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.