18.05.2005

End the drugs war

The established parties continue to criminalise millions of casual drug-users and unfortunately, Respect does not stand out of the crowd. Dominic Smith instead calls for the legalisation of all drugs

Throughout the general election campaign 'law and order' remained high on the agenda and the main political parties took every opportunity to prove that they were the toughest when it came to dealing with crime and disorderly behaviour. Probably the largest single group of people going through the criminal justice system are those who commit crimes in order to support their drug use, and each of the main parties took the opportunity to spell out how they would deal with what is a massive problem.

At present there are thought to be between 250,000 and 280,000 problematic drug-users within the UK who make up over half of the prison and probation services' case load at any one time and represents huge costs in term of public expenditure. Yet none of the bourgeois parties are willing to offer anything other than the same hopeless prohibition-based drug policies that criminalise millions of casual drug-users and force others into offending on a daily basis in order to fund their habits.

The Conservatives state that they would "break the link between drugs and crime by massively expanding treatment programmes, including 25,000 residential rehab places, and by giving all young users of hard drugs a straight choice - effective treatment or appearing in court" (Tory manifesto).

Not surprisingly, along with this comes an extra 20,000 prison places for those that do not comply. The Labour Party promised compulsory drug testing at arrest for offences deemed to be drug-related; compulsory treatment assessments for those that test positive; and yet more police powers - this time to close crack houses and get drug dealers 'off the streets'.

The Liberal Democrats were more vague, proposing "more police efforts on tackling drug traffickers and those drug-users who resort to crime to feed their habits" (Lim Dem manifesto).

Meanwhile Respect joined in the chorus, suggesting that there needed to be a concentration on the "detection of dangerous drugs, educating young people that embracing the drug culture is a road to despair and then breaking up the criminal gangs who feast on the misery of the drug-stricken".

Asked about the problem of drugs in his Bethnal Green and Bow constituency shortly before the election, George Galloway said: "If the royal navy was not patrolling the coast of the Persian Gulf but patrolling the coast of Great Britain, there would be fewer boats arriving every night landing junk on our shores that ends up in the veins of our young people. I think we should have a war on drugs instead of a war on muslims."

As we have seen, the message from both Labour and the Conservatives to drug-users coming into the criminal justice system is: 'Either accept treatment or face a prison sentence'. This might seem to some a reasonable choice, but a prison sentence for most people is a horrendous experience that offers no prospect of rehabilitation, whilst 'community treatment' options are enforced so inflexibly that large numbers never complete them and end up in prison after resentencing anyway.

All of which begs the question: can people be forced into abstaining from drug use by the threat of prison in any case? As might be expected, there is no shortage of those willing to accept a treatment-based community sentence, perhaps having spent a month on remand in prison. But completion rates remain low, reflecting the fact that people might be motivated to get out of prison, but not necessarily to address their drug problems. This presents the treatment providers with the impossible situation of running drug programmes for people who are not ready to change their behaviour.

In fact no amount of arm-twisting by the authorities can make people give up drugs. People will only change their behaviour if they themselves recognise their drug use as problem and are motivated enough to do something about it. Surveys show that around two-thirds of people sentenced to drug treatment and testing orders do not successfully complete their treatment and of those that do just over half re-offend within two years.

Similarly prohibition is equally ineffective. In fact it only serves to fuel problems that many ordinary people have to face each day. When the US attempted to prohibit alcohol in the 1920s, criminal gangs saw the opportunity to move into supplying illicit drink and make huge profits. This resulted in an escalation in violence, corruption and the establishment of organised crime.

The prohibition of drugs has had a similar effect, with the establishment of international drug cartels, concerned with production and distribution of drugs across borders. On a local level smaller gangs fight over the right to deal drugs on their patches and increasingly are reliant upon guns to protect huge profits from the sale of cocaine and heroin. Prohibition also has the effect of inflating the price of drugs, to the point that low-income problematic users have to commit crime on a daily basis in order to maintain a regular supply - it not unusual for some crack users to spend upwards of £500 a day on their habit.

Problematic drug users commit a disproportionately high number of offences and government figures suggest that the 100,000 most active offenders are responsible for half of all crimes committed in this country. The most common crimes associated with drug-users in this situation are thefts from shops and motor vehicles, burglaries and of course drug-dealing itself. Prostitution, fraud, etc also come into the picture. All of these have a huge impact upon working class communities up and down the country.

Another effect of drug prohibition is that it criminalises millions of casual users. In 2002 an ICM poll found that 5.1 million people smoked cannabis and 2.4 million people took ecstasy on a regular basis. They, together with all illegal users, are also put at risk through the absence of regulation and quality control over their drug of choice - another failing that could be remedied almost at a stroke through legalisation. Regulation would also reduce the risk of overdose and allow more ready medical supervision.

Despite all of these problems the major political parties refuse to look beyond prohibition - no doubt they fear reducing the state's power of control that anti-drug laws provide. Yet there is already a system in place for alcohol and tobacco that could be used to minimise the harm caused by drugs (much of it resulting from their very illegality, of course).

This could easily be achieved by legally regulating supply through licensed retailers, thus immediately ending the control enjoyed by criminal gangs. Such measures could effectively reduce the prison population by half, substantially cut drug-related crime and free up billions of pounds that could be far better spent elsewhere. We also propose as immediate demands:

* Harm-reduction programmes to allow the safer use of drugs: ie, supplying clean needles and swabs, etc, to prevent the spread of hepatitis and HIV.

* Much greater provision of youth clubs, sports schemes and community activities for young people.

* Treatment resources for problematic drug users (day programmes, residential rehabs, etc, prescription services).

* Treatment providers linked with schools to offer advice to and guidance to students and teaching staff.

Only by taking imaginative and radical steps can the destructive effects of drugs be removed from our communities. Until then no amount sniffer dogs in schools, customs officers, royal navy patrols, random drugs tests or extra police enforcers will change a thing. The 'war on drugs' has been lost. It is time to move the goal posts and take control of the situation from organised crime syndicates by legalising and regulating the supply of all leisure drugs. Dominic Smith