Dear Sir,
I am [age] and have supported the Conservative party for quite a while – initially because it was the view of my parents, now because I agree with the general Conservative opinion on matters; excepting one area – that of Illicit Drugs Policy. I do not doubt that you have heard many of the anti-prohibitionist arguments before, but perhaps I can put them in such a way as to make them more convincing, backed up by the news of past months.
Drug prohibition is currently failing, as all reports in recent times have shown. Failure in this instance I define as the in-ability to reduce drug use across the board. Prohibition of drugs has done little to de-crease their availability to the average citizen; and this is demonstrated by the anecdotal article ‘Drugstore Britain’
[1], as well as successive Home Office reports. But the failures in prohibition in this area alone would not merit its legalization – from moral grounds that would be the ‘If you can’t beat them, join them’ attitude.
The Fiscal Cost to Society:
Drug prohibition has created a large criminal market, estimated to be worth in excess of 100 billion US$. At the moment, enforcement of Drug prohibition laws and state run drug treatment in the UK cost around ₤1.5 billion
[2], and in the USA around $69 billion
[3]. A heroin habituation costs the user, under the present state of affairs, around ₤80-₤130 a day
[4], and the translated cost to society in property thefts alone is ₤45,000
[5]. This should be added to the costs to society that treatment of the damaging effects of the drug abuse incurs on the NHS, including short term, emergency room problems, such as accidental overdosing due to irregular purity, and long term organ failure etcetera due to chronic drug abuse. And then there is the cost of due legal process and criminal conviction. There are un-enumerated costs in the current situation incurred by the gang warfare and terrorism that is funded by the drug prohibition – 90% of Britain’s heroin comes from Afghanistan, and it is the major source of most organized criminal revenue. At the moment only a tiny fraction of those costs can be recouped in seizure of criminal assets. With taxation and the establishment of regulated corporate involvement these costs could be dramatically reduced.
Perhaps a comparison can be made between something which is dear to your heart – tobacco. In taxation tobacco provides revenues of close to ₤10 billion a year, and the cost to the NHS is only ₤1.5 billion. This does not take into account the great saving that the NHS makes on geriatric care for those smokers who do die early, or the state savings in social security and pensions. Under the systems for calculating drug damage espoused by Professor Nutt in his report to the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, tobacco is more damaging than methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA or Ecstasy) and D-lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). Professor Nutt also indicates that alcohol is more damaging than tobacco, ketamine, amphetamine (Speed) and the heroin substitute Buprenorphine (Subutex). Of the 500,000 people that use ecstasy every weekend, there are only 10 deaths a year caused by MDMA
[6] (these are deaths caused by over-dose or from chronic abuse, rather than deaths incidental to the drug that could be managed under a legalized system), whilst, per 500,000 cigarette smokers there were 12,000
[7] hospitalizations in 2006 and nearly 4,000 deaths
[8]. So ecstasy causes fewer deaths a year by user, meaning that taxation levied on ecstasy at the same level that it is currently levied on tobacco would pay for costs as easily, if not better. This is not true of all drugs, but the oral consumption of Marijuana and LSD present similar paradoxes in the current law.
Criminality
Apart from the vast funding that is provided by the drug trade for criminal enterprise, criminalizing drugs creates more criminal activity. In a purely statistical sense, removal of prohibition would reduce the heavily overcrowded state of prisons in the UK, leaving room for those offenders who are a serious threat to society. Whilst it may be said that no action does not have its own set of victims, drug possession and personal use is, in and of itself, relatively harmless, and would be far more harmless under legalization than it currently. In addition to the number of convicts sent down for relatively victimless crimes or personal morality, the illegality of narcotics means that otherwise law abiding citizens that wish to try Class A drugs must come into contact with criminal enterprise to do it – they must meet a person whom, were his crimes discovered, would face life imprisonment – more than a rapist.
Impurity
Another consequence of prohibition on the user is that drugs are far more harmful than they could be – impurity is one of the greatest causes of accidental overdosing, and the fact that drugs are cut with materials as diverse as ground glass and earth. Because there is no market regulation drugs can be sold as that which they are not, such as the recent epidemic of fentanyl overdoses in the USA, because the drug was either sold as or in a mix with heroin. Fentanyl is over 100 times more powerful than Heroin. Taking part in illicit drug transactions with volatile criminals is a necessity for anyone who wishes to obtain drugs.
Propaganda
I am immensely keen to make sure I am not seen as some drippy hippy or radical liberal. I am an otherwise conventional conservative supporter, I simply believe that with adulthood should come both the right and responsibility for the agent to decide what to do with his or her own body. The main problem with drug legalization in recent times has been in the dramatic, high-impact advertising that this government and others before it have used. This problem is two fold – on the one hand those with no involvement or little understanding of the drug situation treat it with a zealous hysteria, induced by scare-stories sold by the government with, perhaps, the best intentions at heart. On the other hand those with some knowledge and involvement with drugs come to see that people who have been taking Marijuana, Ecstasy and LSD since the 70’s and 80’s are still alive and doing well, which leads to an opposite and equally hysterical disregard of all governmental drug information. This leads to people coming to believe that drugs are ‘safe’, and are not aware of the very real risks of some of them. I have heard stories where people claim that drug prohibition is a government conspiracy for this or that purpose, but these claims are, to me, ridiculous in the extreme. I believe that the laws were well intentioned, they were simply ill-informed, even though violated the civil liberties to which should be entitled.
Legalization is not the whole solution
Whilst Legalization is a fundamental requirement for drug reform, it is also important to remember that the end of prohibition should not be regarded as a panacea for Britain’s drug problems. There are additional items that need to also be brought to bear – more accurate, informed drug information and a greater emphasis on the responsibility of the individual to use drugs responsibly - not taking LSD alone, making sure, whilst under the influence of ecstasy, that enough water is drunk, ensuring that habituation does not rule the life of the individual etcetera. On that last point I feel I need to mention the fact that addiction to any drug need not dominate one’s life – a good example is that of nicotine addiction. Few people realize that drug use need not lead to sleeping on the street, stealing to feed a habit. Under industrial production methods, enough heroin for a full day’s usage for a heavy addict could be sold to the end user for the same price as a pack of 20 cigarettes, with the same tax margin. Tobacco related property crime is at 0%. Heroin and opiate addicts should also not be regarded as ‘high’ all the time. Physical Opiate addiction is caused by additions to the natural opiates that occur in the blood stream, which raises the amount of an opiate required to satisfy the opiate receptors in the body. This means that a person can be functionally normal whilst having much higher opiate levels in his blood stream than are found in normal people, because of his habituation to the drug. The idea is that of Social Responsibility.
Potential Drawbacks
There is one unfortunate likely consequence of legalization – it is likely that, at least for a short period, there will be an increase in drug use. However, this should be put into perspective – problem drug use will be greatly reduced by legalization, due to lower prices, set quality and the other benefits legalization will bring. Currently illegal drugs may be seen as ‘alternatives’ to drinking, which suggests that, whilst drug use may increase, drinking may decrease. It is also ridiculous to assert that Britain will become a nation addicted to heroin and cocaine etcetera – to people who suggest such a thing I say “If heroin was legalized tomorrow, would you shoot up?” The fact is that, due to advertising techniques and the availability of treatments, proportionate tobacco usage has decreased - the fact that tobacco is legal and regulated has increased the availability of getting help, and decreased the stigma surrounding it.
There are also other concerns – so called date-rape drugs such as Royhpnol would become more available to the general populace, as would drugs that could be used as poisons in high dosages. However date-rape drugs are only slightly less available under the current system – popular recreational drugs such as ketamine and gammahydroxybutrate (GHB) are used as date rape drugs, and their illicit availability and usage has increased in recent times. For those who intend to use drugs as poisons there are a great deal of legal poisons available – a tea made from a packet of 20 cigarettes contains enough nicotine to kill 2 or more people, atropine and digitalis can be easily extracted from garden plants and several household chemicals are highly toxic.
Legal Highs
In addition the current prohibition on drugs has encouraged some to try ‘legal highs’, which may be sold online to anyone, of any age, with a debit card (I have had a debit card since I was about 14). These legal highs can actually be more harmful and damaging than illegal ones – Amanita Muscaria (Fly Agaric) mushrooms are used as a replacement for the relatively harmless
[9] psilocybin containing mushrooms, and for LSD. However, the active chemical in the Fly Agaric is much more toxic and physically damaging. People make themselves violently sick by consuming Ipomoea Tricolor (Morning glory seeds) or large amounts of Nutmeg in an attempt to legally simulate drug experiences. A large number of these legal ‘alternatives’ have not been tested and have the potential to be very harmful. They are sold in packets without warning labels, and the instructions as to safe usage are limited.
The ironic contrast to this point is that, for many people under the age of 18, Marijuana is more available than alcohol, seeing as dealers do not ask for proof of age. Recent research into Marijuana has shown that there is a greater potential than first thought for causing mental illness. Whilst this is treatable in adults to a great extent, the impact of Marijuana on a developing mind is unknown, but prohibition is allowing more and more youngsters to have an un-regulated supply of Cannabis.
Examples Abroad
As is so often mentioned, there are examples of more liberal drug laws that have had great success. In Portugal, where all drugs are de-criminalized for possession, the number of over-dose deaths has halved, and the Swiss project of giving Heroin to addicts in clinics has proven very successful. In the Netherlands where ‘soft drugs’ such as cannabis and raw mushrooms containing psilocybin are sold over the counter, usage of both soft drugs and hard drugs has decreased amongst nationals. Those who oppose legalization often point to the fact that some Dutch legislators regret this move, but they rarely say why. The main reason is that of drug tourism. Drug tourism is caused by the greater availability of a drug in a specific country, something which could be avoided or severely reduced by legalizing in partnership with other like-minded nations, or by requiring the use of some form of identification at a sale, which can be quickly scanned into a computer, to prevent easy purchase by non-nationals. This was the main problem with Alaska’s legalization of Cannabis in the 70’s, however medical Marijuana use in America is now successfully functioning in some states, although Federal Law still prohibits it, creating a paradox in which cannabis must be grown in hidden enclosures to ensure that federal officials do not find it.
De-Criminalization
It has been suggested that the middle path is a happy compromise – that of de-criminalization. This solution fails to eradicate the criminal profits made by drugs, fails to regulate purity, fails to provide health warnings on packets, fails to provide workers with legal and tax-paying jobs in drug production and distribution and perpetuates the great cost of drugs to user and thus of the user to society. Whilst de-criminalization is a better solution than prohibition, it does not tackle the basic issues of drug abuse.
In conclusion I would urge you to sign Early Day motions calling for the legalization, suggest reviews of drug legislation (to which David Cameron may well be susceptible, as he is on record for voting for a recommendation stating that “We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalization and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma”
[10]), and generally support the issue of drug legalization as a prominent member of the conservative party, and an important political leader of the community. If you have any questions or queries I would be honored to be given the chance to answer them, and I thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Yours sincerely,
FuBai
05-09-2007, 17:38
Linear Mode
