|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
|
Below is a selection of letters written by Transform that have been published in the press. As is often the case, many of the letters that we send to the press end up being shortened for publication. We have reproduced the letters as they appeared in the newspaper or magazine. New Statesman - Legalise it (16.10.06) New Statesman - Legalise it (16.10.06) Misha Glenny shows in exquisite detail ("Drugs and terror: Britain's role", 9 October) why the war on drugs is unwinnable - contrary to the UN's drug strategy slogan: "A drug-free world, we can do it!" The Guardian - Prison is not the answer (19.08.05)Paul Hayes (of the National Treatment Agency) and Chris Fox (of the Association of Chief Police Officers) failed to respond to the points made by Nick Davies concerning the links between drug prohibition and the creation of crime. But, as drug users say: before you can begin recovery, you need to acknowledge there's a problem. Prohibition is now the single largest cause of crime in the UK and biggest contributor to the ballooning prison population and wider crisis in our criminal justice system. The leaked report on drugs from Tony Blair's strategy unit makes clear that not only have controls on supply failed but enforcing prohibition actually creates one third of all crime (85% of shoplifting, 70-80% of burglaries and 54% of robberies) at an estimated cost of £16bn a year. Hayes and Fox must acknowledge what everyone, including the prime minister, knows to be true and consider policies that reduce crime rather than create it. Steve Rolles The Times - The heroin trade (12.03.05)Sir, Prohibition has failed significantly to reduce heroin demand or supply (report, March 2). History shows that the prohibition of a product that is in huge demand simply creates a huge criminal market. While opium production remains illegal and in the hands of criminals, efforts to eradicate its production are completely futile. Even if some opium is destroyed or intercepted, production is so lucrative that it will simply move elsewhere. Global production of both heroin and cocaine has been untouched by the billions being poured into increasingly aggressive drug control efforts. More than half of global opium production — for the medical market — is already legal, is regulated, taxed and does not profit criminals. The only way to collapse the illegal opium market is to replace it with one that is legally regulated. This would put the traffickers out of business overnight. Yours sincerely, The Observer - Collusion behind cocaine profits (20.02.05)Antony Barnett's article lends weight to the call to cocaine users to end their support for the blood-soaked supply chain and stop using the drug. At the same time he colludes with extra-judicial killings of traffickers by a smiling Colombian coastguard. The high price of cocaine is created by its illegality and this fuels the conflict in Colombia. Prohibition lies at the root of the blood letting and it is nothing more than an act of distraction to blame users. Were there to be a fairly-traded alternative to illegal cocaine, many would choose to buy it. That way we could support community enterprises in a developing country rather than collude with a trade forced upon Colombians by trade tariffs and a politically motivated, US-backed drug war. Danny Kushlick The Guardian - Police line on cocaine (03.02.05)How ridiculous for Ian Blair's first public pronouncement to be a crackdown on middle-class cocaine use at dinner parties. It is his support for, and enforcement of drug prohibition, that leaves users no option but to buy in the illegal market. Prohibition is responsible for "the blood on the road to Colombia and Afghanistan", not the dinner-party set. There is no blood whatsoever associated with the legal, regulated and taxed market in cocaine and opiates for medical use. Steve Rolles The Financial Times - Regulation of drugs is healthier than prohibition (19.01.05)Sir, What a refreshing change to hear such a well argued case for legalising drugs (“The unwinable war on dangerous drugs”, January 15). However, there is no evidence to suggest that legislation would produce poor results with regards to public health. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to show that drugs prohibition has an enormously detrimental effect upon public heath, particularly in respect of injecting drug users. For instance, it was the HIV pandemic that caused the Russian Federation to decriminalise the personal possession of all drugs in 2004. Added to which the Dutch, with a far more available source of cannabis, have half the level of use compared to the UK. The logical extension of the argument that prohibition increases public health would lead us to prohibit alcohol and tobacco, and we know from the US experience what the consequences of this would be. We should legalise and regulate drugs precisely because they are dangerous, not because they are safe. At any rate one has to wonder if an increase in use is a price worth paying for the vast reduction on organised and petty crime, street prostitution, street dealing, corruption, civil war, and support for terrorist organisations that would result from the legalisation of coca and opium based products. It is parochial in the extreme to support the global prohibition of a small selection of psychoactive substances (with all the attendant costs that this brings, particularly to producer countries) to achieve a marginal reduction in domestic drug use. At the least the government should undertake an impact assessment of the costs (and benefits) of our commitment to global prohibition and the alternatives. Danny Kushlick The Daily Telegraph - Government must take over from drug dealers (14.01.04)Sir - It comes as no surprise to those of us who work in the drugs field or, indeed, live in inner city areas, that the war on stopping the supply of drugs has been lost (News, Jan 12). Street prices have been falling for years while availability has increased substantially. Added to this, all the research shows that law enforcement does little or nothing to reduce the demand for drugs. Surely the time has come to debate the only logical alternative. Management of drug production and supply by government through prescriptions, licensed sales and pharmacy sales would remove the trade from the hands of organised criminals and unregulated dealers. It would end drug-related street prostitution, halve property crime and the prison population and restore order to no-go areas in inner cities. Last, but by no means least, it would remove many of the forces that destabilise producer countries from Colombia to Afghanistan. At the least, the Government ought to be encouraging a Big Conversation about prohibition and drug law reform. Danny Kushlick The Independent - Prohibition has failed (13.07.03)What a shame that Roger Howard (“Reefer madness”, 6 July) believes that “legalisation of drugs is simply not something that is going to happen in the foreseeable future”. History tells us that sooner or later prohibition is followed by regulation and taxation. Switzerland, with its legalisation of cannabis, is only one of a number of countries heading for the exit form the prohibition party. But Mr Howard also believes that this “theoretical debate” is diverting effort from the task or rehabilitation dependant users (many of whose problems are caused by prohibition itself). Far from being “untried and untested waters”, we have plenty of experience of how to regulated all sorts of highly dangerous and desirable substances, from vodka to valium. He suggests that we should “pay attention to what works”. Should we not also pay attention to what does not? Prohibition is the tried and tested failure, which every year takes us further into deep water. Rather than throwing the Drugscope towel into the rink, perhaps Mr Howard could consider turning it into a banner for justice, public health and common sense and hoist it firmly up the flagpole of government drugs regulation. Danny Kushlick The Guardian - The case for legalisation (26.05.03)Nick Davies's excellent series (How Britain is losing the drugs war, May 22-23) outlines some solutions to the problems caused by the UK government's addiction to the war on drugs. However, at some point in the next few years, the nettle of prohibition is going to have to be grasped more firmly than his analysis implies. If prohibition has comprehensively failed, then prescribing heroin will not provide us with comprehensive success. Heroin is not a substitute for crack (or indeed for powder cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy). Most illicit drug use is non-problematic (although the minority of problematic users are responsible for a disproportionate amount of consumption). Recreational cocaine users will not be visiting their GPs for their supply and if we are to undermine the control of coca production by paramilitary forces in Colombia we will have to come up with something other than dispensing by medics. Happily, the models for legal distribution are in place already - over the counter sales, on- and off-licences, pharmacy sales and prescription. Sooner or later we have to face up to the fact that the legal regulation of the production and supply of all currently prohibited drugs is the only logical alternative to prohibition. Transform believes we have 10 years to work out how to make the transition from war to regulation. But, as Nick Davies cogently points out, we must tell the truth about prohibition's consequences and plan its replacement now. Danny Kushlick The Observer - Dopey claims (13.04.03)No one would claim that cannabis is harmless, but to say that reclassification will increase the size of the NHS mental health bill is unscientific scaremongering (News, last week). Evidence from Holland shows that decriminalising the sale of cannabis resulted in young Dutch people smoking less cannabis than young people in the UK. Danny Kushlick The Guardian - Drugs on prescription (05.12.02)Polly Toynbee outlines brilliantly why prohibition is the cause of many of the problems associated with illegal drug use. However, TDPI is not calling for "total decriminalisation of all drugs". Decriminalisation is usually used to describe the situation in Holland, Portugal, Spain and Italy where the police do not prosecute for possession of drugs, although the law remains on the statute books. The move to government regulation of production and supply is generally referred to as legalisation. This includes control of price and distribution. TDPI is calling for evidence-based implementation of policies that are the most effective in reducing harm to users and non-users. Given the dearth of evidence to support the effectiveness of prohibition, it seems only reasonable to evaluate the potential benefits of alternatives. Danny Kushlick The Observer - The drugs debate: where next? (22.07.01)The Police Foundation Report, Widdecombegate, the recent Channel 4 series and some excellent newspaper coverage have ratcheted up the drug law debate to a new level. It is a politically mainstream view to recognise prohibition as one of the great social policy disasters of the late 20th and 21st centuries. Public and media opinion are now way ahead of government policy and the time has come to remove the drugs issue from the criminal justice arena and put it into the social, health and cultural arena where it should always have been placed. We must not forget that drug misusers are a tiny minority of drug users and that the bulk of our social policy should be aimed at recreational rather than problematic use. It is crucial that we also remember what producer countries are suffering under the auspices of a drug war. Only the legalisation, control and regulation of production, supply and use of drugs will enable us to manage drugs and drug use effectively. It will take the political courage of senior politicians to admit the failure of prohibition and begin a wide ranging, open discussion as to what should replace the lunacy of drugs prohibition. Transform will be at the forefront of that discussion and will continue to support those who are prepared to take a stand for peace in the war on drugs. Danny Kushlick The Guardian - Tough challenge on drugs (05.07.01)In an otherwise excellent leader (July 4), you claim that "legalisation would increase addiction, offer fewer incentives to stop taking drugs, and multiply the damage that is already being wreaked". In fact much of the evidence points to the opposite. First, most drug misuse is related to social deprivation. Legalisation doesn't increase addiction; poverty does. In the Netherlands the average age of heroin users has risen to almost 40 and rises yearly. In the UK it is 26 and falling. Second, the main incentive to stop misusing drugs is the desire to lead a lifestyle that precludes being stoned. Third, the problem of drugs is compounded by their illegality: criminal behaviour to support a habit, demonisation of users and dealers, turf wars and the destruction of inner-city communities. Prohibition provides a smokescreen that we can hide behind or remove. It is no coincidence that the UK has the biggest income gap and the highest levels of drug misuse in Europe. Perhaps the social exclusion unit would like to comment on the government's failure to initiate a substantive debate on drug law reform. Danny Kushlick The Independent - Open Organisation (11.04.01)In an otherwise informative and balanced article, “The law up in smoke” (23 February), Transform is described as a “sinister wing of the pro-drugs lobby”. This is a slur on the organisation and individuals who work for and support the campaign. Transform is a well-respected and open organisation that is neither pro- nor anti-dugs We are in favour of a just and effective policy that reduces the harm associated with drug use and misuse. In our view, the perquisite for that is the legalisation, control and regulation of currently prohibited drugs. Transform is involved in discussions with policy makers nationally and internationally and our supporters include MPs, MEPs peers, doctors and senior police officers. Its patrons include the author Iain Banks, and the former Metropolitan Police drug squad Edward Ellison. The UK has the highest level of drug use in Europe and the harshest drug law enforcement. We spend billions on policing and yet drugs are cheaper than ever before. If the drug war is being won, we can see no evidence for it. Danny Kushlick The Observer - Drugs Abuse (13.02.00)It is time for New Labour and their drug tsar to put up or shut up (News, last week). Unsurprisingly it is police officers who are bearing the brunt of the failed policy. The question is not if, but when, the government admits it is throwing good money after bad and ‘brings its boys home'. Danny Kushlick The Guardian - Inject some sense into drugs debate (05.10.00)The brutal economics of the illegal drug market mean crop eradication efforts can never succeed. The vast profits to be made means that when crops are destroyed production simply moves. Since crop eradication began in Colombia (using powerful herbicides) tens of thousands of acres of coca crops have been destroyed, yet total cocaine production has increased threefold. The US has long used the "war on drugs" as a smokescreen for military agendas in South America (and elsewhere). It is deeply worrying that the UK and the UN have been drawn into this nasty business. Steve Rolles The Times - Drug tests for offenders (02.10.99)Sir, Tony Blair's plans form drug testing offenders (report, September 27) smacks of political opportunism rather the strategical policymaking. This initiative will server only to fill our prisons and undermine some excellent arrest referral schemes currently operating in police stations throughout the country. Even if we take the Prime Minister at his work and see this as an attempt to coerce people into treatment, it begs the question of where these new treatment options will come from. In many areas the waiting list for detox beds and rehab places are many months, and there are lengthy waits for substitute proscribing. Some offenders whose offending is related to their drug use will even, whilst on bail, opt to be locked up purely to gain some respite from their chaotic lives. Dependant drug users need and want treatment before they start offending, not threats to their liberty without even having been convicted. Yours sincerely The Guardian - How to deal with drugs (20.08.99)That Charles Kennedy's call for a royal commission has been slammed by both Labour and Tory parties is indicative of their political cowardice. A recent study in Holland showed that 2.5% of the population over the age of 12 had used cannabis in the last month, compared with 5.1% in the US. Dutch drug policy is far more successful than ours. The average age of heroin users in Holland is 39 and rising. In the UK it is 26 and falling. We can and should act now and we could do far worse than look to the Dutch as an example of best practice. Danny Kushlick The Times - Jack Straw's proposals for tackling drug-related crime (10.10.98)Sir, Your leading article “Labour's test”, criticises Jack Straw's plan for drug offenders for not addressing the supply side of the market. I have worked for a number of years with drug-using offenders on court orders and in prison. My experience is that those who want to make significant changes to their lives and to stop offending do so. Those who do not, continue to offend. Both groups do this regardless of the threat of imprisonment. The significant factor in determining a desire to change is the recognition that there is something worth changing for – that there is some hope. Change cannot be enforced by the criminal justice system, it comes from within. Most problematic drug use it related to unemployment, poverty and despair. My conclusion is that the only way to produce significant change for users and non-users is to legalise all drugs. Problematic users offend in order to pay the high price of illicit drugs. The high price of drugs is determined by a demand-led market with a limited supply set by organised crime. Crime associated with tobacco is negligible even though most users are dependant addicts. Politicians who talk about law and order should recognise that prohibition creates huge opportunities for organised crime. If they really want to reduce crime they should legalise and regulate the drugs market at the earliest opportunity. Yours sincerely, The Guardian - Making a hash of drugs at work (03.10.98)Your report (1 in 10 workers test positive from drugs, November 2) suggests that “drug abuse is prevalent among British workers”. The presence of illegal drugs in urine is no more an indicator of abuse that is the presence of alcohol on the breath. It is supremely important that employees, and those for whom they are responsible, are safe. However, someone who snorts cocaine on the way to work may test negative that same morning because cocaine takes time to metabolise in the system, while an employee who smoked cannabis tow days before, and who is totally unaffected, may test positive. A simple competence test will show impaired skills or judgment and a supportive personal policy will enable drug misusers to seek help. Drug testing in the workplace is intolerance of the lifestyle of illegal drug users, not a sincere strategy to increase workplace efficiency. Danny Kushlick The Guardian (14.09.96)With regard to the article about Veronica Guerin (Legacy Of A Muckraker, September 7), there would be no drug barons for anyone to fight if prohibition was ended. Prohibition automatically leads to a black market – and dirty business. Note that there is no violence associated with the tobacco trade, although most of their users are dependant addicts. Danny Kushlick
|
||
 |
||
|
||
|