|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Pitfalls to lifting drugs prohibition
The Guardian
Wednesday 04 Jul 2001 Author: Owen Bowcott Debate grows on legalisation, as campaigners spell out the difficulties Ending prohibition has been politically unthinkable for so long that few politicians have contemplated what licensing framework or health safeguards would be required to legalise different classes of controlled drugs. But amid signs that a public debate is beginning - Sir Keith Morris, former British ambassador to Colombia calls in the Guardian today for cocaine to be legalised - organisations are putting forward proposals for alternative regimes. The problems are legion. Who would sell the drugs and how? Should there, for example, be more stringent testing to prevent pilots flying after taking cocaine? Would additional checks be needed to detect drug users driving under the influence of hallucinogens? Inevitably, in a world committed to stamping out the drugs trade, the situation would become more complicated if Britain were alone in attempting to decriminalise or legalise drugs. The Netherlands, which has permitted the sale of cannabis since 1976, has recently experienced an even greater influx of drug buying by people crossing over from neighbouring Germany at the weekend. Earlier this summer Dutch officials unveiled plans to open two licensed drive-through coffee shops selling to tourists on the outskirts of the border town of Venlo: all of the Netherlands' 1,500 coffee shops have been selling their soft drugs to hemp fans with time on their hands. Transform, a Bristol organisation leading the campaign for drug legalisation, accepts the need for change "within a regulated control framework". Different drugs, it says, would require different regimes; the more dangerous the drug, the more controlled the outlet. Steve Rolles, campaign coordinator for Transform, said: "There are various models in place already. There's licensed retailing in pubs or tobaccanists which enforce age restrictions, there are over-the-counter sales by trained pharmacists who give health advice, and there are doctors' prescriptions. "Something like heroin or cocaine might be available on prescription. Heroin is already a legal medical drug, and regulatory frameworks exist for licensed drugs and medicines which allow control over production, price, quality and packaging. Is there any benefit to giving monopoly control of this lucrative, dangerous market to organised crime and unregulated dealers?" Providing drugs education would be necessary. "Taboos around illegal drugs have meant education programmes have been misleading and ineffective. An expansion of drugs in formation services with a more balanced approach could address the shortcomings." Britain is a signatory to the 1988 United Nations' conventions against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, Mr Rolles pointed out. This treaty limits the potential for legalising certain chemicals, and though there is leeway for relaxation, the convention may have to be challenged. The treaty requires countries to make possession, purchase or cultivation of illicit drugs for personal consumption a criminal offence, but it does not specify the penalty. Many countries have found room for manoeuvre within the convention. In Italy it is not a criminal offence to share drugs with others with no payment involved. In terms of controlling anti-social behaviour, British traffic laws already make it illegal to drive "when unfit through drink or drugs". According to the Home Office, there were 92,486 successful prosecutions in 1999; of those, only 1,800 were against drivers found to be unfit through drugs. The question of who profits would also have to be addressed. If drugs earnings were taxed, would the government earmark the income for the health service? Could producers advertise? Should there be tighter restrictions than those imposed on advertising tobacco and alcohol products? Release, the drugs advice charity, has long advocated a royal commission to examine drugs laws. "There couldn't be a legislative shift until the population at large appreciate that someone who is on heroin, for example, should not be scapegoated," said Grainne Whalley, of the charity. Last year, the Runciman committee examined the case for overhauling the main instrument for control, the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. Among the committee's 80 recommendations were proposals to move cannabis from category B to C, making possession a non-arrestable offence. It also suggested ecstasy should drop a category, from being a class A drug, to a class B. It recommended neither decriminalisation nor legalisation. Australia showed how hard it is to shift opinion. This year its first legal heroin-injecting room, the largest "shooting gallery" in the world, opened in Sydney's red-light district. This 18-month trial hopes to cut drug overdose deaths, which soared from six in 1964 to 958 in 1999. But the scheme took two years to establish and had to overcome criticism from both the Australian prime minister and the Pope.
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!