From: [b g g] at [connect.com.au] (Ben Golding)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: UK Legalisation (Guardian editorial)
Date: 30 Oct 1993 12:24:13 +1000

In article <[115302 Z 29101993] at [anon.penet.fi]>,
geegee <[an 35468] at [anon.penet.fi]> wrote:
>I was talking to a friend last night about ex-Judge Pickles
>and he reckons that (1) there is a _current_ high court
>judge (whose name escapes me) that is pro-legalisation and
>(2) The House of Lords voted on Legalisation some time ago
>and they voted IN FAVOUR of it.
>
>Comments anyone ?.


Editorial from the The Guardian Weekly, Oct 24, 1993
(w/o permission, typos are probably mine.  my comments are
at the end.)

The Hard Facts on Soft Drugs

Legalising drugs is suddenly back, high on the agenda.  Once a Law Lord
raises the issue both sides pile in.  So first some facts.  Lord Woolf
was extremely circumspect in what he said the other night.  He merely
raised the question of whether some drugs, in controlled circumstances,
should be lawfully available so that it would no longer be necessary
for addicts to commit crimes to feed their addictions.  So forget the
headlines: "Judge advocates legalising drugs".  Not quite your honour.
This was no flower-power pronouncement.  It was a serious comment about
the demand side of drug abuse, which most western governments still
ignore.  There has been far too much attention to the supply side.  Who
remembers now President Bush's crusade against crack and cocaine in
1989?[1]  Or the hardline British approach in the same year increasing
penalties for traffickers, extending customs controls, and setting up
special police squads?  Stricter controls on supply were needed, but
they were only half the answer; and far too many expectations were
invested in this approach.

Crack and cocaine have never been more widely available.  But suppose
the campaigns had eliminated them.  Then already there would have been
some other synthetic substitute on the market:  drug profits are so
large that other substitutes will always be produced.  Remember that
the international trade in illicit drugs overtook oil as the world's
most valuable traded commodity some years ago.[2]

So let's have a serious debate about how we can reduce demand.  The
most vocal advocates for legalising drugs have come from the right.  Of
course there are superficial arguments for letting everything be sold.
Didn't prohibition in America fail to stop alcohol consumption and
foster crime?  Yes.  Doesn't tobacco kill 100,000 and alcohol 30,000
every year in the UK?  Yes.  But crude decriminalisation will not
work.  It will only increase addiction, multiply the damage being
wreaked, and offer few incentives to addicts to kick the habit.
Remember most addicts want to stop.[3]

Something more subtle is needed.  It exists, and is already in
operation in Holland.  There they distinguish between soft and hard
drugs.  Soft drugs like cannabis are not legalised, but they are
decriminalised through prosecution policy.  The big tobacco barons have
not been able to move in and exploit the market.[4]  Similarly, hard
drugs should not be legalised, but we should review the old British
idea of making them available to addicts on prescription.  It worked
with heroin 20 years ago.  Abandoning that programme was a major
mistake.  The Woolf aim is right: preventing addicts from turning to
crime to feed their addiction.

--
My comments:

[1]  I'm sure there are thousands upon thousands of people locked in US
     gaols who remember Bush's policy only too well.

[2]  I was under the belief that armaments were still the largest
     traded commodity, followed by illicit drugs.

[3]  There are assumptions here that the only people who take drugs
     are addicted to them and that all drugs are addictive, both of
     which are totally unsupportable.

[4]  I had never thought of this effect of the policy in Holland.
     By keeping the official status of drugs illegal, it makes it
     difficult for large companies to enter the market and blitz
     the market with advertising.

The Guardian Weekly is a slightly left of centre newspaper which is
well-respected.

	Ben.
-- 
"Turn'd the world upfide down"