Ian Oliver: Legalising drugs would only make matters worse
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Recently, A great deal of media attention has been focused on a call for the legalisation of drugs by a former civil servant who was responsible for the Cabinet's anti-drug unit. In The Independent last week, Julian Critchley said that legalisation would be "less harmful than the current strategy" and that an "overwhelming majority of professionals in the field" agree with that view.
Now he has become a teacher, his dangerously naive views appear to be more harmful than an inadequate UK drug policy, and he must associate with a limited group of professionals if his assertion is not gross exaggeration. The majority of people in the UK do not wish to see drugs legalised, and only 6 per cent of the global population between the ages of 15-64 use drugs; this is hardly justification for legalisation.
The UK has the highest rate of drug misuse in Europe and the abuse of illicit drugs is a major social problem, not least because of the public health implications. Aids/HIV and other blood-borne diseases are global pandemics and there is a huge ignorance in the UK about these, and sexually transmitted infections, which are also linked with drug abuse. The legalisation of drugs would lead inevitably to a greater number of addictions, an increased burden on the health and social services, and there would be no compensating diminution in criminal justice costs as, contrary to the view held by legalisers, crime would not be eliminated or reduced.
Perhaps it is not widely known that there is a global movement to overturn the United Nations Conventions and secure the legalisation of all drugs driven by people who see huge profits to be had from marketing another addictive substance. Research has demonstrated that the dependency rate for "legal" drugs among those who chose to use them would be around 50 per cent, the same as tobacco, which is why major companies are turning to developing countries in order to encourage smoking.
Recently, a TV programme discussed the issue, and several members of the public phoned in their views, most of which were responsibly opposed to the misuse of drugs. However, it was alarming to hear several people say that they thought that legalising drugs would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. All of these good people believed that such action would defeat the traffickers, take the profit out of the drug trade and solve the drug problem completely. There was no consideration given to the fact that there is a thriving black market in the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco, and no awareness of the huge administrative burden that would be created by setting up a government department to tax and administer drugs if legalisation had occurred. There was no awareness of the devious ways in which drug traffickers would circumvent the legislation and no thought given to the huge increase in addiction/dependency that would automatically follow such an ill-advised move, with the tremendous damage that would be visited on the health services in perpetuity. The tax demands would rocket as a consequence.
It is always asserted that legalisation would take the profit out of drug trafficking and would result in a huge drop in crime but, short of the Government distributing free drugs, those who commit crime now to obtain their drugs would continue to do so if they became legal.
It is seldom made clear which drugs the legalisers are referring to and to whom they should become available. Is it the position that they wish to legalise "crack" and will all people, regardless of age and mental condition, be able to buy them?The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction, combined with education and treatment during 100 years of International Drug Control, have had a significant impact in stemming the drug problem. Legalisation would be likely to convince people that any legal activity cannot be very harmful, increase the availability of drugs, increase the harmful consequences associated with drugs and remove the social sanctions normally supported by the legal system.
All drugs, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines, can be dangerous if they are taken without attention to appropriate medical advice. Instead of calling for legalisation, it would be far more sensible, as Nick Harding suggested in his article about cannabis use in yesterday's Independent, to seek improved policies. The compassionate and sensible approach should be that we do everything possible to reduce addiction and drug abuse, not encourage it.
Dr Ian Oliver is a former Chief Constable of Grampian Police and the author of 'Drug Affliction'
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
156 Comments
Tanya,
I wonder what exactly it is you're missing in your collection of evidence to decide what direction to go in? Or are you taking the "agnostic" view of this - that it is really something that has no hope of ever being resolved in a sensible matter?
Prohibition, the all-out criminalization of both users and sellers, is claimed to be necessary to curb both the supply and demand for drugs. The goal has pretty much always been full abstinence, and indicators of succes would be fewer and more expensive drugs, lesser demand and lower potency of the products.
Science is now CLEAR on the issue of the effectiveness of this approach: it seems to have no measurable effect. Other things determine use and abuse, not criminal law.
Prohibition as a theory has been scientifically falsified.
Logically this is ample reason to look at the alternative that - by definition - must include "making drugs somehow more legal". Change may be scary, but to continue ineffective Prohibition ...?
Posted by Jesper Kristensen | 25.08.08, 08:15 GMT
Tanya, the evidence is all around you to see! Look at the amounts of gangs, drug addicts, ruined lives, victimless crimes, huge sums of tax payers money wasted on this failed drug policy. So whilst we pump billions into a failed prohibition policy, on the other side of the spectrum those criminals are making billions from our own failed policy. The black market are fully aware that our governments cannot contain the drugs problem, even the government know it but there to afraid to admit it. You dont have to be a expert on drugs policy to realise the harms it is causing, those like Ian Oliver are making the situation worse.
As Derek said 'Prohibition only has one thing to offer - the "just say no" approach which we know doesn't work. ' what else do you need to know about a policy when for over 70years it has failed time and time again. You would think that when you have failed so many times
Posted by Mark | 22.08.08, 22:24 GMT
In other news: I read in the New Scientist yesterday (issue 2668) that cannabis could help treat colon cancer. Drugs aren't all bad :-)
I jst find it strange that tere's some people on the Garry Glitter forum saying 'leave him alone, he's done his time' and then we have poeple suggesting that anyone using drugs should be hanged. Where's the consistency in that?
I'm willing to listen to any reasonably presented, backed-up opinion, but, I have yet to really hear one. In fairness, apart from a spliff every now and then I don't partake in drugs, so it's not a personal issue for me. I'm just trying as hard as I can to look at it objectively and logically; it seems like there's more scope for rehabilitisation if the substances are controlled and decriminalised.
Posted by Sara | 22.08.08, 11:31 GMT
There, you've done it again - 'Look at the evidence Tanya and start asking questions'. Is that not a bit patronising? Is evidence not interpretive?
Posted by Tanya | 22.08.08, 11:11 GMT
Legalisation isn't "straightforward" Tanya, it offers a whole spectrum of options. You seem to be under the impression that we have a simple choice between prohibition and selling in sweetshops.
Prohibition only has one thing to offer - the "just say no" approach which we know doesn't work.
Legalisation opens up a vast range of options which can be tailored to protect those most at risk through real and effective control and regulation.
Look at the evidence Tanya and start asking questions. That is the intelligent way.
Posted by Derek | 22.08.08, 11:02 GMT
'Open your eyes Peter, look around you and see the harm your failed policy has caused'. Posted by Derek
I dont think it is at all straightforward whether to legalise or not. I actually don't know but I get annoyed with alot of people arguing for legalisation because they often have a conceit that they are more intelligent. There is so much lazy thinking and adolescent well intentioned wooliness running through their arguments.
Derek, Peter sees what he sees and you see what you see. You say supporters really believe they are right but you really believe you are right and you are as convinced of it as you claim the so-called prohibitionists are convinced they are.
Posted by Tanya | 22.08.08, 10:24 GMT
Self deception is a trait often associated with destructive drug abuse, but as Peter O'Loughlin illustrates, it isn't confined to that group.
Prohibition supporters really *believe* they are right and thus anyone who supports prohibition must also be right. The logic of the argument used or the quality of the evidence it's based on is ignored because the writer supports the faith. Hallelujah!
Prohibition has no evidence base to support its claims and much to indicate it's failed. Open your eyes Peter, look around you and see the harm your failed policy has caused.
Frankly when we stop treating the people we claim to want to help as the enemy and stop gifting eye watering funds to organised crime we might get somewhere.
"Dr" Ian Oliver's PhD is in "Public administration" incidentally - and he was kicked out of the police - forced to resign - in 1998.
Posted by Derek | 22.08.08, 08:22 GMT
Peter O'Loughlin, you say "most of the current materials used seem more intent on glamourising use than preventing it". Never has this been more true of one of the most dangerous drugs of them all: alcohol. The Commons Science Select Committee placed alcohol as the 5th most dangerous drug (only just behind street methadone) - cannabis was down in 9th place. And yet alcohol is promoted at every twist and turn, accompanied by 'drinkaware.co.uk' & 'drink responsibly' in TINY letters next to the glamorous images. How about we make alcohol illegal? The damage it causes to health, the violence it causes and the massive alcohol-related public spend on police & the NHS would certainly warrant it (I'm taking the public health stance the government seems so keen on in relation to cannabis here). We'd soon see the media and tabloids come out in favour of their little tipple. The hypocrisy is just galling. Alcohol is worse than cannabis - fact.
Posted by EB | 21.08.08, 23:46 GMT
Keep up the good work Ian.
One can only hope that now Critchley is teaching, his views are not included in 'drug education' . More so since most of the current materials used seem more intent on glamourising use than preventing it, which probably explains why more kids than ever, are using drugs and suffering accordingly
Posted by Peter O'Loughlin | 21.08.08, 20:30 GMT
very silly article, encouraging protectionism of the state instead of education and freedom.
the only thing prohibition encourages is the reinforcing of organize crime. If you are interested in taking drugs you will be able to get them, even if that means to go through illegal practices.
Better educate the people and let them decide by themselves if they want to destroy their brain or not.
policemen... always thinking they can tell other people what to do.
Posted by mynystry | 21.08.08, 18:43 GMT
156 Comments