Drugs

The good news about the Drug War is that the police know it can't be won. The bad news is that the politicians, judging by their public pronouncements at least, still seem to think it can. There are times when I think it's important to question some of the assumptions made about policing; but when the police have the good sense to agree with me it's only proper to acknowledge the excellent work they're doing. So huzzahs for the UK Drug Policy Commission whose latest report the Times summarises thus: Police should switch their focus away from arresting drug dealers and concentrate on managing the harm they cause, according to an influential report. The UK Drug Policy Commission says new dealers take the place of those arrested and often bring new problems such as violent turf wars.

It is the very ordinariness of this case that makes it worth mentioning. From this week's edition of our local paper, the Southern Reporter: Unhappy with conventional treatments, Jean Sherlow turned to cannabis in a bid to relieve her pain, Selkirk Sheriff Court heard on Tuesday. The 59-year-old decided to cultivate her own supply at her home, where police found eight plants with an estimated value of £150 each, along with 56gm of the illegal drug, worth £300... "It is not contested by the Crown that she suffers from glaucoma and Crohn's disease, and it would appear that through her dissatisfaction with conventional treatments, she began to cultivate cannabis at her home," explained depute procurator fiscal Alasdair Fay.

Although there are encouraging noises coming from Latin America, much of the western world remains deaf to common sense. Still, let's hear it for the Economist which this week repeats its call for legalisation: Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

Competition is pretty tough, but Fox's Glenn Beck may actually be too dumb for cable news. And if Beck is a libertarian, I'm an Eskimo.

Here's a question for you: Imagine you are seated at a table with two bowls in front of you. One contains peanuts, the other tablets of the illegal recreational drug MDMA (ecstasy). A stranger joins you, and you have to decide whether to give them a peanut or a pill. Which is safest? So asks the New Scientist in its latest editorial. I think you know the answer, don't you? You should give them ecstasy, of course. A much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA. Now it's true that some research suggests there may be some ill-effects* associated with ecstasy use; but it's also the case that even these effects are, so far, so marginal as to have, in general terms, no meaningful impact upon users' ability to remain functional members of society.

So the government is going to reject advice that Ecstasy be reclassified as a Class B drug. No surprise there. Got to adopt a tough stance on these matters, you know. Not that the penalties for possession of a Class B drug are anything other than absurdly draconian themselves: you can still be locked away for five years or, for the crime of selling a drug to your friends, receive as many as 14 years imprisonment. This does not seem a lenient approach to me. Meanwhile, a government expert makes the obviously true point that more people are killed horse-riding each year than as a result of taking Ecstasy and that this sort of statistic should encourage one to reassess how we approach risk and, you know, life.

Mike Crowley asks whether Barack Obama will offer any "substantial" change to America's drug policy. There's an easy, short answer to that: No. At least, during the campaign Obama offered little reason to hope that he'd adopt a saner drugs policy. Now, true, that was just the campaign, but his website suggested that there'd be little fresh thinking on, say, Plan Colombia and, of course, Joe Biden was the inspiration for the first "Drugs Tsar" in the first place. More to the point, ending the "War on Drugs" would use up valuable political capital that Obama most probably has better, more urgent uses for. Still, to be fair, he hasn't disappointed us on this, yet and so, for the time being at least, hope breathes...

Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times: At least 38 people have been killed in Tijuana since Saturday, nine of them decapitated, in escalating drug-related violence that appears to have left in tatters a Mexican military offensive launched two weeks ago. To which NRO's Mark Krikorian responds: "Better Get That Fence Built". I suppose that's a point of view, but a more rational response might be to rethink the drug policies that have a) been such a success in Colombia and b) are now being exported to Mexico. That might do more good than fretting about the possible impact all this might have on the American border.

Conrad Black: The US is now a carceral state that imprisons eight to 12 times more people (2.5m) per capita than the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. US justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers’ unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences. The entire “war on drugs”, by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered and 1m small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved. Yup.