Shiraz Socialist

Following on from the earlier discussion on this site about the new puritanism in the UK, this is speculative consideration of the demerits of punitive models of controlling substance misuse and consequent criminality in the UK. Much of the “debate” over legislation of illegal drugs in the UK is in reality a case of shades of grey, with governments simply advocating different degrees of punishment and illegality to deter users from procuring substances to which they are often physically and psychologically addicted, and dealers from selling the substances in question. Any attempts to liberalise the law (as the early-years Blair government half-heartedly sought to do when marijuana was downgraded from class B to class C) are greeted with howls from the media and politicians both left and right that politicians are giving succour to criminals. The exception to this was the Independent on Sunday’s brief campaign for cannabis legalisation under its editor at that time, Rosie Boycott – for which she was rewarded with derision across the rest of the press.

However, the reality of the situation is rather different. At the sharp end of drug use, we find that the criminalised status of drug users results in their being unable to access services which would actually facilitate their recovery. Ask any homelessness worker, especially in a small town, what is one of the biggest barriers to successful accommodation and support for people who are currently homeless, and they will tell you that it is the cycle of unsupported drug habits, poor (or non existent) accommodation and consequent crime. A drug habit with a lack of adequate support leads to crime in a desperate effort to support that habit, and this in turn leads to refusals from nervy hostel assessors who are disinclined to admit someone so chaotic to an environment that is often already tense. Arrears on tenancies consequent from financial effects of drug use also prohibit independent housing via social landlords. And to complete the circle, a lack of stable accommodation leads to people continuing to mix in the same circles where they first acquired their habits, as well as being depressed and isolated. Both of these, of course, are trigger factors for the same drug use that serves as a barrier to their accommodation in the first place. Bear this in mind next time you read a newspaper story about “anti-social behaviour” or hear a pub conversation about “dirty skagheads”. If class A drugs could routinely be prescribed as part of therapy programmes, this cycle could be broken.

There is a larger picture here too, and it is not quite the same as law-and-order “common sense” advocates on drugs would have you believe. The story that is usually told is one of brave and under-funded customs services battling bravely against drugs cartels which control massive multi-national empires beyond the reach of governments. Meanwhile, users themselves are either pitied in the press as hopeless tools of dealers and the drug trade, or else demonised as criminals.

An increasing amount of the direct work done with UK homeless people and drug users is done by faith groups, who often (whether consciously or inadvertently) tie that work to religious teaching or practices. As a consequence, people who are at their most vulnerable find themselves demonised by “mainstream” society, whilst being proselytised at by its wackier (however well-meaning) fringes. Witness the numbers of orange-crossed Jesus Army members who are ex-users, and you will see what I mean. 

There is another side, however, and we need only look at the stark scenario to see it. The first is that the global illegal drugs trade is completely untouched by small-scale puritanical social policies on drugs. Indeed, the existence of illegality is arguably a facilitator to the illegal drugs trade, not a break on it at all. It is estimated that some $320 billion in sales turnover goes through the global illegal drugs trade every year (UN Office on Drugs and Crime “World Drug Report” 2005). All of this is tax-free, and much of it goes to fund arms to groups across the world. It would seem that the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” are not only equally dismal failures, but also somewhat closer tied than one might think.

Perhaps the strongest directly left-wing argument against prohibition is that it causes crime in working-class areas. One only has to look at the precedent of 1920s US alcohol prohibition to see it. It is equally visible now. A gap in the legal market leaves the way open for illegal traders. They need to work in areas where they can intimidate the populace, and in the final analysis those areas are unlikely to be stuffed full of affluent, politically active voters with mortgages and connections. That is not to mention the fact that across the western world, the figures for successful prosecutions, convictions and (especially) incarcerations have a sharp racial bent. The starkest figure is perhaps from the USA, where 13% of the country’s drug users are African-American, yet users from that group are twice as likely to be arrested as whites, and a staggering four times as likely to be incarcerate (The Sentencing Project “Drug Policy and the Criminal System, 2001). Not to mention the impact on new generations of inner city children whose parents have been criminalised and incarcerated rather then helped. Further reading material on the US side of things (it’s of interest to all as well) can be found on this site.

And of course, who would ever seriously believe that capital would only flow on one side of the divide? Such is corporate hypocrisy that whilst the political parties which big corporations fund rant and rage against marijuana use, pharmaceutical companies are trying to research the medical properties of the cannabis plant and patent them. Don’t be surprised if the price of a half-ounce goes up a bit if Glaxo Smithkline get their way. Finally on the subject of marijuana, it is this class C drug which accounts for a large slice of the global drugs trade, and 70% of the “war on drugs”.

Still sound like prohibition is “common sense” to you? Ask yourself a very deep question, and be honest with yourself about the answer. How much of you is really wondering whether they’ll bring down the house prices if they move in next door?