Heffer with his tired, ignorant, knee-jerk moralising has ignored every argument, and simply asserted what he believes to be true without deigning to do any research, or even thought. Remind me again, why does anyone pay any attention to journalists? How is repeating your readers prejudices for pay any more "moral" than selling them a relatively harmless herb to help them relax?
It is estimated that more than half of acquisitive crime is to fund a drugs habit (with 70-80% of burglaries, and 85% of shoplifting), and that drug misuse conservatively costs the economy £13bn per year. Our solution is to grant criminals a monopoly on the supply of drugs, manage to seize only about 1% of drugs in circulation, and to boldly claim that this approach 'sends a signal'. Yet drugs have never been cheaper and misuse is more widespread than ever. I am wondering what it would take for prohibitionists to decide that it is time to try something else.
Countries that have tried more liberal drugs laws have generally seen good results. Doctors could prescribe hard drugs to addicts, and softer drugs could be regulated and taxed. This would make life more stable for addicts, make them less likely to turn to crime and prostitution, cause less use of dirty needles, solve the problem of 'legal highs', provide a source of revenue for the government freeing money to be spent on treatment, cut off a massive source of revenue for the criminal underworld, and free up the time of the police and courts. It would also free up prison places, keeping Ken Clarke happy, or provide more space for career criminals, keeping the traditional wing of the party happy.
If drugs policy 'sends a signal', it didn't stop so many politicians experimenting with drugs in their younger years. One signal it sends is that we treat violent sexual offences less seriously than drug trafficking. The average custodial sentence for rape is 79.7 months, and for the importation or exportation of drugs it is 84 months. To look at the 'sending a signal' hypothesis the other way around, does it imply substances like alcohol and nicotine are safe?
For many who experiment with drugs, the procurement of those drugs is the only contact they have with the criminal fraternity, and being caught by the police can result in serious damage to their future careers and education plans, their freedom to travel, and their access to insurance and other financial products. These are people doing nothing different to what many politicians have done. These implications are created by prohibition and not drugs themselves, and will more than likely affect people who have never broken any other law and never will. I imagine that these outcomes make people question their respect for the law and the police.
It is in all of our interests to pursue a policy that is directed by evidence, and it is shocking that an impact assessment has never been carried out. The previous government refused an impact assessment because it said it was fully committed to the prohibition of drugs. This misses the point of pursuing a policy based on evidence. There are millions of people's lives being made a misery by drugs, and there are huge benefits to be had by getting policy right. If the government cares about this then it should try to make sure its approach is the best one.
