Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
legalisation and wishful thinking
- Dr HC Raabe (10 November 2007)
-
Re: legalisation and wishful thinking
- Peter O'Loughlin, Beckenham BR3 3AT (11 November 2007)
-
Re: legalisation and wishful thinking
- Douglas G. J. McKechnie (11 November 2007)
-
Should drugs be decriminalised
- Martin S Schweiger (12 November 2007)
-
Legalise drugs
- Peter Bruggen (12 November 2007)
-
Decriminalisation stops the black market dead!
- Andrew Byrne (12 November 2007)
-
Legalisation is not an option
- Mary D Brett (12 November 2007)
-
Opportunity not threat.
- Alfred P J Lake (13 November 2007)
-
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Decriminalisation of Drugs
- Christopher McAloon (13 November 2007)
-
The pragmatic approach is the only one
- Eden Spenceley-Buckham (13 November 2007)
-
Legal regulation of drug markets is the rational evidenced based way forward
- Stephen A Rolles (13 November 2007)
-
Decriminalise - YES
- Roger L Weeks (14 November 2007)
-
Head to Head: Should drugs be legalised?
- Peter O'Loughlin, Beckenham BR3 3AT (15 November 2007)
-
Prohibition breeds crime and exacerbates drug problems
- Julian Buchanan (16 November 2007)
-
Lewis Carroll, but not Alice
- Neville W Goodman (16 November 2007)
-
Drugs and crime: the link is prohibition
- Stephen A Rolles (16 November 2007)
-
Legalisation and even more wishful thinking
- DR HC Raabe (17 November 2007)
-
Anything but decriminalisation
- Paul Fernandes (17 November 2007)
-
Should drugs be legalised?
- Peter O'Loughlin (17 November 2007)
-
round and round we go
- Stephen A Rolles (19 November 2007)
-
Legalise drugs.
- Alexander SD Spiers (19 November 2007)
-
Prohibitionists get it wrong
- Michael C Gormly (20 November 2007)
-
Should drugs be legalised?
- Peter O'Loughlin, Beckenham BR3 3AT (21 November 2007)
-
Quality of debate still lacking
- stephen black (22 November 2007)
-
We must try
- jagdeep S khahra, le56xs (25 November 2007)
-
Should drugs be decriminalised
- Ian Harris (26 November 2007)
-
Should drugs be legalised?
- Peter O'Loughlin (28 November 2007)
|
|
|||
|
Dr HC Raabe, Partington, Manchester M31 4FL
Send response to journal:
|
I am surprised by the wishful thinking expressed by Dr Chand. Legalisation of drugs would "rip the heart out of organised crime", according to him. However, currently, DVDs, CDs, computer programmes, playstations, watches, car spare parts, fridges, designer clothes, cigarettes, alcohol etc etc are all legal, yet there is a multi-billion pound trade in counterfeit goods by organised crime, estimated to be worth 5-7% (or more) of world trade. This criminal activity has never been "collapsed" by legalisation and neither will the criminal gangs involved in drug trafficking magically disappear once drugs have been legalised. To the contrary, they will "enjoy" an increased market! Joseph Califano mentions Sweden. Around 3 decades ago, Sweden adopted the goal to create a "drug-free society". The result is impressive with essentially the lowest rates of drug abuse in Europe, lower than for example the Netherlands and much lower than the UK. When has an evil ever gone away by tolerating or legalising it? Dr Chand seems to derive a lot of his evidence from Transform drug institute. Danny Kushlick, the Director of Transform is quoted in an article in the Guardian (11.3.98): "our objective is to legalise all drugs..." and: "we get funding from a Swiss billionaire; I can't give you his name". Perhaps this is not the most objective source of information on drugs? We need to recognise that those who fund advocates of drug legalisation are not simply philanthropists, but there are those who will benefit financially from the increase in the drug market resulting from legalisation. all, obviously, in my humble opinion. Competing interests: I believe that drug misuse is harmful and I have campaigned against the downgrading of cannabis. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter O'Loughlin, Principal The Eden Lodge Practice, Beckenham BR3 3AT
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Raabe has hit the nail right on the head, I would add the following. There is a lucrative black market in prescription drugs, there is no reason to suppose that the legalising of illicit drugs would not produce a similar situation. During the 1890s, cocaine, then a legal drug was eulogised by Freud and other luminaries of the day, as a 'cure' for numerous disorders, including morphine and alcohol addiction. The subsequent increased prescribing of it led to an epidemic of addiction which swept America and indeed reached these shores. Crime escalated as those who became addicted desperately sought funds to feed their addiction; in particular prostitution escalated.(1) In 1910 Firm and widespread evidence of the the effects of the influence of legalised cocaine on prostitution and crime was established in Canada(2) Dr. Chand's views, seemingly based on information from Transform, that legalising drugs, will eliminate crime and prostitution is somewhat reminscent of Alice in Wonderland's ' what I tell you three times is true' philosophy. Transform, together with a number of 'Drug Advisory Agencies', are desperate to sell the idea that legalising drugs would benefit everyone. Whether or not their 'anonymous' funder, a well known figure in financial circles, has considerable vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry, does not of course have any influence on their beliefs, no more than it did on Freud's so called papers wherein he praised cocaine as a 'wonder drug'. References 1 Consuming Habits: Goodman, j; et al: Drugs in History and Anthropology. London: Routledge, 1995. 2 Erickson, Patricia G. et al: The Steel Drug: Cocaine in Perspective, Lexington, Mass, Lexington books 1987. Competing interests: Drug and alcohol recovery counsellor. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Douglas G. J. McKechnie, Student Brentwood, Essex
Send response to journal:
|
Dr. Raabe's response brings up several pertinent points. However, it seems unlikely that a thriving black market in drugs would continue to exist if drugs were legalised. The underground trade in compact discs, DVDs, videos and software exits because the pirate copies are far cheaper than their legal counterparts. The cost of reproducing electronic media is negligible for the counterfeiters; this condition is not enjoyed by drug dealers. Legalised drugs would be far, far cheaper than their illegal counterparts, even after tax. Even the largest crime syndicates cannot compete effectively with the tobacco and alcohol companies. Given the choice between buying cheap, high-quality drugs from a licensed shop, and buying impure, likely costly drugs from a drug dealer, most, if not all, drug addicts would choose the former. Simply witness the almost comprehensive destruction of the illegal alcohol market in the United States after prohibition was repealed; legalising drugs would undercut drug dealer's prices, and take away a significant portion of the criminals' profits. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Martin S Schweiger, Consultant in Communicable Disease Control West Yorkshire Health Protection Unit, HPA Laboratory, Bridle Path, Leeds, LS15 7TR
Send response to journal:
|
Both Kailash Chand and Joseph Califano make some very powerful points. I believe that we need to find a way forward that brings all use of recreational drugs into the open so that it can be managed in the interests of those who are addicted and society as a whole. In June 2007 the Leeds Division of the BMA submitted the following motion to the Annual Representative Meeting: "This house recognises the immense level of ill health associated with substance misuse and calls on H M Government to radically reform the way recreational drugs are managed in the UK. An active programme that decriminalised recreational drugs and brought their sale and administration under the control of a division of the NHS would mitigate much of the harm currently being observed in drug users, their families and the wider community." If decriminalisation was simply allowed to be managed by market forces we be in serious trouble, but a properly managed and accountable drug service could make a significant difference. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Bruggen, retired psychiatrist 21 Mackeson Road, London, NW3 2LU
Send response to journal:
|
Since criminalisation of heroin started, I realised that all drugs should be legalised lest we get into a confrontation like that of the prohibition of alcohol in the USA. It has now got much worse. My professional life was working with adolescents and their families. Nothing that I saw suggested the slightest chance of any good coming from the policies of most western governments. At every step alienation and involvement with organised crime was facilitated, not least by giving to the dealers the trump card that adults continued to promote the legal consumption of the far more dangerous drugs, alcohol and tobacco. The unanimous report from the North Wales Police Authority for the government spells this out in thoughtful detail. You can see it on: http://www.nwalespa.org/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282- c6475cdb7ee7/Drugs%20Policy/Drugs%20Policy%20Paper%20R%2007.pdf Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew Byrne, Addictions physician 75 Redfern St, Redfern, New South Wales, Australia 2016
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Raabe is just wrong. Dr Chand has done his homework. The black market in legal enterprises which he quotes only forms a tiny fraction of the market, whether gambling, DVD’s, prostitution or alcohol. When these are made illegal 100% goes underground and is therefore untaxed, unregulated and potentially dangerous. Also, Sweden’s goal of a drug-free society has been a cruel hoax on its people. Read the official EMC figures from Lisbon: high rates of hepatitis C, enormous alcohol problems, amphetamines at higher rates than many other European countries. It’s approach has been repressive, expensive and largely ineffective. Along with the USA, Sweden is one of the last western countries without a needle services for drug users. This leads to HIV, bacterial infections and other preventable and costly burdens on the Swedes. Yours sincerely, Andrew Byrne .. http://www.redfernclinic.com/ Competing interests: Dr Byrne charges a fee for dispensing methadone and other drugs for addictions. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mary D Brett, Eurad (Europe against drugs) UK spokesman Retired biology teacher
Send response to journal:
|
Does Dr Chand think that drug dealers would become upright citizens overnight. They are criminals. They will simply find other ways of making money dishonestly. Even if drugs were legal they would not, I hope, be provided free. The chaotic lifestyle of many addicts makes them unemployable. How will they fund their habit? Making drugs pure doesn't make them safe. Apart from overdose, many drugs are responsible for violent behaviour, especially the stimulants like crack cocaine. A strong prevention campaign supported by the whole population can work. In 1979 the "Just say no" campaign started in the USA. By 1991 the 23 million drug users had been reduced to 14 million. Cocaine and cannabis use halved (1). Surveys at the time found over 70% of adolescents abstained from using cannabis because of fear of the physical or psychological damage, 60% due to parental disapproval and 40% because of the law (2). A similar survey in which my school took part, published in 2005 had similar findings (3). Prohibition of alcohol in the USA in many respects also worked. Consumption of alcohol dropped, cases of cirrhosis of the liver fell by over a third, alcohol-related divorce, delinquency and child neglect all fell by 50% and alcohol-induced psychosis plummeted (4). Prevention education, strong laws properly enforced, support and committment from the whole of society and a good dose of common sense is long overdue. 1. Report from North America by Rosenthal in Cannabis: Physiopathology, Epidemio;logy, Detection, Eds Nahas G, Latour C, CRC Press 1993 2. PRIDE (Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education), World Drug prevention Conference USA 1987. 3. Doctoral thesis on Drug Education Barry Twigg, Brunel University 2005. 4. Dublin LL, "Has Prohibition Improved the Public Health"? American Journal of Public Health 1928;(18): 1-14. Also Emerson H, "Has Prohibition Promoted the Public Health"? American Journal of Public health 1927; 17:1230-1234. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alfred P J Lake, Consultant in Anaesthesia and Pain Management Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl, LL18 5UJ.
Send response to journal:
|
I have to say I found the ‘head to head’ rather disappointing and the subsequent responses likewise. Of course, politicians, may be terrified of the rightwing press and many people may think that taking drugs is inherently wrong but that is no excuse for inertia when regulation and control of the drugs market would bring an end to the needless criminalisation of some of the most vulnerable members of our society and prohibition as a policy has failed with the effects of addiction clear for all to see. The medical profession has a duty to educate society about this as much as many other areas of social policy but so often fails or gives a mixed message. Social service programmes should, indeed, confront rather than ignore. Decriminalisation would allow addicts to be treated as patients, make effective treatment available to all who need it, provide support and help to get back into the jobs market and high standards of training for treatment providers can be established. Many wasted years have passed with those promoting such change going unheard meaning, sadly, that many more lives have been avoidably damaged or blighted without the authorities seeing the light. First, semantics are very important if sceptics are to be brought on board. Decriminalisation, not legalisation with the implication that the previous position was somehow wrong, simply recognises the necessity for change. Decriminalisation also concentrates the mind as to what the problem really is, not the addict with a habit who needs help, support and perhaps treatment but criminal activity in supply right down to the school gate and in obtaining money through theft to support the habit. We must remove organised crime as the supplier and protect future generations from this scourge. Once the criminal element is removed one can then see the wood from the trees and manage the situation effectively. Currently illegal drugs need to be cheaper (definitely not heavily taxed) and easier to obtain in safe form, properly regulated. All adult users of illegal drugs should be registered to enable them to obtain small personal supplies at low cost from ‘drugstores’ run by a government agency. Any other supplier or the holding of more than the weekly issue by the user would be subject to the appropriate severe punishment necessary to satisfy a public still sceptical about supporting such a development. Neither GP nor pharmacist are appropriate to be involved in such an initiative. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher McAloon, FY1 Medicine University Hopsital Birmingham
Send response to journal:
|
Should drugs be decriminalised? There are strong reasons on both sides of the argument. There are many issues that must be considered that go beyond the realms of the medical arguments of decriminalisation. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation stated the use of illegal drugs has increased over the last few decades from '1970 when there were approximately 5,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are between 280,000 and 500,000'.1 The link between illegal drug use and crime is well established. Much of the crime within our cities (muggings, burglary, assaults etc) is directly or indirectly linked to illegal drug use. Though on the opposite side of the argument is that if we did decriminalise illegal drugs the problems we currently have will not merely be swept under the carpet. Much of the evidence that Joseph Califano presents suggests that legalising drugs may increase the problem. Although restricting illegal drugs further like Sweden may decrease the current problems of illegal drug use. There are medical arguments for both cases in this argument. The legalisation of drugs decreases the health risks of illegal use; dangerous chemicals being mixed with the drugs by illegal suppliers to further there profit, also the risk taken when illegally using these drugs i.e. intravenous drug use and the risk of HIV and Hepatitis B. However these arguments do not shadow the fact that these illegal drugs whether taken safely or not are inhererently dangerous for our health, whether it be the risk of an overdose from taking heroin or the risk of developing pyschosis from prolonged cannbis use. All illegal drugs carry risk, hence the reason why they were made illegal in the first place. Both sides of the argumant have weight behind them, which makes it difficult to form a conclusion upon this debate. Though it is worth noting which neither author mentions is that even if legalisation took place that drug services have to improve. Whether leglisation takes place or not we need a srug treatment service. Recently the National Treatment agency released figures that demostrated that spending had increased upon drug services over the last few years, however those becoming addiction free had hardly changed in three years (5,759 drug-free three years ago and 5, 829 in 2006).2 Statistically this demonstrates that we are not succeeding at treating addiction. Though these statictics only highlight those that are addiction free and they do account for those that are stable and not illegally using drugs. The point is however that whether illegal drugs are decriminalised or not a drugs service is required to well funded and well staffed to get people eventually off drugs and this will not simply happen with the legilisation of drugs. 1. http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Introduction.htm 2.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7068572.stm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Eden Spenceley-Buckham, Therapeutic educationist Acorns Outreach, SR2 9AZ
Send response to journal:
|
I read the debate Should drugs be decriminalised? (BMJ 10 November 2007) with keen interest. Having spent over twenty years researching the illness of addiction and being an alcoholic in long-term recovery (twenty- four years), I now find myself treating others, a fair number of whom have been healthcare professionals (doctors and dentists). I have to educate them about the illness that they suffer from because they haven’t a clue. I must state at the outset that I come down on the side of Dr Kailash Chand for no other reason that he has argued from the pragmatic viewpoint. Putting it quite simply and logically, legislation as an experiment has been tried in various forms for almost a century and it just hasn’t worked. To persist with this hoping for a different result each time is the negation of scientific method and is no different from the addict’s daily but vain hope that somehow, tomorrow, all will be well. This, despite all experience to the contrary. The real problem is that addiction is almost universally misunderstood as Mr Califano has pointed out. He is on record as saying that “Although doctors and nurses have the best opportunity to intervene with alcoholics and substance abusers, our research indicates they are woefully inadequate of even diagnosing someone with this disease.” People cannot see beyond the chemicals. What is the alcoholic’s problem? Well, clearly booze. And the drug addict’s problem? Quite obviously heroin or crack or…well, you name it. No one seems to ask the really pertinent question: “Why do people use this stuff?” At our treatment agency we have the slogan, “It’s not the drugs; it’s the people.” Prof. Carlton Erickson, Director of the Addiction Science Research and Education Center at the University of Texas at Austin puts it this way, “The problem is not in the bottle, it’s in the brain.” Drugs are harmless; they can lie in their jars and bottles forever. The problem with drugs is that people take them. The best comment I ever heard was from another alcoholic who had been through the revolving door of countless detox regimes and who said, “They saw alcohol as my problem, but I saw it as the solution to my problems.” This is true for all chemical addictions (and other addictions too, in point of fact). Even Joseph Califano agrees: “…addiction is a complex physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual disease, not a moral failing…” Right on, Joe! The late Dr Vernon Johnson, who set up The Johnson Institute in the US points out that legislation has always failed, “…as if tougher laws and tighter enforcement can remove a deadly disease from our midst.” Addiction is a thinking illness; it is a seriously problematic mental condition and requires expert help in order to correct it. It is a nonsense to suggest that this can be achieved by passing laws. A parallel would be trying to legislate away diabetes or peanut allergy. And I might as well get it off my chest and say that detox is no more that a sticking- plaster on a deep-seated abscess. Psychological ‘surgery’ is the only answer. The pivot about which Mr Califano’s argument turns is that “Availability is the mother of use.” My response would be that decriminalisation is not the same as free availability. But even if legislation were to be miraculously successful and all illegal drugs were removed from the country, addicts would still be addicts and they would simply move on to the legal and freely-available, alcohol, a much more dangerous drug. If we stop and look around and apply what we at Acorns Outreach call The Acorns Normal Person Test (looking at the situation as if we were a dispassionate third person), we can see that we already live with legal drug-use, and on a pretty enormous scale at that. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stephen A Rolles, Information Officer for Transform Drug Policy Foundation Easton Business Center, Bristol, BS5OHE
Send response to journal:
|
I am broadly supportive of Dr Chands position and wish to respond to some of the doubters in the rapid response's above. Firstly, and with heavy heart, I must take issue with the insinuation from HC Raabe regarding the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (as we have been known since 2003), our funding and our integrity. Raabe uses a quote from 1998 - around the time when Transform was set up and we did indeed receive a small amount of seed money from an anonymous European Philanthropist (for a period of two years), who was anonymous even to us. The funding had no strings attached and to suggest we are somehow in the pay of Big Pharma is offensive and ridiculous. In 2003 Transform, already a limited company, became a registered charity and we are now funded by a range of charitable foundations (listed on our website) and a number of individual donors. Our accounts are published in line with charitable and companies law and are publicly available. For the record, the factual references given by Chand that are linked to Transform web pages are for information we quote from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (re: size of the drugs market) and the UK Home Office statistical bulletins (re: prison population and drug offenders). The BMJ should have linked directly to these official sources, not to Transform's Fact Research Guide (excellent as it may be). In my experience people tend to start with the name calling and getting personal and when they are losing the actual arguments. And so to the counter-argument's, as far as they go. Raabe observes there are illegal markets in products other than drugs, and from this deduces that the legalisation and regulation of currently illegal drugs would not eliminate these illegal markets. Obviously such a move would not get rid of illegal markets completely, but it would of course, get rid of most of it. The illicit market for tobacco (around 25%) in the UK is largely the result of The UK high regional taxes (where taxes are low illicit activity is minimal). The illicit market for alcohol in the UK is insignificant in % terms. It is the extraordinary profits created by prohibition and the illegal markets it creates that attract the violent gangsters who are now in control. For illicit drugs these markups often run to several 1000%, making low value processed agricultural products like heroin and cocaine worth, literally, more than their weight in gold. Legal markets would reduce the profit margins to more familiar and reasonable market levels, and the attraction to profiteers would dwindle correspondingly. To suggest, as Raabe does, that the illicit market opportunity would actually expand post prohibition shows a poor understanding of both economics and history. Violent and destructive illegal drug markets will not completely disappear post-prohibition but they will contract dramatically, representing an indisputable social benefit. The referencing of Sweden in several of the responses, as an example of how prohibition is effective, is misleading. Comparative analysis between various countries shows that there is no obvious correlation between the harshness of prohibition's enforcement locally and corresponding levels of use or misuse of drugs. Some countries with harsh enforcement policies (including, prominently the UK and US)have very high levels of use whilst other countries with very different policies, such as Greece, or more famously, The Netherlands, have low levels of use comparable to Sweden. (I have written about this in more detail in a recent issue of Druglink magazine (1)) An alternative theory, not predicated on a need to reinforce prohibitionist ideologies, is that levels of drug use are determined by a complex and highly localised interplay of multiple social, cultural, economic and demographic variables, and that government drug policies, specifically enforcement and prevention efforts, have, at best, only marginal impacts. Regards what will happen to all the criminals when drugs are legalised, this is a quote from a 'After the War on Drugs, Tools for the Debate', recently published by Transform, which I authored (2): "The Association of Chief Police Officers, in arguments to the Home Affairs Select Committee (2001) suggested it was absurd to think legalisation would cause drug gangs to just ‘fade into the night’. Obviously it is ridiculous to imagine they will all ‘go straight’ and get jobs in McDonalds, or selling flowers, but it is equally absurd to suggest they will all embark on some previously unimagined crime spree. Clearly the impacts will differ at the various levels of the criminal infrastructure and, since reforms will be phased over a number of years and not happen overnight, criminal drug infrastructures will experience a twilight period of diminishing profit opportunities. Undoubtedly some criminals will seek out new areas of illegal activity and it is realistic to expect that there may be increases in some areas, such as cyber-crime, extortion or other illicit trades (counterfeit goods etc.). However, crime is to a large extent a function of opportunity, and it is impossible to imagine that there is enough criminal opportunity to absorb the manpower currently operating an illicit drugs market with a turnover somewhere in the region of £300 billion pounds a year globally, or over £6 billion a year in the UK alone. Even if there is some diversion into other criminal activity, the big picture will undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall criminal activity. Getting rid of illegal drug markets is about reducing opportunities for crime. This concern is a curious one because it seems, when considered closely, to be advocating prohibition as a way of maintaining illegal drug empires so that organised criminals don’t have to change jobs. By contrast, from our perspective the argument is about removing the largest criminal opportunity on earth, not just from existing criminals but, significantly, from future generations of criminals. Ending prohibition holds the prospect of diverting millions of potential young drug producers, traffickers, and dealers from a life of crime." Effective legal regulation of drug production supply and use (which will vary for different drugs in different localities) is the rational public health and evidence based response to dealing with the reality of drugs in society, and to 40 years of prohibition in the modern era that has been desperately counterproductive on all meaningful measures. It in no way precludes public education about the dangers of drugs, encouraging healthy or drug free lifestyles, drug treatment for problem users, or effective prevention - indeed by freeing up budgets and removing political constraints it will actively can actively facilitate all of these. I will be responding separately to the Joseph Califano counter-point article. 1. http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/05/swedens-drug-policy- reality-check.html 2. http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Tools_For_The%20Debate.pdf Competing interests: I am Information Officer for Transform Drug Policy Foundation, and provided some support to Dr Chand with the factual references for his article. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roger L Weeks, GP 2 Deanhill Road London SW14 7DF
Send response to journal:
|
I found your attempt to create a debate on this important subject was let down by lack of evidence cited by both the proposer and particularly the opposer who clearly made no case for continued criminalisation. The idea that the availability of drugs creates addicts is rubbish and it is this false argument that supports the panoply of sanctions in place to support the present law. Most people would accept that Government's responsibility to its citizens is first to prevent the actions of some individuals harming others. Thus we have freedom to harm ourselves by smoking, drinking and eating too much but unless these habits lead to damage to other (as they may do in drink-driving) the law is indifferent and rightly so. Laws arbitrarily criminalising the ingestion of some substances are illogical and discriminatory. I am sure these laws are the fruits of legislators' moral judgements on drug taking and in no way meet the overarching criteria of prevention of harm to others. Another Government responsibility (in the same vein!)is to ensure that all available drug products are clean, relatively safe, licensed and strictly controlled. The existence of illegal drugs absolves Government from the responsibility of making sure that the drug addict's heroin is pure and fit to be injected. Thus the effects of the illegal filthy brown heroin, and the sharing of 'gear' by addicts in prisons (where there is still no needle exchange)is not anybody's responsibility because of illegality. Our heroin addicts (no different to others I'll bet)are a pretty docile lot who cause little mayhem compared to alcohol users but the harm caused to them: HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, cellulitis and death by overdose is caused by the illogical, uncaring ass of a law and is totally disproportionate to their 'crime' (sin?). I am surprised that there was very little compassion (just like the law) expressed for the plight of drug addicts in your articles as we actually can know a lot about why people become addicted to heroin (it is called listening) but the evidence is generally ignored and uncollected. Over the last 18 months in my practice we have been asking and listening to addicts to telling us their life stories (i.e. not, at this time, asking them direct questions) and recording and coding significant events. We have found, as we expected, (having read Thomas de Quincey's 'Confessions of an English Opium Eater' 1822 telling the story of his life and addiction) nearly all our addicts have had terrible, nay horrific childhood experiences and I now believe there is a very strong association between this and their becoming addicted to heroin. We also notice a significant number of patients with 'dual diagnosis' of significant mental illness much of which predates drug taking. It seems to me that rather than the UK spending �18 billion annually on maintaining the illegal drugs status-quo we should devote our efforts to setting just laws and also rescue addicts from the consequences of legalised societal neglect dressed up in a sanctimonious, self righteous law. We should also check and prevent the conditions ripe for the 'creation' of the next generation of addicts by helping families to love and care for (not just not abuse) their children and only use separation of children from their parents as a last resort. Competing interests: I run a service for heroin addicts in primary care paid for by the NHS |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter O'Loughlin, Principal The Eden Lodge Practice, Beckenham BR3 3AT
Send response to journal:
|
That there has been some interesting responses to this question is self evident. At the time of writing it would seem that there is a majority in favour of legalisng drugs, albeit with differing reasons. One in particular (Weeks) struck this writer as somewhat less than reasoned, inasmuch as the contributor stated 'that drugs cause addiction is rubbish'. Perhaps he would be kind enough to explain how addiction, arising from Benzodiazepines, alcohol,and nicotine, or any other psycho active drug for that matter, develops? If there is a common thread running through those in favour of legalising drugs, it is more by omission than contribution. I refer to the fact that not one of those in favour appear to be willing to acknowledge the following that took place when drugs such as cocaine and morphine were legal. 1. That there was an epidemec of addiction is a matter of historical fact.(1) 2. That crime and prostitution, and full jails arising from crime committed in order to fund the users need is also a matter of historical fact.(2) 3. That history has a habit of repeating itself because we decline to learn from its lessons, or (as the contributors seem to be) determined to ignore them, is generally accepted as fact. 4. The almost inevitabale outcome of availability and demand. In addition the claim that decriminilising drugs would reduce the crime rate,apart from reducing the number of traffickers and dealers, is largely unexplained. The majority of those in treatment and virtually all of those in prison for drug related offences, are there for their crimes arising from criminal activity to fund their habit, or for trafficking in drugs, rather than the use of drugs. This raises the question of how they would fund their habit if drugs were legalised? References. 1& 2 are contained in the writers original response. Competing interests: Drug and Alcohol adddiction recovery counsellor |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Julian Buchanan, Professor of Criminal & Community Justice University of Wales, NEWI, Social Inclusion Research Unit, Wrexham, LL11 2AW
Send response to journal:
|
Drug taking is a matter of personal choice and freedom - sensible and responsible drug choices should not be determined and aggressively enforced by the criminal justice system. When a person exercises their choice and freedom in such a way as to harm or effect others detrimentally the state should then take action against that person - not the drug. For example, if some people drive cars recklessly those people should be dealt with by the courts for their reckless behaviour - but it isn't an argument to make cars illegal! The vast majority of people in the UK use drugs for pleasure (caffeine, alcohol and tobacco in particular). A lot of people use illegal drugs in just the same way. But because possession and supply of these drugs are very serious offences it makes taking illegal drugs very risky. Paradoxically, some of the most dangerous risks arise from the illegal status of drugs, rather than from the substance itself - such as.. • Using adulterated drugs that could have been 'cut' with rat poison, brick dust or bleach – this is particularly risky if the drug is injected and could lead to death • Having constant uncertainty regarding the strength of the drug and thereby risking possible overdose • Mixing with a criminal underworld that could lead to exposure to more dangerous illicit drugs and other illegal activity • Having to administer the drug in secret, and possibly in dangerous, unsuitable and dirty places • Being afraid to seek help or advice, fearing stigma and marginalisation or even legal action • Engaging in a criminally-defined activity, risking a criminal record and possibly imprisonment. Professor Julian Buchanan Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Neville W Goodman, Consultant Anaesthetist Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB
Send response to journal:
|
Peter O'Loughlin is right to say that much of this debate seems based on the philosophy that ‘what I say three times is true’, but although the words are Lewis Carroll’s, they come from The Hunting of the Snark, not from Alice in Wonderland: Fit the First. THE LANDING. ``Just the place for a Snark!'' the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with care; Supporting each man on the top of the tide By a finger entwined in his hair. ``Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.'' Taken from http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/carrol03.html, accessed 16 Nov 2007 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stephen A Rolles, Information Officer, Transform Drug Policy Foundation Easton Business Center, Bristol BS5 )HE
Send response to journal:
|
In response to Peter O'Loughlin's previous post: Firstly to correct a direct misquote, Roger Weeks claims that 'The idea that the availability of drugs creates addicts is rubbish and it is this false argument that supports the panoply of sanctions in place to support the present law'. This is quite different from saying 'that drugs cause addiction is rubbish'. Weeks' point is very clear. Changes in availability do not determine levels of addiction, the causes of which has been clearly shown to be predominently related to scoio-economic variables such as poverty, unemployment, boredom, and lack of self esteem, combined with mental health problems, histories of abuse or being in care, having one or more drug/alcohol dependent parent, and so on (1). Only by addressing these underlying social problems can addiction be reduced in the longer term - it is not a problem that can be addressed by a criminal justice enforcement approach. If availability were the key determining factor then presumably most of the population would be regularly abusing solvents, available in every corner shop and garage forecourt. O'loughlin's comments about crime are mystifying. The reason that dependent heroin or crack users commit large volumes of crime (or prostitute themselves) to support their habits, but alcoholics do not, is simply to do with economics. An illegal heroin and/or crack habit can cost from between £30 to £100 a day or more. By contrast a few cans of special brew or a 3 litre bottle of strong cider can be obtained for a couple of pounds - easily raised through legitimate means. Similarly the millions addicted to nicotine and prescription drugs are committing no crime to support their habits. Further more when dependent users of heroin have the drug made available on a legal prescription their need to raise money, and related offending, falls dramatically. Similarly the millions addicted to nicotine and prescription benzodiazapines are committing no crime to support their habits. It is not hard to understand, and this experience is surely more relevant than Victorian Britain a century ago which can hardly be used as an example of how legally regulated markets might operate in the future. For a more detailed discussion of how drugs prohibition fuels crime at all scales please see this briefing from Transform (2) 1. 'Drugs and the Environment' 1997 Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2. http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Crime_DrugsandCrime- TheLinkisProhibition.htm Competing interests: I am Information Officer for Transform Drug Policy Foundation and provided some factual support for the references in Dr Chand's article |
|||
|
|
|||
|
DR HC Raabe, GP Partington, Manchester
Send response to journal:
|
I am afraid, some people on this forum have failed to do their homework. I cannot respond to all the comments made, but would like to re- emphasise my original point. Dr Chand claims that legalisation will "rip the heart out of organised crime". Mr Rolles states regarding legalisation that “Obviously such a move would not get rid of illegal markets completely, but it would of course, get rid of most of it.” – really? Let’s have a look at the facts, rather than focus on wishful thinking: Since 1982, the global trade in counterfeit illegitimate goods has increased from $5.5 billion to approximately $600 billion annually. Approximately 5%-7% of the world trade is in counterfeit goods. What is the value of the global drugs market? According to Transform website (and, obviously, they must be right...) , in the 2005 World Drugs Report the UNODC put the value at US$13bn at production level, $94bn at wholesale level and US$332bn based upon retail prices. The market in counterfeits of legal goods is therefore comparable to or perhaps even up to twice the size of the illicit drug market! Dr Byrne is therefore incorrect by stating that “The black market in legal enterprises … only forms a tiny fraction of the market,…” Overall, Mr Rolles makes a very well argued case for legalisation. Still, I have to disagree. I would like to apologise if my comments were understood as “name calling and getting personal”. I merely quoted Danny Kushlik from an article, without distorting what he said. I pointed out a conflict of interest. I am somewhat reassured by Mr Rolles comments. Lets look at some data regarding counterfeit prescription drugs, perhaps the closest analogy to what would happen if currently illegal drugs were legalised. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that counterfeit drugs account for ten percent of all pharmaceuticals. That number can rise to as high as 60% in developing countries. According to the WHO, 16% of counterfeit drugs contain the wrong ingredients, 17% contain incorrect amounts of the proper ingredients and 60% have no active ingredients whatsoever. In 2002, a New York County district attorney charged seven people and five companies in the US, China and India with selling counterfeit Viagra over the Internet. Undercover officers purchased over 25,000 pills. Some pills were smuggled into the U.S. in stereo speakers and stuffed toys. One supplier told the agents that he could supply 2.5 million tablets a month. It is claimed that once illicit drugs are legalised, people won't die of drugs anymore. Really? According to the Shenzhen Evening News (a Chinese government owned newspaper), approximately 192,000 people died in China in 2001 because of fake drugs. Since 2001, Johnson & Johnson has established 38 criminal cases against factories that copied its products in China. China is widely regarded as the world leader in terms of the manufacture and export of counterfeit products. Regarding the market in counterfeit goods, have a look at http://www.iacc.org/resources/IACC_WhitePaper.pdf What drives the market in counterfeit goods, such as counterfeit drugs? And what drives the market in illegal drugs above all? It is very simply the demand for these goods and for illegal drugs. This is why demand reduction (ie prevention) is the key to making an inroad into the drug problem. This is - in my view - the lesson we can learn from Sweden, even if some don't like the Swedish example. Nevertheless, I don’t have a problem with very specific and targeted harm-reduction schemes (including some mentioned in the rapid responses) as long as the overall focus of drug policy is on prevention. I would like to quote Theodore Dalrymple: “If the war against drugs is lost then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson and illegal parking. Few, if any wars are winnable. So let us do anything we choose” Again, the question needs to be asked: when has an evil ever gone away by tolerating or even legalising it? Competing interests: I - still - believe that drug misuse is harmful and I have campaigned against the downgrading of cannabis |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul Fernandes, SpR Anaesthetics Portsmouth Hospitals, PO5 3DE
Send response to journal:
|
I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. Both sides of the argument are compelling. What we do know is that the current drug laws do not work. Large elements of society are criminalised, lose their jobs and are forced into crime to fund their habit. Would you be so against addictive drugs if the users did not have to fund their habit by crime? If not, why not ban alcohol and smoking? Remember a pharmaceutical 30mg vial of diamorphine costs only £3 (BNF, March 2007). My only certainty is a middle ground, decriminalisation, helps only one group - the organised gangs who supply the drugs. It gives them more space to operate. Don't be fooled into thinking that decriminalisation means that instead of gangs, the drugs will be supplied by someone akin to your friendly postman. What is sure is that prohibition will continue as long as the alternative is political suicide - certainly as long as the general public are informed by popular alarmist media. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter O'Loughlin, Principal The Eden Lodge Practice
Send response to journal:
|
Once again Dr. Raabe has cut through the rhetoric and presented the facts. This writer woud also point out that deaths from medically prescribed methadone, a highly addictive drug in itself,and an ineffective treatment for heroin addiction is now being widely prescribed as a pain killer, to the extent that prescriptions for it in Nevada alone have doubled in the last 5 years as has the death rate from this drug. In 2006, it claimed 80 victims. The main problem appears to be the contra indicated interactions it has with other drugs including some anti depressants. It is also a well known fact that many of those on methadone prescription in the UK continue to use other drugs including cocaine, alcohol and cannabis. Whilst writing I apologise to Roger Weeks for misquoting him. Nevertheless the more availability there is of any product, the greater the usage. As can be seen from the example of methadone prescribing. Competing interests: Drug and Alcohol Addiction Recovery Counsellor. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stephen A Rolles, Information Officer for Transform Drug Policy Foundation Easton Business Center, Bristol, BS8OHE
Send response to journal:
|
DR Raabe suggests some of the posters have not done their homework. I suggest he has not thought through his maths. He says Dr Byrne is 'incorrect' in his claim that "The black market in legal enterprises … only forms a tiny fraction of the market,…" shortly after noting that "Approximately 5%-7% of the world trade is in counterfeit goods". Assuming this 5-7% statistic is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, at one-twentieth of legal enterprises this would come somewhere near an approximation of 'a tiny fraction'. Maybe 'a small fraction', but we shouldn't quibble. His misunderstanding is compounded where he claims that "The market in counterfeits of legal goods is therefore comparable to or perhaps even up to twice the size of the illicit drug market!" This may well be true in absolute value terms, but by his own observations, a completely inappropriate comparison in percentage terms regards legality. Counterfeits represent 5%-7% of the total market for their respective goods, whereas illegal drugs represent 100%. There is a marked and dramatic difference here. My point, clearly made in the last posting, is that moves to legal regulation would get rid of most of the illicit activity, but probably not all of it. Let's hypothesise that a comparable amount of illicit drug market activity remains post legalisation and regulation of drugs, to that of counterfeit goods, say 5-7%. (I'm not sure how comparable the markets are but anyway..) This still represents 93-95% of the criminal drugs trade (if we accept the UN figures, representing a turnover of $300+ billion a year) being brought within the legal sphere, leaving an illegal market now worth something around $20 billion, down from $300+. This is back of the matchbox stuff, but i hope the point is clear: whatever the exact figures it is a massive contraction in opportunities for criminal profiteering in dangerous drugs. The suggestion that legalisation would not get rid of illegal activity/opportunity does not bear scrutinty and makes no sense. Dr Raabe says: 'It is claimed that once illicit drugs are legalised, people won't die of drugs anymore.' I have read through the original article and posts and no one makes such a claim. Indeed it would be ludicrous. The argument, again clearly made, is that harm maximising effects of illicit production (unknown strength and purity, lack of does/health/safety info) and illicit use (fostering high risk behaviours like injecting and needle sharing in high risk environments) would be removed under a legally regulated model. Risk associated with use would be reduced, not eliminated. DR Raabe quotes Theodore Dalrymple: “If the war against drugs is lost then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson and illegal parking. Few, if any wars are winnable. So let us do anything we choose” How many times is this absurd argument going to be raised? To suggest that there is some moral equivalence between consenting adult drug use and rape, murder or incest is completely bizarre and shows a poor understanding of law. Drinkers down your local pub, or in the House of Commons' 14 bars might take offens, and rightly so. The concept of consenting adults having autonomy over their own bodies (and minds) and over their own risk taking behaviours/decisions are deeply rooted in our legal systems. All manner of risky activities that involve personal risk or self harm are legal (albeit discouraged through sensible regulation and public health education) from unhealthy eating, dangerous sports and unsafe sex. Indeed this applies all the way up to suicide, legalised in the 60s. The criminality associated with harming a third party (including if intoxicated) is similarly and rightly enshrined in criminal law - no one in this debate is suggesting otherwise. The conflation of rape and murder with drug use is preposterous. Finally with reference to DR Raabes final rhetorical question: 'when has an evil ever gone away by tolerating or even legalising it?', I hope that, as scientists, discussing the pragmatic realities of public health policy in a medical journal, we can move beyond medieval concepts like 'evil'. Its just not helpful in the modern world. Competing interests: see above |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alexander SD Spiers, Professor of Medicine (Retired) N/A
Send response to journal:
|
Both Dr. Chand and Dr. Califano make reasoned arguments and raise some very strong points, but I think that Dr. Chand makes the better case: drugs that are currently illicit should be legalised. Making an activity or practice illegal never eliminates it, even when legal penalties are draconian. Thus we still have, and will continue to have, theft, forgery, arson, prostitution, kidnapping and murder and the illicit use of drugs is burgeoning. Consider the tragic history of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. This absurd piece of legislation was brought about with the best of intentions (!) and had disastrous results that are still with us. A huge criminal industry grew up to promote the production, smuggling, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. Matters of turf led to gang warfare and numerous murders. Huge numbers of honest citizens became technically criminals because they continued to drink alcohol. There is no evidence that drunkenness and the other evils associated with alcohol were minimised by Prohibition. Meanwhile, criminal organisations made huge fortunes. Worse still, the more intelligent criminals invested millions in legitimate businesses, so when Prohibition was repealed they continued to prosper. The activity of criminal organisations that initially flourished by providing illicit alcohol is still with us today. Vast fortunes have been made in the illicit drug trade,and much of this money is now invested in businesses that are not illegal. If illicit drugs were decriminalised, the government could control their marketing and fix their prices at a fraction of their current cost on the street. This would be a very serious financial setback for the drug traffickers. Further,the sale of drugs by nongovernmental dealers should remain illegal, so illicit dealers would see their profits shrink dramatically while the risks they ran would not diminish at all. There is no reason to believe that ready availability of recreational drugs at reasonable prices would inevitably increase their consumption. Indeed, if the supposed glamour of illegality were removed, drug use would likely decrease. The crimes that drug addicts commit to fund their drug-taking would decrease sharply. Instead of chasing addicts, the police could concentrate on more serious crimes, particularly those of violence. Most importantly, unfortunate individuals who are addicted to drugs would cease to be criminals and would be treated as patients who require counselling and rehabilitation. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael C Gormly, Graphic Designer Sydney Australia 2001
Send response to journal:
|
The arguments of Dr Raabe and Peter O'Loughlin, while better than most prohibitionist positions, still betray a lack of knowledge of the drug trade. To compare drug supply, legal or otherwise, to the pirate DVD trade misses the point. That trade work because anyone can copy the material, the risk is low, and the selling price can be far less than the legal retail price. Dropping the price of recreational drugs to the level of licit drugs would force drug supply chains to drop their prices accordingly. This would remove most of the incentive as the manufacture and supply requires a lot more than a home pc and often entails complicated importation routes. This trade would still be illegal and therefore very risky. It also depends on an unbroken chain of dealers from the grower/manufacturer to the consumer. At the consumer end much of the smalltime dealing would stop because consumers would be able to get guaranteed quality goods, legally, for low prices. Why buy from the crooks? And these people would not need to deal to get their own supplies. The illegal trade in pharmaceuticals is itself largely driven by prohibition -- where I live, 40% of injections in our local supervised medical centre are for heroin and 35% for pharmaceuticals, often bought because heroin is harder to get due to its irregular supply chain. If these people could get heroin at a reasonable price, the demand for pharmaceuticals would wither. So the argument about prescription drugs is to some extent circular. One point not covered in the original article is the possibility of rationing -- as in Amsterdam where customers are limited to 5g of cannabis each purchase. Also powders would be available through pharmacies and similarly rationed. Anyone purchasing above a certain frequency would be required to see a doctor and get a prescription, thus ensuring that addicts were receiving care. As for the argument that you shouldn't legalise something that is evil, it's a matter of opinion what's evil. I think cars are evil, I hate football (look at the associated damage!!) and I know that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. Should we ban the lot? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter O'Loughlin, Principal The Eden Lodge Practice, Beckenham BR3 3AT
Send response to journal:
|
May I point out to Michael Gormley, (Rapid responses 21.11.07) that I am not a prohibitionist. On the contrary, I have no quarrel with anyone who chooses to use any addictive substance, including alcohol and nicotine, providing that they are willing and able, to fund their choices from their own legitimate rescources; and that any changes in personality, brain function, or behaviour does not impose a burden on others. My views that the greater the availability of psycho active drugs lead to increased use and subsequently increased addiction are based on the daily experience I have acquired over a considerable number of years, seeking to assist those who are unfortunate enough to have become addicted, and where appropriate, their loved ones, towards recovery from the mental, physical and spiritual devastation that is the outcome of addiction. Based on that knowledge and experience, together with the facts of history, I have no doubt that legalising drugs will lead to increased availability and addiction. Competing interests: Addictions recovery counsellor |
|||
|
|
|||
|
stephen black, management consultant london sw1w 9sr
Send response to journal:
|
I'm surprised the prohibitionists have not put up a better argument, but the original views and the responses--especially the prohibitionist ones--leave a lot to be desired. Peter O'Loughlin argues that Dr Raabe has "cut through the rhetoric and presented the facts" when he had, in reality, quoted a bunch of irrelevant facts about illegal trade that actually seem to make the opposite point to the one he intends (illegal trade in legal goods is a small proportion of total trade even according to his numbers). The attractiveness of an argument based on such poor evidence doesn't suggest that prohibitionists arrive at their position by reason. O'Loughrin also argues that the evidence shows that availability drives consumption and therefore "legalising" would be a bad policy. This works in logic but is often rebutted by reality. An example: Alcohol consumption in pubs is slightly down compared to before "24 hr drinking" and beer consumption is at a record low (at least since the 1930s). More relevant to illegal drugs are experiments about "medicalising" the problem (so we don't sell heroin in your local chemist but only in a medically supervised environment). Experiments with supervised "shooting galleries" in Switzerland (and the early results from the UK) suggest that this form of availability lowers the number of new addicts and lowers consumption. The other critical argument ignored by Raabe and O'Loughrin is whether legal-but-government-controlled is worse for availablity than illegal-and-criminal-controlled. Availability is very high now: it could actually be lower if the right model of decriminalisation were adopted. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
jagdeep S khahra, retired 29 yelverton avenue leicester, le56xs
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Chand has has raised very pertinent points in favour of legalising drugs. Clearly the criminilisation has totally failed to help and the problem of drug addition and all other related ills are on the increase. Just continuing with the same policies with almost religious fervour is not helping either the society at large or the victims of drug addiction. Dr Raabe is wrong when he gives the example of illegal trade in DVDs etc. The trade in illegal DVDs etc thrives because they can be produced very cheaply as compared to the legal trade whereas the prime mover in the illegal drug trade is very high drug prices. The criminal drug mafia cannot afford to trade in drugs the same way as cheap DVDs. There are people who oppose legalising the drugs on the ground that we should put our energies and money in waging a compaign (educational and moral) against drug use. To these people I say that the two are not mutually exclusive. With legalised, regulated drug use we will have more resources and it will be comparatively easy to identify the target audiences of any compaign we launch. After all legal smoking has not stopped us waging a compaign against it. One of the reasons given for sending our armies to Afghanistan was the destruction of poppy fields there. We could save so many lives and use the resources for rehabilitation and education of drug addicts at home. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ian Harris, Chairperson RM10 8SP
Send response to journal:
|
I find myself agreeing with Mr. Steven Rolles in the responses which I have read. In Vienna this coming March 2008, will be the 'evaluation' of the 'Ten year Drug Strategy', and we have all had chance to read what some of the available evidence has to say about drug-policy. The Cantania Report, states more european citizens suffer from 'prohibition' than the actual drugs themselves. The Report was put before the E.P in Deember 2004. The Senlis Council, comes to similiar findings as Transform. However, at this moment in time the matter of what constitutes 'civil society' is of concern to many of us. The 'evaluation' was to be 'transparent' and to involve NGO's and other actors including consumers of the drugs. Is this the case, are the talks 'transparent'? Is it inclusive of civil-society? Ian Harris (Mr.)
Competing interests: Chair Of REFORM DrugPolicyInterestGroup REFORM is a NGO member of ENCOD |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter O'Loughlin, Principal Beckenham BR3 3AT
Send response to journal:
|
For those correspondents who consider that it is 'rubbish' to equate availability with harm and addiction, and for those who consider 'restrictions' cause more problems than legalisation, I suggest that they study the evidence based report from Australia on alcohol, (one of our more dangerous drugs) where the links and supporting evidence are clearly documented. Competing interests: Addictions recovery specialist |
|||