Readers of this blog will be familiar with the arguments it presents but the piece also quotes a typical police argument for prohibition: "Class A drugs destroy the fabric of people’s lives," said Detective Superintendent Paul Carter of Cumbria Police, who is most likely an honest hardworking copper.
But add a few words to his statement and it becomes a lot more accurate and insightful.
If he had said "Class A drugs destroy the fabric of a few people’s lives under prohibition," it would reflect the fact that by far the majority of such users (including at one time George W Bush and Barack Obama) have no problems at all with Class A drugs. It would also acknowledge that prohibition is not preventing the damage that does occur, and is in fact acutely aggravating it.
The next argument in the prohibitionist bible is that reforming prohibition would create a 'tsunami of drug abuse'. They have no credible evidence for this but they still say it. I here repeat my usual response to this: If heroin was conditionally available legally, would you start shooting up? I wouldn't, and so-far everyone I have asked has given the same answer. Try asking people you meet. As the 'no' answers mount up, ask yourself where this 'tsunami of drug abuse' would actually come from.
We tend to forget that prior to prohibition, opiate and cocaine addicts were not looked down on and went about life like everyone else. They simply went to their doctor who gave them a prescription for whatever drug they were addicted to. Most addicts quit after 2-5 years when they were psychologically ready. There was basically no drug crime, no dealers, no drug related violence and very few problems. Vastly different to today where drug use and addiction are no longer treated as medical issues.
ReplyDelete