Although I generally think Richard Brunstrom is a bit if a tit, and as a plod has no place making political statements, he has a point about the effectiveness of prohibition of drugs; it doesn’t work.
While I think decriminalisation is a bad idea, keeping the trade underground and in the hands of gangsters, and prefer outright legalisation, which would allow the monitoring of safety and possible taxes for external costs if it was needed (which I don’t think actually would be the case), it is good to be having the debate.
First up for a ‘getting ones knickers in a twist’ award is Rhondda MP Chris Bryant.
“I think these are very dangerous views. Ecstasy is not a safe drug and the people who sell ecstasy to youngsters in the Rhondda also sell heroin and the whole shooting range of drugs.”
Er, so you are saying prohibition hasn’t worked then, aren’t you? And you are admitting that by forcing the trade underground, people wanting to buy the odd ecstasy tab are coming into contact with heroin dealers. As for Brunstrom’s claim about the safety of MDMA, if these stats are correct, ‘UK figures suggest seven ecstasy-related deaths per million users. This compares to 625 alcohol-related deaths per million drinkers.’
Next up we have Peter Stoker, of the National Drugs Prevention Alliance.
‘”The danger from illegal drugs isn’t just a question of how poisonous it is in the short-term - although any dose of ecstasy can kill….’
Can but basically hardly ever does, Peter,
“- it includes the damaging behaviour which people are sucked into and the harm it does to those around them, particularly their families.”
You do know that, unlike opiates and cocaine, ecstasy is not addictive, don’t you? Sure, you can get into a crowd and a habit of taking too much too often, and letting your life slip into chaos, just as you can with drink, or celebrity obsession, or sitting on your fat arse watching daytime TV, but you can’t become physically addicted to it like coke, alcohol, or fags. And what do we find here?
‘Whilst ecstasy use has remained stable in the UK over the previous 7 years, the proportion of 16-29 year olds reporting use of cocaine has risen sharply from 1% in 1994 to 5% in 2000 (King, 1997; Ramsey & Partridge, 1999; Sharp et al., 2001). This may be because of the consistently high purity or the reduction in price of cocaine (King, 1997), but also its perceived safety compared to ecstasy, which has received substantial negative media attention (Cole et al., in press; Hammersley et al., 2001). The public health consequences of increased cocaine use have been obscured in investigations of ecstasy.’
Great, so idiots like Bryant and Stoker bigging up the dangers of MDMA have kids turning to highly addictive coke, which their dealers are quite happy to supply. Genius.
People will take drugs, and prohibition simply subsidises organised crime. Kids told that if they smoke pot they will instantly have a mental breakdown, or if they take an ‘E’ will drop dead after their head explodes, naturally are sceptical of government advice on the other available drugs when this proves not to be the case. This advice is then provided by dealers or experienced users, who probably deal in a small way, and is obviously less than ideal.
People went blind during prohibition not because when running your own still it is jolly difficult to produce safe, methanol free spirit (it isn’t), but because of the poor materials often used in still construction (i.e. lead instead of silver food grade solder). Shit drugs, heroin cut with nutmeg, sucrose, starch, caffeine, chalk, powdered milk, flour, talcum powder and related crap, causes massive problems for the NHS, as does the inflated price society as a whole. Legalised drugs would be safer, could be dispensed with trusted, accurate, advice, would be cheaper for the inevitable addicts leading to a drop in crime, would cut out huge swathes of organised crime almost overnight, and would stop putting in prison people who, correctly, point out that their bodies belong to themselves, not this odious, untrustworthy, pile of human turds we call a government.
Filed under: Libertarian
Excellent points. I was going to do a post on this myself yesterday, but put it off as I did something on it not long back - and now you have done an excellent job of it here.
Brunstrom is indeed a bit if a tit, especially with his fanatical views on speed (not the drug) and he should mind his trap a bit more, being a police officer, never-the-less he has a point here and it takes someone like him to say it and get publicity for doing so.
Bryant reflevively condemns the idea of legalisation of drugs, as do virtually all the political class. They couldn’t do without their ‘war on drugs’ to sucker the sheeple in with.
Indeed. Me too. They really don’t like this idea and they are even recycling indignation these days!
War on Drugs = state of fear and plenty of illiberal measures like money laundering, which would hardly have any justification if drug money was not illegal.