Spice: template for a shiny happy world?
The news that the British military has recovered heroin in Afghanistan with a street value in the UK of £50m once again throws the whole issue of drugs and money centre stage.
Of course, the drug locally in Afghanistan would have nothing like that value – perhaps, some experts say, a few thousand dollars at best. So one wonders why UK PLC isn’t buying it and disposing of it or, better, “commercialising” it.
The illegal drug industry worldwide now appears completely out of control. Despite the best efforts of her majesty’s forces in Afghanistan, the business even out of that country continues to rise.
I have already blogged about “spice”, the commercial and so far legal alternative to cannabis. Since I posted it, I have heard that, following in the footsteps of the German government (who have already banned spice), the UK authorities expect to do so too.
But should they? Could “spice” offer the template for a worldwide formula for getting the criminality out of the drug trade?
I worked in a drug dependence day centre for three years. I was the director in the early 1970s, in the first bloom of heroin abuse in this country. I was persuaded then that drug abuse afflicted people who had other problems – indeed, it exacerbated them.
But I knew far more youngsters who died from dirty needles or adulterated stuff than ever died from pure heroin or coke. I knew far more youngsters who ended up behind bars for dealing than ever I knew enter a psychiatric hospital – although a good number did.
Is it time to think again about commercialising illegal drugs? Would the consequences be any worse than those of our present policies?
Related posts:
There are no comments on this post
It is so refreshing to hear someone in a position of influence speak rationally and sanely on this subject.
But, Afghanistan is not even the country worst afflicted, it already has enough problems of its own; Mexico is the country in real trouble. The country is close to collapse because there is just too much violence and corruption which has sprung from the illicit drug trade.Moreover, these problems didn’t just appear. The drug problems there have merely shifted from Columbia, which is thankfully a more peaceful place now they have managed to out terrorise these gangsters. In any case the total amount of suffering caused by these drug’s illegality is unchanged and that’s the tragedy.
Let’s be brave and take a stand to let adults be adults and make their own decisions without forcing other innocents in Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico etc. pay for our weaknesses.
Hello Jon,
You write:
So one wonders why UK PLC isn’t buying it and disposing of it or, better, “commercialising” it.
Governments buying drugs at source is a great idea. What happens next could then be thought about carefully like providing them free after pharmaceutical processing to people who are addicted to cocaine or heroin.
Agreed – and as that’s unlikely, perhaps we could spend some of the money on the end-users without whom the trade would not exist. Better treatment, appropriate psychiatric care etc make more sense than the war we are pusuing
Welcome comments Jon, thank you.
regards the claim that UK troops seized £50m worth of drugs, however, this was pure propaganda. For some clarification see here: http://tinyurl.com/ca5xf2
Good remarks, Jon; But, I have my own problems regarding the whole idea regarding the purchasing drugs…What are the military going to do with them ==Throw them in the “fire pit” to burn them!
“Governments buying drugs at source is a great idea.”
Unfortunately not, although I expect you had the best of intentions.
All that will happen, without the production and dispersion of these drugs being legal, is that next year farmers will produce twice as much. One load for the governments willing to buy and another batch, which will be sold to the equally keen cartels.
I have the best of intentions.
It’s worth trying though to see what might actually happen. Farmers for a lot of reasons might opt to sell to governments if just to get a better night’s sleep by not worrying as much about what they doing for example.
Although decriminalisation would be a significant and welcome improvement to the status quo the only strategy which would eradicate the illicit drugs trade effectively would be one of legalisation. In the U.S. legalisation (ending the Prohibition era) successfully conquered illegal alcohol sales by removing the bottom from the market; within only one week Al Capone et al were out of the business. This would not necessarily have happened had the American Government instead adopted decriminalisation.
In the U.K. methadone prescription is analogous to decriminalisation yet users continue to procure opiates on the black market thus proving the point. I would not favour a completely ‘free’ market as certain regulations and controls would be required: a minimum age limit to protect minors, taxation and protection from aggressive marketing to name a few. Surely legalisation would be the best system, not just in pragmatic terms but also from a moral/ideological (refer to the Mills’ Harm Principle) perspective.
I hadn’t heard of the Harm Principle or John Stuart Mills but just did a little background reading on the web. I think though that society should attempt to take care of everyone including those committing what are called victimless crimes like taking drugs. Someone taking drugs is causing upset to themselves by impairing their normal functioning and so throwing things out of balance elsewhere.
I am having difficulty understanding the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. I’m thinking that to legalise something is to take the stronger step.
decriminalize |dēˈkriminlˌīz|
verb [ trans. ]
cease by legislation to treat (something) as illegal : a battle to decriminalize drugs.
legalize |ˈlēgəˌlīz|
verb [ trans. ]
make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law : a measure legalizing gambling in Deadwood.
The cost of “the war on drugs” is phenomenal and, as can be demonstrated by the availablity of all known narcotics at a dealer near you, completely useless.
That people want to get out of their house has nothing to do with illegality or legallity. It is something that even apes enjoy (fermented fruit). Why governments consider alcohol to be the drug of choice is beyond me (other than entrenched commercial interests).
If we live in a democracy under a system of government by the people, for the people, then the government has to accept that the people have voted with their feet. As Jon points out, it’s less the heroin that causes problems more the contaminated street stock and dirty needles.
Not that any smack-head dosn’t have problems. In Holland I had a pal who was a drugs counsellor. She has never yet been to a client’s funeral when she could not look at said clients abuser across the grave. Ditch weed, the original marijuana, never caused problems, but the super-strength skunk developed to make smuggling easier is now demonstrated to cause severe psychosis.
If pure-quality legal drugs were legally available through taxed licensed outlets, the war on drugs could move from prohibition to user support healing people, as opposed to oppressing them for wanting a holiday from the noise in their head.
If you are an addict, you have a problem, and in a caring Christian society we should be reaching out to support these people and helping them with the underlying issues that make them prefer oblivion to life, rather than criminalising and excluding them further.
The war on drugs may create a budget for the protection of our coastline from unwanted breach, and from that perspective it is a politically sellable policy that doesn’t do what it says but does do some good. But to suggest that prohibition works is, over the last 80 years, clearly delusional.