As Bob Dylan
once sang, Times they are A changing. Just never as swiftly as one
would hope. Drug Policy and Drug Reform remains a taboo subject for
anyone whom is actually in a position to effect any real sense of
change. Most senior members of parliament only voice concerns upon
“soft issues”. Things most people can agree upon thus not losing
any potential votes. So most people are afraid to voice their own
opinions, in fear of offending and alienating votes they already have
banked within their respective constituencies. Reformation is always
a painful and arduous task. Look at the catholic reformation of 1560
and the 30 years war that followed. Such a divide amongst the people
causes much friction. Which can burst into open flame. All out open
rebellion if common ground cannot be reached by all sides. The UK
itself has a murky history in relation to drug policy. The British
role in the Opium Wars 1856-1860, which primary school aged children
of the orient are thought at school. Yet is omitted from our own
curriculum. Heroin was discovered in Scotland in 1874 by Charles
Romley Alder Wright .
Accidentally after trying to find a less addictive form of morphine.
The illegal and unregulated production sale distribution and
consumption of Heroin since then has lead to much social decay.
Throughout different communities. Throughout different cities,
countries even continents. The social pandemic of addiction has even
spread across the class divide. Addiction does not discriminate.
Durham's Chief
Constable Mike Barton said “It's time to end the war on drugs”.
He made a comparison I had never really considered before. Comparing
our current stance of prohibition to the prohibition era of 1920s
America. It felt like a real shift in perspective. The war on drugs
cannot be won. It just empowers and enriches criminal enterprises
like that of said 1920s gangsters. Only in the modern era it's far
more brutal. The gangsters of 1920s had a roguish appeal the press
and public admired to a certain extant. They were just breaking a law
that no one really believed in apart from the Woman's Temperance
League. Who felt the consumption of alcohol was a moral issue. The 13 years of
prohibition raised vast fortunes for the underworld.
When it ended
they simply diversified like any other corporate enterprise would.
They invested in Cuba, Las Vagas all around the world. Shipping and
distributing drugs. The corruption evolved and spread. It hasn't gone
away. It's only gotten worse. From the stereotypical Mafioso to
violent cartels in South America. It's lead to murder and chaos,
suffering and abuse on an almost unfathomable scale. At the moment
these criminal organizations have sole control over an underworld
economy. Many of which are cash rich individuals that are to afraid
to put money into ligitmate banks, because they can't declare illicit
income. That revenue sits outside the conventional economy. One of
the major advantages of decriminalization, regulation and taxation
would be stripping the power from these nefarious networks of
individuals. End the war on drugs, and Win the war on crime.
The World
Health Organization have stated that drug addiction is a Health
issue. “Substance dependence
cannot be understood without describing the social settings in which
it develops. It adversely affects the phycial, psycholgical and
social health of both the individual and the general public.”
Substance abuse and dependence issues for each individual are
different but they are not limited to illegal substances. Alcohol &
Tabbaco both have addictive properties. But they are socially
acceptable vices. We don't consider the masses of people who binge
drink in the streets and fill our accident and emergency rooms which
is a needless drain on already strained resources, as an issue of
morality. How
many people have died from alcohol related deaths. Either killing
their livers slowly over a lifetime, or drinking so much it leads to
an unforeseeable accident. Every time your drunk your judgement is
impaired. You could decide to walk home and get hit by a car and die.
How many deaths are there from Tabbaco. Lung conditions, cancer. A
long list of things which could be argued should be a moral issue for
intervention by the state. But that will never happen. The tax's
levied from the sale of Alcohol & Tabbaco are fairly substantial.
Why is it justifiable and socially acceptable for the sale
consumption and taxation of these substances but not others. Where do
we as a people decide to draw the line with what is morally
appropriate and acceptable?
Professor
David Nutt was employed by the state to give his professional
opinion. When it wasn't the opinion the state wanted. He was fired.
How was that morally justifiable. How can you fire someone for doing
their job. Professor Nutt Has said “There is no such thing as a
safe level of alcohol consumption”, “Drugs
are taken for pleasure – realise this and we can start to reduce
harm”. Those are some pragmatic scientific opinions. There are many
avenues to explore with the concept of large scale reform. It would
protect the public and create new streams of revenue for state
coffers. Illegal street drugs are cut down each time they change
hands. Mixed with all sorts just so they can make a marginal bit of
extra profit. At the expense of the common users safety.
For
instance, say there is a particularly weak/diluted strain of a
particular substance. The user has a high tolerance with this weak
product. Then something comes along that is a lot more potent. The
user takes the same dosage as with the inferior one. Only this time
over doses. If things were regulated events like that would not
happen. It would protect people, even from their own ignorance. Take
the high profile case of Philip Seymour Hoffman, a recovering addict
who had been abstinent for many years suffered a relapse and
according to Professor Nutt “Once people stop using, the tolerance
that they develop during the period of drug/alcohol use wears off. A
dose that would previously have been acceptable becomes lethal. Even
though the users probably realise they are less tolerant, the
compulsive nature of opioid, alcohol and cocaine use impairs their
ability to stop. A few drinks or a single line or shot can lead to a
lethal binge”. With drug reform there are no right answers. It's
just important that we start asking the right questions and stop
punishing and vilifying people like Professor Nutt and Chief
Constable Barton for being brave enough to voice a view not shared by
their respective counter parts.
When
you look at legal alternatives to illegal substances. Legal Highs, it
becomes apparent how deadly these substances can be. The mortality
rate soared up by 80% in 1 year. Mephedrone
or Meow Meow was the 1st of these designer drugs to hit mainstream press and be made
illegal. But it hasn't stopped the illegal sale and consumption or
death rate of this harmful substance. Think of how much it cost to
create a new law, then putting it into legalisation. Furthermore you
have the never ending cost of enforcing that law.
Meanwhile the people producing this stuff need only alter the
chemical compound, re-brand the product and they are back on sale
until they have to do it again. “Not Fit For Human Consumption”
clearly displayed on packaging for these substances, meaning that as
they are never intended for human consumption they are not required
by law to conform to the same tests or health and safety regulations
as substances designed for human consumption, such as cough medicine.
The research in the effects of these designer party drugs is being
carried out, at public expense I assume.
Richard
Nixon started the war on drugs. A man who is remembered for being one
of the most shady head's of state the world had ever seen. He is
pretty much a social reference to the epitome of greed and corruption. It's been 43 years since the war on drugs
began. That's three decades longer then the prohibition era of the
1920s. How many battles have been fought? Lives ruined and lost? For
what? Just to preserve a twisted sense of morality from a man who was
fairly immoral himself.
The
cultural media which has evolved since the James Cagney gangster
movies of the 1930s to The Godfather, Scarface and any other cultural
icons you can think of. They all glorify and romantasize the villain. Bare
in mind, that life intimates art and vice versa. People emulate and
hero worship the bad guys. Aspiring to the greed, and hunger for
power.
It's
not the media's fault. Much is the case that many of these stories
are based on real events, like Goodfellas for instance. Art
intimating life.
Yet
at the same time media has also proven to break down social barriers,
mainly through comedy. Like Futurama's regular parody of Nixon,
Family Guy and so on. You look at productions like Cheech & Chong
in the 70s, How High or the Harold and Kumar films in more recent
years. The “stoner” comedy genre. Has made careers and large
streams of revenues for both production companies and cast members.
It's okay to make these kinda comedies, that's fine it's socially
acceptable.
It's okay to joke about restrictive
and oppressive
policies but openly debating
them is absolutely absurd.
Addiction
is a complex issue and is not limited to substances. You can be
addicted to a vast number of things. Gambling, for instance,
destructive compulsion. People can even be addicted to adrenalin,
they are just more commonly known as thrill seekers, sky divers.
People who are just looking for something to fill a gap or void in
their life. Something that brings them comfort or joy, a feeling of
happiness. A state of calming bliss. People should be allowed to
pursue their own interests so long as they are not at risk of harm to
themselves or others. We cannot stop people abusing drugs. But we
could minimize the risks. Look at Washington DC and their new stance
on the Cannabis issue. Washington is arguably the capitol of the
“free” world. They have created new industry’s of business at a
time when the global economy is in recession. There is an industry
which is growing, please excuse the pun. The money raised from these
industry's is providing funding for the public sector. Putting more
teachers in schools, police on the streets, doctors and nurses in
hospitals. Not to mention funding drug treatment facilities. How is
that not a better way of doing things. Rather then wasting resources
investigating and prostituting users and addicts. Filling our over
crowded jails with more often then not victims themselves. Prison can
make drug use and drug addiction worse. People can become clean
inside and relapse again after falling into the same habits,
comfortable familiar lifestyles once released. All we are doing is
treating the symptoms instead of tackling the disease of addiction.
Reference links
