The dangers of prohibition

[purplecthulhu]

ElReg discusses a rather interesting report that looks into the costs of drug prohibition in the UK and the potential benefits of a change in this policy.

Benefits include a reduction in user deaths, thanks to clean needles and better quality supplies (no longer cut with scouring powder for example), a reduction in crime (about 80% of petty crime is to feed drug habits), a clearer path in Afghanistan (you no longer drive the poppy growing locals into the hands of the Taliban) and elsewhere, there are solid financial benefits. The authors of the report (the thinktank Transform) calculate that legalization and regulation will save between 4.5 and 14 billion pounds a year (and the assumptions that lead to these figures are rather conservative).

With the impact of the global recession forecast to require 38 to 78 billion in savings in government spending each year maybe this is an idea whose time has come...

After all, in 1970, before drug prohibition, there were only 2000 heroin addicts in the UK. Now there are 100000 on treatment programmes and an estimated 200000 more. Prohibition doesn't exactly seem to be working.

ETA: More coverage at The Guardian

Comments

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

Great Dijkstra, are you calling for reality-based policy making? It'll never catch on, you know; next thing you'll be advocating an integrated transport policy, and then where will you be?

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

If you don't look at reality it has an unpleasent way of biting you in the arse - eventually. Sadly it takes longer than the 5 year terms of governemnst wrt. prohibition and pollution, but it will get you (us!) in the end.

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

I think that a change in the UK's policy on its own wouldn't make a substantial difference in Afghanistan - it would need to be at least a Europe-wide change to dent the market.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

It would certainly change the relationship between the Bioritsh troops and the Afghan locals though.

[kriste]

One presumes that the stance pro prohibition is to do with duty of care. That is, if the government does not make the drugs trade illegal, the smaller number of deaths are as a result of (institutional) negligence, whereas prohibition they can just say 'I told you so' to the 100000. Plus the inertia factor.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

They might see it that way, but it actually leads to more deaths. 'Harm reduction' would imply that care is being taken, and you don't get harm reduction in a criminalized system. You get people going underground, sharing needles (nothing to do with drugs themselves but a direct cause of many deaths as a result of criminalization and *nothing else*), having non-standardized drugs (causing needless deaths form overdoses), drugs cuts with everything from corn starch to brick dust and scouring powder (more deaths and illness from criminalization) etc. etc.

It's easy to *claim* that prohibition is a duty of care thing, but not when you look at the evidence. It's the 'care' taken by those who turn their backs on children playing with matches and petrol because nobody's children would be so stupid as to set fire to themselves.

But then politicians were never very good at evidence based policies.