Much Ado About Puffin': The No-win War

When Richard Nixon declared a universal campaign against narcotics in 1971 he made a dreadful mistake while choosing his words. He settled for the phrase: ‘War on Drugs’. The result: his administration therefore convicts every government in the world of losing a war as comprehensively as possible. I think it is clear to most sentient beings that victory is unobtainable. What hasn't been decided fully however, is whether it should continue to be fought or not.

Much publicity was drummed up recently by the crossed words between Peter Hitchens and Russell Brand. Most people have only seen this section of the debate, which is a shame as those two speakers were probably the least successful at delivering practical advice on the issue. With various other eminent pundits involved however, I was surprised at how little either side conclusively proved their points. Knock-down statistics had me ready to purchase a T-Shirt with “Legalise It” emblazoned across the front, right away. Then the counter-argument had me panicking to cancel my Amazon order the very next minute. When stats are twisted both honestly and dishonestly, the cloudiness of such a complex problem makes one feel utterly blind and ignorant. The best I can do is to explore how I feel in my heart and mind, because I think that will take me where I should be. Let’s see what happens.

First off: I do not think that anyone should be imprisoned for what they do to their own body. It is a ridiculous post-theocratic policy of prudishness that has prolonged more drug addictions than possibly anything else. Everyone knows that illegal substances are practically thrust upon jail inmates and this, coupled with a prisoner’s need for escapism, will never produce ex-addicts; only late ones. I can sympathise with a mother at the end of her tether sending her heroin ravaged son to the slammer. This is only because she has been sold this as a solution however; it will not be the prison that saves him. If he does rehabilitate then it will be because of self-control, possibly inspired by schemes imposed by outside forces. Where things descend into moral murkiness is when the debate shifts to how to discourage use in the first place.

The current technique used by most governments is to heavily punish the growers/dealers. It is almost wholly dependent on the theory of deterrents being useful, and it betrays a vast neglect for the other things the penal system claims to value (namely rehabilitation). While the act of enabling and persuading human beings to damage their bodies must be counted as an abuse of sorts, it is not as simple as placing a drug dealer alongside a wife-beater in a diagram of degenerates. An abusive husband is pathologically at odds with a civilised community; an unemployed teenager seduced by easy money is not so classifiable. I am not one who says that the crack dealers are forced into it by society. If they were, then they would stop selling once an adequate wage was achieved. However, if they did have money, they wouldn't sell the drugs. The majority should be treated as potentially law-abiding, and not as lost causes destined for endless criminality. In fact, addiction to Class A’s is more likely to result in that sort of existence. Who is the biggest danger to the future there then?

The darkest part of the story is the impact the drug trade has on the third world. There is also hypocrisy in parts of the bohemian contingent which serves to arm the conservative crowd. There are people on the fringe of society who make every effort to grow their own vegetables, buy fair trade chocolate, and distribute Green Party leaflets. A percentage of them also embrace the alternative lifestyle further and loosen the mind up on a Friday night with the aid of a little powder. It’s an argument that has been tainted by Daily Mailers collaring liberals and saying, “if you could see how many children you are killing by buying coke then you wouldn't do it”. The thing is though: drugs like cocaine are often produced in failed states that enslave children on pain of death. I know this group of users know this; they just haven’t woken up yet (and this type of existence requires not a little narcissism). Now, if anyone wants to focus completely on those hippies then fair enough; carry on buying the Daily Mail. What most conservatives miss, however, is the real (and much scarier) force behind it all. 

While the partiers in our land provide a steady trickle of cash to these baddies, the existence of the dark side is only made possible by the concessions of our Western powers. Moving on to the issue of heroin production, it’s perhaps time to talk about the link between gear and terrorism. The gangsters of Afghanistan are extremely prolific producers of opium that currently reap huge rewards every year. It does not take a genius to predict what the proceeds are being spent on. These post-Taliban bandits don’t want to become rap stars or buy Rembrandt's; they like doing bad things to all people.

If an intelligent being were to gaze down upon us from a properly functional planet, I would bet that they would make three immediate observations:

1. Why do these people have money and those people do not?

2. Why are those people hurting other creatures?

3. Why, by the name of Zakwan, is that rich country handing all the dope money over to those violent bastards?  

Without breaking one ethical boundary, a monopoly could be abolished and created simultaneously with the swipe of a pen. We need opium over here. Its essence is in our most important painkillers and that will not change in the foreseeable future. We currently buy it from Turkey who really don’t need an economy boost in the same way the Afghans do. I also predict that if the Turks lose their stand in that marketplace, they won’t descend into chaos. That country can look after itself; Afghanistan needs all the help it can get. A sturdy order from us could push a touch of genuine industry into a country that’s been struggling to escape the seventh century since…well the seventh century.

Let me float away from the premier league of class A’s and into the more smiley territory of marijuana. I'm not a smoker myself; my synapses appear to be largely disinterested in what the herb has to offer. I also disprove of anything that can permanently remove quality from the intellect. That is nothing but my own personal tastes though; I could include Kim Kardashian, One Direction, and Mormonism in the same list. Inhaling hashish is so common that one can make a highly educated guess that everyone you know has at least had the opportunity to try it. With its current availability the average user wouldn't notice many changes to his or her daily routine if the stuff was to become legit. I personally haven’t noticed our society turning into a collection of lobotomised hippies. So, with this in mind, how dangerous is it? It’s a fact that alcohol and tobacco hinder the health as much and I don’t want to even think about banning them! Legalise weed, empty a few cells, make some money, and perhaps notice a reduction of shady characters offering tainted grass.

Coke is another issue altogether. Whereas hemp can be grown by a fourteen year old in a suburban bedroom, a good rock of cocaine has probably passed through the tattooed hands of a dead-eyed murderer at some point. Unlike opium, we don’t have a medical use for it. Unlike cannabis, it can kill on impact. Like tobacco and drink, it is pretty damn addictive too. I'm sticking with my view that users should not be arrested, but I am voicing a concern about the properties of this white powder.

To focus on the South Americas (for obvious reasons), a duel approach would be necessary. When a crop like cocaine yields such high profits, extreme measures need to be taken to ensure production remains in place. Again, by giving the criminals a monopoly on production, we have gifted them a successful business that requires brutal techniques to sustain it. If legitimate companies were able to command part of the market, the underworld section would take a hit. Then once the criminal producers are no longer the kings of crystal, hit them again where we can officially punish them: firearms, corruption, and child exploitation are all issues within the cocaine trade. Coupled with decriminalisation, a zero tolerance policy on these things would weaken the structure of the industry. Fast forward to when this has finally happened, and what do you see? I see bags of the powder labelled up like glue is today. “This can kill you the second you snort it”. Education is our most powerful weapon as always.

I had to concede to myself that I couldn't discuss every narcotic here. So instead I settled for the big three. Obviously I could have written a similar piece on crystal meth, acid, and magic mushrooms (and occasionally I wished I had done). However, I know my limits and I have already pressed against them. I may not have all the right answers but I must qualify for part of a multiple choice.