Booze, drugs and the status quo........

‘History repeats itself’  we are told, ‘The first time as tragedy the second time as farce’.

 

Not always. In the case of prohibition and criminalisation of alcohol and drugs the second time is also tragedy, and yet when considering the massive problem of drugs in the US and Europe, our leaders seem incapable of applying the lessons of the first to the debate on the second.

 

The notion that alcohol should be prohibited seems absurd today. But prohibition in the US lasted for 13 years and did untold damage to the fabric of society the consequences of which remain with us today.

 

Peter Mc Williams in ‘Ain’t nobody’s business if you do’ sets out the damaging effects of this crackpot measure.

 

First up, it created widespread disrespect for the law by making a crime out of something that was not a crime. Almost every broke the law, bringing the law itself into contempt.

 

It diminished respect for organised religion on account of the fact that religiosi were the driving force behind prohibition, believing that alcohol was a source of society’s ills and God would bless America if booze was banned.

 

Instead, prohibition led to more drinking, not less. It created organised crime that is with us today, exemplified by the Mafia. It caused political corruption on a massive scale, from which the polity of the US has never fully recovered.

 

Bootlegging massive quantities of the alcohol demanded created its own industry, requiring significant organisational and managerial skills. The gang boss became a figure of folklore. People like Lucky Luciano, the head of Cosa Nostra, became almost Robin Hood-style folk heroes and created a front of respectability by investing massively in legitimate business, as do the drugs gangs today. They followed the simple business principle of that where there is demand there must be supply.

 

They also used their money to buy influence. Politicians and the police were routinely bribed and then blackmailed. If a person in a powerful position refused  to be corrupted, h was either ‘wiped out’ or was opposed at the next election by a gang ‘plant’ with a bottomless campaign fund. They stuffed ballot-boxes and smeared the incumbent.

 

It had the effect of criminalising just about everybody who drank alcohol. Vast amounts of police and courts time was taken up with prohibition cases. Even prosecuting a tiny minority of offenders overburdened the whole system of law enforcement.

 

Hundreds of thousands of people whose work was alcohol-related lost their jobs. Often they had no option but to stay in the business i.e to become a criminal. And because alcohol was no longer regulated there were serious public health consequences. Over 10,000 people died from drinking ‘moonshine’ – wood alcohol, while others went blind.

 

And at the end of the day not only was prohibition an all-round disaster but a complete failure;  by the end of prohibition alcohol consumption was actually higher, mainly because of a switch to hard liquor which was  easier to conceal and transport.

 

The lesson that has not been learned is that Governments have no business legislating for morality, and if they try they will fail.

 

Now we have gone down the same path with the war on drugs. Except that Prohibition is a mere footnote in history compared with the calamity that this ‘war on drugs’ has created. This was initiated by President Nixon about 45 years ago. It is a war without end because it is unwinnable.

 

The Global Commission on Drug Policy declared: "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed."^[

 

The Mafia gangs of Prohibition have metamorphosed into major enterprises on an international scale. Their obscene profits are easily laundered into conventional investments. The world value of the drugs trade is estimated at around $300 billion.

 

The hard economic fact is that governments cannot eliminate a market by legislation when there  is a constant demand. Prohibition and criminalization simply raises costs and thus price. The trade is driven underground into a black market that has baleful effects.

 

They cause violence  because disputes have to be resolved with guns instead of courts. Corruption is inherent because the trade generates such vast amounts of money that bribery becomes a normal business practice.

 

There is little quality control – who would police it? So there is no inhibition on contaminated products that cause poisoning and accidental overdoses.

 

The absurdity of the whole ‘war on drugs’ concept is illustrated by the way cannabis is treated.

 

It was not included in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920. It slipped into the 1928 Act without any scientific evidence, debate or discussion, apparently being conflated with cocaine leaves. It was pretty well unknown in the UK, but it was something used by fuzzy-wuzzies so must be bad! Years passed before there was the slightest attempt at scientific justification for the ban.

 

It has probably about the same risk-level as tobacco. Walking through Kingston Jamaica one morning I lit up a cigarette and coughed. A loafer squatting on   the sidewalk with an enormous spliff called out ‘Yo stick to de weed. Dat bacca kill yo’. He had a point. Tobacco, long term, is likely to result in lung cancer; with ganga you just go bonkers. It is the most used recreational drug

 

Criminalization creates its own health risks; it raises prices which in turn encourages  drugs with dangerous impurities, heroin users are encouraged to inject because this gives a bigger buzz. Users often share  needles which can transmit HIV, hepatitis C and other blood-borne diseases. It leads to racial profiling that jails many more blacks than whites although the pattern of usage is similar. It leads to violence and corruption in entire countries from which drugs originate – Mexico and Colombia. The Taliban is reckoned to be heavily financed through the poppy trade.

 

Now no less than the WHO is calling for decriminalization.

 

The solution would seem to be regulation rather than prohibition. The US states that have decriminalized cannabis have collected a vast sum in taxes, eliminated pushers, and ceased jailing (mostly) blacks for possession.

 

An extraordinary amount of crime is drugs-related. In the US, about a quarter of prisoners committed their crimes to get drugs money. Drugs also feature in murder, rape and violent crimes. The amount of time and resources used by the police and courts is disproportionate; most of the ‘stop and search’  operations are for suspected possession.

 

‘Decriminalization’ does not mean ‘legalization’.  It might consist of  such elements as labels with dosage and medical warnings like prescription drugs, no advertising, age limitations as with tobacco and alcohol, restrictions on amount purchased at any one time, special user licenses to purchase particular drugs.

 

Dealing would continue to be a serious offence and sales would be permitted only at licensed premises or on prescription on particular cases.

 

When arrested for another offence, such as drunken driving, which reveals drug-taking the person detained would be subject to  drugs testing and if found positive required to attend clinics and counselling.

 

Portugal has gone down a similar road since 2001. Then it had an epidemic of HIV from contaminated needles. Now the health hazards have been greatly reduced, as indeed, has drug consumption. Crime has dropped and there have been large benefits to the public purse in no longer having to spend so much time on law enforcement.

 

But such radical change is certain to cause an outcry from the ‘if it’s not compulsory it should be forbidden’  tendency, so our politicians would have to exercise considerable leadership, stamina and moral courage.

 

So nothing will be done.