| Topic: | Will's question (again) | |
| Posted by: | Alastair Banton | |
| Date/Time: | 03/10/13 10:33:00 |
| (Apologies in advance for the length of this, but I do think it is an interesting topic.) Yesterday I re-posted Will’s question: 'We have other activities (motorcycling, skydiving, rock-climbing) which are very high risk activities and we don't ask nanny state to step in and make them illegal. Why are drugs any different?' Only one answer came and it was this, from Tom: ‘Probably because rock climbing is a niche hobby enjoyed by a miniscule proportion of the UK population, yet taking drugs like Charlie and ecstasy is a highly popular activity among thousands of people which - when done regularly or to excess - is not great for your all-round health and well-being.’ I don’t think that’s a satisfactory answer. To suggest that people demand that drugs be illegal because of their ‘popularity’ is wrong on many levels. Firstly, if the question had been “ ‘Why not ban drinking alcohol because ‘when done regularly or to excess is not great for your all-round health’? “ I suspect the answer would also be ‘Because it is so popular’. You can’t really have the same answer to such diametrically opposed questions. And that very popular sport football is extremely hazardous to health, but you don’t get people crying out for it to be banned. And guns in America. Extremely popular which is why they have NOT been banned. In any case, I don’t think drug taking is really ‘popular’. Most people seem to regard it with deep fear and loathing – especially readers of the Mail or Sun who swallow whole their sensationalist reporting of these issues. And that I think is one possible answer to Will’s question. They demand that drugs be kept illegal because they believe the crap they read in the Mail. Among other distortions, this Daily Mail way of thinking propagates the fear that any liberalisation would lead to massive increase in drug-taking and accompanying health problems. (And isn't that actually what you were getting at, Tom?) But I think that is fantastical. If Sainsburys were suddenly allowed to sell crystal meth, for example, there might be a brief surge of demand, but after that it would fall right and it would go the way of dried morels or unsulphured apricots. Very few people would want it and it would leave the shelves, though I’m not sure Holland and Barrett would take over the market. And do we see hoards of addicts in Robert Dyas queueing for their meths or white spirit? And as I’ve said on several occasions, wherever liberalisation has occurred – Colorado, Holland, Portugal, free needles etc etc, contrary to the dire prophecies of prohibitionists, disaster has not followed in the wake. The reverse, in fact. And I can remember back in the sixties and early seventies within my circle there were two tribes – those that drank beer and those that smoked dope. Among the latter was the saying ‘Smoking weed and drinking beer is like pi**ing in the wind’. In other words, given the choice they preferred the safer option and didn’t want to mix it. The availability of weed meant that they avoided alcohol. And I should add that of those people I knew then that I am still in touch with haven’t smoked the stuff for decades, so no long term damage. And the only one who suffered any serious harm - well, that's because he spent time in jail. It was the law not the dope that did for him. A corollary to Will’s question is this. We have a government that believes in the market and consumer choice. Why won’t they extend this to stimulants (drugs)? And just think of the potential tax revenue, Mr Osborne. (After all they were brave enough to extend marriage laws to include gays.) But I am still interested in other answers to Will’s original question because I think it lies at the heart of the issue of how society deals with drugs. |