Transform debates Nixon Drug Tsar on BBC World Service

I had a great opportunity today to discuss global drug policy on the BBC World Service (broadcast internationally) with Dr Robert Dupont, the first director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the second US Drug Tsar from 1973 to 1977 under former presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. It was a refreshing change to have a decent amount of time to talk through some of the issues around drug policy reform in a little more detail - the segment on the Newshour show was 25 minutes, presented by Mary Ann Sieghart

You can listen to the discussion online here (for the next 7 days), beginning around the 26 minute point.

I had a brief chat with Robert afterwards (he was phoning from the US). He congratulated me on doing a 'great job' (on the show) and was very interested in beginning a dialogue, giving me his email. I've promised to send him a copy of the new Transform publication 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'; it'll be interesting to hear what he thinks.

Transform's 'Blueprint for Regulation' discussed on CNN international

Last week's launch of Transform's new book 'After the War on Drugs; Blueprint for Regulation' has received a large volume of high quality media coverage in the UK (see here) and Internationally (a full round up will be posted tomorrow along with detail of the US, Australia and Mexico launch events).

This week Steve Rolles was invited onto CNN international show Connect the world , to discuss the new book in the 'connector of the day' slot (it is broadcast to 200 million households although what that means in terms of actual viewers isn't clear, although going by the spike in web hits presumably lots). The clip below unfortunately does not include the 90 second trailer film that outlined the arguments in the book and introduced Transform and the author.

The Connect the day blog post for the slot also attracted, at time of writing, 210 posts, overwhelmingly supportive of the Transform position, and gratifyingly more than the levels of interest that the blog normally pulls in for the more usual showbiz guests .

Transform discuss new book on BBC's Today Programme

On Saturday Steve Rolles appeared on BBC Radio 4's flagship current affairs show, the Today programme, to discuss drugs policy reform, specifically Transform's new book 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' (launched last week). Interviewed by John Humphrys, Steve was joined by Tom Wainright from the Economist. You can listen to the audio on the BBC Today website here.

Other media coverage of 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'

• CNN Connect the World (Global) 17.11.09
  Interview with Steve Rolles(video)
  CNN Connect the world blog (200 comments)
  

• ABC News (Australia) 16.11.09
  Ex-Minister Backs Illegal Drugs Regulation

• Late Night Live with Philip Adams (ABC Australia) 22 min audio. 16.11.09
  After the War on Drugs (interview with Steve Rolles and Deborah Small)
  

• Associated Press 13.11.09 (US) - Picked up by around 20 local and regional news outlets
  Advocates Against War on Drugs working on options

• The Economist 13.11.09
  Drugs - virtually legal

• The Daily Record 13.11.09 (Scotland) News piece
  Legalise drugs and Save Scotland £2biillion a year

• The Daily Record 13.11.09 (Scotland) Favourable editorial
  Time is Right for Drugs Debate

• BBC news 12.11.09
  Sell drugs in shops - think tank
  
  
• Sue Blackmore on the Guardian CiF 12.11.09
  The jaw-jaw after the War on Drugs
  
  
• Reason magazine 12.11.09
  A Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy for Opium Dens
  

• Johann Hari in the Independent 11.11.09
  Accept the facts - and end this futile war on drugs
  
  
• Johann Hari on The Huffington post 11.11.09 (same as Independent article above)
  Face the Facts and end the War on Drugs
  
  
• Sunday People 08.11.09
  Not as Nutty as you think
  

• Sunday Times o8.11.09
  Lord McCluskey calls for drugs to be legalised
  
  
• Sky News 03.11.09
  Sacking may boost drug legalisation drive
  
  
• Reuters - The Great Debate 03.10.09
  Fresh thinking in the war on drugs

pic: the Guardian

Landmark book shows how to legalise and regulate drugs

UK Parliamentary launch of 'Blueprint for Regulation'
Grannd Committee room, House of Commons

Blueprint launch press release

Transform Drug Policy Foundation today launched the internationally groundbreaking new book 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation', at 11.15am GMT, 12th November 2009, in the Grand Committee Room, House of Commons. It will also be launched in the US (see below for details), mainland Europe, Central and South Americas, Australasia and Asia.

Full text pdf download available here

For the first time anywhere, ‘Blueprint’ provides a detailed roadmap showing how to legally regulate all currently prohibited drugs by proposing specific models of regulation for each type, coupled with the principles and rationale for doing so. These include doctors’ prescriptions, pharmacy sales, licensed premises and off-license sales.

Speakers at the House of Commons include: Ms. Robin Gorna, (Executive Director, International AIDS Society), Professor Rod Morgan (former Chair, Youth Justice Board) and Dr Ben Goldacre (Guardian ‘Bad Science’ Columnist).

There is growing recognition globally that the prohibition of drugs is a counterproductive failure. However, a major barrier to drug law reform has been fear of the unknown – what could a post-prohibition regime look like? In answering that question, Blueprint demonstrates that legally regulating drugs is not a step into the unknown, but a tried and tested approach to control drug production, supply and use.

Transform Head of Research and the book’s author, Steve Rolles said:

“Like it or not, drugs are here to stay, so we have a choice - either criminals control them, or governments do. By the cautious implementation of a legally regulated regime, we can control products, prices, vendors, outlets, availability, and using environments through a range of regulatory models, depending on the nature of the drug, and evidence of what works. Under prohibition we have no control whatsoever, the consequences of which have been disastrous.”

“Governments that ignore the evidence and maintain the failing status quo are being negligent, reckless and irresponsible. With the regulatory systems proposed in this book now available, national and international policy makers must conduct comprehensive Impact Assessments to count the costs and benefits of prohibition, and compare them with legally regulated control. At the least, this will enable government and taxpayers to assess how well scarce resources are being spent. At best, it will trigger a genuine debate on alternatives to the futile war on drugs, leading to the replacement of prohibition with an effective, just and humane system of legal regulation.”

Craig McClure, former Executive Director of the International AIDS Society and author of the book’s foreword said:

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to show that criminalising drugs has led to a dramatic increase in drug-related harms, and that controlling and regulating their production and distribution would go a long way towards reducing those harms. A range of Latin American governments have already moved, or are moving, towards decriminalisation of drug possession and are shifting to a public health model to prevent and treat misuse of drugs. They are no longer able to tolerate the damage done to their societies by the War on Drugs.


“This is not a radical book. In fact, it is the prohibitionist model that is radical, being based exclusively on a moral judgment against drug use and drug users, and not on an evidence-based approach to reducing drug-related harms. Underscoring a century of prohibitionist policy is a deep-seated fear that moving from prohibition to a regulatory approach will lead to a ‘free-for-all’ situation. ‘Blueprint’ outlines clearly that this fear is irrational, and that reform of any kind will be vastly superior to the status quo.”


“‘Blueprint’ envisages a world in which non-medical drug supply and use is addressed through the right blend of compassion, pragmatism, and evidence-based interventions focused on improving public health. These have been missing from the debate for too long. The time for change in global drug policy is long overdue. Nothing less than the future health of individuals, families, communities and societies is at stake.”

Professor Rod Morgan former Chair of the Youth Justice Board said:

"Much of what we call the drug problem is caused by the fact that prohibition gifts the market to criminals. Government regulation and control would help stabilise transit and producer countries, significantly reduce property crime and the prison population, improve the wellbeing of drug users and their families, protect young people and vulnerable communities and save billions of pounds that could be spent on dealing with the root causes of problematic drug use."

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

US Launch: US press conference with panel and Q&A at the Drug Policy Alliance Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 12 November 2009, 11:00 hours MST. Audio line for journalists available. call UK 0117941 5810 for deatils

Transform launch new guide to legal regulation of drugs

Transform is pleased to announce that our latest publication, 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' will be launched at an event in the House of Commons on November the 12th, with simultaneous launches taking place in the US (at the Drug Policy Alliance conference in Albuquerque), Australia and Mexico. December will see further launch events in Brazil and the EU parliament.

Now available online as a pdf download

There is a growing recognition around the world that the prohibition of drugs is a counterproductive failure. However, a major barrier to drug law reform has been a widespread fear of the unknown—just what could a post-prohibition regime look like?

For the first time, ‘After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation’ answers that question by proposing specific models of regulation for each main type and preparation of prohibited drug, coupled with the principles and rationale for doing so.

We demonstrate that moving to the legal regulation of drugs is not an unthinkable, politically impossible step in the dark, but a sensible, pragmatic approach to control drug production, supply and use.

• Hardback copies are also available. Exec summaries are available in print and pdf format in English, Portuguese and Spanish.
• UK and international media contact: UK 0117 9415810
• For more coverage follow Transform Twitter
  

Media coverage (updated 13.11.09) newest first

• CNN Connect the World (Global) 17.11.09
  Interview with Steve Rolles(video)
  CNN Connect the world blog (200 comments)
  
  
• BBC Radio 4 Today programme 14.11.09
  Interview with Steve Rolles
  

• Late Night Live with Philip Adams (ABC Australia) 22 min audio. 16.11.09
  After the War on Drugs (interview with Steve Rolles and Deborah Small)
  

• The Economist 13.11.09
  Drugs - virtually legal
  

• Associated Press 13.11.09 (US)
  Advocates Against War on Drugs working on options
  

• The Daily Record 13.11.09 (Scotland)
  Legalise drugs and Save Scotland £2biillion a year
  

• BBC news 12.11.09
  Sell drugs in shops - think tank
  
  
• Sue Blackmore on the Guardian CiF 12.11.09
  The jaw-jaw after the War on Drugs
  
  
• Reason magazine 12.11.09
  A Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy for Opium Dens
  

• Johann Hari in the Independent 11.11.09
  Accept the facts - and end this futile war on drugs
  
  
• Johann Hari on The Huffington post 11.11.09 (same as Independent article above)
  Face the Facts and end the War on Drugs
  
  
• Sunday People 08.11.09
  Not as Nutty as you think
  

• Sunday Times o8.11.09
  Lord McCluskey calls for drugs to be legalised
  
  
• Sky News 03.11.09
  Sacking may boost drug legalisation drive
  
  
• Reuters - The Great Debate 03.10.09
  Fresh thinking in the war on drugs
  

MPs table motion calling for drugs policy based on scientific evidence

PRESS NOTICE: from the Parliamentary Drugs and Alcohol Treatment and Harm Reduction Group

Chair: Lord David Ramsbotham
Secretary: Mike Wood MP
Vice Chairs: David Burrowes MP, Paul Flynn MP, Paul Holmes MP

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

MPs table motion calling for drugs policy based on scientific evidence

MPs from the Cross-Party Group on Drugs and Alcohol Treatment and Harm Reduction (DATHR) have today tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) calling on the Government to base its drugs and alcohol policy on scientific evidence. The call comes in the wake of the forced resignation of Professor David Nutt as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

Mike Wood MP, DATHR Group Secretary, said:

"Following the debacle over Professor Nutt, there is a widespread concern now that the Government is moving away from an evidence-based drugs and alcohol policy. An open debate about the dangers of legal and illegal drugs should be welcomed by the Government."

Dr Evan Harris MP, Lib Dem Science Spokesman and former public health doctor, said:

"Ignoring scientific advice and evidence about the harms and effects of a drug classification has serious consequences for public health and for the over-criminalisation of young people. The key priority in these areas must be what is effective not political or populist posturing"

-Ends-

Notes to Editors:

The cross-party group on Drugs & Alcohol Treatment and Harm Reduction was established in October 2008 and brings together MPs and peers from all political parties and none with practitioner organisations delivering services to drug and alcohol users.

For further comment or interview:

DATHRG Office: 020 7219 1626

The EDM reads:

EDM 2244: Policymaking on Drugs and Alcohol

That this House believes that Government policy on drugs and alcohol misuse
and harm should be based on scientific evidence; and further believes that
the failure to do so will increase the risk to public health, and in
particular to young people.



Mike Wood
Paul Flynn
Paul Holmes
John McDonnell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Lynne Jones
Neil Gerrard
Peter Bottomley

Tripping over Nutt

The Nutt episode has revealed the limits of the Home Office's criminal justice approach to drugs policy

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) was set up under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) in 1971 on a premise that was thought radical at the time - an independent panel of heavy-weight experts from a range of fields would offer policy advice on drugs not just as a criminal justice issue, but as a social phenomenon too.

Sadly, for most of its existence the ACMD has been used by the government, as one member Dr Les King put it: ‘...as a rubber stamp, a poodle'. That changed with the appointment of Professor David Nutt. He is outspoken, principled, and not easily cowed by authority figures, as well as being a leading specialist with impeccable scientific credentials. That combination proved too much for the home secretary, Alan Johnson, who sacked him for telling an inconvenient truth - government policy is not evidence based.

In fact it is an evidence-free zone. Both internationally and domestically, we see drug supply and availability increasing; use of drugs that cause the most harm increasing; health harms increasing; and massive levels of crime leading to a crisis in our criminal justice systems. Illicit drug profits are enriching criminals, fuelling conflict and undermining security and development in producer and transit countries from Mexico and Guinea Bissau, to Afghanistan and Colombia, with the gravest impacts falling upon the poor and marginalised. Yet particularly at a time of economic stricture, it is crucial that drugs expenditure is cost-effective and humane, which it often manifestly is not.

That is why we have been urging the ACMD to call for a comprehensive review of policy, in the form of an independent and comprehensive impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act. An impact assessment comparing the costs and benefits of current policy with all the alternatives, from stepping up prohibition, through Portuguese-style decriminalisation, to legal regulation would be a process behind which all stakeholders genuinely interested in evidence-based policy could unite, helping break the emotive, polarised deadlock in the debate around drug policy reform. In the longer term, it would ensure greater transparency and trust in the decision-making process, and most importantly help to determine which mix of policies is most likely to deliver the best outcomes.

In the UK, it is now a requirement for all new legislation to have an impact assessment done before it comes before parliament, but this was not the case in 1971 when the MDA was enacted. As we stated during a recent meeting with the prime minister, we believe it is time to correct that anomaly. The UN should also carry out a similar exercise at international level to incorporate impacts on producer and transit countries.

Given this is such an eminently sensible call, why hasn't it happened already? For the same reason Professor Nutt was sacked - the government doesn't want the evidence made public because it knows what it would show. As Bob Ainsworth said when we put a similar request to him when he was drugs minister: ‘Why would we do that unless we were going to legalise drugs?'

Accepting the evidence will demand a much more fundamental reform of how drugs policy is handled by the government than tweaking the MDA. Just as with terrorism where security concerns are paramount and there is huge resistance to considering the root causes of radicalisation, the Home Office perceives everything in a criminal justice light. In American psychologist Abraham Maslow's analogy, when the only tool it has is a hammer, it sees all challenges as nails. Ultimately, we need to de-securitise drugs policy, get the lead on it out of the Home Office, and into the normal kind of cross-departmental framework within which other elements of government social policy operate.

This article originally appeared on the Progress website here.

Double Standards from the Evening Standard on cannabis classification?

There was a welcome outbreak of common sense in Yesterday's Evening Standard, a paper more often prone to reactionary drug war posturing, in its leader editorial on the David Nutt furore:

Spin and drugs

The row over the firing of drug expert David Nutt was almost inevitable. Professor Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was dismissed at the weekend; Home Secretary Alan Johnson accuses him of running a campaign against official policy.

But Professor Nutt made his comments about the Government's policy on cannabis under extreme provocation.

The ACMD was set up in 1971 as an integral part of the Misuse of Drugs Act year: its purpose is to advise ministers on the latest scientific thinking on drugs, and the intention of the Act was for that advice to inform policy.

So it was that cannabis was downgraded from a class B to a less dangerous class C drug in 2004, on the ACMD's advice.

In 2008, however, the Government reclassified cannabis as class B, despite the ACMD's objections - not because of the science but largely thanks to a media hue and cry over the alleged dangers posed by strong "skunk" cannabis.

If that is to be the basis of policy, it is hard to see what the point of the ACMD is any more.

The bigger worry is what this suggests about ministers' attitudes to science and to spin.

Gordon Brown likes to portray himself as less obsessed with spin and headlines than his predecessor.

That was always implausible but when such cynical objectives override science, and a policy that affects many people's lives, that is truly depressing.

A decent commentary, but couldn't help from prompting me to cast my mind back to the 'media hue and cry over the alleged dangers posed by strong "skunk" cannabis', and the particular papers that were the main culprits behind it. Ahem:






Follow the latest developments and coverage on the David Nutt/ACMD story in the miniblog (right)

or on

pic from Oct 15th 2007

David Nutt is sacked from the ACMD

There's a lot of important issues raised by the ACMD chair's sacking, and the subsequent reaction. Transform have been actively engaging in the debate in a range of broadcast media, including 5 live radio, and BBC and Channel 4 news. We will have more to say on all this as the story develops over the next few days but in the mean time follow the media coverage in the Miniblog (on the right) or on Twitter.

HASC discusses calls for an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act

One of the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) raised the issue of carrying out in Impact Assessment (IA) of the Misuse of Drugs Act during a witness session as part of the current inquiry into the cocaine trade. Undertaking such an IA has been one of Transform’s key recommendations in our written submission and oral evidence to the HASC inquiry.

Anne Cryer MP addressing the Advisory Ccouncil on the Misuse of Drugs Chair, Professor David Nutt:

'Can I ask you about the current legislation which is the MDA and associated legislation. The actualy act was approved by Parliament in '71, so that's 38 years ago. Do you think the time has come to have an Impact Assessment of that legislation and how it's applied today, is it still fit for purpose?'

Professor David Nutt:

'Well as I said in answers to other questions, it’s not perfect. I think as a construct, it is good. I think if it was made more evidence-based, if the act truly represented the harms of drugs, rather than having some other political overwriting - messages written into it - then I think it would be very powerful. So I think my council would be very comfortable with people wanting to review it.'

Anne Cryer:

'So you would support a total assessment of it?'

David Nutt:

'I would be very happy with that, yes.'

Professor Nutt, additionally, in reply to a series of questions question from David Winnick MP about whether it was time for a debate around the efficacy of prohibition, and whether drugs should be legalised, said:

'I think a very mature and wide ranging debate about the effects of regulation and legality on drug use is worth having."

You can view the whole session here (The section transcribed above starts at 1 hour and 17 minutes).

Transform have held a meeting with the Prime Minister requesting that he instigate an IA of the current legislation, but has yet to have any confirmation that such an IA will be launched . Now that the issue has been raised by the HASC, Transform are optimistic that it may be in the inquiries final recommendations due to be published in the New Year.

Transform give oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee cocaine inquiry

Transform gave oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the cocaine trade this morning - which is available to view online, in full here.*

The session, which was 45 minutes long involved Transform's research director Steve Rolles , alongside Neil McKeganey from Glasgow University, being questioned by the committee on various aspects of cocaine production, supply and use.

Transform's contributions were essentially in line with the written submission from earlier on the year available here.

Immediately following on from the Rolles/McKeganey session, was a second set of witnesses, Mitch Winehouse (Amy Winehouse's dad and drugs worker Sarah Graham. A third set of witnesses followed immediately afterwards - Evan Harris MP, John Mann MP and Lord Mancroft. All interesting but the final session particularly worth checking out.

There's plenty to discuss about the session and the inquiry more generally - but it should perhaps wait until the inquiry report is published in the new year and we know what they actually have to say.

Media coverage

predictably, most focused on the Amy Winehouse angle, but Transform's contributions did get some coverage:

Guardian
Metro




*annoyingly requires either windows media viewer or installation of the Microsoft Silverlight viewer

Time to count and compare the costs of legal and illegal drugs

A new report published by the Scottish Government this week called 'Assessing the Scale and Impact of Illicit Drug Markets in Scotland' estimated that 'the total economic and social cost of illicit drug use in Scotland is estimated at just under £3.5bn.'

The authors noted that 96% of these costs are accrued by problematic drug use. This doesn't come as much of a surprise to Transform.

What is interesting about the report is that it recognises, for the first time, that the models used to estimate the costs of illicit drugs could, and should, be extended to legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. The report lays out how such costs could be calculated and identifies the areas where alcohol and tobacco use costs are accumulated.

The authors note that,

'For alcohol, the five areas of health, criminal justice, social care, economic and wider social costs will also incur a cost as a result of alcohol use/misuse. Examining each cost area individually, many of the costs relating to recreational drug use could be estimated for alcohol use/misuse....

'A model for the social and economic costs for tobacco costs would include three of the five cost areas discussed above for alcohol use/misuse, namely health costs, economic costs and wider social costs. The biggest driving force throughout the model will be the health impact of smoking.'

Carrying out this research and then comparing it to the social and economic costs of illicit drug use would be a useful tool in disaggregating drug harms from drug policy harms - something Transform has long been calling for. It would also be an important step towards an impact assessment of prohibition versus legal regulation.

Problematic use of legal and illegal drugs - which creates the bulk of these economic and social costs - is caused overwhelmingly by poverty, deprivation and lack of wellbeing. David Liddell emphasises this point in today's Scottish Sun newspaper.
'The stark reality is there is no quick fix. The roots [of problematic drug use] lie overwhelmingly in poverty - and we are now seeing these problems running from generation to generation. It is little wonder there are strong links between being poor, drugs dependence and crime. Desperate people take desperate measures - they have very little to lose. We must think hard about how we breathe life into those ravaged communities.'

Russian Drug Czar calls for fumigation of poppies in Afghanistan

On September 24, during his visit to the US, Victor Ivanov, Director of Russia’s Federal Service for the Control of Narcotics (Russia's Drug Czar), gave a talk at The Nixon Center on "Drug Production in Afghanistan: A Threat to International Peace and Security." Ivanov discussed the effects of drug trafficking on Russia and the world and called for U.S.-Russian cooperation in eradicating the trade. His remarks can be read in their entirety here; a short summary of the event is also available.

Following the extracts from his speech below, is a press briefing from the White House showing that the US administration gave Ivanov short shrift.

In a speech that repeatedly calls for the liquidation and elimination of the Afghan poppy crop, Ivanov extolls the virtues of aerial fumigation. A plan which, to their credit, the Americans have opposed.

The speech is as revealing for what Ivanov doesn't say, as for what he does. Pointedly blaming the Afghans and Americans for the heroin being used in Russia, Ivanov refuses to acknowledge that the demand for heroin in Russia could have anything to do with Russia's domestic and foreign policy, either now, with regard to creating social conditions that drive their citizens into problematic drug use, or their previous interventions in Afghanistan itself.

History apparently began when the US went into Afghanistan in 2001 in order to achieve "Enduring Freedom"!

Well worth a read of the entire speech, Ivanov repeatedly refers to opium/heroin as a security threat. Failing to understand or publicly acknowledge that it is the prohibition that creates the threat, not the drug.

I have pulled out some quotes I think are worthy of specific comment:

Ivanov fails to see any irony in this statement:

"Along with that, being here, at the Nixon Center, is good reason to recall that the “War on Drugs” was declared exactly 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon. And that decision was certainly no coincidence."

Clearly Russia has had only peaceful and benign intent toward its neighbour over the millenia:

"Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that the instability and military confrontation of the last eight years created in the long-suffering Afghanistan perfect conditions for the rise of a global Narco-State which alone is producing more opiates than the whole world did ten years ago."

Afghanistan takes the full blame for Russia's dreadful habit:

"For Russia the task of liquidation of Afghan drug production is an unrivaled priority as it is Russia that has today become the main victim of this phenomenon.
More than 90 per cent of drug-addicts in our country are consumers of Afghan opiates. Up to 30 thousand people die of heroin annually."

The drug, not the regime of prohibition gets the blame here:

"It must be admitted that heroin ruins young statehoods and kills democracy.
This situation can be rightfully considered a unique global historical phenomenon and qualified according to the UN Charter as a threat to international peace and security."

Some sense here:

"However, what lies behind the global Afghan drug production?
Its main cause is the ongoing geopolitical tension in Afghanistan, induced by the growing resentment of the population, especially Pashto peoples, against foreign military troops which inevitably creates numerous centers of resistance and micro-conflicts."

And the solution to this geopolitical problem?:

"But the clue to solving the problem of Afghanistan lies in the hands of the United States."

"Refusal to eliminate drug crops, declared by Mr. Richard Holbrooke in Trieste as the basis of the new strategy to fight Afghan drugs, is misguiding [misguided ed].
In this connection, the Afghan drug issue should be made one of the main topics and tracks of Russian-American relations."

Be great if it was.

But first some more history:

"Next year, the whole world will commemorate the 65th anniversary of the great Victory over Nazi Germany. The creation of a Russian-American Anti-Drug Coalition by that time would have not only pragmatic, but also a deep symbolical meaning.
After all, it was by virtue of the prompt creation of an anti-Hitler coalition in 1941, immediately after Nazi Germany’s aggression against the USSR, that the defeat of Nazism and militarism became possible in 1945."

Because drugs are like Nazis...but more evil. What would be really interesting would be a Russian-American Drug Coalition, set up by next year that took a global lead toward a peaceful resolution of the war on drugs; not anti-drug, but anti-war...

And again, wrong analysis leads Ivanov to assess opium/heroin as the threat to international peace and security, rather than the war on drugs:

"Our analysis shows that in order to achieve this objective it is necessary to raise the issue of Afghan drug-production to the level of a threat to international peace and security. This would make it possible to turn the campaign against Afghan drug-production into priority for the international community and put the instruments provided by the international law to full use."

However, despite Russian pressure, US resolve to maintain its opposition remains strong. Here is an excerpt from the White House press briefing for 23 September:

Ian Kelly
Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 23, 2009

QUESTION: Russia, and particularly its drug czar, is urging the U.S. to go back to poppy eradication by air. What's your response to that?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. We did take note of that. Of course, Russia is one of the major destination countries for Afghan heroin, and of course, because of that, has been long concerned about international counternarcotic efforts in Afghanistan. They've been active in the Paris pact, a consortium of nations committed to assist Afghanistan combat illicit drug production and trafficking.

As you note, Viktor Ivanov, who is the director of their anti-drug agency, is in Washington, and tomorrow will have meetings with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, with Director Kerlikowske, and here at State with David Johnson, who's our Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

In general, I think just to sort of lay out what our general policy has been, we believe that large-scale eradication efforts have not worked to reduce the funding to the Taliban. And we believe that it's also worked as a kind of a recruiting tool by driving farmers who have lost their livelihood into the hands of the insurgency. So we're supporting the Afghan Government's efforts to provide farmers with alternative means of supporting themselves.

And because of this new policy, we're reducing support for eradication. We do provide some targeted support for Afghan-led efforts where we think they will work on a case-by-case basis. But our assistance will focus on increased efforts for alternative crop development, and this is part of our overall strategy in Afghanistan of supporting the people and Government of Afghanistan to stand on their own.

Calls for reform grow

This month we have seen a plethora or articles in UK newspapers calling for an end to prohibition. There have been so many we thought we’d bring you the best of them in one blog.

The articles are written by a variety of people including a former chief constable, a well-known British philosopher and the former President of Brazil not to mention a number of journalists.

This increase in the number of articles in the British press reflects a change that is going on globally. As a number of Latin American countries move towards decriminalisation, it is sad that the UK government is so far behind in its thinking.

First up was Simon Jenkins in the Guardian who argued that the War on Drugs was ‘moral idiocy’ and praised the Latin American governments for their courage in admitting that current policy has failed.

He said,

‘The underlying concept of the war on drugs, initiated by Richard Nixon in the 1970s, is that demand can be curbed by eliminating supply. It has been enunciated by every US president and every British prime minister. Tony Blair thought that by occupying Afghanistan he could rid the streets of Britain of heroin. He told Clare Short to do it. Gordon Brown believes it to this day.

This concept marries intellectual idiocy – that supply leads demand – with practical impossibility. But it is golden politics. For 30 years it has allowed western politicians to shift blame for not regulating drug abuse at home on to the shoulders of poor countries abroad. It is gloriously, crashingly immoral.’

Days later in The Observer, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, summarised the report he and the former presidents of Colombia and Mexico co-authored.

‘It is time to admit the obvious. The "war on drugs" has failed, at least in the way it has been waged so far. In Latin America, the "unintended" consequences have been disastrous. Thousands of people have lost their lives in drug-associated violence. Drug lords have taken over entire communities. Misery has spread. Corruption is undermining fragile democracies…

‘The core conclusion of the statement is that a paradigm shift is required away from repression of drug users and towards treatment and prevention. The challenge is to reduce drastically the harm caused by illegal narcotics to people, societies and public institutions.’

British philosopher John Gray got in on the act in The Guardian a few days later arguing that ‘the case for legalising all drugs is unanswerable.’

He wrote,

‘A decade or so ago, it could be argued that the evidence was not yet in on drugs. No one has ever believed illegal drug use could be eliminated, but there was a defensible view that prohibition could prevent more harm than it caused. Drug use is not a private act without consequences for others; even when legal, it incurs medical and other costs to society. A society that adopted an attitude of laissez-faire towards the drug habits of its citizens could find itself with higher numbers of users. There could be a risk of social abandonment, with those in poor communities being left to their fates.

‘These dangers have not disappeared, but the fact is that the costs of drug prohibition now far outweigh any possible benefits the policy may bring. It is time for a radical shift in policy. Full-scale legalisation, with the state intervening chiefly to regulate quality and provide education on the risks of drug use and care for those who have problems with the drugs they use, should now shape the agenda of drug law reform.’

Just days later, the Executive Director of the UNODC wrote an article in the Observer disputing these arguments. He initially focussed on the claim made by John Gray and many others including Transform, that the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits.

Costa wrote,

‘Some even say that the costs of prohibition far outweigh the benefits (although there is no body count of people who haven't died thanks to drug control versus those who have been killed in the crossfire).’

He then went on to argue that,

‘Maybe western governments could absorb the health costs of increased drug use [that he assumes would occur once drugs were legalized], if that's how taxpayers want their money to be spent.

‘But what about the developing world? Why unleash an epidemic of addiction in parts of the world that already face misery, and do not have the health and social systems to cope with a drug tsunami?

‘Critics point out that vulnerable countries are the hardest hit by the crime associated with drug trafficking. Fair enough. But these countries would also be the hardest hit by an epidemic of drug use, and all the health and social costs that come with it. This is immoral and irresponsible.’

A few months ago we had a comment posted on the Transform blog refuting this argument.

‘Was it just me or did someone else pick up the massive contradiction underlying the WDR's main argument for continued prohibition? In section 2.1 of the report, the UNODC crowd pretty much concedes that a legalize-tax-and-regulate framework would work...but only in developed countries. Developing countries are thought unable to impose meaningful taxes and regulations on a legal drug industry, and therefore, would see their consumption levels explode. Thus, global prohibition must continue for the sake of poor countries (the condescension is almost unbearable).

‘Yet those same developing countries are expected to, simultaneously,: a) successfully interdict supply; b) reform police forces and judicial systems; c) fight corruption in the face of massive illegal profits; d) address the problem of slums and dereliction in cities; e) close open drug-markets; f) provide universal access to drug treatment; etc. etc. If the governments of developing countries are considered too weak to tax and regulate small national drug markets, why would anyone think them capable of performing that daunting list of tasks? The contradiction is so glaring that my eyes hurt.’

On the same day, and in the same newspaper, that Costa, wrote his piece, Tom Lloyd, a former chief constable, argued that the War on Drugs was a ‘not only very expensive and misdirected activity, but counterproductive and harmful’.

‘More recently, I have been working abroad and the problems that exist worldwide are recognised at the highest levels, with most acknowledging the harmful unintended consequences [including Costa himself] of the current approach. A huge criminal market (with enormous financial incentives) has been created using corruption and violence to make its huge profits.

‘Efforts to destroy crops only destroy peasant farmers' livelihoods and the environment, while the poppy fields and coca plants spring up elsewhere, with producers adapting to meet the demand. Growing other crops is futile if the demand for drugs remains.

‘Our limited resources are directed towards this futile "war" while public health, which is clearly the first principle of drug control, remains an impoverished baby brother.’

He went on to call on

‘police leaders throughout the world to challenge the status quo and focus resources on serious, organised criminals, not blighted users, and to focus on harm reduction not some pie-in-the-sky dream of a drug-free society. Where they lead, politicians will follow.’

In the same edition of The Observer there was a leader article calling for ‘a new drugs policy’ and arguing for an honest evaluation of the current drugs laws.

‘The entire framework of the debate must change. In Britain, we operate with laws that start from the premise that drug use is inherently morally wrong, and then seek ways to stop it. Instead we must start by evaluating the harm that drug use does, and then look for the best ways to alleviate it; and we must have the courage to follow that logic wherever it leads.’

This has been Transform’s position from the start. Now is the time to assess the impacts of the current policy and look to a future where drug use is not a moral issue but a public health issue where drugs are controlled and regulated by governments not gangsters.

Heroin trials welcome - but the wait has cost lives

Transform yesterday wholeheartedly welcomed the results of the heroin prescribing trials (as reported by the BBC), and the understanding that these pilots would be rolled out further still – perhaps to four or five new locations.

However, as the RIOTT Trials are published to much celebration, what have we really discovered?

That problematic heroin users do better on legally regulated pharmaceutically pure diamorphine, than street junk - they steal less and their health improves

That should not be news to anyone. I realised during my third or fourth interview yesterday, that the feigned shock from radio presenters that the Great British Public would be funding heroin users ‘addiction’, should be as nothing compared to their real shock that we are all funding the prohibition that leads users to steal and compromises their health in the first place.

Whilst the presumed roll out is to be welcomed, one has to ask why it has taken so long to come to this conclusion. Evidence has existed for years that, for those assessed as having a clinical need, heroin prescribing will keep them alive, improve their health and wellbeing and reduce the collateral damage of their use to wider society. Indeed there has been a barely concealed sense of inevitability about these trials; the strong impression being that they were needed to provide political cover for a roll out, rather than to provide yet more evidence of the blatantly obvious.

Of course supervised use of legally regulated supplies of heroin significantly improve the lives of users, who otherwise have commit crime to raise money to score dirty drugs from gangsters, for consumption using dirty paraphernalia in marginalised and unsafe environments. The lesson here is that moves to take users out of the illegal market and into a regulated supply where drugs are quality controlled will produce the kind of outcomes we all want to see.

The fact is that thousands of long term dependent heroin users have died, or contracted serious diseases in the last three decades because of the failure of Government to maintain or develop heroin prescribing services. And, with the Department of Health playing badly strung second fiddle to the Home Office, much of the medical establishment has been complicit in this tragedy by maintaining a deafening silence.

But NHS heroin isn't the only way forward here; access to cheap smokeable opium from licenced outlets would also achieve significant decreases in crime and improvements in health, as it would also promote transition towards safer products, using behaviours, and using environments. We would hope too, that the next round of trials includes provision of oral morphine (and possibly other pill form synthetic and semi-synthetic opiates), which will be effective for many, and is also dramatically cheaper, and safer, than injectable dry ampules.

The substantially increased cost of prescribing injectable heroin, compared with oral methadone, must also be seen in the context of the Macfarlane Smith monopoly on the UK opiates market that the Department of Health buys from. That means that the UK pays well over the odds for our diamorphine (£12,000 a year per user), compared to the Dutch (£2000 a year for the same product). This artificial cost barrier has been a major political obstacle.

Finally, let us hope that these trials pave the way to more discussion of how best to control and regulate drug supply and use, beyond the limited numbers able to avail themselves of medicalised heroin. And that those members of the medical establishment who have held this initiative back, feel their consciences pricked and support a scheme that could save the lives of hundreds more in the future.

New Scientist: 'Blueprint for a Better World: Legalise drugs'

This weeks' edition of New Scientist magazine has a cover feature titled 'Blueprint for a better world' that considers 10 'radical ideas for transforming society and changing the way countries are run'. One of them is the legalisation and regulation of drugs, copied below. Whilst we didn't initiate or suggest the piece, we have contributed.



The ten ideas are introduced thus:

We live in an imperfect world. Poverty, disease, lack of education, environmental destruction - the problems are all too obvious. Many people don't have clean water, let alone enough food, and the unsustainable lifestyle of the wealthy few is storing up catastrophic climate change. Can we do anything about it? You bet we can. Technology is a double-edged sword, but science and reason have made our lives immeasurably better overall - and only through science and reason can we hope to make a real difference in the future. So here and over the next three weeks, New Scientist will explore diverse ideas for making the world a better place, and the evidence backing them.

Better world: Legalise drugs

• 09 September 2009 by Clare Wilson

Far from protecting us and our children, the war on drugs is making the world a much more dangerous place.

SO FAR this year, about 4000 people have died in Mexico's drugs war - a horrifying toll. If only a good fairy could wave a magic wand and make all illegal drugs disappear, the world would be a better place.

Dream on. Recreational drug use is as old as humanity, and has not been stopped by the most draconian laws. Given that drugs are here to stay, how do we limit the harm they do?

The evidence suggests most of the problems stem not from drugs themselves, but from the fact that they are illegal. The obvious answer, then, is to make them legal.

The argument most often deployed in support of the status quo is that keeping drugs illegal curbs drug use among the law-abiding majority, thereby reducing harm overall. But a closer look reveals that this really doesn't stand up. In the UK, as in many countries, the real clampdown on drugs started in the late 1960s, yet government statistics show that the number of heroin or cocaine addicts seen by the health service has grown ever since - from around 1000 people per year then, to 100,000 today. It is a pattern that has been repeated the world over.

A second approach to the question is to look at whether fewer people use drugs in countries with stricter drug laws. In 2008, the World Health Organization looked at 17 countries and found no such correlation. The US, despite its punitive drug policies, has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world (PLoS Medicine, vol 5, p e141).

A third strand of evidence comes from what happens when a country softens its drug laws, as Portugal did in 2001. While dealing remains illegal in Portugal, personal use of all drugs has been decriminalised. The result? Drug use has stayed roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking have fallen. "Judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success," states a recent report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC.

By any measure, making drugs illegal fails to achieve one of its primary objectives. But it is the unintended consequences of prohibition that make the most compelling case against it. Prohibition fuels crime in many ways: without state aid, addicts may be forced to fund their habit through robbery, for instance, while youngsters can be drawn into the drugs trade as a way to earn money and status. In countries such as Colombia and Mexico, the profits from illegal drugs have spawned armed criminal organisations whose resources rival those of the state. Murder, kidnapping and corruption are rife.

Making drugs illegal also makes them more dangerous. The lack of access to clean needles for drug users who inject is a major factor in the spread of lethal viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C.

So what's the alternative? There are several models for the legal provision of recreational drugs. They include prescription by doctors, consumption at licensed premises or even sale on a similar basis to alcohol and tobacco, with health warnings and age limits. If this prospect appals you, consider the fact that in the US today, many teenagers say they find it easier to buy cannabis than beer.

Taking any drug - including alcohol and nicotine - does have health risks, but a legal market would at least ensure that the substances people ingest or inject are available unadulterated and at known dosages. Much of the estimated $300 billion earned from illegal drugs worldwide, which now funds crime, corruption and environmental destruction, could support legitimate jobs. And instead of spending tens of billions enforcing prohibition, governments would gain income from taxes that could be spent on medical treatment for the small proportion of users who become addicted or whose health is otherwise harmed.

Unfortunately, the idea that banning drugs is the best way to protect vulnerable people - especially children - has acquired a strong emotional grip, one that politicians are happy to exploit. For many decades, laws and public policy have flown in the face of the evidence. Far from protecting us, this approach has made the world a much more dangerous place than it need be.

Book of the month: the Candy Machine

We'd like to recommend The Candy Machine: How Cocaine Took Over the World by Tom Feiling as our book of the month.



Here's a review by Transform volunteer David Hart below:

The author of this book makes plain in his introduction that he was less interested in the opinions of experts and celebrities than he was in hearing the viewpoint of the ordinary people involved in the cocaine trade, from peasant coca farmers through to urban crack smokers, in the interests of presenting as authentic a picture as possible of the impact of cocaine on society.

The book is divided into three sections. The first charts the history of the cocaine trade from the conquistadors to the present, as well as the increasing levels of repression the US government has employed against it.

The second analyses the cocaine trade's impact on those countries that produce it or through which it is trafficked, focussing on Jamaica, Mexico, and of course Colombia, asking why that country is the only one in the world to be a producer of cocaine, cannabis and heroin (apparently a combination of proximity to trade routes, a long tradition of lawlessness, economic inequality and chronic underinvestment in the rural economy). In all cases Feiling attempts to show how the economic circumstances of these producer/transit countries makes the cocaine trade so powerful that law enforcement efforts are doomed never to be able to do more than inconvenience it, let alone eradicate it. Indeed, the level to which Colombia's government, police and judiciary are complicit with the cocaine traffickers is truly spectacular.

A salutary warning of the likely consequences of continuation of current policies is the incipient transformation into narco-states that afflicts those countries in West Africa which have become transit hubs for cocaine entering Europe; Feiling notes that the cocaine trade offers prospects for economic development that international neo-liberal financial policies have failed to provide for these states with weak government and scant resources, and is therefore unlikely to be effectively opposed by the local population.

The third section concerns prospects for the future. There is detailed analysis of the demand for cocaine and why it is so persistent, as well as the health consequences for different forms of the drug, which concludes that problematic use, especially of crack, is usually a symptom of underlying emotional problems, sometimes but not exclusively associated with poverty and deprivation, noting that the 'career' of the average cocaine user is far shorter than that of typical heroin or alcohol users.

In the chapter analysing the arguments for legalisation and where they are coming from, we hear from Jack Cole of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and Sir Keith Morris [now a Transform supporter], whose experience as the UK's ambassador to Colombia has led him to come out against the war on drugs - both indicative of the fact that even those charged with defending prohibition can draw their own conclusions when exposed to the consequences.

Discussion of cocaine rarely makes much mention of coca leaf tea/chewing, but here we are told of the Colombian coca-leaf drink producers who had to fight a lawsuit to be allowed to use the word 'coca' in the name of their product, and of the WHO report (it was suppressed by the USA who threatened to withdraw funding) that found that chewing coca leaves had negligible health risks.

The book concludes that, while those in charge of drug policy are 'unwilling to admit their addiction to...the illusion of control', change is unlikely to come from above unless prohibition becomes financially unviable, but in the US there is already widespread change underway at state or city level, and that whatever drug policy is in place, the problems of compulsive use will not go away until 'nations produce responsible citizens with stakes in conventional society'.

That is not in itself a comforting thought, but hopefully this book will help spread the reform message a little further; certainly it's a well researched and informative work for those interested in the subject.

• The Candy Machine has also been reviewed by The Guardian and The Telegraph
  
  
• The Home Affairs Select Committee is looking into the cocaine trade at present. Transform has sent in a submission and is expected to be called to give evidence later this year.
  
  
• Transform is pleased to announce the launch of our Amazon Associate bookstore. We’ve now assembled a list of some of the best books available about drug policy and drug law reform, which can be found here.
  
  
• All books listed have a link to www.amazon.com where the book is available to purchase.
  
  
• Buy books through our site and you’ll even be helping Transform make some money as we receive a 10% donation of the cost of the book at no extra cost to you.
  
  
• Please send an email to info@tdpf.org.uk to recommend books, or if you’d like to review any of the books listed.

Please spread the word and happy reading.

Argentine Supreme Court to decriminalise drug possession today

So, in the same month that the UK Government is making political capital from attaching long prison sentences to several new drugs few people have even heard of, in a seemingly parallel universe not populated by drug warriors, other countries are queuing up to decriminalise personal possession of all drugs. Last week Mexico joined the growing list and today the Argentine Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling decriminalising drug possession for personal use.

The Court’s decision was based on a case brought by a 19 year-old who was arrested in the street for possession of two grams of cannabis. He was convicted and sentenced to a month and a half in prison, but challenged the constitutionality of the drug law based on Article 19 of the Argentine Constitution:

The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of judges. No inhabitant of the Nation shall be obliged to perform what the law does not demand nor deprived of what it does not prohibit.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that personal drug consumption is covered by that privacy clause stipulated in Article 19 of the Constitution since it doesn’t affect third parties. Questions still remain, though, on the extent of the ruling. However, the government of President Cristina Fernández has fully endorsed the Court’s decision and has vowed to promptly submit a bill to Congress that would define the details of the decriminalization policies.

According to some reports, Brazil and Ecuador are considering similar steps.

The case has been under consideration by the high court for almost a year. The Argentine federal government has been reviewing its drug laws with an eye toward abandoning repressive policies toward users and is waiting for this case to be decided to move forward with new legislative proposals.

Supreme Court Justice Carlos Fayt told the Buenos Aires Herald that the court had reached a unanimous position on decriminalization, but declined to provide further details.

A positive Supreme Court decision on decriminalization would ratify a number of lower court decisions in recent years that have found that the use and possession of drugs without causing harm to others should not be a criminal offense.

see previous Transform blog coverage:

• Drug decriminlisation in Argentina? (April 08)
  

• Argentine president calls for decriminalisation of drug use (Aug 08)
  

related coverage:

• Mexico decriminalises personal drug possession

• Former Latin American presidents call for a paradigm shift

• Honduran president calls for legalisation of drugs

• Mexico's opposition calls for legalisation of drugs

further reading:

Drug policy reform in practice - useful new briefing from TNI on decriminlisation and other forms of reform in Europe and the America's

thanks to Stop the Drug War and Cato@Liberty

Mexico decriminalises personal drug possession

On Thursday Mexico finally enacted legislation to decriminalize personal possession of small quantities of all drugs (plans reported/discussed in more detail here back in May).

The legislation will operate in a somewhat similar fashion to the Portugese approach with arrested individuals having to agree to a drug treatment program to address admitted addiction or enter a prevention program designed for recreational users. penalties for those who refuse to attend one of these kinds of programs under the Mexican scheme have yet to be clarified.

The Mexican legislation defines threshold quantities of drugs under which which a designation of personal use can be made. These include 5 g of cannabis, or half 0.5g of cocaine, 50mg of heroin, LSD 0.015mg, and MDA/MDMA/methamphetamine all at 40mg (or 200mg for pills). Problems with such thresholds to make a distinction between possession for personal use and intent to supply offences have recently been discussed in a the context of UK legislation ( see appendix of this Transform briefing).

The response from the US has so far been somewhat muted, in stark contrast to the uproar that greeted similar proposals from the previous President Vincent Fox in 2006 , which were abandoned under extreme pressure from the Bush administration.

In many respects the legislation represents a formalisation of what was widespread tolerant policing practice - so may not have a huge impact on the ground.

Mexico joins a growing list of countries around the world that have either made similar moves or have them in the pipeline (see further reading below). Such moves - it is important to note - only address personal possession and use and do not involve decriminalisation or legalisation/regulation of drug production and supply which remains in the control of criminal enterprises. The UN treaties, whilst theoretically allowing moves towards decriminalising (or at least depenalising) personal use, specifically outlaw exploring options for legal regulation of production/supply. That said - there is an increasingly active debate in Latin America around such moves (see below).

For more details see this Associated Press report 20.08.09

Further reading

• Drug policy reform in practice - useful new briefing from TNI on decriminlisation and other forms of reform in Europe and the America's

• Former Latin American presidents call for a paradigm shift

• Argentine president calls for decriminalisation of drug use

• Honduran president calls for legalisation of drugs

• Mexico's opposition calls for legalisation of drugs
  

Baltimore police call for an end to the drug war

This is a short clip from MSNBC news, featuring interviews with the authors of a recent Washington Post article 'It's time to legalise drugs'; Peter Moskos, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of "Cop in the Hood", and Neill Franklin, a 32-year law enforcement veteran. Both served as Baltimore City police officers (home of 'The Wire') and are members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.




from the Washington Post piece:

"Only after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies -- and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men -- have we and other police officers begun to question the system.

Cities and states license beer and tobacco sellers to control where, when and to whom drugs are sold. Ending Prohibition saved lives because it took gangsters out of the game. Regulated alcohol doesn't work perfectly, but it works well enough. Prescription drugs are regulated, and while there is a huge problem with abuse, at least a system of distribution involving doctors and pharmacists works without violence and high-volume incarceration. Regulating drugs would work similarly: not a cure-all, but a vast improvement on the status quo.

Legalization would not create a drug free-for-all. In fact, regulation reins in the mess we already have. If prohibition decreased drug use and drug arrests acted as a deterrent, America would not lead the world in illegal drug use and incarceration for drug crimes.

Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing.

We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.

Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.

Without the drug war, America's most decimated neighborhoods would have a chance to recover. Working people could sit on stoops, misguided youths wouldn't look up to criminals as role models, our overflowing prisons could hold real criminals, and -- most important to us -- more police officers wouldn't have to die."