At long last some sense about drugs. The independent Royal Society for the
encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, or RSA, published a report
last week in the hope of influencing a government drugs strategy review due
next year. The report states that (surprise!) drugs policy has failed — and
that it was driven by “moral panic” in the first place — and should be
replaced with a system that recognises, among other things, that alcohol and
tobacco can cause more harm than some illegal drugs.
“Whether we like it or not, drugs are and will remain a fact of life,” the
report says. “On that basis, the aim of the law should be to reduce the
amounts of harm caused to individuals, their friends and families, their
children and their communities.”
The report, compiled by a panel composed of academics, politicians, drug
workers and a senior police officer, also asked for jail sentences to be
given for only the most serious drug-related crimes and for addicts to be
given jobs and housing as part of treatment. Crucially, to my mind, the
report calls for an end to “the criminal justice bias” of drugs policy,
whereby addicts are treated as criminals and as causes of crime, rather than
as ill people who need help.
Instead the report suggests treating addiction as a health and social problem.
It also proposes educating children about drugs at primary school instead
of, as now, in secondary school; and — you can see this one might be a bit
contentious — establishing “shooting galleries”, as in eight other European
countries, as a way of avoiding overdoses and offering treatment and help to
severe addicts.
Iain Duncan Smith predictably called the report “worryingly complacent”, but I
think it’s nothing less than inspired and driven by a desire to help those
who need help, instead of sticking them in the corner and pointing at their
failures. The government’s approach to the question of drugs is due a
radical overhaul: its attitude is questionable at best and occasionally
unintentionally hilarious. What, for example, is a “drugs czar”? Does it
ride a big horse and wear jackets with scarlet braiding? Or what about the
babyish idea of a “war on drugs”? Drugs aren’t beings — they are plant or
chemical extracts. You can’t smite them down with your mighty sword. The
“war on drugs” is a tabloid fantasy that successive governments have taken
up with zero success: what it means in effect is that you criminalise users
and toss them into an environment where drugs are super-desirable, like
prison.
It’s absurd and really hard to see how this approach helps anyone at all. You
can — and should — have a “war” on the social factors that make people
susceptible to drug taking — and by “social factors” I mean poverty and
boredom, rather than membership of swanky London clubs — and a war on the
criminal networks that flood Britain’s streets with cheap drugs and bring
havoc (and gun crime) in their wake, but you can’t have a war on drugs
themselves.
You would have thought this would be blindingly obvious; but this government,
like the one before it, seems intent on viewing each pill, each leaf, each
bit of resin as possessed of its own forked tail and cloven hooves.
And you know, it ain’t necessarily so. Professor Anthony King of Essex
University, the RSA panel’s chairman, said last week: “The evidence suggests
that a majority of people who use drugs are able to use them without harming
themselves or others”, which is absolutely true, but which one is never
allowed to say without being accused of being dementedly irresponsible, or
some kind of junkie in denial, or at least an obsessive recreational drug
user.
The truth of the matter is that hundreds of thousands of people like a spliff
with their glass of wine after a hard day’s work, and those people don’t
have a problem. They’re not in the pub necking down triples and getting into
fights, they’re not sicking up in the street, they don’t suddenly decide to
stab the person who accidentally bumped into them. Plus, they’re unlikely to
die prematurely of liver failure.
And while you would obviously prefer your teenager to be doing a bit of extra
maths instead of a little extra ecstasy, there are worse things than feeling
all cheery and affectionate for a few hours and then sleeping it off — like
taking up smoking and dying of lung cancer. As for the cocaine epidemic that
we’re constantly reading about: being addicted to cocaine isn’t nice —
neither is being an alcoholic, except that’s legal — but the truth is that
the vast majority of recreational users don’t have an addiction problem.
I’m not saying taking drugs is a marvellous idea, obviously it isn’t, but the
point is that people do take them, in vast numbers, and it’s about time our
reactions stopped being so hysterical and ignorant.
The RSA report also recommends that the drug classification system should be
replaced by an “index of harms”, based on the damage that a drug causes the
user and society, and that said index should, for the first time, include
prescription drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco. It recommends, for
instance, that alcohol and tobacco should be rated as more dangerous than
ecstasy or cannabis. Heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and street methadone
would top the list, followed by alcohol — ahead of ketamine and
amphetamines. Tobacco would be ninth, ahead of cannabis (11th), solvents,
LSD and ecstasy.
Responding to the report, the Home Office said John Reid, the home secretary,
had no interest in scrapping the current system, whereby you can drink
yourself to death freely. He has done no better than his predecessors when
it comes to imposing a degree of intelligent adult thinking on this subject.
Our ignorance about the reality of drug taking — fed by a media intent on
publishing horror stories of the kind that could just as easily be written
about people dying from allergic reactions to penicillin — may actually have
contributed over the past 20 years to the worsening of life for those people
inclined by misfortune to abuse drugs.
We think, like toddlers, in exclusively black and white terms: all drugs are
evil, all drug takers are evil, ban all drugs, lock up all drug takers. That
approach demonstrably doesn’t work — aside from anything else, it makes
drugs seem glamorous, when frankly a lot of them are less dangerous than a
night out in the pub. And that is where all this infantile thinking becomes
fatal.
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt through having a child with special needs, it is not to judge other people in a similar boat
People have issues. Drugs are blamed and ,maybe, responsible for worsening their condition. But they are definitely not the cause. There is a profound difference - so we must not confuse the issue.
Trevor Stokes, Athens, Greece
Just say no to drugs! I do, but they don't listen...
Mel Barrows, Tenerife, Canary Islands
Cannabis has turned my teenage son into a stealing lying cheating antisocial creature. He has underlying problems which he has tried to alleviate by smoking dope, and cannabis itself may not be so harmful, but the crowd he has fallen in with does prevent him from achieving his potential. Unless he really wants to be a dozy dropout living on his parents' money (which is no longer forthcoming).
angrymum, Berkshire,
What is so frustrating is the naivety around the topic. We neglect those who need the most help and attach the criminal tag to them. As people we are only ever 5 events from ruin, a death followed by the loss of your job and house etc, some people have turned to indulgence and dependence out of desperation, we should assist these people not vilify them. We now have evidence that suggests that we have got the War on Drugs wrong (as if we needed telling!) and it has been met by criticism by those making the decisions on the issue. Perhaps IDS or John Reid should go to any Urban area or rural population and see that the work done in the past 3o years has failed miserably.
No statistic can accurately gauge the drug use of a community but let me tell you, lots of people use, you are ignorant to think not. I am off to have a glass of wine and something else after a hard day reading these comments.
Perhaps we should legalise and tax drugs, that way we could pay for the "War on Terror".
Ben J, Manly , Australia
Sorry India but I hold a very different view on this matter: alcohol and nicotine don't have the same effects as most drugs do.
Drugs is one of the first economies in the world we live in and is in not in the interest of the people who enjoy it most to stop their trade.
Drugs produce an irreversible damage in the cortex that any doctor/psychiatrist know to change the behaviour of a human being into that of an "almost" animal with no control over their basic instincts
Drug addicts never get over their addiction they simply learn to keep under control their untamed passions.
All the above happens after just one try, one single taste of A class drugs and to a lesser degree with cannabis for example.
d.t., london, uk
Bravo for taking a stand against what is a ridculously outmoded governmental stance.Nevertheless As KC says cannabis is not a harmless drug whatever people like to claim. Marijuana pyschosis which leads to full blown degenerative scizophrenia is becoming extrememly prevalent amongst teenagers who smoke hybrid skunk. Harder drugs like ecstasy do not just make you 'fell cheery for a few hours' but can induce addiction to other drugs, depression and week long paranioa on levels that you cannot associate with alcohol. While I agree that drugs should be legalised, deglamorised and the criminal dealing section of society removed, the effects of drug use on young developing minds should not be downplayed so glibly.
Rohan, London, UK
Repression has proven not to work. It can't, because of a very simple fact: demand = supply. Most of the deaths, crime and anguish stem from criminalization itself and the subsequent creation of a hugely prosperous, violent and uncontrolled black market. Evidently, substance abuse should be transformed into responsible use where possible through education. Which all begs a wider debate on the general process of addiction and the ways in which it is exploited, since it is present in one form or another in most people's lives, including those who think they lead pristine existences far from the squalor of junkiedom.
MH, warsaw,
The American war on drugs started in the 1930's, it is a giant failure. Drug dealers spend more time in prison than do murders and rapist. Addicts, who could easily support themselves and still be addicts if illicit substances were legal, instead turn to petty crime, prostitution and sometime serious crime. Drug dealers live in a necessarily violent black market; while the alcohol peddlers are peacefully free to take one another to court if disputes arise. It is pathetic that in the states we tell ourselves that we are "A Free People" while controlling each and every citizen's right to privacy over their own body.
The violent black market has repeatedly been used at emotional fodder piled high as philosophical and emotional support for gun control, which only accomplishes disarming the victims of crime. Once the victim disarmament laws are past, violent crime always rises, and more disarmament laws demanded to fight the new crime wave.
Another vicious cycle making all c
Van Cronkhite, Miami, Florida, USA
These drug takers are victims who are not responsible for their problems or for fixing them. We should take away all responsibility from them, to help themslves. We should use our bottomless pit of public money to provide them with free housing, meals on wheels, government benefits, expensive rehabilitation programs that most often don't work.
We can help them manage their children's behaviour with prescribed amphetamines just as the prisons manage these victims' behaviour with antidepressants.
We should provide more police and ambulance officers to accept even more responsibility for the consequences of their behaviour.
Remember they are victims who are not responsible for their actions and couldn't possibly have the strength of character to help themselves.
.
Mark, Perth, Australia
As long as the timber, cotton and pharmaceutical industries continue to buy politicians, there will be the prohibition on cannabis, one of the wonder drugs available. In 8000 years of recorded use, not one death can be blamed on its use.
hangman, Caddo Valley,
@ KC "While it may not kill you, regularly taking some so-called recreational drugs can trigger mental illness in a significant minority of people. Regularly drinking a couple of glasses of wine will not."
I know several people personally- including my partner of over a decade- that suffer unpleasant alcohol psychosis after only one or two of glasses of wine.
This is shrugged off by north European culture as "getting weepy" or "feisty" after a few "shandies".
Willful hypocrisy, or dumb ignorance, one of the two.
David, Brighton, UK
I whole-heartedly side with India's article (based upon the RSA's report). Unfortunately you only have to read KC, London's comments to once again have the view reinforced that too many people "think, like toddlers, in exclusively black and white terms". Indeed KC's comment that; "I cannot understand how moderate drinking can be compared with moderate drug-taking" is sadly indicative of too many people; too many people who live a blinkered 'Daily Mail' existence. Moderate drug taking is possible whether your drug of choice is alcohol, cigarettes, ecstasy or cannabis. Similarly excessive consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, ecstasy or cannabis is also possible. Get the picture? The fact is this should be a democracy in which the individual can (rightly) choose whether to abstain, enjoy or become addicted (yes, it really is a choice). And what of the individual affecting others? Well I've only ever been punched by those on alcohol, and hugged by those on ecstacy.
Jonny B, guildford, surrey
The Government is obviously intent on sticking their head in the sand and carry on as if nothing has changed. Change and new ideas seem to be quite a scary thing for this group of dusty old skeletons we call politicians!
I think it might be a good idea to state your objection by signing a partition on the subject and there's one available: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Legalise-Drugs/
TA! :)
Michel, Tadley, UK
Paloma - could not agree with you more. I cannot understand how moderate drinking can be compared with moderate drug-taking.
While it may not kill you, regularly taking some so-called recreational drugs can trigger mental illness in a significant minority of people. Regularly drinking a couple of glasses of wine will not.
KC, London, England
Irrespective of the danger Cannabis poses to society. Cannabis Farms are an easy target for Police raids. The result is that Cocaine is more readily available on the street than Cannabis. And will soon be as cheap.
Is this a War on Drugs, or is it a War on Drugs that are easier to detect ?
Andy, Manchester,
It is true that most heroin users began by using cannabis.
It is also true they began by using milk.
G.Benton, San Francisco, CA USA
Illegality is an essential part of the cuture of cannabis taking Take that away and the kids will have to find somethign else, like startingu p race hate groups.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
I agree that the RSA report seems to offer a rational way out of the current impasse . I am , however , slightly disappointed that it is only towards the very end of the article that mention is made of the media culture of scare stories and half-informed editorials ; I do NOT restrict this to tabloids .
It is a rather sad and depressing facet of current public life that the leaders of all the main parties cannot be seen to advocate even a discussion ab initio on something like this without having to be forever looking to check for a media commentator ready to bewail that they are about to "go soft" and whip up an ersatz frenzy to kill debate .
Dr. A P Ruddle, Weybridge, Surrey
Most people harmlessly indulge in the pastime and could probably continue to do so for their entire lives with no cost to themselves. Probably as many people gain a valuable way to socially interact with other people, the pastime itself being almost irrelevant. Some people even gain immense spiritual fulfilment from it. Sadly, some people are so consumed that they are willing to harm and even kill themselves and possibly others because they let the pastime overwhelm them. But enough about religion, food, politics, romance...
anna, London,
Does the child of 2 heroin addicts really come from the same environment as us, I believe not, how are we to condem the people in society who never stood a chance in life.
Gary, Stoke On Trent, England
For the attention of Dalya Alberge
In the past few years I have written and published four novels. To date I have sold several thousand. They have a continuous theme of 'dog showing' and are warmly received. The essence of the many calls and letters I receive is that they are 'unputdownable'. To the extent that the reader leaves vital work in abeyance to finish them. The only comment other than that is 'please send me the next one ASAP'.
Maergaret Duckett, Royston , Herts
Turning addicts, be they of illegal drugs such as cocaine or legal ones such as alcohol, into victims of society leaves little space for individual responsibility. People who drink until their livers fail or mug old ladies to pay for their next hit have feedom of will to make different choices, to say otherwise is patronising to folk who also inhabit the same environment, but do not make these choices. Also, this attitude makes me, as someone who exists in society and is therefore partly responsibile for shaping it, partially culpable for all the evils that vice has brought on the world - a view that I'm very uncomfortable with.
N Chivers, St Albans, Herts
The "war on drugs" is wrong. It should be an education on the use of drugs. Cannabis and marijuana should be completely decriminalised.That would save a few Billions in wasted money governments spend. Would it be cheaper to buy the opium at source and the coca paste at source than spending more billions on an war that cannot be won. But thats to simple.
brian willmer, chiang mai, Thailand
Given drugs have never been far from humans in any society at any time, and that there appears to be no evidence that existing strategies do much but increase crime, perhaps it is time to experiment with decriminilisation. My guess is that in 50 years time, the report will be seen as prescient - all it will take is the expiry of a few orthodox puritans and an enlarged public debate for drug usage to be re-accepted as a part of the human condition.
Justin, Melbourne, Australia
There is definitely a serious debate needed and a review (and relaxation) of the current drug laws, which clearly don't work. Other than the terribly addictive heroin most drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) can be handled responsibly by mature adults. There is a strong case to legalising the very widely used cannabis (and therefore changing its source away from harder drug dealers - and also bringing it into the taxation system). I do feel that (like alcohol and tobacco) age limits should be introduced and strictly enforced with very severe penalties for supplying to those under age, where most of the mental health damage is done.
C Griffith, Glasgow, Scotland
Proper regulation would ensure that certain sixteen year-olds rarely become harmed by a drug "less harmful than tobacco or alcohol" should legalisation and proper age restrictions come in. It's easier for a teenager to score a rock of crack cocaine than it is to buy a bottle of liquor in many areas. Widespread changes need to be introduced to change this.
Regulated cocaine would ensure better purity and better awareness of the dangers of mixing cocaine and alcohol. Cocaine users exist but the majority of them are not addicts.
Pragmatism is what is needed. India Knight draws some great points. Prohibition of drugs has been disastrous and it won't improve. If not for the sake of the people, at least for the sake of the tax benefits. Think logically people.
Liam Ó Murchú, Cork, Ireland
I agree wholeheartedly, what possible benefit is there for society for example in wasting money prosecuting a granny who grows a little cannabis for pain relief for example?
Alan Tilmouth, Morpeth, England
I was fortunate enough not to fall into drugs like so many people as I witnessed my sister suffer from a severe mental illness as a result of dabbling in one of the drugs listed as "less harmful than tabacco or cigarettes". At the young age of 16 her life changed completely, and those around her too. Drugs should remain stricly illegal and far more should be invested in educating children at a young age of the dangers.
paloma, Madrid, Madrid
I am a drug worker, and I can state that the recreational use of cocaine has led many people , when upset, to increase the use and become full time junkies. It is true that other people may just have a bit of fun once in a while, and never devoeop an addiction, but for what I could see they are a small minority. Cocaine is really to ban and we shouldn't be indulgent with its recreational use.
alessandra manzi, milano, italy
nice common sense article, probably reflecting the balance of opinion of a majority on one of the biggest issues affecting communities all over the world, what is now needed is the leadership to actually do something along these lines......that is sadly nowhere in evidence
mark, nelson, nz
A word on the spliff. One problem with this in some ways enlightened piece is that the 'spliff' - the word itself a humorous minimiser - may not be innocuous these days, owing to the amount of so-called skunk weed around, in which the concentration of THC is very much greater, with correspondingly more powerful effects, than way back in the 1960s or 70s. So while some spliffs may indeed be relatively harmless, many others can have effects that society should hardly be tacitly condoning. Drastically reducing the availablility of the too powerful stuff while accepting in some way or other some milder forms would be utterly impracticable unless the latter were legalised and the possession of the former very heavily penalised indeed, but that is not the kind of direction that Ms Knight is pointing in here and very probably not one that Britain is prepared to go in either.
Roger, Jyväskylä, Finland
Legalising drugs would not be a good idea. This would affect teenagers the most as they would believe that since drugs aren't ilegal they are ok to consume, despite being educated about them. They will be more likely to justify taking them under peer pressure and may suffer long term illnesses if they consume drugs continuously. Drugs should be available under prescription for those who are in need of them for medical purposes.
J, Leics, UK
With respect, I think you are being a bit naive about authority. The government is just as well aware as any of us of the real positions with regard to drugs. But, at some levels, the government of this country is not a nice business. At best one could say it is pragmatic, and, in the case of it’s attitude and arrangements in respect of the drug trade, even that would be an effort to enunciate. It is a part of life which should remind us to be cautious in our dealings with politicians.
Henry Percy, London, UK
One doesn't have to read too closely between the lines to realise that most (thinking) politicians feel the same way - that prohibition now has been as disastrous as it was eighty years ago. They also know that to say so would mean political suicide. And who, if not the media, is responsible for that? After all, it was a media panic-fest that brought about the current prohibition in the first place.
Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K
In response to Mr. Shepherd of Edinburgh, I'd like to point out that a correlation isn't a cause. For example, if you plotted a graph of hayfever sufferers and then one of ice cream sales by the month, you'd see a correlation between ice cream and hay fever. We all know abstaining from ice cream won't cure hay fever now will it?
I think it's time to have a sensible policy on drugs and this harm index seems to be a good idea.
Michael Laughton, Runcorn, United Kingdom
The discussions about drugs tend to be very Eurocentric and focused on the impact on western society. mass recreational drug consumption is a result of western affluence and materialism. People have too much money or too much time on their hand (I am excluding the monitory with real addiction problems) The reality is that the prohibition on drugs in the west is funding many many wars all over the world. Many helpless people in south America and south Asia are being killed because of an appetite for partying in London, Miami and Ibiza. If that's not a reason to legalize drugs I don't know what is! cutting off funding of violent shadowy paramilitary groups and militia seems more important than worrying about a college student who will drop a few pills, feel down the next day, graduate and get a job!
maria, washington, DC
The facts on the ground -- both in US and abroad -- are that there is no effective war on drugs. The ultimate victory, according to our government, would be to destroy all the fields cultivating plants that could be distilled into drugs and/or to stop the traffickers from importing said drugs into our nation.
Menawhile, in our borders, people have figured out ways to create meth labs and use "legal pharmacology" to get high.
To use drugs is to try to escape reality; a part of a disfunctional family system. A dysfunctional family that in many cases is created by a raving religiosity, a simplistic "Moralina" (brand of religious moral sold over the counter).
Instead of poisoning coca fields in Colombia or Bolivia, we should pay attention to a drug problem unsurpassed (with the exception of Russia) in the world. Instead of spending money in helping the Colombian military, open clinics to help the kids here in the US, help the families affected by the scurge to stop this nonsensical war
Paco Aramburu, Chicago, IL
Let's not forget the crime wave that afflicts us all so that addicts can pour money into the pockets of underworld drug lords. De-criminalising the whole business and establishing a normal commercial supply chain would in addition to reducing crime, take many unfortunate women out of the hands of pimps and the vile sex industry. I have no liking for drugs, or drug taking, but surely it is up to the individual whether or not he harms himself with alcohol, tobacco, heroin, or cocaine. As for ecstasy, what harm? Thousands take it every weekend without problem.
Tony Volpe, Newcastle upon Tyne,
"It is blindingly obvious" that to legalise possession of illegal drugs while declaring a "war" on the "criminal networks" is illogical. If drug possession was legalised, while provision of drugs was still illegal then those in possession, having presumably bought them / handled them / obtained them, would still be party to a criminal act, much the same as handlers of stolen goods are.
These "criminal networks" are criminal only because of the prohibition laws; so waging a "war on drug dealers" would be akin to waging a war on makers, suppliers and distributors of alcohol or cigarettes!
By refusing to call for legalisation the report is indeed being "worryingly complacent" but not for the reasons Ian Duncan-Smith probably thinks.
Harlan Leyside, Basildon, Essex
This report seems to be a blatant re-hash of a report published last year by the Science Select Committee, which concluded that drugs should be reclassified by the level of harm, including social factors, and rated alcohol and tobacco as being worse than amphetamines. Why the RSA decided to publish an identical report I am uncertain, but maybe the upside is that the more reports that come to identical conclusions, the more the government will take notice and finally rethink it's outdated drug policies.
G Murphy, London, UK
People MUST accept responsibility for their own actions. No one forces you to start to be addicted. Get clean and get some self respect are hand in hand items. Sometimes we must pull ourselves up by our boot straps and exercise our free will. Professionals can help "wean" us off our self inflicted dependency but in the end it takes self determination and moral courage to be responsible for ourselves!
Theron Helton, Taylorville, USA, Illinois
I hardly ever post online, but was moved to write.
Say what you will about smoking a spliff, and I used to smoke about 7 gramms (a hell of a lot) a day until I started Psychoanalysis (...and now make up your own minds about chickens and eggs in this debate, incidentially), but your comments about ecstasy - I have taken it on several occasions also, regrettably, though it is unlike anthing you are ever likely to experience absent of chemical induction, are extremely irresponsible.
Of course the simplistic arguments offered in this piece are in the same vain of the armchair generals explaining Helmland province to us. Having written much sense in the past, I urge you to think again.
Let's not be hysterical indeed. But I wonder if you've ever thought about what 'taking ecstasy' really entails, and whether you'd not much rather your kids stick to extra maths... ...at all cost.
Visitor, Brighton,
Do NOT legalise drugs.
Make them available FREE to addicts via the NHS.
Make illeagal dealing a MANDATORY high tariff sentence.
In this way you directly hit the current drugs industry business model.
Most dealers are addicts, funding their own habits. In this way the general availablility of drugs will decrease.
We deal with addicts as people who are ill - reducing and 'cool' factors in drugs marketing.
We will get a proper handle on how big our drug issues are.
If the addicts choose we can try and help them quit.
By buying the drugs direct from the Governments of the producing nations we will support their political structures.
Prohibition in the US simply pumped money into organised crime - what do we think we are doing?!
Martin Virgo, London, England
There is a well-attested correlation between the use of certain drugs which Ms Knight and the RSA report consider to be less harmful--cannabis and LSD--and the onset of schizophrenia. This should be well known but seems not to be. (A list of studies is compiled at schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html.) Schizophrenia is one of the most expensive diseases for the NHS to treat due to its long-term nature (the average age of onset is between 16 and 25) and the fact that the best drugs to treat it are expensive. I would decriminalize these drugs with fear and trembling. Those who develop schizophrenia at a young age will suffer as surely as those who are jailed.
Jo Shepherd, Edinburgh, UK
"Man has befallen from his virtues less from the sins and more so, by some diabolic drug."RSA and the new drug policy classifies the drugs into benign and hazardous category , depending on the "harm index". The step is sane and effective and it shall decide upon the severity of punishment or penalty being imposed on the user or consumer. In doing so, is Government tacitly legalising and encouraging the inflow of drugs into mainstream markets. The harsh fact remains that generations yonder, now and generations later drugs and narcotics were and are being spliffed and sniffed by the addicts and first-time users either for recreational shots, or due to addiction. In India, apart from cocaine , marijuana and amphetamines , major chunk of students consume cough syrups like "Corex" and other brands to give it a shot, as they are readily available 'over-the-counter'. Lower strata consume "bhang" or raw cannabis and extracts from poppy .chillum-"flue pipe" is used by Sadhus as ecstasy .
Sandy, New Delhi, India
at last some common sense form a journalist: if only our politicians would take heed and follow suit.
compared to continental europe our lawsystem is still lagging behind remains a bastion of reaction.
while we are at it, let's also abolish the house of lords and the honour system: no western-style democracy has anything as antiquated and undemocratic.
Maxime Aguillon, warrington, uk
Drugs dispensed through licensed local pharmacy deny organized crime the 17,000 percent profit monopoly provided by the war on drugs. It has become in fact, a war on our children. Identification cards required for purchase of legalized drugs would prevent operation of machinery, including autos, aircraft, buses etc, and the carnage realized daily worldwide, when drugs are used by operators. Without the monopoly status and extreme profits conferred on criminals by prohibition, no organized crime family, or gang would profit from enticing our youth to use drugs in the first place. No extreme profits, no drug lords, no enticement, and a dying stream of addicts, unable to harm the rest of us. To simple for governments, really.
Franklin Lomax, ALEXANDRIA, USA
I agree with the legalisation of drugs. Why waste taxpayers money on policing the impossible.
If the governemnet were to sell the drugs through pharmacies, at a sensible price, the quality of the drugs could be controlled. This would then get rid of drug dealers.
I do not agree with providing assistance in any other way. Where would all the funding come from? As a person who works very long hours just so as to be able to pay for the minimum life style (and this does not include holidays), I can not afford higher taxes. If a person wants drugs they should pay for them - it is their choice.
Dave Allen, Glasgow, Uk
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, far more damage has been done by the results of criminalising drugs than by the drugs themselves. While the principal harm to some users results from the medical effects of addiction, many more have their lives destroyed by imprisonment, loss of employment and other sanctions of a society which has decreed, irrationally, the drug usage is an unqualified evil meriting this degree of punishment.
Unfortunately, the combined economic interests of the criminals, who would be out of business, and of the vast industry of enforcement, incarceration and equipment supply, especially in the US, make it highy unlikely that the issue will ever be dealt with rationally.
John Duggan, Lisbon,
I deal with a mental illness on a daily basis, Bi Polar disorder. Taking ''drugs'' be they prescribed or illegal have consequences for me that lead into a manic or very depressed state. However the few hours relief of being in an altered state have made my mental condition almost bearable, and I can only imagine that is is how 'normal' people must feel. I know several people who can partake in drugs on a casual basis without fear of consequence. I have been through rehab on a few occasions and however well meaning it is, it does not cure my mental condition which prompted me to take drugs in the first place. I can only abstain now in order to survive and that includes prescribed medication such as anti depressants. It is a no win situation, taking drugs leads to mania or severe depression and suicidal tendancies in my case. Abstaining from drugs I still confront suicide on a daily basis. I applaud Ms Knight but drug taking can have serious consequences for several of us.
Patrick, Amsterdam, Netherlands
It's a fact of human existence that many will use drugs. It's a mistake to minimize the consequences in this behavior. I see many chronic pain patients who are habitual users of presciption narcotics. Most are severely depressed. Narcotics accentuate anxiety, depression and the perception of pain. Over time, there is a corrosive effect on personality, including avoidant and reclusive behavior, inability to function in social settings and loss of interest in any productive activity Some also use marijuana and alcohol. Their lives improve if they can become clean. Most started out as recreational users. Amphetamines, barbituates and LSD lead to destructive habits and anti-social behavior. Marijuana users often display a flattened affect and lack motivation. But the questions always are: Why do you use drugs? And what are we going to do about it? Other than deal with it on a case by case basis, I don't really have an answer.
Tony Francis MD , Wichita, KS/USA
I agree that prohibition has failed, but I think it is too simplistic to rank drugs on a single scale of harm. Different drugs cause harm in different ways and timescales. Sudden death is a different sort of risk from chronic disease, and the correlation between use of some drugs and mental illness is poorly understood.
Colin Flett, London, UK
Whether we like it or not, rape is and will remain a fact of life. On that basis, the aim of the law should be to reduce the amount of harm caused to individuals, their friends and families, their children and their communities. Discuss.
eddie foster, mirthios, Crete