Comments for A small idea for the Prime Minister at http://adamsmith.org , comment 1 to 15 out of 15 comments http://adamsmith.org Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:30:59 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-183 When people talk vaguely about 'drugs and crime', they are in fact muddling four quite distinct categories: 1. The selling or possession of drugs themselves, which is only a crime because the law says so, remembering that Prohibition and 'the war on drugs' are relatively new phenomena. 2. Drug dealers killing other drug dealers over turf wars. 3. Crimes committed to pay for drugs that are far more expensive than they otherwise would be because they are illegal (we are all the victims of this if we get mugged or burgled or have our cars stolen). Prostitution is a special case here: not only are most activities relating to prostitution (apart from the act itself) illegal for no good reason, it appears that many young women turn to prostitution to fund their drug habits. 4. Crimes committed because of the influence of drugs themselves (i.e. driving while drunk or stoned) or crack (I think) that makes some people violent, which can be dealt with like any other similar crime (filling the prison places that are no longer required to house dealers and addicts!). - Mark Wadsworth Wed, 07 May 2008 16:50:53 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-181 Tim Worstall is right. Prohibition is wrong both morally and practically. Prohibition is immoral because using force to cage someone because you don’t approve of their peaceful enjoyment is irreconcilable with any notion of liberty of self-determination worth the description. Likewise, forcibly caging someone trading the stimulants used for that peaceful enjoyment is also irreconcilable with liberty and self ownership. But prohibition is not just immoral, it is impractical too because it kills people and ruins lives. The prohibitionists may believe their aims to be noble but those intentions do not make good the misery and death prohibition actually causes. Misery is inflicted on users and traders of drugs by caging them for no defensible reason. It is caused by the impurities and imperfections which plague drugs because their manufacturers cannot be investigated by Trading Standards and because it is more difficult for reputable manufacturers to profit from their brand value. The violence that suppliers of drugs are apt to rely on to enforce their contracts in absence of the protection of the judicial system must be accepted by prohibitionists as an inevitable consequence of their policies. Sometimes those imperfections, that uncertainty about dose and that violence can lead to deaths. These deaths are deaths caused by prohibition. It is not drugs which are bad, it is prohibition. Drugs are a source of immense enjoyment and pleasure and it is bone-headed of prohibitionists to ignore this evident truth. However prohibitionists may find their own pleasure, some people find theirs with the assistance of cocaine, marijuana and other stimulants which happen to be illegal. People do not trade their money for drugs for no reason. They buy drugs because they find enjoyment and pleasure with them. That applies just to marijuana and cocaine as it does to nicotine and alcohol. - Rory Meakin Wed, 07 May 2008 13:48:58 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-177 Whatever someone told the ACMD meeting, we do in fact have a problem with that evidence: reported cases of schizophrenia are down, not up, over recent years. Jeremy, sorry, I don't understand your comment. I advocate that people should be allowed to ingest as they wish, whether it be nicotine, alcohol or drugs. I don't see any contradiction there. - Tim Worstall Wed, 07 May 2008 09:13:40 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-173 If you are going to choose to write about a subject publicly, it is as well in my view to know a little about it. If you are confused about the harms of cannabis you know very little. At the ACMD public hearing on 5th February it was clearly explained that the ration of THC to CBD in cannabis is the likley suspect for the increasing problems of mental illness through cannabis use. Modern herbal cannabis has almost no CBD. The CBD in the old resin was evenly balanced by THC. The CBD is belived to moderate the effect of THC. That does not mean cannabis with CBD is not dangerous. The dangers of cannabis were spelled out in the 1997 WHO report. So are they "entirely spurious arguments"? Well No , the Governments own Mental Health Advisor says cannabis should be re-classified. Your remark about "hand picked advisors" on the ACMD is wrong too. Many of the people on the ACMD have no specialist knowledge of cannabis at all. there is not even one expert on the UK drugs market. The ACMD has without doubt been penetrated, wittingly or not, by the legalisation/liberalisation lobby. The legal drugs cause much more total harm than the illegal drugs, precisely becaus they ARE legal. Finally the very selective quoting of Mill to justify your position makes me think you have never read it. None of this matters, Brown & Smith are going to re classify cannabis and legalisation of drugs is a dead issue now in the UK. You might consider what toleration of cannabis has brought the Netherlands. It is a first world economy with a third world drugs crime situation. it acts as a warehouse and/or manufacturing centre for drugs for western Europe and for ATS (amphetamine type substances), it manufacturers for the world. - david raynes Tue, 06 May 2008 22:33:24 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-172 Spiky comment thread, yes? I feel as if I have been denounced as a left wing, anti-market, anti-freedom dinosaur. Several people misunderstand the point of my comments. I am in favour of liberal markets, freedom and conscience as a better regulator than law and even think that some sort of drug legalisation could be better than how things are today. But I do question it as a painless panacea and I do question the cry of liberalism as the solution to everything. Graham: Illegality is certainly not the only reason young people do not smoke cannabis but it is a significant one and to cite winning WW1 despite cocaine gift boxes for soldiers is fatuous. I could just as easily throw back the carnage as a counter-argument but I will not because it has no relation. And as an ex-soldier I can tell you that any soldier found with cocaine today would be dealt with most harshly by his comrades. Thom Thorpe: I have not swallowed any nonsense from this incompetent, conceited and opportunistic government and I have no doubt they are motivated by politics. True, prohibition did not work in the US but alcohol is legal today and causing more and more damage – figure that one. Something is wrong in our society and it is not that there is not enough liberalism. Question That: Yes I know that drugs can include all manner of things but I am not talking “ignorant crap” when I say they are dangerous. Even those marketed for our health like morphine and sleeping pills can be dangerous if taken incorrectly and if you think cannabis, cocaine, heroine and the rest of them are not dangerous to varying degrees then you are the ignorant one. And yes I have considered that cannabis is a gateway drug because it is sold by those selling other drugs but if we are going to make it illegal for children then where do you think they are going to get it from? Yes, the dealers who sell the other lot. Tim: When I say this is where the liberal tendencies go a little too far I do not mean in totality and quoting JS Mill does not seal the argument because drug taking DOES harm others and not just because it is illegal. Children who take drugs give it credibility for others, poor people will still steal and families will be broken and traumatised by drugs. And I know it spills over into communities because my old neighbours were a nightmare. And we have NOT been trying to limit it for 70 years. That is just the problem. We have had the law on the statute books but done nothing serious to enforce that law. In this I agree with you but only that if we are not prepared to enforce a law it should not be a law. I am running out a steam here but here is the final bit: Zorro: I have little doubt that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol but that in itself is no reason to decriminalise it. Sure, people will smoke because it is legal but I would prefer that than people, who would otherwise not smoke, doing so because the check of legality is no longer there. We are not islands and are influenced by what others do whether we like it or not. I do believe you that the number of people consuming cannabis has gone down since the reclassification but I would be interested to see the report and the data sample. Drugs are available in prisons because the strategy and personnel of the prison service are incompetent. Give the job to my old battalion and I can guarantee that drugs getting through would be an aberration and not the norm. Having said all this, I am not implacably against legalisation, only it is not a simple and painless solution. It is also clear to me that my concerns are on the wrong side of the trend line in our ever entrenching social liberal society. I would agree that we are failing miserably with drugs and things are unlikely to get better with the status quo so what the hell, let’s legalise the lot for a period of 5 or 10 years and see what happens. If it is a success then great but for those that think freedom and liberalism are cures to all our problems then they are deluding themselves. Society only exists when its members limit their own wants and desires for some recognised greater good. This may not be relevant to drugs policy but without this check on the self, my own ex-profession would not exist. - Arthur Tue, 06 May 2008 20:20:44 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-171 The principal harm to others from the "taking" or use of "controlled substances" is the necessary commerce in the commodities, which, because of the potential for profits from restricted supply, carry a profit incentive that promotes criminal activities to sustain the commerce. The scope of the profits in some of the substances raises the harm to others that have been and are observable in nations of Central America to the Poppy Fields of Afghanistan (supporting religiuos terrorisms) the trade routes of Burma, etc., etc., as well as in the major cities of the world. If a case can be made for "control," rather than criminalization of conduct. Anyone desiring or needing access to controlled substances should be permitted to register as a user (if not covered by the controls for medical uses), and the various governments, at their several levels should become the sole sources of supply at controlled prices that would remove the profits from criminal or terrorist incentives. The governments would thereby fill one of their proper functions of detering crimes and providing "safe" supply (police powers for health) . Tough call, but it would probably work. - R. Richard Schweitzer Tue, 06 May 2008 20:05:24 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-168 In what way do alcohol and tobacco inflict 'physical damage and social misery'? They are morally neutral agents. Tobacco is bad for the individual consuming it, but is harmless to others, the passive smoking zealots' witless maunderings notwithstanding. Likewise excess alcohol consumption is harmful, but any anti-social behaviour that arises from its abuse is a matter for the individual concerned. Read the J. S. Mill quote that Tim included in his reply above. In a liberal society we only put sanctions on behaviours that impact negatively on others. Getting drunk is not an instrument of social misery. Getting drunk and puking in the town centre, or getting drunk and kicking a bus shelter to pieces, or getting drunk and kicking a pensioner to death most certainly are, and it is those behaviours we punish, not the act of intoxication itself. Remember the offence is 'drunk and disorderly', not just 'drunk', otherwise I'd have been up before the Beak more often than I care to mention. - David Gillies Tue, 06 May 2008 16:53:20 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-167 ...mature debate is next to impossible on the subject of drugs. I just got stung by a Labour personal attack leaflet in the local elections - http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/never_say_never_again - Jock Tue, 06 May 2008 16:50:39 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-165 So, Tim, where do you also advocate banning alcohol and the consumption of nicotine, both of which inflict far more physical damage and social misery than drugs. You can't have it both ways. - Jeremy Poynton Tue, 06 May 2008 15:39:53 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-164 Arthur your arguments are ALL completely wrong, impressive work! For starters Cannabis has been smoked for over 5000 years and there is a TONNE of evidence that it is less harmful (by a large degree) than either Alcohol or tobacco. If you don't believe this then I'm afraid you've bought into a whole pile of propaganda. Cannabis is not harmless but it's a long way from the 'lethal' description given by our glorious leader the other day. Alcohol and Tobacco kill hundreds of thousands of people per year. I don't believe Cannabis has EVER killed ONE person (I once heard a Dr say a lethal dose of cannabis is 2kg of resin dropped onto the head from approx 20ft) Secondly a lot of youngsters toke BECAUSE it is illegal. Perhaps you didn't notice but the figures for the number of people consuming cannabis have gone DOWN since the reclassification. (And will likely go BACK UP when Gordon the gormless reclassifies upwards again) Thirdly the WORST effects of illegal drugs are almost all directly related to the illegality of said drugs. Remove that and you remove most of the harm caused. For example, 'the gateway' effect, cannabis leading onto other drugs. This is hardly a surprise is it when you have to go to a black market dealer to buy your skunk. One day you get there and he's run out of puff but he's got some E's or some Coke... Fourthly, cannabis and other illegal drugs are READILY available IN PRISONS. Think about this for a moment. The government and their organisations CANNOT EVEN keep drugs out of prisons, a supposedly completely controlled environment. If that is the case, and it is, then it is HOPELESS to even think you can make a dent on the amount of cannabis and other illegal narcotics available on the streets of a 'FREE COUNTRY' (this phrase in quotes for good reason, we once lived in a free society, what the hell has Labour done?!?!?!). - We could implement a complete police state (as Gordon Brown would obviously love to do) - and there would still be drugs available, note the frequent executions in Singapore and other countries with extreme anti-drug policies. And we DO have a pretty good idea what happens when legalised cannabis is available to society. Look at the Netherlands. The only downside they have suffered is toking tourism, which is hardly the end of the earth, and this is more an effect of the drug being more illegal in other European countries. If more EU countries like Spain and Portugal start to ignore cannabis usage then this state of affairs can end. GET THIS - the war on drugs has failed. The war on drugs is causing more harm to drug users and non drug users than drugs themselves. Plus, IT'S NONE OF YOURS, OR THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS WHAT I PUT IN MY BODY.. Got the idea? Finally What makes you think the current state of affair (Alcohol, fine, legal. Tobacco, fine, legal. Cannabis, bad, illegal. Ecstacy, bad, illegal. LSD, bad, illegal.) is the way things should be. Do you have ANY IDEA at all about the number of deaths caused by Alcohol and Tobacco vs the number of deaths by ALL illegal drugs? Look it up some time it might make you think a little before spouting this utter nonsense. zorro. [Blog editor adds: all the swear words have been deleted from this comment. I'm all for free speech, but let's keep things polite please!] - Zorro Tue, 06 May 2008 13:46:20 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-163 "This is where the liberal tendencies of the Adam Smith Institute go a little too far." Hmm. JS Mill: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant". That's pretty much the definition of being liberal so it is difficult how saying that people have the right to ingest as they wish is "too liberal". "I take it you are not proposing the same measures for all drugs" I would certainly propose decriminalisation of all drugs, if not quite their sale in every sweet shop, yes. "when we still have a chance to limit it." And there's another argument. We've been trying to limit it for 70 years and haven't managed it yet. And we never will, not if we wish to remain a free society. - Tim Worstall Tue, 06 May 2008 13:34:56 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-161 "Do you propose to limit the consumption of drugs in these cafes until a comparable age for the consumption of alcohol. And if so how do you propose to deal with those under age that take them?" I'd have thought that would have been obvious. Yes, make the 'toking age' the same as the drinking age. As for how to deal with 'underage toking' - Same way as we deal with underage drinking. I'm not saying there's no valid arguments against legalization, but anyone who comes back with "drugs...are dangerous" is talking ignorant crap. "Drugs" is everything from paracetamol, caffeine and nicotine through to PCP and heroin, with vast differences in terms of dangerousness, social impact and addictiveness from one to the next. The only worthwhile policy is one that considers each substance on a case-by-case basis. Finally, Arthur, have you ever considered that the reason cannabis is a "gateway drug" for some people is that they have to get it from the same illicit dealers as you'd get other substances that are actually addictive? - QuestionThat Tue, 06 May 2008 13:19:05 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-159 Oh dear Arthur you really have swallowed the government's nonsense haven't you? Cannabis is a naturally growing plant and is far less dangerous than alcohol. We all know how well prohibition worked in the US. That is the situation we now have in the UK with drugs. How about actually reading some of the studies rather than parroting media myths? The biggest danger from cannabis is not the drug itself but the criminal record the government may give you for indulging. And there's no such thing as liberal tendencies going too far! - Thom Thorpe Tue, 06 May 2008 12:58:32 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-158 Arthur, I agree that frequent drug taking is a pathetic habit, but I can't in good conscience demand that my will be forced upon other regarding a habit that only directly damages the user (the indirect damage caused by cannabis is tiny compared with that done by alcohol). Besides, drugs can be safely and responsibly enjoyed by a great many people, and there's no denying that. Do you really think that its illegality is the only reason every young person is not currently smoking cannabis? Quite the nihilist, aren't you? Most prohibited drugs were widely available in previous centuries, and things weren't so bad. Cocaine gift boxes for soldiers were selling in Harrods as recently as the Great War -- and we won that, didn't we? ;-) - Graham Tue, 06 May 2008 12:32:42 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-small-idea-for-the-prime-minister-200805061338/#comment-157 Tim, This is where the liberal tendencies of the Adam Smith Institute go a little too far. As attractive as the proposition to let people govern their own lives through their own conscience remains, cannabis is still a damaging drug that we as a society would do better without. And reducing the argument to making a few pounds for the exchequer does you no credit either. Drugs remain illegal and dangerous and we still have time to control the worst effects of drugs on society if we could only bother to prosecute those in possession rather than laugh it off as some lifestyle choice. Your comparisons with alcohol are also disingenuous. Do you propose to limit the consumption of drugs in these cafes until a comparable age for the consumption of alcohol. And if so how do you propose to deal with those under age that take them? Once we have got past the libertarian attitude to drug taking, the only issue has ever been about enforcement. The reason society thinks so little of drug taking today (3 million tokers as you put it) is not because there is nothing wrong or damaging about it but because the authorities do next to nothing about their illegal consumption. A more obvious case of cause and effect would be hard to find. I admit that there will always be some that take drugs either for the thrill or the escapism or the addiction but by legalising cannabis (I take it you are not proposing the same measures for all drugs) we remove the one excuse so many of our youth have for NOT taking drugs - legality. Remove this and how many more people will take up the pipe? Finally, we do not yet fully know the effect legalised cannabis would have on society so why would you risk unleashing it on the whole of society when we still have a chance to limit it. - Arthur Tue, 06 May 2008 11:44:33 +0100