Subj: The Tory and the toke

Date: Mar 15, 1998

Source: Independent on Sunday

The Tory and the toke

The Conservative MP for North Norfolk has enjoyed a joint or
two in his time - and wonders why the practice is still illegal.

By DAVID PRIOR

I associate my experience with drugs (soft ones) not with
Mick Jagger or Aldous Huxley but with passing my law degree
and working in a bank. You can wear a pin-stripe suit, be
utterly conventional, and still roll a joint. And Yes, I did inhale.
But that was a long time ago. I stopped sometime in my late
20s and took up alcohol instead.

It has always seemed rather odd to me that you can have an
abortion virtually on demand (and that does raise a moral
issue); smoke as many cigarettes a day as you like, knowing
that they will probably kill you slowly; get drunk regularly and
also kill yourself slowly, and possibly others in a car accident;
have heterosexual sex and no doubt soon homosexual sex
with anyone over the age of 16; but you can't smoke a joint.

This is not just odd. It is also hypocritical and dishonest. It is
interesting to note that in 1993 52 per cent of drug offenders
were cautioned by the police, while only 5 per cent were
cautioned in 1983. It would seem a certain amount of de facto
decriminalisation has already taken place. The present law is
clearly no longer being consistently enforced and is widely
ignored, reflecting a typically British dislike of hypocrisy,
dishonesty and humbug.

So why the taboo? Why is intelligent discussion about the
subject off limits? I suspect it is the connection in people's
minds between soft drugs and hard drugs, especially heroin
and crack. You picture your daughter as a wretched junkie,
clutching a dirty syringe, exploited by a violent, criminal
pusher. End of discussion.

I don't believe, however, that the connection is a valid one. In
my own experience, soft drugs did not lead to hard drugs. But
it is true that the same criminal dealer will supply both - he is
the connection. The dealer starts supplying you with
cannabis, and gradually leads you on to something worse,
something more addictive. His livelihood depends upon your
addiction.

At the moment, drugs are controlled by criminals. That should
frighten every parent in Britain at least as much as the drugs
themselves. Poor little five-year-old Dillon Hull didn't die from
taking drugs - he was shot because his step-father sold drugs
and was caught up in the criminal culture that surrounds
them.

So if your daughter or granddaughter is on drugs of any kind,
you are right to be worried because not only is she a criminal
but she may well be meeting a very clever, rich, violent and
persuasive dealer with a huge interest in securing her
addiction. And, there is no quality control in this unregulated
market. No guarantee that what she buys won't be impure or
adulterated, and what she uses won't be consumed by
insanitary methods.

The crime surrounding drugs should not be underestimated.
Worldwide, the illicit drugs trade generates revenues
estimated at some £240bn and has some 400 million users.
Its tentacles stretch even into a place like rural north Norfolk
where well over half of all property-related crime is drug
related. Overall, the Home Office estimates that £2bn worth of
property is stolen annually by drug-users.

The drugs trade would appear to be out of control and beyond
the powers even of a super power like the US. This is despite
the appointment of a Drugs Czar and a crackdown on drugs
which has resulted in over 60 per cent of federal prison
inmates being inside for violating drugs laws. Illegal drugs
criminalise neighbourhoods, corrupt criminal justice systems
and some Third World governments, infect many schools and
finance gangsterism and organised crime. It is similar but
worse than Prohibition - because the stakes are higher and
the trade is global.

And the hidden costs are enormous. The police, Customs and
Excise and the court systems are overwhelmed by the
consequences of illegal drugs. Would it not be better to
channel some of these resources into rehabilitation and
education about drugs?

I am not part of any campaign to legalise or even
decriminalise drugs, be they hard or soft. I don't know the
arguments well enough to come to a firm decision, especially
those relating to the effect of drugs on physical and mental
health. I suspect that the decriminalisation of cannabis would
not materially increase consumption, and my gut feeling is
that the gains from bringing it within the control of the law
might well outweigh the disadvantages. Certainly, there is
evidence from Holland and parts of the US to support that
view.

My judgement would be a pragmatic one; it would not be
philosophical or moral. The shifting sands between John
Stuart Mill and those who see the state as the protector and
arbiter of morality provide for an interesting debate but no clear
answer. My view would be based on what is best, not what is
right in some abstract libertarian sense. It would accept the
reality that drugs are with us for keeps and we can't wish
them away. We should not underestimate the problems posed
by drugs for a democracy like ours. An authoritarian approach
such as that imposed by the old Soviet Union or some Middle
Eastern countries is not available to us. Nor is a libertarian
approach legalising all drugs and accepting a likely rise in
heroin addiction going to be easily acceptable to the public.
But we can at least have an open debate and bring an end to
a taboo that has so clearly failed. Closing our eyes in the
hope that an evil will go away is really not good enough. That
is why I am in favour of a royal commission to look at all the
issues in a detached, informed and objective way.