December 30, 2003

The Daily Mail runs legalisation opinion piece and editorial supportive of a debate.

On December 30th 2004 The Daily Mail ran a two-thirds page opinion piece by Bruce Anderson titled 'Time to legalise the damn lot'. The article first appeared in The Independent the previous day, under the title "I accept defeat in the war against drugs".

Quotes from the article:

"Prohibition will only work if it can be enforced. Otherwise it merely enriches criminals while destroying neighbourhoods, and even whole countries.

"So let us end the conflict and declare a victory. Legalise all drugs for adults. Those over the age of 21 should be able to purchase small quantities from licensed outlets which would hold their licences under rigorous conditions. The price should be kept as high as possible without encouraging a black market.

"But the gains from legalisation would be overwhelming especially as regards the crime statistics. Moreover, there is no coherent philosophical basis for keeping drugs illegal."

The tone of the article is in keeping with Anderson's unashamed right wing stance, but it is interesting that the Mail is now willing to give a pro legalisation view such a high profile. The Mail ran a similar piece by Eddie Ellison (former head of the Met Drug Squad, and Transform Patron) back in 1998, titled "I'm Determined My Children Won't Get Hooked - Legalise", but debate and editorial on drug law reform has generally reflected the strongly anti-legalisation views of Mail columnist Melanie Phillips.

The Mail also ran an editorial on the same page as the Anderson piece that was critical of the Governments failure on the drugs issues:

Quotes from the editorial:

"Some argue that, with the battle against drug linked gun crime costing millions of pounds and many lives, including possibly that of PC Ian Broadhurst being lost, the only solution is to legalise all drugs

"That argument is yet to be resolved. Indeed, as Bruce Anderson in a highly provocative and personal opinion on this page, we are a long way from even having an informed debate on this most explosive of issues."

It is interesting that the Mail's line on drug reform has evolved to a position whereby they are able to see that practical progressive law reform is not necessarily incompatible with a strong anti-drug position. This new approach also suggests that advocates of drug law reform need not fear the automatic scorn of the Daily Mail, and that the political environment is becoming much more amenable to considered debate on this issue.