Arguments Against Legalising Drugs

Peter Hitchens writes:

I am indebted to Mary Brett, who for many years has fought against pro-drug propaganda in schools, for the following clear, crisp summary of the arguments against decriminalising dangerous and destructive poisons such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin.

• The illegality of drugs deters over 60% of children from using them (2005 survey).

• Drugs are illegal because they are dangerous, not dangerous because they are illegal.

• At what age would they be legally available if legalised? Surely not under 18 as many are intoxicants like alcohol. Young children (with their undeveloped brains) will still be the targets of dealers. They will also be able to get them easier from older siblings and friends. We have not been very successful in keeping them away from alcohol. The message will come through loud and clear that drugs can’t be too bad or they wouldn’t do this, or at least they must be able to take them ‘safely’. There is no guaranteed safe way to take any drug, including those on prescription.

• It is irresponsible and stupid to make other harmful drugs freely available to add to the misery and tragic consequences caused by the 2 we already have, alcohol and tobacco (nicotine).

• All of them would have to be legalised and to all ages, otherwise dealers would simply push the others.

• It would be difficult to justify keeping prescription drugs restricted if all the others were available.

• In every country where the laws have been relaxed, drug use has increased, Sweden, Holland, America (especially Alaska), South Australia. In countries like Japan and Singapore drug use has been virtually eliminated by tough drug laws and aggressive enforcement.

• Young people are not being criminalised. Youngsters know the law, they are aware of breaking it, they are criminalising themselves. Anyway very few have ever been jailed for simple possession of cannabis. The law is there for a reason. Is the same thinking applied to other law-breaking activities? E.g. petty pilfering, graffiti spraying or speeding.

• Just because everyone who speeds cannot be caught there are no strident calls for removal of the speed limits.

• The laws against drugs haven’t failed. Regular drug use is around 10% of the population. Prohibition has helped to deter the other 90%.

• The incidence of smoking is falling. Around 20% of the population now smoke, down from 30% a few years ago, due in no short measure to smoking prohibition in public places. Are we to accept the smoking of cannabis in public places? Cannabis plants contain more of some of the carcinogens that are present in tobacco, and passive smoking does occur.

• A huge amount of violence is connected with drug taking especially stimulants like cocaine and crack. About 17% of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of drugs.

• Even if legal, drugs won’t be free. Addicts are often unemployable so will still have to get money to fund their habit, mugging and thefts will continue.

• Young people will no longer be brought before the courts. They will no longer be steered into treatment and rehabilitation. Who will they turn to for help?

• Dealers will not simply become upright citizens overnight. They are criminals. The mafia didn’t disband after prohibition in the USA. Incidentally prohibition saw a 50% reduction in consumption of alcohol resulting in fewer alcohol-related diseases and psychosis. The incidence of child neglect and delinquency halved. Dealers will turn to theft, people trafficking etc. Also they will always be able to undercut the official price especially if drugs are taxed. Alternatively they may turn to smuggling drugs, around 20% of the tobacco used in the UK is smuggled. The Times 25/04/08 reported about £2.5 billion annually in unpaid tax lost to the treasury (10 billion cigarettes).

• Libertarians say that people have the right to do what they like with their own bodies. Fine! If it doesn’t interfere with others, but it always does. Drugs cause car accidents, crimes are committed, families are destroyed, some become violent and attack people, addicts need treatment at public expense, passive smoking occurs. With liberty must come responsibility, too often liberty is confused with licence.

• Cannabis users who are drivers are still affected up to at least 24 hours after a joint. Anyone with a job as a driver should not be allowed to smoke the drug at all. Even more important with airline pilots!

• Drug-taking is not a victimless crime: parents, siblings and friends are all affected: children of users can be neglected when parents are under the influence, even killed, cocaine and crack using parents have killed young children: where are the rights of the unborn children of drug users? Employers will suffer lost production, poor workmanship and unreliability.

• In the case of cannabis: Will people be allowed to grow it? Will they be restricted to a specified number of plants? Will they be allowed to grow skunk? Will children have access to these plants and seeds? How will it be monitored and policed?

• Once the ‘genie is out of the bottle’ it would be extremely difficult to put it back.

• Alcohol can be consumed safely with no harm to the person or others (except in the case of driving). There are well-known safe limits. In fact a small amount daily may even be good for you. Most of the population drink and do not drink to get drunk. Drugs are taken to alter the mind, to get stoned or get high. But we are ‘stuck’ with alcohol. It has been around commonly in the population for centuries, and is socially accepted. The consumption of drugs in large quantities is a relatively recent phenomenon and the majority of people do not want to see them legalised. Currently there are very many strong voices being raised to curb the consumption of alcohol while a very vocal minority clamours for the legalisation of drugs! It defies belief!

• Cannabis (consisting of 400 chemicals) cannot be licensed as a medicine. Medicines have to be pure single chemicals so their actions are predictable and controllable and have to undergo rigorous clinical tests. Pure THC (or a synthetic variety) is already available as Nabilone in the UK and Marinol in the USA but is not at all popular with doctors due to its side-effects. Purified extracts of other cannabinoids (substances unique to cannabis) are currently being tested. Telling someone to take cannabis for a condition is like saying ‘Go and smoke tobacco to get your weight down’, nicotine suppresses the appetite. Or eat mouldy bread to get your penicillin.

• We must ask, ‘Is the chemical relatively safe? Is the chemical beneficial?’ If the answer to both is NO, then there are no reasonable grounds for legalising.