisfy their addiction.
A simple initial step would be to revert back to the system we employed during the late 1960's and early '70's whereby registered addicts were provided not only with clean syringes (as now - is this not duplicitous?) but also with pharmaceutical grade drugs ....
nick, newcastle upon tyne, northumberland
Oh my days, I agree with an Anatole Kaletsky article. Quelle horreur. And yet the answer is so blindingly obvious, I'm surprised not more commentators have had the courage to say so. To couch the issue in the kind of language free marketeers speak, the fact is this: there is a market for drugs. There always has been. And there always will be - for it withstands every expensive government attempt to quell it. Moral conservatives may not like that fact, but a fact it remains. Once this has been accepted, the next logical question is: who would you rather controlled that market: the government, who could regulate what is sold where, when and how, and tax it to boot - or organised crime, with all its attendant problems? Anyone who opposes the legalisation of drugs is clearly happy with the status quo and happy to let criminals control the drugs market.
Fausto Aguilar, London, England
I disagree entirely.We have seen a that decriminalisation does not work.The experiment in Brixton with decriminalising cannabis is a case in point. The answer is stronger border controlls and tougher sentences for those caught dealing in drugs.Also,increase taxation on the companies who make tobacco/booze and direct this money into rehabilitation programmes.We are in danger of loosing controll of our inner cities-if we have not already.You should ask parents in large cities if they are in favour of amore liberal attitude to drugs.
Abroad we should be destroying the poppy crop-even if this risks alienating our already hard pressed troops.However,this needs to be done in conjunction with real and targeted aid to offer poverty stricken farmers an alternative. It is a fact that drugs destroy lives.It is for this reason we should adopt the above set of ideas
jason boon, Selsdon, Surrey
What happened? Loose your nerve or were you offered a place on a Commission at the last moment? You took us all the way up the mountain and then popped back to base leaving us alone and disappointed. Taking the profit out of drugs is the only way forward and if we add value to that by making them freely available on precription we will be one step closer also to taking away any remaining glamour attached to dealers or users. In terms of Afghanistan - sorry but we should know that the country is not worth ruling only controlling. If they grow opium then burn it, poisen it or dig it up. If they protest here the apply the law with its full potential and vigour. Interesting point about the vineyards but, I suspect, the answer is that the French are, just, within control of established law and civilisation. If we punish BP for environmental failures and others for health and safety failures then, in principle, it should be Ok to zap those who grow offensive material
Michael Taylor, Delhi, India
George Strydom overlooks the incentive for the dealers to get people hooked is that the trade is lucrative because it was illegal. The same applied to alcohol during Prohibition in the US - but it doesn't today given that alcohol is legal albeit taxed and controlled. Cut out the risk-and-illegality premium and the controlled legal trade undercuts the illicit traffickers. Something similar can be seen with tobacco - steadily increasing taxation merely makes illicit imports more attractive. The alternative of making it progressively harder to find somewhere to smoke seems to be having a far more dramatic effect. So the politicians - like Mr Brown's Bank independence - aren't totally useless and can sometimes pull it off. We probably need to wait another 10 years for it to happen here, though.
D Murphy, Skipton,
10 years ago I was adamantly against giving in, as I saw it, on the war on drugs. I have completely changed my mind in the interim. Legalise all drugs and destroy this criminal enterprise. I would also add, don't let it come under government control. We don't have state alcohol or cigarette departments, why should we have one for recreational drugs? Give it over to commercial companies and take the usual whopping taxes to pay for the inevitable short term fall out plus education and health care. Drug taking will lose its mystique when they are freely available.
A. Horton, Bunbury,
As a serving prison officer of 19 years, I like thousands of other officers are fed up with the constant broken promises of this government. Jack Straw said that the way to deal with this is to negotiate. The POA have been negotiating with the government for years and year after year we have been awarded below inflation pay rises. I like many others have been subject to an assault by a prisoner and we have had enough now. At my prison staff did not begin to leave the prison until approximately 09.30, after the prisoners had been given exercise and the gaol was locked up and secure, with roll correct. This action was not taken lightly and the safety of the gaol, remaining staff and prisoners was taken care of before we walked out. We will now see what Friday talks bring. But I am confident, although regretful that if we have been misled again that more strikes will not be ruled out. The massive support by the members is evidence of the feeling of the members.
Jackie W , Staffordshire, England
It's possible that if the government made itself a monopoly supplier of addictive drugs, provding drugs to addicts or abusers in exchange for a commitment to rehabilitation, the economic effect on the drug dealers would be so severe that they would no longer be able to recruit new users. Non-addictive recreational drugs are less of a problem, anyway.
The basic principle is: do whatever your enemy would least like you to do.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
I thougt about a simpler explanation. I see a connection between the violence caused by the state in say Iraq and the increase of violence in young people. We live in a very violent world. Violence is hovering around all over the place and young people gets most affected, almost as victims but also in psychologically. So the simpelest solution would be: mankind sould build a peacfull world.
Bob Steward, London, England
This article really does make sense. In the eyes of a person who works with young people on the strrets in their teritory, Guns and Knife crime is a always a fear and although we come from the very south of uk and guns are not so much a problem in our area Knives how ever are and many young people i work with carry them while on the streets to protect them selves from dealers, collecting agents and other youths wanting to steal their stash, however as this article points out if these drugs we legalised and the convictions possibly reduced they may not be need for other youths to steal from their friends and other gangs, in order to feed habits and sell items of stolen property to pay off dealers.. Its a social visciouse circle that takes a beating till you die or a knife in the back or a very good local authority YOUTH SERVICE AND SUPPORTING SERVICES TO HELP .. Legalise the soft drugs, tax them and then give the tax to services that help, nhs, mental health teams and youth services
octina, weymouth, UK
The rationale for legislation against drugs rests on fear of the spread of indolence, apathy and destruction of the work ethic seen in primitive societies where uncontrolled use has taken hold.
It would be preferable that rational individual choice were made based on knowledge, information and education, as given a choice between damaging the most valuable tool of mankind, the brain, in pursuit of unlimited hedonism, there might be no contest. The issue is further confused as the legitimate drug alcohol also does serious damage unless used in moderation, when its benefit of loosening inhibition and facilitating sociable enjoyment may pivot.
However, fear and control are powerful forces when politically mobilised, and the clear argument here would need to overcome considerable complexity of muddled thought .in order to appeal to any politician mindful of electorate appeal.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
Interesting that J Hari, a columnist in the Independent, has a similar view today. I suspect it may take another generation before entrenched views about drug policy literally die out. Are we as a country signed up to treaties involving us in 'the war on drugs?'
nils, Greasby,
I agree with the broad thrust of your point. However you are wrong when you say that it is the Taliban that is benefitting most from the increase in production of opiates. In fact the real point is that it is our Allies in the erstwhile "Northern Alliance" who are the dramatically increasing production and exports of opiates. The source of production increase isnt Helmand, but the Northern regions close to the borders, and the land routes overland are taken.
So yes, right answer, but wrong facts. Why not ask some harder questions of the FCO, and their mate General Dostum. I wonder what would happen to the price of Opiates in London if Afghanistan's Northern Border was closed?
Harry, London,
According to the anecdotal evidence given in Freakonomics, inner city violence in the US decreased hugely when the price of crack cocaine dropped. Suddenly there wasn't the money to be made, and consequently the risk relating to gang membership and violent crime (remembering that gang members were disproportionately both perpetrators and victims of violence, as well as most at risk of arrest and imprisonment) were not worth taking. Legalising drugs, and so taking the ability to make money out of the hands of the criminals, would ultimately do a lot to make the streets of the UK safer. Also, although not proven, I suspect that legalisation of drugs will significantly reduce their appeal to the user, as their use is as much about rebelling against the establishment as it is about the effects of the drugs themselves.
Ian Blanchard, St Albans, UK
Wow how unthinkable! So far so yawn, Anatole Kaletsky is how out of date? You'd think we'd never heard these arguments before.
DAVE, The North, UK
I think it can go further: nationalise the drug trade. The govenment should manufacture drugs and sell it to users at government shops that are right next door to the police station. The government should turn a profit from the tarde and use ALL that money to fund drug rehabilitation for addicts. It could strangle off the black market by providing to the drug market confidence that at least what the govt is selling is of good quality. Drugs will lose their glamour for the professional middle class when they have to join an orderly queue on the high street next to addled junkies.
James, London,
There are so many sensible ideas which have been put forward from people who are blessed with something politicians seem to lack, common sense. The reason why most of the ideas which politicians put forward are always failing is because they don't have the "bottle" to do something positive. There's too much of " people must be educated and , lessons must be learned" etc. etc. Another problem is that most of them are in denial of the problems which are now facing ordinary people every day. They like the idea of being a big noise in the government , being shuffled around from one place to another while they slide out of doing what they should be doing, governing properly, not passing stupid laws. A few days ago a drug dealer was tied to a lamp post and tarred and feathered in N. Ireland. People asked the police to do something and of course as usual they failed when required, so some men took the matter into their own hands, and that could begin to happen in Britain
Phil de Buquet, Newport, England
Anatole,
What EXACTLY do you mean by 'Legalising, or at least decriminalising, drugs' ?
Do you mean that any shop could sell any drugs from any importer, so long as all concerned declared it?
Do you mean that packets of crack come with an 'over-18 only' rule and a bit of health advice?
Would there be a new offence of 'Drugged and disorderly' ?
If not, what ?
stephen rutherford, BEDS,
Decriminalizing drugs is indeed an attractive policy proposal. Prices of drugs on the streets of Britain would fall, and the gangs-both foreign and home grown-would find themselves embroiled in nasty wars for market share. But there is a little corollary: initially, consumption would tend to rise, placing further burdens on the health system. The simple answer to that is to allocate the risk of consumption of various types of deadly drug not on the British taxpayer, but on the consumer. That would really be tough love.
jonathan story, Fontainebleau, France
The real stopper to legalising drugs is what to do with all those poppies. Do we want them sold openly? I think not. The problem is that legalising the trade in opiates requires changing the allowance of the opium poppy to retrieve its place in the world's medicine cabinets, and requires the cooperation of one of big business' most vciferous lobbies - the big pharmas.
Still, once we stop tobacco abuse and cut alcohol consumption, the treasury neds to get its money from somewhere, and taxing people's addictions is still the easiest way to earn money.
KR, Stockport,
I agree, but it'll never happen. Millions of individuals and institutions profit legally from the illegality of drug use. To name a few:
Police, justice, security industry, social workers, the list is endless.
bob, steveston,
Has the illegal status and all the money spent on trying to enforce the law caused drug usage to decrease? The simple answer is no.
The parallel with prohibition in the US is very clear. Prohibition did not reduce alcohol consumption and the main effcet was the rise in profitability of criminal activity.
The solution is to leglize drugs and to use the tax money to fund educational programs.
tom mcgee, Nyack, NY USA
Legalise then regulate drugs as pharmaceuticals are; legislate against being under the influence under certain circumstances and best of all TAX the trade. In taxman always wins!
Sana, , Amasterdam,
Interesting. Freely available drugs will certainly bring more addiction but at the same time less crime, according to this argument. Meanwhile the drug dealers will all become fine art specialists or grief counsellors.
Cutting crime by decriminalizing crime is certainly one way to push the numbers in the right direction, but will it produce a country fit to live in? Surely parents have enough of a fight on their hands already.
Somehow I can't associate Churchill's stand against Hitler with the case for legalising heroin.
Simon Moore (UK expat), Waltham, MA
Prohibition in the US gave the mafia the biggest hand up they could have ever wished for. Now we see the same happening with drugs.
Cocaine is made from the cocoa leaf by the addition of cement, caustic soda, quick lime, sulphuric acid, petrol and ammonia. (BBC2 newsnight) No wonder it can kill.
It is strange that the government will order the tobacco companies to show what happens to your lungs when you smoke but don't/won't tell you how cocaine is made. Maybe they just don't know?
It is time to legalise drugs, supervise their manfacture and tax the profits from their sale.
Steve Byrne, Christchurch, UK
Drug addicts can’t work. Even if drugs are legalized they’ll commit crimes to get money to buy drugs. Or are you planning to give them heroin free of charge?
alex, Riga, Latvia
The political classes are even less honest than the article implies. There's no need to be affected by Street wars and gang crime - so long as you've the money to buy into a nice area. That's the nasty truth of the matter, and reason politicians remain obstinate about the war on drugs.
The only hope is London - where rich and poor live close enough that one cannot ignore the other. So I say this as a proud Mancunian: come on Londoner's - make the politicians catch up with public opinion, and get rid of this pointless war on drugs
Mark, Manchester, England
Excellent. A fairer "solution" to this problem would be to set up legal trade with Afghanistan; Diamorphine is in short supply worldwide. Establish the logistics, pay a fair price to the poppy farmers and eradicate this whole sorry mess.
Of course, it wont happen because economically it is not in the West's interests to allow growth in the Middle East.
Phil Coles, Wales,
Perhaps Gordon Brown would be convinced by the fiscal side of things - if you legalised all drugs, he could raise tax revenue and save costs in prisons and courts (I don't know how many prosecutions of drug dealers there are, but I bet it all costs us taxpayers a mint).
As to courage, if they legalised drugs that would reduce the prisons crisis. Would the Daily Mail be more outraged by legalising drugs, or by more early releases for dangerous offenders?
Catherine, Oxford,
The attempt to suppress the illegal drugs business in the UK has failed. For years. If you want to call it a "war" against drugs, then the authorities have been defeated. Or routed.
Which means that some new policy must be devised.
The Economist (the newspaper) have recommended for decades that drugs should be decriminalised. Criminalisation increases the profits to be made by suppliers and it increases the dangers -- gangs fight to defend their turf and poor quality control makes the product even more lethal. They don't want everyone to start taking drugs, they don't advocate it, but they recognise that there's no point pursuing a failed policy.
The same goes for Simon Jenkins -- perhaps not decades, but certainly years -- and now you. Good.
Famously, the application of mere logic has no effect on government policy whatever. Apparently they only understand picture stories.
So how about rolling out the Al Capone/Prohibition example? That might get the message across.
David Moss, London, UK
LEGALIZE! The U.S. alcohol prohibition WAS the example. MONEY MACHINE for the government. Lock EVERYONE UP! The land of the FREE!
Steve, Glen Rose, Texas USA
Thank you, Anatole, for an interesting piece which will be tossed in the basket by the politicians.
How about letting us know what you think about the current turmoil in the financial markets? Much more useful.
Alan, Paris, France
Yes, prohibition has never worked and has always resulted in undesirable unintended consequences. I believe, and have done so for many years, that all drugs should be legalised, but that users should be held very strictly responsible for their actions, even actions that concern only themselves. Unfortunately, I am certain that our governments do not have the courage, nor are honest enough to even contemplate either course, admitting that their policies for the last fifty years or more have been just wrong and counter productive.
Roger Cole, Carson City, Nevada
In fact the simple answer to Hitler was not to have declared war, but as Britain built up the Nazis actions into a big issue, it became more or less inevitable. It might only be surprising that in this situation they hadn t re-armed; but that is a somewhat longer story. This supports your general premise to forget the war on drugs. The snag is that too many awfully nice people in Britain and America have their interests committed in that direction - I believe the jails have evolved a whole drug culture of their own - and in that context they would seem to be nervous about the resulting effects of a simple solution.
Henry Percy, London, UK
War on drugs can never be won, till you bust off and destroy the regime and coterie of war lords and their 'connections', with the politicos and the under world. It is a brazen fact that world over, many countries and their regimes, like Columbia, Venezuela, El Salvador and other such latin american nations, besides Asian countires, work under the diktats of drug leaders and traffickers. The situation is like a ticking-bomb pyramid, from the apex it trickles down to the common man on the streets . The worst affected ones are the youngsters and juveniles, who are entrapped into their nefarious acts and are also made as conduits, to peddle and carry out illegal trafficking.
The scenario on the streets of London is no different from that of Mumbai, Delhi or the dirty den and vices of Kolkotta. One could see scenes of violence, street killings,gang wars muggings and other unsocial and criminal activities mushrooming due to drug trades etc. Catch up the tainted politcal honchos .
Sandy, New Delhi, India
I have seen the growth of the drugs industry since the 1960s, growth fuelled by the gains made through it's illegal nature. The tragic result is not the drug taking, sad though that is, but it is the affect on us all in the streets of Britain.
For years I have thought it one of life's great mysteries that decriminalisation is not at the top of the political agenda - it is so obvious once you have seen it. AK is right.
Richard, London, uk
At the time of writing (53 comments) support for the legalization of all drugs was overwhelming, while a few problems were pointed out. One of them a very serious one (Felix of California - below).
Can you imagine the bravery of the mainstream politician who could propose such a proposal? Let alone a political party. Therein lies the problem.
We still remember David Steel for Abortion law reform, Wilberforce and the Quakers for the abolition of slavery and, unfortunately I cannot remember the politician who proposed homosexual law reform. I cannot think of any modern career politician who is remotely of that class.
Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Hellas
Sam, the drug dealers make such handsome profits because of the drugs' illegality. They know they can make addicts steal things or prostitute themselves if necessary. Being criminals, they can employ business tactics (including violence against competitors) honest businessmen cannot. And the risks they take (arrest, violence from competitors) means that anyone engaging in the business will want to take as a payout as possible. Now factor in the number of middlemen involved in long-distance smuggling, most or all of whom want a healthy payout for their role. How many of these factors would still be there if drugs were legalised?
As for the risk of drug gangs going legit in the business, remember that they'll be competing with companies who are more experienced at operating legit than they are. Assuming they aren't arrested anyway for other, still illegal, crimes.
Michael, Pueblo, Colorado, US
So, after thousands of ruined lives, billions wasted on a policy which is clearly as effective as Prohibition, and the near complete defeat of the forces of law and order in this matter, someone with a loud voice is, albeit at a whisper, suggesting that a different approach be adopted to the drugs menace. Good...and bad. Let's face it, there is no possibility that any government, certainly not the 'play it safe' peddlers who would have us believe they are the best answer to a difficult problem. It is time to face facts; drugs are here to stay, people (in all walks of life) will continue to use them, so the best policy is to legalise, standardise, control and tax. Of course, some lives will be ruined, some people will never be able to cope. But if we can remove from the victim list some little old lady who at this moment is being mugged, then that is a course of action worth following. Let us have an end to micro-control of the public. Legalise as soon as feasible.
david jones, london,
But everyone who has passed Economics 101 knows decriminalisation is the only policy with a chance of working. But will it happen in the Anglo Saxon countries. Not a chance! We are under the political thuggery of US policy tht forced us to change our liberal laws in 1968 to ape their prohibitionist laws. The US population in general would also support liberalisation. However, vested interests like the status quo and wrap their arguments into pseudo do gooder language. The reality is that the police, the underworld, the political class, even the judiciary in some cases reap some of the vast profits from the drugs trade in the US and fight liberalisation tooth and nail. The trajedy is that we are swept up in the backwash of their misguided policies by our weak willed leaders who lack both backbone and intellect.
oldasiahand, Guildford, UK
So that's it then! At a stroke Anatole Kaletsky has resolved the war on drugs, just legalise them.With all the brains that abound, why has it taken so long to come up with such a simple and obvious solution?
One assumes that this means that drugs can be sold without prescription, on the High St. that the Tour de France can continue in its present form, Ben Johnson will regain his gold medal and next year's Derby winner will feature in the advertising of the brand that assisted the colt's win.
Whilst the street gangs will not disband, crime will still be the chosen profession of too many of our young and the war on terrorism will continue, Kaletsky believes an immediate ceasefire will give peace a chance in Afghanistan, with or without Taliban approval, and on our streets will be safer, assuming you do not run into drugged driver, now more acceptable than a drunk driver.
If we take Anatole at his word, at this rate it will become harder to come up with problems that solutions.
M.Fishman, London,
I second this. at one stroke it will cut the gordan knot. Immediately the gangs will lose a major source of money and influence. From just this one step of legalising drugs, a lot of criminal activity will cease. drugs prohibition is mimicking alcohol prohibition.
anthony wong, london, uk
So what are you saying. A ceasefire normally means that both sides pull back and cease all activities. Do you really think that drug dealers would stop getting people hooked onto such a lucrative habit. All you are advocating is that the police should allow them to do what they like.
A better solution would be to buy the produce directly from the farmers and thereby deprive the drug dealers there massive profits. Economically, this would make much more sense.
George Strydom, London, UK
If you want to be radical why not negotiate with the Taliban drug barons to buy their cash crop of opium in its entirety each year.
That way the UK government immediately controls the supply and distribution into W Europe. Legalised drugs dispensaries in each city centre could then find the real drug dependents and set up proper drug replacement procedures for the addicted.
Finally a double benefit would be the recall of our troops, cessation of violence in Afghanistan and the drug gangs in the UK would be redundant.
I'll wager that he cost would be less than what is currently spent on a useless miltary campaign and the high social cost of a failed drugs policy at home.
MIke S, Newbury, UK
Was this not tried in Switzerland in the 1970s? It was, I believe, abandoned when people in Zurich tired of seeing addicts shooting up in the park, and bodies floating down the river. The policy advocated by Mr Kaletsky means removing the safety net and letting addicts die in squalor. This is, of course, to allow natural selection to weed out such people from the gene pool (very slowly), but it is harsh and likely to be politically impossible in our current affluent culture.
Richard Dell, Preston, UK
The reason our nation is in the awful pre-anarchic condition that it currently enjoys is due to successive generations of do-gooders removing carefully placed blocks to social decay. It started with removing the death penalty and has moved on to currently pushing for a nation of drug addicts.
You get the country you deserve I suppose, but what did the coherent among us do to deserve what we are being given?
Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire
If you can't keep drugs out of prison, how can you keep them out of society?
Legalisation is a step too far for drugs, but the ability to buy ( for a very small fee) drugs from registered pharmacies will help cut the criminal link. It will also help Governement monitor and control drug usage, and maybe even bring in a small profit.
paddy, dumfries, uk
Could not agree more with most of the article. However, are we saying here that by legalizing drug use / distribution / production , the process in reverse order , we will allow over the counter sales of drugs from known , labelled suppliers ? Going further and being a little flippant , would we then see an oragnic and non organic choice. I would like Anatole to explain further how he would envisgae such a scenario but he is right on the fundamental point that at the moment curent policies are not working and it is time for fresh , bold , out of the box initiatives.
Paul , Liverpool,
Well said, Anatole! The US war on drugs has had devastating effects in Afghanistan, Colombia, and many other countries. It divides societies and destroys the rule of law. It's time that the evil done in its name is weighed up against the benefits - which are few or non-existent.
Pete Williams, Milton Keynes,
I agree totally.
In order to start to deal with the problem one must, as the first priority take the money out of the equasion. Sell drugs from a professional supplier such as a pharmacist to adults who are daft enough to purchase them.
Only in that way can normal social controls such as the prevention of sales to children, and quality control.
Modify the all the drunken offences to include incapacity by drugs as well as alcohol. All sorts of things can be done once the pushers are out of the way.
Just pushing the problem under the carpet, forgetting to prosecute or otherwise de-criminalize is NOT the answer. Only total legalization will do.
I do though accept the argument and fears of Felix of California (below) regarding the future career plans of ex-pushers. Of that I have no answer.
Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Hellas
This is so obvious, like vaccination for foot and mouth and nuclear energy for global warming that we must look for the vested interests that resist such a helpful change. Is not the "war againsts drugs" a major word industry equally profitable to the purveyors and the eradicators?
stephen Bull, fontes, france
I 100% agree and would go as far to say that drugs should be legalised and available to buy in supermarkets! If people want to take drugs that is their choice and who are we to say that they cant. Some of the most dangerous drugs ie Alcohol and Tobacco are already legal!
Its about time we stopped this Nanny State in more ways than one and people made responsible for their own actions.
Dan, Nottingham,
Since morphine is expensive and in short supply in many places in the world.Why don't we buy the opium and use it to relieve pain.The old system of registering addicts ,instead of criminalizing them and doing effectively what prohibition did in the US, would be a better solution. Illegal but largely available substances lead to gang violence and competition to supply.
kay, leeds,
Anatole pointed out some of the root causes of violent Britain
but offfers no tangible solutions.
His proposed solutions for example education and correcting
broken homes ( but did not say how ? ) take time to kick in and yet wanton and mindless violence/intimidation are tearing the fabrics of Britain apart.
This terrible vicious situation is not an overnight thing -- mind you, you are only seeing the beginning effects of a long festered/still festering situation -- politicians as usual do their
usual useless talks , judges lament about it but hardly able to grasp it and the poor police helpless about it whilst having first hand taste of the most gory aspects of such violence when they visit the crime scenes and not to mention the forensic teams daily encounters and a voice inside them wonder why they are in such awful jobs ?!
Really is this what Modern Britain is about --- where is your
Blueprint or more precisely Warplan to tackle this WAR at your own turft and yet Afghan/Iraq ?!
Ian, singapore, singapore
Keep repeating the message, maybe one day it will be heard.
Tony Windmill, Reading, UK
Two corrections: the police have not 'lost control of the streets' and this country can hardly be said to have 'lax sentencing' as we have the highest sentencing levels in Western Europe
Stephen, Bristol,
Since morphine is expensive and in short supply in many places in the world.Why don't we buy the opium and use it to relieve pain.The old system of registering addicts ,instead of criminalizing them and doing effectively what prohibition did in the US, would be a better solution. Illegal but largely available substances lead to gang violence and competition to supply.
kay, leeds,
I think drug users should be sent on training days similar to the ones offered to motorists. They could learn about the social impacts of the drug trade both here and in countries like Columbia. they could be shown photos of villages that have been levelled or peopole who have been tortured by the drug gangs. Doctors could give no holds barred presentations on the damage drugs do to your body too.
This should be offered to minor dealers such as students who deal to friends at college where no violence has been involved too.
Luke Nicolaides, London, UK
Great article. The only snag is that the measure which you tentatively suggest is one which none of our expedient political leaders would have the moral or political courage to take.
Gervas Douglas, Andorra la Vella,
I entirely agree Mr Kaletsky and have thought so for years. Look
at the disasterous results of prohibition in America as a case
in point. A simple and relatively easy first step would be to buy
the poppy crop directly from the Afghan farmers. Mr Harri in the
Independanr has also proposed this solution. The benifits would be threefod:~
1) It would alleviate the worldwide shortage of opiates for
medical use.
2) It would cut off a lucrative source of funding to the murderous Taleban and al-Qaeda terrorists and as a result
make the Army`s task in Helmand easier.
3) Last but least it help make life easier for the poor Afghan
farmer.
Denver Watt, Osaka, Japan
Decriminalising means what it says, removing the crime and therefore the criminals. If drugs were available from Superdrug or the equivalent of an off license, the government could raise revenue and the strength of the drugs bought would be guaranteed. This would give users the choice between, for instance, highly psychoactive and merely relaxing strains of cannabis, in the same way drinkers have a choice between lager and whisky.
We could learn from the Dutch model where far fewer people use drugs, possibly because they are available in a controlled way.
Iain, Nottingham,
The drugs trade is a fine example of the free market economy in action... where there is a demand a supply will fill the gap. The only way to have any control over an underground black market is to bring it into daylight, regulate the marketplace and introduce effective controls as is in place for other legal substances. Tax revenues could be in the billions.
The war on drugs policy is a farce, We spend millions with no tangible results, no reduction of the amount or availability of drugs. Prices are dropping and the profits that can be made drive whole sections of our intercitys into lawless quagmires.
The media and society have given a gloss to drugs which does not run parallel with "drugs are bad say no" policies. People are not so stupid as to what the actual effects of drugs are.. People take drugs as they enjoy the effects, they know that its safe if they take precautions and have enough factual information on what they are taking.
but we'll carry on regardless...
Ben, BELFAST,
it will Never happen, Are economies too dependant on of the laundering of drug money. When the Taleban was in charge of Afghanistan opium production was slashed, now the west is in charge Opium production has sky rocketed!
PE, London, England
A good common sense article. bringing substance supply under the direct control of the government will take prophits away from street gangs (If anyone seriously believes they will all take up kidnapping may I suggest a psychiatric assessment).
This will halp de-stigmatise drug users, bringing them back into society where thay can become productive.
The substantial prophits will no longer fund terrorism and crime but could be used to treat, educate and support society.
Suddenly there is space in prosions for violent criminals, money to support those that want treatemtn and honest discussion about the risks of drug use, 26 million people have given up tobacco in 3 decades (50% of our population) of course some people like to think the public are not mature enough to choose not to waste their lives on crack or heroin and decriminalising drugs will lead to mass use, I would summise the only people stupid enough to do that are the ones arging it would happen.
roll on common sense
cliff, London, engalnd
Immediate simple solution to the complex problem - strike hard at the root (Helmand) and at the root of UK distribution centers.
If we go by too many doubts and theories, we will not have solutions. Instead, we will have a bunch of theories staring at us.
Education on the ills of drugs is important. In addition, the criminal justice systems in many democratic nations are just cracking up. Just for simple convictions, there are endless and sometimes meaningless wrangles. Therefore, a thorough overhaul of the judicial system is required.
The quick and appropriate punishments/sentences without out too many appeals’ business, will itself be a big deterrent.
Any immigrant indulging in drug trading and other crimes should be deported. UK has imported too many troublemakers with reckless immigration. These are just exploiting the democratic system to their full advantage.
Ultimately, battle against drugs has to be a multi-pronged attack.
Regards,
Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India
A great idea. It will never happen as no politician would ever have the guts to go through with it. Still we can hope that one day we get a Prime Minister or even a politician with an ounce of common sense.
And anyway, the police force would rather be hounding motorists for going 3mph over the speed limit then catching gangsters with guns. Much safer, much easier, and much more profitable.
AK, London,
This sounds errily similar to the call to remove alcohol prohibition from Chicago in the 1920s. And of course, when prohibition ended, Al Cappone's power base dried up completely.
I say go for it. Make the drugs that are currently illegal available on prescription from the chemist. It will also give doctors the opportunity to meet patients that they haven't seen for years, and help them to treat their AIDS, Hepatitis and other diseases of the street
Damian, London, UK
Right about the 'simple answer' concept but wrong in the execution. Decriminalising the trade will not work - the propensity to violence/wealth through illegal trade will find another outlet. Legal access to chemicals which restrict/destroy an individual's ability to make their lives better is moral and economic stupidity. An effective solution both solves the problem et encourager les autres. Violent crime, and the opt out of society that drug trade and use represent, can be most effectively dealt with by an overwhelming reaction from the state which holds the responsibility for maintaining social order. Yes there will for a time be casualties both of innocents and principles if the state applies the overwhelming approach. But what of the alternative? Innocents continue to waste their lives away and our covenant with the state that law and order should prevail has long been broken. Better a short sharp pain than the long drawn out and never ending agony which is what we have today.
Charles, UAE,
Unfortunately, it's not just our government at fault.
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (signed by 180 nations) makes it an international crime to have any approach to drugs other than prohibition.
Rephrased, that means that the UN (including all 5 permantent member of the security council) mandates the use of an anti-drugs policy that has failed in every instance that it's ever been tried, a policy that has funded organised crime, petty crime and terrorism, and doesn't reduce drug use.
Joe, London,
The US is in a catch-22 situation over trying to prevent production of Afghani opium - because it has not understood another simple answer which would both prevent the export of opium and vastly increase the US's popularity with the opium farmers. That answer is to buy the whole opium crop off the farmers for more than the Taleban is prepared to pay, rather than destroying their crops as they stand. It's a no-brainer. And the money saved by doing so would dwarf the cost.
Roddy Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
here is an easy answer to the problems caused by violent gangs, turn a blind eye to Police brutality and ignore the human rights of those who undermine the human rights of others.
The benefits to this are twofold: violence is a deterrent to violent people, and it is cheap. Sure, innocent people may get caught in the crossfire, but i would rather get a broken nose from an irate copper who has bagged the wrong man, than a bullet in the belly from a gun-toting simpleton trying to steal my wallet to fuel his drug habit.
now THAT is an easy answer
simon mawdsley, London,
So just why are are our troops in Afganistan?
To protect the Poppy Fields and increase the
drug production?
Lets have some real answers, at long last.
Rowland, Mottram, Cheshire
It has been obvious for a long time that decrimimalization is the only way forward, as are vouchers with education and locally elected Chief constables for the Police Service.
Regrettably the socialist centralising political paradigm that still subsists in this country prevents radical action, and the westminster oligarchy more concerned with playing silly parlour games than actually doing the right thing by