³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Ìý

Commentators deliberate over former minister Bob Ainsworth's call to decriminalise all drugs.

the "war on drugs":

"The entire purpose of prohibition is to prohibit - but evidence suggests that drug prices have been falling for some time, a symptom of both market demand and looser supply... The price of cocaine has almost halved over the past decade. And heroin is cheaper by about a third. If that's what a war on drugs achieves, then perhaps - as Ainsworth suggests - it is time for a ceasefire."

to learn from the last time drugs were legally available in the UK:

"So what would actually happen if the prohibition on the sale of drugs were lifted?
Ìý
"That's the trouble: no one knows. The last time all drugs were legally available was the mid-19th century, and that was a more ordered era: then, you could buy laudanum - an alcoholic tincture of opium - for medicinal purposes, in your local corner shop. Some ordinary folk gulped it daily, a bit like Valium 100 years later. In East Anglia, they grew opium poppies in the fields, and used them to fortify the beer. Even fractious babies were dosed with the stuff, which caused some unfortunate accidents. Cocaine, meanwhile, was a key ingredient in a variety of invigorating tonics.
Ìý
"Despite such widespread availability of narcotics, society didn't fall apart - but then, the Victorians had social pressures which acted as restraints on behaviour. These days, more people than ever before seem to struggle with their appetites, whether for food, sex, booze or drugs. It's possible that liberalising the law would lead to a catastrophic increase in the number of addicts."

The it is disappointed with how stale and weary responses to the idea have been:

"Mr Ainsworth is not some naive backbencher. He was the Home Office minister for drugs policy under Tony Blair, and his time in the job, he now says after due reflection, suggests that the old, prohibitive approach cannot succeed. He was immediately backed yesterday by the former chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Tom Lloyd. It tells us something about the nature of the public debate about recreational drugs that men of this level of experience can only say what they really think after they have left office - or before they gain it: David Cameron took part in a thoughtful review of drugs policy in opposition. But such is the hysteria about drugs in Britain that there is no political space for a reasoned debate by those in authority."

as to why Bob Ainsworth's suggestion has been deemed irresponsible:

"The reason this is all deemed to be politically unacceptable is that they fear Daily Mail headlines and no party wants to be seen as being soft on drugs. So we can't have a grown-up debate."

Former Labour party employee Labour was right not to back Bob Ainsworth:

"First, what Bob has said is not, and will not be, the policy of the Labour party.
Ìý
Second, the public massively disagree with Bob Ainsworth on this. Political parties have to take account of what the public thinks.
Ìý
"(These are both the reasons why Bob was right not to speak out when in office. As a minister, you ask questions and debate internally, then accept the verdict of your colleagues or resign. You don't get to have both power and freedom of speech, sadly)."

that drugs should be cheaper:

"Counterintuitively, the worst thing about the War on Drugs is how much it drives up the cost of drugs. Many addicts live in poverty and commit crimes to pay for the expensive drugs they crave, but that expense is a direct consequence of the government's prohibition laws. Fears that drug legalization would lead to people becoming addicted and be driven to crime to pay for their addictions ignore this.
Ìý
"Some might not like the thought of cheaper drugs, but if it means less crime then it's not really anybody else's business. And nearly everybody who has looked at this issue from a 'harm reduction' standpoint agrees that the prohibition laws are the worst possible option for drug users and society."

Links in full

•
•
•
•
•
•