The Journal - Scotland's Student Newspaper - Emile Yusupoff - Monday, 10 November, 2014 | 10:28
Ideas Hub: Legalising all drugs is the only option
Decriminalisation and selective reform are positive, but do not solve nearly enough of the problems caused by the disastrous war on drugs.
The “War on Drugs” has been a calamitous failure in every respect. Drug use has not been controlled. Street drugs are impure and dangerous. The black market makes up a shocking percentage of the economy. Organized crime and violence are a seemingly intrinsic part of the supply chain. Drug war related deaths dwarf drug related deaths. The government wastes billions annually. Addicts are punished rather than helped. And non-violent “criminals” are treated brutally (a disgrace even without considering the racial dimension).
One solution is “decriminalisation”, a la Portugal. Possession for use would no longer be a criminal offense, but fines or permits may be employed, and supplying drugs would remain illegal. This approach has significant appeal. Whilst it ends the cruel treatment of users and addicts, it does not normalise or quasi-endorse drugs. Addicts could seek treatment without fear of abuse, but heroin would not be freely sold in shops. A significant amount of money and police time would no longer be wasted. Research could be expanded, meaning health benefits and safer options could be explored.
However, decriminalisation does not go nearly far enough. Full-scale, across the board legalisation is the only viable long-term solution. Whilst supply remains controlled by organized crime, the worst effects of the drug war remain unchecked. At present, the literal role of prohibitionist governments is to protect effective monopolies for cartels. All that prohibition does is to allow larger suppliers to violently stamp out competition. Government forays into these wars inevitably ends horrifically.
Asides from the effects on the countries and cities that host drug businesses, prohibition of supply is at the root of the worst problems on the demand side. Because the drug trade is kept in the underworld, control over content lies with suppliers. If drugs were legalised, their content could be specified and guaranteed, and power would lie with consumers. At present, it is impossible for users to actually know what they are purchasing (beyond being ensured, “It’s pukka shit mate”).
This is a serious issue. Most MDMA is not actually MDMA, but various more dangerous and less researched chemicals. Street heroin can contain almost anything. Even cannabis is made considerably more dangerous by prohibition. Cannabis naturally contains both THC (a psychedelic) and CBD (an anti-psychotic). Dealers have increasingly upped the THC content and lowered the CBD content in order to make the drug have a more obvious effect. The result is increased chances of psychosis for drug users.
These issues can be mitigated by decriminalisation. For instance, if possession were not illegal it would be viable to take products in for testing. However, this solution is far too fragile. The process may be too inconvenient for many drug users. Addicts in particular (the people who most need to monitor health risks) may not despatch their recently acquired supplies for testing and postpone getting their fix. A legal regulated market, contrastingly, allows drugs to be tested and checked for safety before sale. Asides from legal limits, in a publicly overseen market there would be pressure for suppliers to simply list their ingredients accurately and to produce products that are safer and of better quality. Heroin would no longer contain rat poison for the same reason that Coca-Cola does not.
Legalisation would bring the black market in from the cold. Allowing more money to be spent in the real economy is surely preferable to having it fund crime. And drugs could be taxed. Simply applying VAT to sales and taxing the profits of suppliers would be an enormous source of revenue. This could maintain untaxed illegal competition. However, not only would legal drugs be more attractive due to quality and safety, but, even with taxes, they could still be cheaper than inflated street prices. Bear in mind that bootlegging hardly survived the end of prohibition.
The concern that legalisation means endorsement is immaterial; people are always going to take drugs. The only valid concerns are maximising safety and minimising social costs. Full scale, across the board legalisation may seem bold and risky. However, in the long run, maintaining any degree of prohibition will prove unsustainable."