Debate the balance of harm

doi:10.1136/bmj.39402.509826.BE

BMJ 2007;335:1060-1061 (24 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.39402.509826.BE

Letters

Should drugs be decriminalised?

Debate the balance of harm

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Any resolution of the debate should focus on the balance ofharm.¹ ² But neither side has defined what evidence could orshould be brought to bear on this. Here are two areas wherea clearer focus on evidence might move the debate forward.

Clearly, being addicted to a drug is harmful, but would it bemore harmful if the person could access constant strength puredrugs? Do heroin addicts die from the side effects of heroinor from the contaminants, dirty needles, criminal activity,and lifestyle? I don't know, but I have never seen figures onmortality of long term users of pure heroin, and liberalisersneed to use this evidence to make a clear case.

If drugs are decriminalised, the number of users could possiblyincrease. The balance of harm to society here depends on twofactors—the increase in harm to addicts and the reductionof crime associated with . . . [Full text of this article]

Stephen Black, management consultant

London SW1 9SR

stephen.black@paconsulting.com