It is one of the great taboos of politics. No frontline political figure is allowed to say that the so-called war on drugs is not working, still less that an alternative approach involving the legalisation of drugs needs to be considered. But now the taboo has been broken.
Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary in the last Labour government and, before that, a junior home office minister with responsibility for drugs policy, has declared publicly that the war on drugs 'cannot be won' and that there needs to be a 'sensible debate' on how else to deal with the problems that illegal drug-taking creates. He wants all drugs to become legally available, some on prescription through doctors, others sold in a regulated market by those licensed to do so, as alcohol and tobacco are available now.
It’s easy enough to see why the taboo exists. Politicians fear that any hint by them of adopting anything other than a hardline approach will have them written up by the popular press as 'going soft on drugs'. Voters will then punish them at the ballot box.
Of course not all politicians who oppose changing policy on drugs do so for such self-serving political reasons. Some genuinely believe that any move to decriminalise drug-taking would have disastrous consequences and that what is needed is simply for a redoubling of effort in the war on drugs.
Mr Ainsworth says that this was his view when he first became minister with responsibility for drugs policy. He believed that if only the authorities could 'bear down harder' on the criminal gangs that run the drugs trade, then those gangs could be dismantled and the drug problem eased. But he came to the view that this was 'never going to work' and argues that the war 'cannot be won'. Meanwhile, all the problems associated with drug-taking – the damage to individual lives, the blight of communities, the boost it gives to crime and the opportunities it provides to violent, criminal gangs – get worse not better.
He says many politicians privately agree with him but cannot say so publicly because of the taboo. He cites the example of the Prime Minister himself who, when he was a backbench member of the home affairs select committee, called for an examination of alternatives to the current policy. When he became leader he had second thoughts.
Even minor changes to the current policy have tended to cause politicians considerable difficulties. Attempts to alter the classification of drugs such as ecstasy and cannabis have created huge political storms and led, under the Labour government, to the Home Secretary sacking the chairman of the expert committee advising on the classification of drugs.
So those who share Mr Ainsworth’s views have had to look to other quarters for support. Increasingly, senior police officers have called for a rethink. Tom Lloyd, formerly the chief constable of Cambridgeshire police, said: 'We’ve got so used to forty years of prohibition which, in my experience of over thirty years of policing, has led to massive cost, a failure to achieve the primary aims, which is the reduction of drug use and a range of unintended harmful consequences.'
The use of the word ‘prohibition’ is deliberate. Campaigners for a change in policy often cite the case of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. Prohibition simply led to an underground drinking culture run by mafia bosses, such as Al Capone. In the end the policy had to be abandoned, with alcohol consumption being once again legalised and regulated.
But opponents of changing the current policy point out, among other things, that the end of prohibition in America did not lead to any reduction in alcohol consumption but, on the contrary, ushered in an era in which drinking has simply gone on increasing. The same thing, they say, will happen if we legalise drugs.
Those advocating change say this may happen anyway and legalisation plus regulation may lessen the damage done by drug-taking. They argue, for example, that with all drugs illegal, those who wish to use less harmful drugs, such as cannabis, have to get them from dealers who have an incentive to encourage them to try much more dangerous and much more addictive drugs, such as heroin. If cannabis-users could get their stuff from the equivalent of a tobacconist, then they would not need to come into contact with dealers in hard drugs.
Opponents of legalisation argue too that reformers such as Mr Ainsworth are guilty of confused thinking, in particular in relation to the effect of legalisation on the criminal gangs. David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, says that one of the 'biggest myths' put about by reformers is that legalisation would remove criminal gangs. He argues that the continued illicit selling of tobacco and alcohol on a considerable scale gives the lie to the idea that legalisation would see the gangs disappear. The reformers reply that though this may be so, the end of their monopoly of supply would certainly reduce the scale and power of the gangs.
Mr Ainsworth’s call for a sensible debate has so far not been supported by any other leading politician and the Government has been quick to defend the orthodox position. Mr Ainsworth’s successor, the current drugs minister, James Brokenshire, said: 'Decriminalisation is a simplistic solution that fails to recognise the complexity of the problem and ignores the serious harm drug-taking poses to the individual. Legalisation fails to address the reasons people misuse drugs in the first place or the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, their families and the wider community.'
So far, then, Mr Ainsworth’s call has fallen on deaf ears. But should it?
What’s your view?
- Do you think the 'war on drugs' as it is currently understood can be won or not?
- If you think it can, what more do you think needs to be done to achieve victory?
- If you think it can’t, what alternatives do you think should be considered?
- What do you make of Mr Ainsworth’s suggestion that all drugs should be legalised with the way they are supplied made dependent on what sort of drugs they are: the most harmful and addictive being available only on prescription and less harmful drugs sold by licensed, regulated outfits such as tobacconists?
- What effect do you think his ideas would have on the incidence of drug-taking and the power of the criminal gangs?
- And do you think there will be a proper debate about his ideas or do you think the taboo is so great that other politicians will simply ignore what he says and carry on as before?
