This essay will examine the feasibility of legalising drugs completely. It will look at the arguments in support of such legislation that have been put forward such as the raising of revenues for the Government. It will discuss the difficulties of implementing such an ambitious policy in the light of the ingenuity and versatility of organised crime groups that are operating world wide and examine the destruction of environmental habitats by drug cultivation.. There will also be a discussion of countries such as Amsterdam where certain drugs have been decriminalised and the resultant effect on the over crowded criminal justice system. The essay will look at the problem in the context of widely used legal intoxicating substances such as alcohol and prescribed medications that are linked with health and societal harms. It will briefly examine the historical context of drug use with the aim of highlighting the ubiquitous tendency of mankind to dabble in consciousness altering substances throughout the history of civilisations on our planet. The essay will conclude that the avarice of organised crime groups will most likely make total legalisation of drugs an unworkable option. Such criminal enterprises will aim to avoid paying taxes as they operate outside of the law to maximise their profits.
This year in November 2011 there will be a working party hosted by the Beckley Foundation with the Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform in the House of Lords to discuss alternatives to the failed war on drugs (Beckley Foundation 2011). The illegal drugs trade makes £200 billion a year and so it might prove lucrative to assess the feasibility of legalising drugs such as cannabis with the aim of treating the business as a taxable concern. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation is also supportive of a less penal and more rational drugs policy and argues HIV interventions such as needle exchange would benefit from a harm reduction approach (Transform 2009). Economists such as Milton Friedman endorse a liberal free market philosophy towards the drugs and alcohol trade but with certain caveats such as age restrictions (Friedman & Szasz 1992).
Campaigning groups such as Liberty say that drug users are self harming rather causing harm to others and therefore the state has no right to intervene (Liberty 2001). From a criminal justice point of view the criminalising of drug users has caused a crisis of over crowding in prisons world wide. This is especially the case in countries such as Thailand that implement draconian drugs legislation. Indeed many countries in the Far East treat drug trafficking as a capital offence. Yet there is a long history of opium use going back to the Neolithic era when opium was used by early physicians such as Hippocrates (McCoy 1972). The stimulant cocaine was isolated from the coca leaf in 1858 and was used in Coca Cola in the 1890`s (Inciardi & McElrath 2001).
In the U.K. the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has called for fewer custodial sentences in an attempt to ease the crowded prison population in his Green Paper (Hanson 2011). Lord Leveson has been requested to implement a leniency in the sentencing guidelines to facilitate this reduction in prisoners. Clearly the decriminalising of drugs would free up a substantial number of prison places.
At present alcohol is a perfectly legal intoxicant and yet the consumption of alcohol may indirectly lead to a custodial sentence. This is the case when inebriated consumers commit acts of violence or criminal damage while under the influence. The National Alcohol Harm reduction strategy (Cabinet Office Strategy Unit 2004:44) states that alcohol is a major contributor to crime. The breach of an ASBO or a DBO (Drinking Behaviour Order) that prohibits drinking in a public place may also result in a custodial sentence. Therefore since legal substances may result in a custodial sentence this somewhat negates the argument that legalising drugs will completely free up the crowded CJS. The offence of dangerous drug driving will still apply as does the offence of drink driving (South 2007). Indeed there have been numerous campaigns against the dangers to the public from those who take to the roads in an intoxicated state.
Legalising a substance may raise revenues but the risks to innocent victims remains as acute as ever. Therefore the legalisation of mind altering substances should not be regarded as a utopian panacea. There will always be a need for public education of the dangers via advertising campaigns. Just as alcohol is a central nervous system depressant that may slow reaction times, hallucinogens such as L.S.D. may cause visual disturbance that will present a hazard to safe driving. Legal systems such as Sharia Law completely prohibit alcohol and drug use but this outright legislation is often circumvented in private drinking parties in Saudi Arabia. If drugs were to be completely legalised in England and Wales there would still need to be policing of drivers who are under the influence. There was a recent high profile drug driving case where the singer George Michael was sentenced to prison for demolishing a shop front while under the influence of cannabis. He emerged from prison stating that he would not be taking drugs again. This assertion provided some support for the custodial sentence that he had endured since he had clearly learnt a harsh lesson.
Notwithstanding the issue of road safety there is an argument that possession of drugs should perhaps be decriminalised in order to free up space within the Criminal Justice System. Baroness Stern states that drug laws have pushed up prison numbers to unsustainable levels (Beckley Foundation.2011). The possession of drugs such as cannabis could be dealt with leniently or not at all if the drug was completely legalised. Countries such as Amsterdam have not seen a dramatic increase in smoking cannabis since a permissive stance was adopted. Indeed maybe young rebels are attracted to a substance because it is naughty and illegal. This attraction would not be present if the drug was available to be purchased in a shop.
In California there are retail outlets that sell numerous varieties of medical marijuana. The crop generates huge profits and is California` s biggest crop (Pugh 2011). This modern day phenomenon echoes the American 1914 Harrison Act where a doctor could prescribe narcotics or cocaine . It is now relatively easy for a “patient” in California to get a prescription for this neatly packaged product. There are therapeutic properties of cannabis that have been shown to ease the muscular spasms of multiple sclerosis sufferers. In the U.K. there is a spray called sativex that eases the symptoms of some MS patients. In California the concept has been taken much further and a whole array of marijuana products may be purchased via legitimate retail outlets that are presumably paying taxes. Dutch coffee shops allow cannabis but critics say that they attract the wrong sort of clientele or drug tourists to the area (Drugs Forum 2005).
Smoking any substance, legal or not, undoubtedly harms the lungs. Smoking also contributes to cardiovascular disease. Any increase in smoking will increase the burden on NHS or health service providers. The International Harm Reduction Association aims to reduce adverse consequences of mood altering substances that impact on health and society. Therefore legalising a substance such as cannabis will not lessen societal harms. A study indicated that in the hour after smoking a joint users were five times more likely to suffer a fatal heart attack (Duckworth 2001). A New Zealand study found smoking one joint of cannabis was equivalent to twenty cigarettes as a carcinogen (Reuters 2008). Cannabis comes in many varieties including skunk that contains higher levels of tetra hydrocannabinol known as THC. There have been genetically modified seeds to produce higher levels of THC. This has resulted in genetically susceptible users in becoming paranoid and psychotic. A chef high on skunk stabbed Abigail Witchells in the neck leaving her in a wheel chair (Howie 2005). A paranoid psychosis may cause the sufferer to believe that strangers are mocking and laughing at him: this can lead to acts of violence. Would the outright legalisation of drugs help ensure the labelling and quality control of skunk and thus prevent such tragic occurrences? Perhaps if cannabis were to be legalised then certain varieties that were dangerous would not be cultivated. Here we have come full circle in the discussion. The dangerous varieties of super strength skunk that were not cultivated or sold would then be illegal.
It seems that there is a market in this country for the Californian model and it might raise some much needed revenue. However if a consumer were to become psychotic and kill after a purchase who would be held legally liable? Would the victim` s family sue the shop keeper or hold the Government liable? In the Middle Ages a Moorish sect became known as the hashishin (Burman 1987).. They committed murderous acts fuelled with bravado from smoking hashish. This is where the term assassin originates in our modern day thesaurus. Hence the smoking of hashish or cannabis does not always result in a mellow mood as is commonly assumed. It seems that while certain cannabinoids produce a calm mellow mood other constituents such as THC produce a rise in dopamine and aggression.
So far the discussion has focussed upon cannabis as an example of an illegal drug. There are countless varieties of illegal drugs such as cocaine, a derivative of the coca leaf. This leaf is chewed by the indigenous people of South America for endurance in the high thin mountain air. The problem started when mass production started for Western use. This has led to destruction of valuable plant habitats and a loss of biodiversity as forests are felled to make way for coca cultivation (Science News 2011).. If cocaine were to be completely legalised this environmental problem might actually become exacerbated. At the moment a battle is being waged to prevent cocaine cultivation and crops are destroyed by Government agencies. South America is home to a unique biodiversity that is vital for the production of therapeutic drugs to fight cancer and disease. A lot of the Amazon rainforest has been felled leaving endangered species without a habitat. Therefore the widespread use of land to cultivate drugs whether legal or illegal is clearly inadvisable. Cocaine use is extremely high in the U.K. and we have been dubbed the cocaine capital of Europe causing concern to Professor Les Iverson (Home Office 2010) Respectable bankers use it and traces have been found in the House of Commons. Even George Osborne was pictured in the press before a line of white powder. Some users have suffered fatal heart attacks. A ban on cocaine would benefit the environment and the NHS but the drugs barons would easily circumvent such a ban. Many drugs barons are armed to the teeth. There have been thousands of drug related deaths in Mexico during the last decades (Gallagher 2011). We should consider ourselves fortunate that this scale of slaughter is not occurring here in the U.K .The vast and lucrative profits to be made from cocaine has led to wars over territories known as patches. A successful ban on cocaine cultivation would save many lives but it is impossible to enforce due to the numbers of criminals. There are probably more members of organised crime gangs than there are police members. There is also the problem of police corruption and bribery. Drug cartels may become very rich and powerful through this business. It is widely accepted that there is corruption in high circles that include politicians and law enforcement officials (Bowden 1998). Therefore an outright ban would be difficult to enforce and the converse outright legalisation would create environmental and social harms. This leaves us in the present day situation where a losing battle is being waged in America against the drug cartels.
The situation is markedly more civilised in Europe and yet there is a symbiotic relationship. Any drug user is indirectly supporting the crime syndicates that have killed countless victims (Associated press 2011). The cartels generally trade their wares so that cocaine, cannabis and heroin will all be exchanged by /the different gangs. Heroin grows in Afghanistan so Asian gangs will probably trade with South American cartels in a transnational operation. This is organised crime. These syndicates are not likely to co-operate with the laws of a land.
Alcohol and cigarettes are legal products and yet they have been smuggled by gangs keen to avoid custom duties. There will always be a black economy that thrives in dealing with these desirable black market items. There have been cases of price fixing collusion occurring in legitimate NHS medicines (Bowers 2007). Even companies such as Astrazenica have been tainted by collusion and price fixing (Duke 2010) Therefore if drugs were completely legalised such covert trading would probably still occur. Organised crime permeates the globe. For example the Triads have operated for centuries in China and in Japan the Yakuza became very prosperous and acquired a lot of real estate. In Italy the Mafias are heavily involved in construction property business and were the most profitable business in 2009 (Krause-Jackson 2009) . In the 2010 John Harris memorial lecture U.K. Sir Paul Stephenson said that there are around six thousand organised crime groups currently under the police radar (Police Foundation 2010). This is a huge number that indicates that the numbers game is being won by the crime syndicates. If all known drugs were legal they would doubtless find a way to subvert the regulations.
It has been suggested by some police officers that it would free up some of their man power if drugs were legalised. Again in the light of the previous discussion this would seem overly optimistic. There is an economic argument that legalising drugs would save money as the present judicial system is costly (Mishan 2001).The British Medical Journal carried an article stating that some legalisation will help and is preferable to prohibition (Smith 1995). This is not the same note bene as an endorsement for an outright and complete legalisation of drugs.
There has also been an argument put forward that quality control of drugs could be maintained if they were legalised and dangerous adulterants could be avoided (Nadelman 1989) . Just as bottles of wine and beer state the percentage of alcohol on the label so cannabis could be labelled according to THC content. Immediately one can envisage the logistical problems of labelling the narcotics, opiates, psychedelics, stimulants and other illicit drugs such as MDMA or ecstasy. A complicated and expensive team of quality control scientists would need to be employed by the crime groups who are currently trading. Would these people wish to come out into the open? If others took over their business enterprise they might not be pleased and repercussions might ensue.
In the legitimate pharmaceutical industry there have been countless scandals and lax quality control (Braithwaite 1984).It has been reported that many deaths result each year from prescription drugs and accidental overdoses (Harmon 2010). The use of human guinea pigs for drugs trials has attracted censure and the dangers were highlighted by the TeGenero scandal (Rosenthal 2006). The drug TGN412 was trialled by Parexel and volunteers were damaged by a cytokine storm in their immune system. This example indicates difficulties in the testing procedures of drugs and the recruitment of trial subjects.
Recently some pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer have announced that they will relocate to China which has been home to many consumer scandals such as fake vaccines (China Post 2010) and the melamine baby milk adulteration (Wong 2008). This shows that even legal operations may be prone to illegal malpractice. Therefore the outright legalisation of drugs might not prove to be the panacea to the quality control problems such as the purity and strength of heroin and cocaine. Organisations such as Trading Standards,the FDA and the IMPACT Counterfeit Taskforce might find their resources becoming over stretched by consumer complaints. There have been cases of prescription frauds committed by retail pharmacists (Quinney 1963) and this might occur with legalised drugs.
At present alcohol is sold in supermarkets on shelves visible to all shoppers. Would the same way of selling the merchandise be used for the legalised drugs and might some consumers object to this? Restrictions of sale to certain age groups would presumably be enforced as they are for alcohol at present in the U.K. It has been reported that youngsters under age have got hold of alcohol as well as illegal drugs and therefore legalising drugs will not prevent this problem.
The sheer logistics of legalising all drugs would be enormous as new designer drugs are constantly being invented in laboratories all over the world. While some drugs originate as cultivated crops many others such as MDMA and Ivory Wave are chemical products manufactured in covert operations in dubious places. Even if all known drugs were to be legalised there would most likely be a whole new wave of illegal drugs flooding the markets from these back street operations. There has been a huge increase in legal highs and many of these have been found to contain worrying levels of psychoactive substances. The openly sold legal high drug Spice caused some users to become paranoid and so was legislated to become illegal (abc15.com 2010). This issue of new products that are constantly being invented shows how difficult it would be to legalise all drugs. There is also the serious problem of counterfeit drugs. Many pharmaceutical drugs such as those to treat diabetes and cancer have been found to be counterfeit versions of the genuine product (WHO 2009). The identical packaging complete with hologram can make detection difficult. This widespread fraud could affect legalised drugs so making them no less safe than illegal drugs.
Legalising highly addictive drugs such as heroin might tempt more people into trying the drug with consequent long term health problems. There are people who do not take drugs because they do not wish to break the law and possibly this sample might try drugs if they were legalised. More drug users would lead to burdens on health services that already have a lot to cope with regarding alcohol and drug overdoses. Professor Nutt said that ecstasy was safer than horse riding and there was resultant media and public censure. The Labour Government was criticised by some for dismissing him (Beckley Foundation 2011).
There have however been tragic deaths from the drug ecstasy which is taken for its pleasure serotonin boosting properties. Many drugs act on the brain neurotransmitter systems with potentially dangerous outcomes. Legalising drugs would not prevent accidental drug related deaths that occur due to individual metabolic sensitivities or from drinking too much water as in the case of Leah Betts (Laurance 1995). Some in favour of legalisation would like drugs to be covered by a pharmacy and poison control model. However the pharmacy industry is rife with malpractice (Braithwaite 1984) and tragic mistakes such as Thalidomide (Punch 1996). There have been numerous recalls of drugs such as Avandia for diabetes (Defective drug index 2011)and problems linked to Prozac including a homicide (Stipp 2005).
In 1989 the Bush administration appointed a zero tolerance Drugs Csar named William Bennett. He warned of a new generation of super predators and street criminals (Bennett et al 1996). The US drug Czar, waged war on drugs and said that drugs destroy human dignity, yet the predicted crime rise did not emerge and the era known as the “Great American Crime Decline” emerged (Zimring 2007). James Inciardi argues that many American clinicians feel that legalising drugs would be dangerous (Inciardi 1999). Adrian Barton discusses legislative and policy developments in chapter 9 of Illicit Drugs (Barton 2003). These include British policies such as Tackling Drugs Together (1995) and Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain (1998) which aim to reduce societal harms. Barton also reviews the liberal drugs policies of European countries such as the Netherlands and harsh Swedish policies to contextualise the British approach. Barton states that 90 per cent of ecstasy consumed in the U.K. originates from the Netherlands. Therefore the outright legalising of dance drugs like these would require international co-operation which might be difficult to financially implement and disputes could arise. However a vast amount of crime processed in the British criminal justice system relates to cannabis possession (Barton 2003, Chapter 3) and this is one area that could be freed up by legalisation. While wealthy drug consumers do not need to steal to fund their habit this may not apply to the disadvantaged. The debate between the link between drugs and crime is widely covered by Philip Bean in his book on drugs and crime (2008) and it is not a straight forward one.
To conclude, the outright legalisation of drugs would prove problematic and would not necessarily improve consumer safety as corruption is rife in industry (Slapper & Tombs 1999; Tombs & White 2007). Huge numbers of deaths are already linked to legitimately prescribed drugs such as codeine (Times report 2007) and barbiturates such as Valium and the counterfeit pharmaceutical problem is absolutely huge (WHO 2009). Price fixing and collusion is a problem to be considered .The Chief Constable of North Wales, Richard Branstrom, said it was inevitable that drugs would be legalised in the next 10 years and his 2007 report highlighted how drug use and attendant crime has soared in recent years (Brunstrom 2007). Brunstrom calls for a pragmatic policy that is based on evidence and for the present prohibitionist stance to be swept away. The Police Authority calls for a repeal of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in this 2007 report. It could be be replaced by a Misuse of Substance Act based on a hierarchy of harm. Similarly the Police Foundation Inquiry said that eradication of drug use is not achievable (1999). The deleterious environmental impact of increased cultivation of drugs need to be considered if they were to be completely legalised. Although outright legalisation of drugs might prove inadvisable an incremental approach might prove feasible as in decriminalisation of cannabis possession. Words 2900
References:
Associated Press (April 13 2011) “Number of Bodies Found Mexico State rises to 122”,http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103181125accessed 2011-04-14
Associated press ( April 13 2011)
Barton, A. (2003) Illicit Drugs, London: Routledge.
Bean, P.T. (2008) Drugs and Crime (3rd edition) Cullompton.
Bennett, W. (1989) “Drugs policy and the intellectuals”, speech delivered at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 11 December accessed 2011-04-11
Bennett, W.J., Dilulio, J.J., and Walters, J.P.(1996) Body Count: Moral Poverty and how to Win America`s War Against Crime and Crime and Drugs, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bowden, J. (1998) Juarez: The laboratory of our future, New York: Aperture Foundation.
Bowers, S. ( June 2 2007) “Net closes on Firms draining NHS lifeblood”
Guardian report
Braithwaite, J. (1984) Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, London. Routledge & Kegan Paul
accessed 2011-04-11
Burman, E. (1987) The Assassins, Wellingborough: Crucible
Cabinet office Strategy Unit (2004) Alcohol harm Reduction Strategy in England: London: Cabinet Office
Duckworth, L. (12 June 2001) “Smoking cannabis puts muddle-aged users at higher risk of heart attack” The Independent Health News
Duke, S. (Dec.4 2010) “Astrazenica Hit by EU Collusion Claims” This Is Money
Friedman, M. and Szasz, T. (1992) On Liberty and Drugs. Washington DC: Drug Policy Foundation
Gallagher, P. ( Jan.9 2011) “ Bodies decapitated in Street Killings Blamed on Drug cartels” The Observer.
Hanson, C. (Jan. 2011) “Kenneth Clarke`s Green Paper “Sentencing and Rehabilitation”, Inside Time.
Harmon. K. ( April 6 2010) “Prescription Drug Deaths increase Dramatically” Scientific American
Home Office (March 3 2010) Home secretary (Alan Johnson) letter to Professor Les Iverson regarding the review of the harms of cocaine.
Howie, M. (Nov.23 2005) “Man Confessed to Abigail Attack”, The Scotsman.
Inciardi, J. (1999) Legalising drugs: would it really reduce violent crime?, in J. Inciardi (ed) The Drug Legalisation Debate (2nd)edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 55-74.
Inciardi, J. and McElrath, K. (2001) The American Drugs Scene, 2nd edition, Los Angeles: Roxbury
Laurance, J. (Nov.22 1995) Ecstasy safety; leah Betts Died of Drinking Water to counter drugs effects” The Times
Liberty (2001) The Government `s Drug Policy,. Is it working? Submission to Home Affairs Select Committee, September.
McCoy, A.W. (1972) The politics of heroin in South East Asia, New York: Harper and Row
Mishan, E.J. (2001) “The staggering costs of drug criminalisation” Economic Affairs, 21(10. pp.37-42.
Nadelman, E. (1989) “Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives”, news item California sells marijuana in shops legally, 245, 939-47.
Police Foundation (July 12 2010) Sir Paul Stephenson Delivers the John Harris Memorial lecture www.police-foundation.org accessed 2011 Police Foundation (1999) Drugs and the Law: report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (the Runciman report) London Police Foundation www.police-foundation.orgaccessed 2011-04-10 Punch, M (1996) Dirty Business, London: Sage.
Quinney, R.C. (1963) “Occupational Structure and criminal behaviour: Prescription Violations by Retail pharmacists” Social problems 11 , 179-85
Rosenthal, E. ( April 7 2006) “When Drug Trials Go Horribly Wrong” New York Times.
Slapper, G. and Tombs, A.S. (1999) Corporate Crime, Harlow: Longman.
South, N. (20070 “Drugs, Alcohol and Crime”in M.Maguire et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th edition. Oxford:Oxford university Press.
Stipp, D. (Nov.28 2005) “Trouble in Prozac” Money Fortune Magazine
The Times (Aug. 18 2007) “Codeine Danger Alert After breastfed Child dies in US”
Tombs, S. and White, D. (2007) , Safety crime Cullompton: Willan.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation (2009) After the war on drugs: Blueprint for regulation, Bristol ww.tdpf.org.uk http://transform-drugs,blogspot.com accessed 2011-04-10
WHO (2009) World Health Organisation: Media Centre Medicines : Counterfeit Medicines Factsheet No. 275
7:38pm Mon 16 May 11