Policy > Published Articles > Head to Head Debate

Head to Head Debate - Legalisation: Edward Ellison v Mrs Janet Betts
The Guardian Newspaper, January 31, 1998


Dear Janet (Betts)

Little has changed since the tragic death of your daughter. Ecstasy is still widely produced and sold. Adult intolerance and youthful ignorance combine to produce more deaths.

We both argue for a society, young and old, relying little on any drug use. We try to break barriers of ignorance and criminality to educate and support our youngsters. We abhor importers, producers and distributors of "Ecstasy" who take advantage of current policy to make indecent profits producing a commodity randomly dangerous in its inconsistency.

Then we disagree. You suggest the law discourages use. I see little evidence to support that. What the law clearly does is to create a climate of illegality where the commercial production of "Ecstasy" is prohibited and production is driven underground. It thereby prevents any social or market control, it exposes the user to fluctuating strength and quality and guarantees flourishing criminal profits.

This illegality forms a barrier to education and support and though we seek to combat the use of "Ecstasy" - only maturity succeeds. Meanwhile we continue to drive the young away from both the helping agencies and their parents, create an added frisson of excitement by their illegal venture and ensure disrespect for the law.
If I believed that the current twin policies of prevention and education had a chance of success, I would not suggest change. The criminal law actually prevents any real chance of success in education and support. You yourself know exactly which venues to visit this weekend to demonstrate the failure of the current policy.
Yours sincerely
Eddie Ellison

Dear Eddie Ellison,

I think the word 'former' in your title says it all, for you are ten years out of date. Kids don't take 'E' for the 'buzz' of doing something illegal but because they enjoy the feeling it gives them. There are few deaths and the only message they hear is --- "This will give you a good time." Make Ecstacy legal, and you will add to that message the clear cry of "The Governments made it legal, therefore it's safe." Quality control will never make Ecstacy a safe drug. The pure drug is neurotoxic. The short- and long-term effects are horrendous, never mind the deaths. Legalise and the profit makers simply change name: pharmaceutical companies producing and analysing, retail outlets distributing, and taxes going to the Government, just like they do with alcohol and tobacco, two of our biggest problems.

Dealers won't disappear, the money is too big; they will simply become legal businessmen with more socially acceptable titles. Illegality is no longer a barrier to education and support. Kids are quite open about what they do. What drives them away is the naivete of parents, and drug agencies who can only quote harm-reduction advice, when what they seek is positive and constructive guidance. Respect for the law will only return if the law enforcement agencies are seen to be using their powers to the full.

So you're wrong! Things have changed since Leah's death. But the situation will not be helped by a law-enforcer admitting defeat.
Yours sincerely,
Janet


Dear Janet

Do you really seek a country where "law enforcement agencies use their powers to the full - blindly endorsed by the judiciary". We inhabit a civilised, tolerant society proud of a long history of "policing by consent".
The law can play a limited role in positive and constructive guidance to the individual where the transgressing individual is the sole potential victim (seat belts, crash helmets). It has historically failed when seen as unjustified by its specific targets and when society’s compassion, education and support have been seen as superior (abortion, suicide, homosexuality). The prelude to alternative strategy is consistently a police emphasis towards cautioning, multi-agency support and by the judiciary’s enlightened compassion to the real victim. Sensitive policing acts as a barometer of society.

There are no safe drugs, by they legal, illegal or prescribed - it is all a matter of degree. You were within a letter of accuracy - "The Government’s made it legal - therefore it’s safer". You were only missing an "r". "R" for responsibility of parents, church, Government and of youth itself to identify the personal reality of drug use. What will not work is the "r" of repression or labelling youth’s personal responsibility criminal.

It may be convenient to pass responsibility for a child’s drug use to law enforcement but police are anything but omni-present in a child’s life - they cannot fulfil the responsibility you seek to unload. If every child had a law enforcing, knowledgable policemen for a Dad, they would still make up their own minds. That independence of thought and personal responsibility is precisely how we measure growing maturity in our youth.
Eddie Ellison


Dear Eddie

Your message of 'legalise' is simply passing the buck, the situation which my husband has been only too aware of during his police career. This method is the cheaper option, and at the end of the day you can walk away with a clear conscience, having passed the accountability back to individuals desperately trying to sort out mixed messages. What you may have seen as a failure during your career has now actually swung around and is beginning to work. I agree that 'every child with a law-enforcing knowledgable policeman for a Dad will still make up their own minds' and that was our biggest mistake.

When Leah died, we were not truly knowledgable. In the last two years, we have had an education into a world most parents know nothing about. Read what I said! I don't want a police state, I want the legal system to support agencies who bring the dealers and the manufacturers to justice. Not the users. Abortion, suicide and homosexuality are moral issues; an individual's informed choice. Seat belts, crash helmets --- and drugs --- are safety issues and the user will ultimately be the victim. So positive and constructive guidance is needed, not only from the law but from all the agencies involved in this field.

To me 'r' stands for reality. The reality is that no amount of quality control can ever make a drug safer to take. Neither legalisation, nor quality control, worked with tobacco did they?
Yours,
Janet


Dear Janet,
I agree that users are clearly not criminals and should neither be categorised nor treated as such. The weapons of awareness, support, education and guidance that underpin your voluntary group’s activities are precisely those with potential for society.

I’m reassured that you say ‘Not the users’, but your position is tenable only by legalising possession. You can’t have it both ways. The law you support allows no degree of innocence between Leah and manufacturer, differing only in penalty.

I equally deplore the criminal production of any drug, with its associated profits and spin-off crimes. It is simply impossible to legalise possession and not supply without transgressing the law of economics. To tolerate users whilst leaving supply illegal guarantees greater criminal profits and lack of social controls.
Quality control obviously delivers a greater degree of safety, be it food, tobacco, approved drugs or even the provision of sporting activities.

The necessary debate is not E-specific but encompasses all illegal drugs. We both continue to commit ourselves to this topic because we continue to care. Unlike the legislature, we fear the debate less than the consequences of complacency. Our "former" experiences give us no authority, providing only a continuing responsibility to contribute.
Eddie Ellison

Dear Eddie,

All profiteering and dealing in Ecstacy must be prevented: underground or otherwise. Possession should not be legalised but 'penalties' modified. Most users are innocent of the dangers of Ecstacy; the law must be there to protect them --- that is the purpose of a law! Compulsory counselling and guidance is what they need, not imprisonment, "for they know not what they do!".

The 'Bible' of medics (the BNF) states: Amphetamines (Ecstacy) " ... their use should be discouraged as they may cause dependence and psychotic states."

I repeat; legalising sends out the message "It's safe to use," it encourages. "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel.", a quote from the Hippocratic oath, which we should all swear to. Leah committed a criminal act; and like all criminals she had to pay. Unfortunately her sentence was dictated by fate rather than common sense!
Yours
Janet