Sensible Seighart

I know, I know, but this is entirely sensible:

The crime that results from drug addiction is a direct result of the
drugs’ illegality. The organised criminal gangs, with their violence,
corruption and money laundering; the street gangs, with their gun
crime, stabbings and intimidation; the muggers, burglars, car thieves
and shoplifters, who steal to fund their habit; the dealers who try to
create new addicts; and finally, the prostitutes who put their health
and lives at risk; all this crime and suffering could be wiped out if
the drugs were available, free, on prescription. Some 50 to 80 per cent
of prisoners are in jail for crimes related to raising money to buy
drugs. Nearly half of women prisoners are there specifically for drug
offences and nearly three-quarters have had a drug problem. The cost to
the criminal justice system is huge. The cost to the individuals, their
families and wider society is greater still.

In European cities, where heroin is available on prescription,
property crimes by drug-users have dropped by as much as a half. And
think of the effect that widespread prescribing would have on turf
wars, gang violence, gun crime, street dealing and prostitution. An
excellent report from the Transform drug policy foundation* also points
out: “The largest single profit opportunity for organised crime would
evaporate, and with it the largest single source of police corruption.”

Transform estimates that the prison population would fall by
between a third and a half, ending overcrowding and the need to build
more jails. Billions of pounds spent enforcing prohibition and coping
with its consequences would be saved. Hundreds of thousands could be
treated as patients rather than criminals. The number of drug-related
deaths would fall dramatically. And desperate young women could be
rescued from pimps, potential rapists and murderers
.

I realise that I’m rather more hardcore on this subject (that ingesting what you wish is in fact a right) than most people but doesn’t that more pragmatic argument make sense even to those who don’t agree with me?

In

9 responses

  1. Andrew Paterson Avatar
    Andrew Paterson

    I can see the logic to your position, but I fail to understand why such drugs should be free on prescription. They’re not medically beneficial, so why should the tax payer stump up to support someone’s addiction, something for which they are ultimately responsible? On certain days of the week I’m addicted to coffee but I don’t expect the government to dish me out with Kenco.
    Tim adds: Because it’s vastly cheaper to have such drugs on prescription than not to.

  2. Andrew makes a good point (hey, you’re not a scottish vicar are you?) but you do too Tim – but I think the concerns are twofold. Firstly, like you, I think an individual should be able to do anything they like to their body, providing it harms no one else. The problem with most currently illegal drugs is that their production and distribution is harmful – and legalising them *here* will not reduce that harm *there*. Okay, so is a global legalisation policy feasible? I just don’t think it is. I cannot see it. Harm therefore will continue, and, my second point, probably grow if you legalise here. Free pure heroin will draw new addicts in – just as cheap alcohol has produced more alkies. What a life! They’ll get their dole, their disability living allowance, perhaps an attendance allowance, and free H. Tim, do you really think we want to make heroin MORE attractive?
    Now, you’ll say we’ll only give heroin to registered addicts, not new users – fine, but registered addicts will sell part of their scrip to new users, just as they do with methadone today.

  3. The fact that this is politically congenial appears to have blinded you to an absolutely perfect Sieghartism; in consecutive paragraphs, Brainella has managed to estimate that free heroin would wipe out “all of the crime” associated with it, and then “as much as half” in those European cities where it has been tried.

  4. Andrew Paterson Avatar
    Andrew Paterson

    Ok Tim, it may well be vastly cheaper on presciption, but of what interest is that to me the non-heroin addicted citizen? I can perhaps go along with “that ingesting what you wish is in fact a right” but with the obvious exception of medicine surely it’s my right to not have to subsidise it?
    Tim adds: Sure. But without such subsidy the costs you will bear in policing, in thieving etc will be higher. Purely a utilitarian calculation. BTW, it’s not as if heroin is exactly expensive. I really wouldn’t be surprised to find that the NHS made a profit on it at regular prescription prices.

  5. Andrew Paterson Avatar
    Andrew Paterson

    Aha now a profit I can live with, I wouldn’t want to go with the utilitarian calculation however, it strikes me as being held to ransom, “give them what they want or they’ll cause trouble”. Wherea my view is if H is legal then one can pay for it, just like any other commodity, and if you still persist in breaking the law in order to pay or procure it, then you face punishment.

  6. Legal but taxed. This is the successful model we use for booze and fags – why do it differently for other drugs?

  7. Making it only available on prescription would perpetuate the illegal market, just as you finf at the moment with various desirable but prescription only drugs. No, like fags & booze, it should be for sale by licensed sellers.

  8. I agree with Andrew’s comments here: The utilitarian calculation to legalise may be correct, but this is different from saying anyone has a right to take them. A different point: If we are to legalise drugs (BTW: all of them?), we need to consider who in our society will still not be allowed to take them. Do we want our policemen to be H addicts? Our airline pilots on meth? Doctors? Pension fund managers? Politicians??? Will it be legal to refuse to employ someone on the basis of their drug use? Or sack an employee who starts?

  9. Ed,
    I would say it is up to the employer. Just because it would be legal it does not mean you would be exempt from the consequences. Even in the LibDems misuse of drugs can cost you your job as Charles Kenedy discovered.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading