Illegality of drugs puts trade in hands of gangs, says Leicester expert
A leading doctor this week called on the government to consider decriminalising drugs. criminologist James Treadwell of the University of Leicester finds much to agree with.
In a parting e-mail to members this week, outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, called on the Government to consider decriminalising drugs.
-
James Treadwell
He said the blanket ban on drugs had failed to cut crime or improve health. Here is Dr James Treadwell's response:
If Sir Ian Gilmore wanted to go out on a controversial note he couldn't have picked his subject better.
Since time immemorial, mankind has had a strange love-hate relationship with drugs – a need to get the release of a high but often the feeling that doing it is in some way wrong.
Since the 1960s and 1970s, drug use has been a crime, and now Sir Ian has ventured the opinion that we have been getting it wrong all these years and that the prohibition has been counter-productive.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that he is right. I agree with everything he has said.
Of course, the issue is not as simple as just decriminalising every drug.
Anyone who knows the effect crack-cocaine had when it hit America in the 1990s will know it is not something you want to be sold in your corner shop. It's dangerously addictive.
However, the illegality of drugs has simply put the trade in the hands of criminal cartels and gangs and the competition between them has been a huge source of violent crime.
The very expensive war on drugs that governments have been fighting simply has not worked. It cannot be won.
The zero-tolerance approach to drugs such as heroin puts more people in prison and only adds to the policing burden.
In my opinion, every attempt made to crack down on drug use has had unintended consequences which have created worse problems.
Drug abuse is mainly a health problem but, for years, we have been dealing with it as a criminal justice problem.
If we were to decriminalise drugs, it would not solve the crime problem overnight but it would help.
There is still a huge amount of acquisitive crime committed by addicts to feed habits.
In experiments where heroin was given to addicts by the authorities in Merseyside, crime rates tumbled.
The best model I can think of is that we provide heroin to addicts in prescriptions.
That would not be an open invite for people to be off their face for the rest of their lives, but it would reduce the chaos in the lives of many addicts and bring their drug use into a stable environment in which it could be managed – and the problems that underpin the drug use addressed.
I think we need to change our approach to cannabis, too, and follow Holland's lead.
Cannabis is not unproblematic and it can cause serious mental health issues for users, but if we took it off the streets and put it into a regulated coffee shop environment, where it is bought legitimately.
The people buying the drug will then not come into contact with a dealer who might also get them hooked on crack.
Any revenue raised could be used for mental health treatment.
Of course, it would take a brave politician to change the law because the debate has taken on a moral issue.
That is strange when you consider that two drugs – alcohol and tobacco – that cause huge social misery are fully legal.
We have to be realistic and accept drugs will always be there.
We can either set up a system where the trade is controlled by the Government, or we can leave it in the hands of the criminals.
7 Comments
by Mark Roberts, Birmingham
Saturday, September 04 2010, 7:47PM
“I agree with everything Dr Treadwell has published and would like to add that in these times of financial crisis, the legalisation and centralised regulation of drugs would not only reduce crime rates it would also pump money back into the uk economy, and take it out of the pockets of drugs barons and criminal gangs.
I am not saying the UK should be profiteering from the suffering of addicts, but the ability to fund rehab and support functions for those affected would both increase the chances of them beating their addictions and create jobs within the NHS.
Alas, as Dr Treadwell states the influence of moral ethics will always prevent such a course of action from taking place, and until the government and public have the ability to look at issues with fact instead of feeling, such radical changes will remain speculative discussion on web pages like these.”
by penrhos, Leicester
Monday, August 23 2010, 1:16PM
“@Kulgan
Just because Alcohol is legal doesn't make abusing it right!!!
The government & MP's (especially Mr Vaz please take note).
If you ban something then you give the control and revenue to criminals. If you legalise and regulate something then you take control and the country gets the revenue.
Currently the legal age our children can get illegal drugs is £10 - Kids can get class-A drugs easier than they can get alcohol.
A dealer will not ask for ID where a licensed store will have to do "No-ID, No-Sale" or loose its license.
Currently criminals can earn more than honest people by dealing drugs and prohibition will not stop that, you lock up one dealer (at a cost of £45,000 pa) and more will take their place within days, you bust one cannabis farm and more spring up immediately. If you legalise drugs and bring them into a regulated framework then all this criminal activity disapears.
I would rather have heroin addicts getting prescribed legal heroin on the NHS and using it in "shooting galleries" under supervision than have them stealing my things to sell for street heroin that could be cut with god knows what and shooting up in public places, disguarding dirty needles in the parks/streets.
The UN have changed their attitude to drugs prohibition and have stated that in some cases prohibition causes more damage than the drugs would themselves.
In 2001 there was an audit of per capita spend on prohibition - Holland $7, UK $47, USA $110.
Holland has lower drug use & addiction per 100,000 people than the UK & USA so prohibition clearly doesn't work and is causing the problem to be worse.
Consider this - If traditional drugs were legal and properly regulated the "Legal highs" that are poisening people all over the UK would not exist.”
by Lawrence, Leics
Sunday, August 22 2010, 3:47PM
“Can anyone tell me when we will be banning alcohol and tobacco by adding them to the list of class A drugs?
The drugs laws in this country are a complete joke, how you can ban most narcotic substances but keep legal and tax two of the most dangerous i dont know. We should either ban ALL drugs or legalise and regulate them! Consistency please.”
by karin, Oadby
Saturday, August 21 2010, 4:14PM
“Quite agree, prohibition creates rich evil drug barons. Let's at least get some taxation from it AND MORE IMPORTANTLY if it is legal it will not be regarded as 'cool' which is essential to kids whose only desire is to outrage and antagonise old fools (who were probably doing the same thing in the 'hippy trippy'days).”
by malcolm kyle, Swansea
Saturday, August 21 2010, 11:36AM
“We can either ask the Tooth Fairy to make people stop taking drugs or we can decide to regulate them properly. -Prohibition is not regulation, it's is a hideous nightmare for all of us and our families, except of course for the lowest lifeforms amongst us.
Because Drug cartels will always have an endless supply of ready cash for wages, bribery and equipment, no amount of tax money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safe again. Only an end to prohibition can do that! How much longer are we willing to foolishly risk our own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?
For those of you who are still living in some strange parallel universe, one where prohibition actually works, may I suggest that you return to high school economics class, and learn about supply and DEMAND. Learn that you cannot up DEMAND simply by upping supply. Contrary to popular held superstition, drugs are not PUSHED, the drug dealers are filling a DEMAND not creating one. The DEMAND is here and is impossible to control, but what is possible to control, is the income from that DEMAND. All we have to do is allow legal businesses to meet that DEMAND. Under proper regulation drug use will not rise, as it couldn't get any worse than it is at present.
Debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Is marijuana dangerous? I simply don't care if it is or isn't. If someone wants to destroy their lives with drugs, thats their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. We can certainly voice an opposition to drug use¿ but who are we to imprison people over it? which ultimately we do if we support prohibition.
Why on earth does anyone think it's acceptable to want to control certain behaviors, such as the bedroom habits or choice of poison of fully grown adults? Isn't it high time we evolved enough to get past this crap? Surely we need to accept, that the only way to truly be free, is that you agree, in return, to allow other people to be free, even if it offends your personal sensibilities. What's more; if it's not directly hurting you and you forbid it, then you can be sure that it will create unforeseen circumstances, which WILL have an adverse affect on YOUR wellbeing! -- Actually, a large proportion of those arising circumstances may not come as such a surprise to those of us who are capable of paying due attention to historical precedent.
If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history.
If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.
If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.
If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.
If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.
If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.
If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.
If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.
If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.
If you support prohibition you've helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.
If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and”
by Kulgan, Crydee
Saturday, August 21 2010, 11:23AM
“Just because drugs won't go away it doesn't make it right!!!”
by i, agree
Saturday, August 21 2010, 10:01AM
“the governments attitude to drugs is to me the same as sepp blatters attitude to goal line technology . its just the right way to go but fuddy duddy people in control with no idea what the reality is . drugs wont go away,thats a fact , criminals would go out of business and alot of revenue would go to us through taxation . also if youth choose to take drugs(which they will ) they know what they are taking . it wont happen but legalization is the only way to go .”