Is legislation banning thought and concsience altering substances not contrary to the right to freedom of thought, concsience and religion guaranteed under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights anyway? If this right to freedom is to be excercised 'so far as it is possible', in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, surely the Current legislation deprives the citizen of his right to alter his own thoughts and concience, rendering the Misuse of Drugs Act illegal?? We do need a radical look forward. Drug gangs should not be pocketing what is potential public money.

Alun Jones, Anglesey,

I have never heard so much rubbish written by people about drugs. Everyone who believes drugs should be legalised should open their eyes to reality. It is not about numbers and money spent, its about human life and its quality.
It is sad that we have a chief of a police force who is so far removed from reality, have we got rid of him yet?
We spend millions each year on our social services who pick up the pieces of broken homes, mainly the abused or neglected kids, as resault of drugs, if they become legal then this will sky rocket out of control.
Drug users are generaly not employable, so they can not pay with legal means for their habbit, crime is the only answer. If you wish to legalise drugs then you can not complain if you become a victim of crime.
Why do we think dealers would be wiped out if drugs where made legal, they would just run new Ltd companies supplying drugs free from the consequences.
We live in one of the safest countries on this planet, lets keep it safe.

david, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

Whether or not you agree with the man, his point about the war on drugs being lost in entirely valid. I live in Australia now, and have just returned from a trip 'home' for xmas in the UK , and to state that the UK is being bombarded by a blizzard of cocaine would be an understatement. It is everywhere, and with ecstacy now uk2 per pill clearly enforcemnet hasn't worked.

As an interesting aside, my 'scientific' studies demonstarted that it is now extremely difficult to buy marijuana, due I would imagine to its bulk and smell making it easily detectable with the effect that most dealers now sell cocaine which whilst carrying higher penalties, is much easier to conceal and carry on your person.

It needs a brave decision to legalise, regulate and tax drugs other than alcohol and tobacco. There is no going back now, for better or worse.

Alex, Sydney, Australia

Another vote for Brunstrom. Many things besides drugs are 'addictive' : shopping gambling, video games etc,etc, . There is not a shred of evidence that criminalizing such activities stops them to a reasonable extent . Except perhaps if you have a very high arrest rate and horrendous punishments such as torture and death which no-one but Singapore has as far as I know.
As a family doc, it seems to me that few people who have not been as a child neglected or abused in some way will get addicted to anything serious. (Aso people with chronic pain and depression usually have a traumatic background as well)
I think it's not the substance but the circumstance that is the problem.
If you google 'rat park' yopu
ll see some compelling evidence for the idea that it's the situation not the drug that promotes 'addiction'.
We might be better to stop spending money on police, courts, jails, etc. and spend it on supporting parents, families and building communities.
Dave rainham MD Canada

dave Rainham, Waterloo, Ontario

Richard Brunstrom is absolutely right on this. Legalizing these drugs will not only drive out the drugs barons and the associated crime but will crucially also guarantee the purity and consistency of the drugs.

My main concern as a parent is not that my children may take drugs but that any they do take might be contaminated with other (dangerous) substances or be of wildly varying (but unspecified) strength.

I’m also happy for them to drink alcohol — but only because it is legalized and regulated. I would be really worried if they were forced (as in America in the prohibition era) to buy from moonshine distillers a product probably laced with methanol. And we are only happy to take aspirin or penicillin because we know (apart from the few recent cases of counterfeiting) that the purity, potency and efficacy is guaranteed by the manufacturers and the regulators — it would be very different if (as with “illegal” drugs) we had to buy these on dark street corners or in shady bars and rely on the assurance of the pusher that “this is really good stuff”.

If Gordon Brown really wants to “be bold” and “bring fresh thinking”, then this is the topic to demonstrate this on. But somehow I doubt that the actions will come anywhere near the fine-sounding words.

Malcolm Oliver, Cockburnspath,

Of course Richard Brunstrom is correct. Until people realise that it is impossible to stop the illegal importation of drugs this problem can only get worse.
A differrent approach is needed and quick. The current laws have done nothing to curb people from drug taking, and the use of drugs is on the increase. This impacts on the society we all live in. We wish to have less crime but most crime committed is drug related, from low level crime such as shoplifting and prostition to capital crimes. Some criminals have wealth beyond most peoples imaginations down to drugs, Americas lessons of prohibition has not been learned by the world.
Yes education is important, however there are children on estates in Britain who only want to grow up to be the local Mr Big and they can only do that by getting into drugs and there importation. The truth is out there for everybody to see, no need for facts and figures just open your eyes, we have the society we deserve.
Legalise drugs and soon.

Barry Turnbull, westcott surrey,

Brunstrom's absolutely right. Once we rid ourselves of the shackles of drug prohibition those in the criminal justice system can spend their new time dealing with real criminals -murderers, rapists, fraudists etc.

Its interesting to see the debate unfold on this thread. All those anti-Brunstrom's have to say on the matter seem based in hyperbole rather than deal with the real debate on the legalisation of drugs.

Legalisation won't be easy. Wrestling control away from the organised crime groups is a major difficulty - but that's a consequence of dealing with a failed policy.

Addiction of any kind is essentially a mental health issue. More "prescribed" drugs is the route for most handling drug addiction. There's an irony there somewhere.

With sensible, honest and humane health policies our legalised world would be more effective at dealing with problematic drug use than it is now. There's been 60+ years of drug prohibition and its failed. Why not try the alternative?

Will P, London, UK

While I don't entirely agree with Chief Brunstrom's opinions - in regards to drug use - ie. heroin, the biggest problem to society, is what happens to addicts when they do NOT have the drug ...in other words, the way addicts go about getting money to buy illegal drugs. Too much time, effort and money is spent on the OTT policing against drug use here (and in 'the Western World' ). If a fraction of that amount was used to prevent use in the first place OR treat addicts as people with a sickness, rather than criminals, we'd be much further ahead.

cath hurwood, Hereford, U.K.

People are missing the point entirely. The dangers of ecstasy stem entirely from misinformation spread by the anti-drugs brigade and the lack of regulation caused by prohibition. Aspirin is a safe chemical when used responsibly but it has roughly the same therapeutic index as MDMA. This means that they are both about as intrinsically dangerous as each other. It is impossible to compare like with like because most ecstasy on the streets is taken recklessly and contains a cocktail of substances with often little or no MDMA. However, our best attempts to make a fair comparison show that MDMA is not dangerous. Indeed, almost all scientific studies have shown that MDMA is remarkably safe when administered as intended.

Thank you for pointing out an inconvenient truth, Const. Brunstom. It's time people realised "alcohol, tobacco and barbiturates are far more harmful, even though legal. The position of ecstasy as a Class A drug is scientifically unsustainable."

Jonathan Hobbs, Pease Pottage,

He should be sacked for bringing his force into disrepute. I can't imagine that anyone else would get away with such demented public gushings.

Robin , leeds, UK

Plain common sense really - but what about all those in the justice system whose jobs are currently predicated on the criminalisation of drugs?

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

Tax the weakness and protect the weak !!!!
It is about time , our society ( and all those around the world ) accept that trying to legislate against all manner of human weakness has never worked .
Attempts to keep society "pure " , whichever religion or political dogma has tried ,have all failed miserably.
These ongoing attempts are expensive in monetary cost and create human misery .
The cost of attempting to curtail "illegal drugs " is phrohibitive. The comparisons on the methods as to how the "legal drugs " such as tobacco & alcohol are controlled is laughably "victorian."
I do no intend to put forward my own detailed thougths on what we should do --- i have no power to influence anyone .
Perhaps the Police is a good place to start .,
To encourage us all to take a more realistic view on some of the steps we could take to at least suport those persons who do not have their heads buried in the sand !

sincerely david kirkman

david kirkman, Hong Kong , Hong Kong -SAR

Stop criminals from profiteering on our backs. Make everything legal and subject to free market forces.

What drivel it is to suggest that society should be allowed to self-destruct, and that the theoretical guardians should lead the collapse. It's like the final years of the Roman empire.

Whence comes the revolution?

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

This man deserves his sobriquet as legalising such substances would truly be mad. How many people does he think are likely to take such as heroin 'sensibly'? The so-called link between addiction and crime levels has long since been discredited in any case.

Furthermore, he fails to factor in the additional costs to society that such a policy as he advocates would involve. Increased costs to the emergency services - including the police - as more overdoses occur; increased costs to the NHS in addiction treatment; the knock-on effect on families and the children of people who take these substances - addicts or not - the list goes on.

J. Lockett, Burnley, Lancashire

The 2004 U.S. Congressional Research Service report, "Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for
Domestic Drug Control Policy" provides yet another reason why Chief Constable Brunstrom is dead on target with his denunciation of the counter-productive war on drugs.

"The international traffic in illicit drugs contributes to terrorist risk through at least five mechanisms: supplying cash, creating chaos and instability, supporting corruption, providing “cover” and sustaining common infrastructures for illicit activity, and competing for law enforcement and intelligence attention. Of these, cash and chaos are likely to be the two most important."

As long as drugs are illegal their distribution creates a $ 322 billion black market that criminals and stateless terrorist armies thrive in. The west can significantly reduce terrorism and crime by adopting a regulatory distribution system for intoxicant drugs.

Pat Rogers, Allentown, Pa, USA

Brunstrom talks sense on drugs. Top marks.

(to E. Holden: speed cameras are not taxation. Which other tax requires you to BREAK THE LAW before you have to pay it?)

Kendrick Curtis, Bath, UK

As a retired police officer I have to admit that for once I agree with Brunstrom but they should be made legal now. Politicians are too scared to put their heads above the parapet. Think of the millions that would be saved in enforcement and prison places. The dealers would be wiped out overnight and crime would fall. The purity could be controlled and using smart cards druggies could get their supplies from chemists. Also tax could be charged on them. He is also correct in his analysis of the effect of ectasy and heroin. For once a very sensible solution from the Mad Mullah.

N Tinlin, Edinburgh,

Why dont we just legalise everything, therefore no crime no police required this is the logical conclusion to this mans thinking. sorry except speeding which would be a capital offence and people wonder why this could country is held in such contempt. When they read the thoughts of a police chief who suppose to enforce the laws of the land but only the ones he likes.

Dave C, leicester, england

Mr Brunstrom, and everyone else, should know that those who want to take drugs take them already, regardless of what the law says.

In practice, drugs are easy to buy, legal or not. I don't see what is to be gained by criminalising drug users, or dealers for that matter.

I'm sure the money that the drug dealers earn is all part of the 'cascade of wealth' that John Major assured us we would all ultimately benefit from, so why target them over distilleries, breweries etc.?

The history of drug prohibition has its roots in American racist stereotyping - we've moved on.

I'm pleased to see that the really destructive and massively used drug, alcohol, is finally being seen for what it is. No other drug causes the amount of damage and misery that it does, yet it escapes with the seal of public approval

Graham B, London, UK

How many people have died in road accidents caused by drivers on drugs? The social consequences of drug use are the problem. How does he propose dealing with that?

Brian Corbett, Miami, USA

I'm always tickled by people who cite speed cameras as 'taxation' and get incensed whenever someone wants to install more. If you don't want to feed the 'government cash cow' or 'stealth tax', then the answer is simple - Don't break the law. Whether you agree with it or not, the speed limits are law and fines are a sensible method of punishment. Don't like it? Fine. Don't speed.

It could also be pointed out that many more people are killed by speeding drivers than by ecstasy...

Peter, Bath,

Sad that an experienced serving senior police officer should be deemed “mad” for voicing his views. This man has seen - as many others have – the far greater damage caused to families and communities by the criminalisation of drugs than by the drugs themselves. He has come to know that in a society such as ours the police can not win the fight against the enormously wealthy and highly motivated dealers. The dealers we have created.

Brunstrom may – or may not – be right. But please allow him to open the debate. Hiding our heads in the sand will not help our children or their families. Allow the man the courage to use his vast experience to inform us. Let’s look the problem in the face.

John Simmons, Cockermouth, England

Quote, "He says that more people die from taking aspirin than ecstasy". End Quote

Yes but that may well be that many thousands of times more people take aspirin than take ecstasy ,but if he carries on promoting it then maybe that will change.

Simon, London, UK

On one thing I believe he is right, using should not be illegal BUT at the same time as making using legal they should have to (a) crack down MUCH harder on anyone selling or "giving" (dealing) drugs to others ,and (b) make the sentences for selling or giving drugs ,particularly when it is someone under 21, MUCH more severe, such as say a minimum 5 years and likely a 20 year sentence for heroin and cocaine dealing. I myself see users as perhaps ill, unwise or stupid , and dealers as scumbags .

John, Woking, Surrey

Brunstrom and sanity are oxymorons. This man is a disgrace and it is an indictment that he was not removed from his post for the decapitated biker incident and his over-zealous pursuit of speed camera taxation.

What is this man about ?....if we can't have him replaced by a sensible copper, then at least let's stop feeding him the oxygen of publicity by publishing his latest bouts of 'insanity'.

E.Holden, newcastle,

At last some one with somne common sense - How much money do we spend on an anit drugs policy which mereley makes the illicit trade hugley profitable.

If people want t oabuse their own body so be it - legalise, regulate use the savings to rehabilitate and crush the gangsters income.

By the way once they're legal they won't be so cool!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brunstrom and Sanity should prevaile

andrew moore, brighton,