Drugs

It's New Jersey so nothing should surprise anyone. Still, it turns out that the problem is that the cocaine has been cut with levamisole, a drug traditionally used to deworm livestock. So caveat coker if you're in America this summer. Also, of course, one of the problems with illegal but popular markets is that the people who run them are so often so dashed unscrupulous...

It seems that, in cycling as everything else, when the facts become intolerable it's no longer credible to insist upon them. That being the case it's not, perhaps, a great surprise that the Facts for Lance website appears to have disappeared. In one sense the question of whether or not Lance Armstrong ever took illegal performance-enhancing drugs is immaterial. He cannot prove a negative but nor do all those negative tests establish his innocence either. The difficulty for Armstrong and his legion of admirers is that the circumstantial evidence against him has become so substantial that you need to be unusually credulous to suppose that none of it can be true or that all of it is motivated by greed, dishonesty or personal issues.

John Rentoul's column in the Independent on Sunday this week was uncharacteristically unpersuasive. His text was Mencken's aphorism that "There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong" and Mr Rentoul suggested the Cardoso Commission's report on drug legalisation is an example of this approach. Well, perhaps. But I think "neat, plausible, and wrong" actually better characterises the Drug Warriors mania for prohibition. To which one might add "ineffective" too. Most advocates* of decriminalisation or legalisation (as Rentoul says, two different approaches) concede that these alternatives will not eradicate all of the problems associated with drug use but argue instead that they will make it easier to deal with the consequences of drug use.

It's not that I disagree with this post by Blair Gibbs, nor that I don't think he makes a number of reasonable points. There's clearly a problem with drugs in prison even if it it's not, one supposes, on anything like the same level as the Cousins' difficulties in that area. Nevertheless, surely the most obvious point to make is that if we cannot keep illegal drugs out of prison at what point do even prohibitionists recognise that the War on Drugs can't be won*? Ah, they say, sure, perhaps it can't be, you know, won but that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting! Maybe. But at what point is reality allowed to intrude upon this fantastical approach to serious public policy?

There's good and bad news this month. The disappointing news is that the latest surveys suggest only one in five American high schoolers smokes tobacco even occasionally. The good news is that one in five smokes marijuana from time to time. According to this year's official figures: For 12th-graders, declines in cigarette use accompanied by recent increases in marijuana use have put marijuana ahead of cigarette smoking by some measures. In 2010, 21.4 percent of high school seniors used marijuana in the past 30 days, while 19.2 percent smoked cigarettes. This is good news? Yes it is. For one thing it shows that teenage stoners have a better grasp of risk than the United States government.

Stephen Pollard argues that this piece by Antonio Maria Costa, formerly Executive Director at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "simply rips apart the dangerously sloppy thinking from those who argue for the legalisation of hard (and soft) drugs." Well, that's one way of looking at it. Alternatively, one can think it profoundly misleading and alarmist. Costa argues that any attempts to introduce sanity (that's not how he describes it) to the drug conversation will inevitably produce a sharp rise in drug use, and consequently addiction. Leaving aside the philosophical debates about drug-use, this is an argument that while intuitively plausible isn't necessarily endorsed by the evidence available. As it so often the case these days, Portugal is the poster-country for reform.

Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of our drug policies, I hope we may agree that they're much less important than drug policy in the United States or the countries that produce narcotics. Nearly 30,000 people have been killed in Mexico since the "War on Drugs" was re-militarised in 2006. Now former President Vincente Fox is the latest Latin American statesman to suggest that the war is a pointless, murderous folly that weakens civil society while empowering the very people it's supposed to be fighting: "Legalization does not mean that drugs are good ... but we have to see (legalization of the production, sale and distribution of drugs) as a strategy to weaken and break the economic system that allows cartels to earn huge profits," Fox wrote in a posting over the weekend.