|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
Transform FAQ
Questions about legalisation and regulation
Fears about legalisation and regulation
Ethical questions about drug use About TransformWho or what is Transform?Transform Drug Policy Foundation (Transform) is a campaigning policy think tank and registered charity. What are we trying achieve?We are aiming to to minimise drug-related harm to individuals and communities by bringing about a just, humane and effective system to regulate and control drugs at national and international levels. How are we funded?Transform is an independent think tank funded by grant making charitable trusts and individual donations. We do not receive any government funding. A list of the trusts that fund us can be found on the funding page on our website. Questions about prohibitionWhat is prohibition?Prohibition - in relation to drugs - is a globalised legal system (under the UN drug treaties 1961, 1971, and 1988 signed into domestic law of around 150 states) that mandates criminal sanctions for the production, supply and use of certain psychoactive drugs. Principally these are heroin, cocaine, cannabis, amphetamines and synthesised hallucinogens such as LSD. The popular public understanding of 'prohibition' is in reference to the alcohol prohibition era from 1920 to 1932 in the US, popularised by gangster films about characters such as Al Capone. This was a drug prohibition that failed in dramatic style and was eventually repealed, with alcohol being re-legalised and regulated. Why is there prohibition?The ostensible justification for these various policies and statutes is to reduce drug use and the associated harm to individuals and communities while clamping down on the criminals associated with drug distribution. The ultimate aim of prohibition is to create a drug free society. The motto for the 1998 United Nations Drug Control Programme ten year strategy is "A Drug Free World: We Can Do It!"[1] Is prohibition working?Prohibition has delivered the exact opposite outcomes to those that it seeks. There has been a dramatic increases in drug use and misuse over the past four decades, combined with a raft of serious unintended consequences. When high demand for drugs collides with laws that prohibit them, the result is a dramatic rise in drug prices. This creates hugely lucrative opportunities that attract the violent criminal entrepreneurs who currently control the drug trade. What are the effects of prohibition?Prohibition, and the attempts made to enforce it, have created a number of serious local, national and international problems. The key effects of prohibition have been:
Is prohibition a deterrent?It may deter a few people, but it does not not deter anywhere near enough people to stop the creation of a successful criminal market or reduce drug harm to an insignificant level. It is often argued that prohibition should be used to 'send out the right message' on drugs, namely that they are harmful and should not be used . The concept of criminal law as a deterrent to drug use is central to the entire prohibitionist paradigm, and yet the assumption has little or no evidential foundation:
When will prohibition end?Prohibition will end when the UN drug treaties that mandate prohibition are either significantly rewritten or terminated. The actual process of legalising drugs will be a gradual one with phased reforms taking place at different paces in different localities and different countries. Transform has produced a more detailed timeline, predicting how this process will unfold which is available here. Questions about legalisation and regulationWhat is legalisation?Literally speaking legalisation means 'to make lawful'. In the context of drug policy the strict definition is often confused, since legalisation is a process - moving away from absolute prohibition - and does not specify a policy endpoint. The term is further confused because legalisation will be gradual and phased, it is not a single event, and some prohibitions may be repealed whilst others will remain under any future model [see How will changes in the drug laws be implemented? and What methods of production and supply would be used if drugs were legal?]. A more useful phrase is 'legalisation and regulation', as this gives some indication of what the policy endpoint will be, indicating that there will be a legal framework regulating production supply and use of drugs and that activity outside of this framework will remain prohibited. It also makes clear that 'legalisation' is not the unregulated free for all some have envisaged (in reality that is what we have under prohibition), and also that we are not talking about a free market model as espoused by some libertarians and right economists. What is decriminalisation?Decriminalisation is the removal of criminal sanctions through either legislative change (de-jure) or tolerant policing (de-facto) on certain activities. In the context of drug policy this refers to the production, supply or use of some or all currently illegal drugs. Examples of de-facto decriminalisation of possession include the policies of Holland, Portugal, Switzerland and most recently Russia. Holland has also de-facto decriminalised the cultivation and sale of cannabis. A distinction is made between criminal and civil law; in some cases civil or administrative sanctions, such as fines, remain for certain activities, even if criminal sanctions (that result in prosecution and a criminal record) are removed. In popular usage, the term 'decriminalisation' is usually used to refer the removal of criminal sanctions for individual possession of drugs for personal use. What are the benefits of legalisation and regulation?Legalising and regulating drugs would have the following benefits:
What are the drawbacks of legalisation?The legal regulation of drugs is not a panacea. Although it will significantly reduce drug related health, social and crime costs, it will not end them. Moves towards the legal regulation and control of drug markets could also create some new problems that we currently do not face with prohibition, such as:
Since moves toward legal regulation will be a gradual process it is likely that the emergence of any of these problems will be similarly gradual. We are therefore in a position to prepare, adapt, legislate and divert enforcement resources as appropriate to tackle the new challenges that we may face. Would we legalise and regulate all drugs, including crack and heroin?Yes, especially drugs like crack and heroin. Where a drug is potentially dangerous, and demand for the drug is high, is where the benefits of legalisation will be the greatest, because we have the most to gain from managing their supply. Why would we want to make dangerous drugs legally available?Prohibiting dangerous drugs has not stopped people from using them. Despite spending 30 years and billions of pounds trying to create a drug free society, drugs like crack and heroin are still easy to buy. The advantages from making dangerous drugs available via licensed outlets or on prescription - rather than via illegal markets - are:
How will changes in the drug laws be implemented?Drug legalisation is likely to be a lengthy process that would be implemented in small steps and we imagine it would take 10-15 years to complete. Nothing would be set in stone - different models would be piloted and tested, with policy development and implementation based on evidence of effectiveness. What methods of production and supply would be used if drugs were legal?Regulatory regimes for currently illegal drugs would be based upon existing models for regulating currently legal drugs. For drug production this would include:
For supply the following models could be used:
How would we protect children and other vulnerable people if drugs were legal?Legalised drugs would not be sold to under 18s. Obviously this would not guarantee that children would be unable to get hold of all drugs, any more than it does for alcohol, tobacco or prescription drugs now, but it would be an improvement over the current situation where no age restrictions exist at all, and dealers may actively target the young and vulnerable. When assessing the potential harm legalised drugs might cause to children and other vulnerable people, it needs to be balanced against the harm prohibition causes. These people are on the front line of the drug war and form the majority of the collateral damage. It is children and vulnerable adults who do the labour on drug farms in developing countries. They are the people who get coerced in to becoming drug mules or end up being the victims of drug related crime. Prohibition currently provides very little protection for them and in many cases it maximises the harm that drugs can cause. Alcohol and tobacco already cause serious problems for society; how would legalising more drugs be beneficial?Legalising drugs is the best way to reduce the harm they cause to society. Handing over the production and supply of dangerous drugs to criminal gangs does not protect us from the problems these drugs present; it actively increases them. The problems we face with alcohol and tobacco are in part due to mistakes that have been made in regulating or, as in most cases, failing to regulating them. Both of these drugs have been subjected to decades of aggressive marketing, advertising and sponsorship and the regulation that does exist for these drugs is weak and rarely enforced. Prosecutions for selling alcohol to drunk people or tobacco to underage children are rare. Unlike illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco cause very few problems at production and supply level. Their production and supply is largely free from violence and they do not have the same corrupting affect on government producer and transit countries. Effective regulation of tobacco (including recent bans on advertising and smoking in public spaces) and well funded health education on the risks of smoking have seen a steady reduction in smoking over the past three decades. Admittedly this was from a very high point in the post war era (before which advertising was aggressive and unfettered, and the medical consequences poorly understood), but it does illustrate how prevalence of a legal drug can change positively in response to sensible regulation and public health education. A large criminal market in illegal tobacco supply continues to exist despite legalisation; why would other drugs be any different?The illegal market in smuggled tobacco is the direct result of taxation policy. If tobacco taxes were reduced smuggling would fall (where there is no tobacco tax there is no smuggling) but use would probably rise with falling prices. The Government has to balance these two factors, but at least with tobacco, because it is legal and regulated, they are in a position to intervene. Deciding what level to set the duties on drugs will be a difficult balance between setting the levels high enough to discourage heavy use but low enough to ensure that illegal sales are not profitable for organised criminals. Making these sorts of decisions is an impossible when drugs are subject only to supply and demand in an unregulated criminal market. It is also worth noting that most smuggled tobacco is at least legally produced in the first instance. Drug legalisation would not end illegal markets entirely but it would greatly reduce their profitability and scale. Even with tobacco, the majority of it is still sold legally. Legal tobacco profits currently go to government and licensed businesses instead of criminals. Any reduction in the size of the illegal drug market would bring social benefits and reduce harm. Is drug law reform just a domestic issue?No. Drug laws are very much an international issue. Prohibition is mandated by UN conventions of which the majority of the world's countries are signatories. Drug markets are international and the supply chain for illegal drugs often involves multiple countries. The full benefits of legally regulated drug markets cannot be achieved until producer and transit countries also change their legal structures to accommodate and regulate the market. What about our international agreements?The UK is a signatory of UN conventions that oblige it to limit drugs like heroin, cocaine and cannabis to medical and scientific purposes. There is a small amount of room for manoeuvre in the conventions that has allowed for de facto decriminalisation of drugs for personal use, but the full legalisation and regulation of drugs for recreational uses is not possible. This leaves three options available signatories of the conventions that wants to legalises drugs:
A more in depth look at the problems our international agreements pose to drug legalisation can be found in this Q & A session with Dave Bewley Taylor. What is public opinion on drug law reform?The polling data is contradictory as it appears to depend on how the question is asked. Several polls have shown support for legalising all drugs is around 10%, with a higher number - consistently over 50% - supporting legalisation of cannabis. Poor understanding of the term 'legalisation' may be part of the reason why support appears to be low. For example, there will be a much higher positive response to the question 'would you make heroin available on prescription to addicts?' than 'would you legalise heroin?' An ICM poll carried out on behalf of the Observer newspaper in April 2002 showed 4% supported the legalisation of all drugs. However the same poll also showed that 45% of those surveyed believed that decriminalising hard drugs would reduce street crime and burglary.[5] These polls show that the issues need to be better explained before we can gauge public opinion. We can be certain that exposure to informed debate will also increase public opinion in favour of legalisation and regulation. This been clearly witnessed with the cannabis debate where support for legalisation/regulation has increased from around 15% in the 1980's to over 50% today. As the wider drugs debate receives the same sort of exposure and scrutiny we can expect the reform position to rapidly gain support. Who supports drug law reform?Drug law reform is supported by people from across the political and social spectrum. An archive of quotes public figures who have called reform can be found on our website here. Fears and criticisms about legalisation and regulationWould moves to legally regulated drug markets increase drug use?There is barely any research or evidence to support any position on this, and the variables and issues are numerous and complex. Changes in policy will have differing effects depending on the drug in question, the people who use it and the communities they live in, and the methods chosen to regulate it. The 'best guess' is that casual, experimental and essentially non-problematic drug uses would rise - at least in the short term. However any negative outcomes associated with this rise would be more than mitigated by the reduction in harm associated with 'hard core' compulsive, problematic drug use. Would legalisation and regulation of drugs increase crime?No. Legalisation and regulation of drugs will cause a dramatic reduction in crime at all levels. Dependant users of illegal drugs (but not legal ones) commit crimes to fund their drug habit because illegal drugs prices are hugely inflated by prohibition. Legally regulated supplies of opiates and cocaine - on prescription or at prices that do not necessitate fundraising-related offending - have the potential to immediately and dramatically reduce property crime, and street prostitution. Most street drug dealing would disappear and there would be significant reductions in turf wars, gang violence and gun crime. The largest single profit opportunity for organised crime be greatly diminished, and with it the largest single source of police corruption. Won't legalisation just force organised criminals into other forms of crime?Perhaps, but why hand them the drug market? A fully legalised and regulated drugs market would significantly reduce the opportunities for organised criminals to make money from selling drugs. It is therefore possible that these gangs would move into other forms of criminal activity to make up for their losses. However, it is unlikely that any alternative criminal activities would be able to provide the same high profit/low risk attraction, or that they would cause similar levels of harm to society that we currently face as result of prohibition. Legalisation would also remove opportunities for the next generation of potential criminals who are not yet involved in crime. Without the attractive profits available from illegal drug dealing many young people maybe dissuaded from entering into serious criminal activity. Would legalisation and regulation of drugs increase anti-social behaviour?It is difficult to predict what would happen to drug fuelled anti-social behaviour when drugs are legalised. Drugs usage patterns would probably change and it is unclear what the net effect of this would be. People who offend under the influence of drugs would continue to be liable to criminal sanctions, regardless of legal status. It should be noted that the main source of drug related anti-social behaviour is alcohol. Drugs like cannabis and ecstasy do not normally cause aggression in the same way that alcohol can, and in any case, an increase in the use of these drugs might correspond with a decrease in alcohol consumption. Where illegal drugs do cause anti-social behaviour, it is usually prohibition fuelled criminality that is the main problem, not drug intoxication itself. Would legalisation and regulation increase public health problems?No. Legalising and regulating drugs would improve public health and create a real reduction in harms associated with drug use. The number of drug related deaths would drop dramatically. The harm maximising effects of prohibition would be removed creating an environment in which effective treatment, education and harm minimisation programmes could evolve, funded by redirected enforcement spending. Dependent users would no longer have to face the risks of impure street drugs, and blood borne diseases including HIV and hepatitis. They would be able to access better drug services, without the threat of criminality hanging over them. Are moves toward legalisation and regulation a 'leap into the unknown'?Whilst it is true that no country has yet legalised and regulated any of the drugs covered under the UN conventions, it is wrong to suggest that there is no evidence to support regulation and control. A significant body of evidence in support of drug policy and law reform can be assembled from a range of sources:
Would legalisation lead to a drugs free-for-all?We already have a drugs free-for-all. Anyone who wants to buy and sell illegal drugs can already do so. The purpose of legalisation and regulation is to get away from a free-for-all and create a regulated environment where criminal gangs no longer control drug supply. Legalisation is not about creating an unregulated free market. Wouldn't legalisation send out the wrong message?It is perfectly consistent to support legalisation and regulation whilst discourage people from using drugs. A similar approach is already taken with tobacco smoking and solvent abuse - neither is a criminal offence but both are heavily discouraged through public health and education messages, and sensible regulation. Many consenting adult behaviours, formerly considered immoral 'vices' and prohibited accordingly, have been legalised without any suggestion that this were a form of state encouragement. Transform believe that public health messages should be disseminated through established public education channels. Current drug policy sends out an extremely confused message; one that supports:
Moves toward regulation and control, by contrast, sends out the message that:
Would legalisation and regulation lead to a commercialisation of drugs?Perhaps. There is a legitimate concern that legal drug markets could eventually be controlled by profit-motivated corporations interested in aggressively marketing and promoting drugs and drug use. The pharmaceutical industry is already the focus of considerable criticism for some of its ethical, business and marketing practices. However, for all the criticisms of commercial companies, they are infinitely preferable to the alternative of international organised criminal networks. To illustrate this point it should be noted that commercial companies:
Emerging legal drug markets offer a blank slate, a rare opportunity for us to establish the optimum legal regulatory framework that functions in the public's best interests. Many of the mistakes that have been made whilst trying to regulate existing legal drugs could be avoided. Would legalisation and regulation create 'drug tourism'?Perhaps, although 'drug tourism' can only occur if a country takes unilateral action when liberalising its drug laws. If other countries were to legalise and regulate their drug markets too, as is likely to continue to be the case in Europe, it would not be an issue. Where countries have began to reform their drug laws, the impact of people travelling to these countries has been marginal, and drug tourism, where it does occur, is likely to be very small scale and highly localised. Drugs are readily available on the illegal market throughout the Western world and there is no need to travel abroad to buy them. The majority of any drug tourism is likely to be occasional recreational users (eg weekend trips to Amsterdam), rather than hardcore problematic users, who will struggle to finance international travel. Viewed thus, drug tourism need not always be a terrible thing - wine tours of the Rhine valley or visiting whisky distilleries in the Scottish highlands are examples drug tourism that is generally welcomed and is positive for local economies. How would we stop drug use in the workplace?Many employers already have a policy covering alcohol and drug usage in the workplace and legalising drugs would have no effect on these policies. Employers could continue to discipline employees who work under the influence of drugs or who use drugs on their premises. The legal status of the drug in this context is irrelevant. How would we stop 'drug driving'?Driving under the influence of any drug that impairs driving performance is dangerous, risks harm to others and should be an offence, regardless of the drug's legal status. Currently the technology does not exist to test for how much a drug detected in someone's system is impairing them. Cannabis, for example, can be detected in the system for a number of weeks after its use, long after the 24-48 hours in which it might potentially effect driving ability. Conversely some tests only register the metabolites of certain drugs so someone could be under the influence and still come up negative. The exception to this is alcohol blood content that can be accurately gauged - allowing thresholds to be associated with a hierarchy of penalties for drink driving offences. Since this cannot yet be done with other drugs, legal or not, the best available option is impairment testing for which a number of more or less sophisticated options exist, from touching your nose/walking in a straight line, to computer assisted tests. There are a number of other factors that may impair driving ability including, most obviously, tiredness. Some prescription drugs may also impair driving ability and it is clear that a consistent set of guidelines for enforcement on grounds of testable enforcement needs to be established. It is interesting to note that the Government advice for tired drivers is to stop, rest and drink a cup of coffee. They are, unambiguously, advocating that drivers actually take drugs (in this case caffeine) as a way of improving their driving. Similarly The RAC produces a red-bull style caffeine energy drink for the same purpose. This highlights the fact that different drugs will have different effects on impairment, with some stimulants potentially reducing it (there is long history of fighter pilots being administered stimulants to increase there concentration and alertness). Isn't legalisation just 'giving up'?Supporting legalisation and regulation means giving up on the fantasy that prohibition can achieve its objective of eliminating production, supply and usage of certain psychoactive substances. It means giving up on a failed ideological criminal-justice led policy and moving to a rational evidence led public health policy, enabling us to minimise the harm caused by drugs. Legalisation and regulation offers the best policy outcomes on all key indicators; to reduce drug related harm, to protect children and other vulnerable people from dangerous drugs, to reduce drug related crime, and to spend our limited resources in the most cost effective manner. It is not giving up, it is removing an obstacle that is preventing us from even getting started. Ethical questions about drug useIs drug use immoral?There are three reasons commonly given for why using illegal drugs is immoral:
The first two reasons are tautologies - and will disappear once drugs are legalised and regulated. Legalisation would involve regulating the entire drug production chain - from growing and producing the drugs right the way though to supplying them to end users. There would be no criminal involvement anywhere in the production or supply of legally regulated drugs. The morality of taking drugs for personal enjoyment is not likely to change as a result of legalisation. The question here is whether issues of the morality of drug use can be used as a reason not to legalise and regulate. For many people drug usage is an issue of personal morality - perhaps as a result of religious belief - and therefore cannot be used as a basis for writing laws as many people will not share their beliefs. There is also a wider question of whether it is appropriate to use the law and criminal sanctions to send out messages about personal morality. Most people consider cheating on your spouse to be immoral, but few think that it should become a criminal offence. Similarly many activities that have been perceived as immoral or 'vices' in the past have subsequently be legalised and regulated for pragmatic reasons (eg prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, suicide, gambling) without any suggestion that the state was condoning or encouraging them. Do people have a right to take drugs?Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence".[6] Under this right it could be argued that people should be allowed to use drugs in the privacy of their own homes, although this has not yet been tested in court. There are also legal rights to freedom of belief and practice However people do not have an absolute right to takes drugs. If taking drugs can be demonstrated to be harmful to others then placing restrictions on their sale and use is justified. References
|
||
 |
||
|
||
|