Pubdate: Tue, 24 Jan 2006
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Column: Response
Copyright: 2006 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Danny Kushlick
Cited: Transform Drug Policy Foundation   http://tdpf.org.uk/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

CLARKE CLINGS TO THE GRAND ILLUSION OF PROHIBITION

The Furore Over Pot Masked A UKP16bn Crime Bill For Demonising 'Hard Drugs'

The debate on reclassifying cannabis has served the government well 
in diverting attention from the miserable failure of its entire drug 
policy. Like an accomplished conjuror, Charles Clarke has created an 
illusion of concern over young people's mental health while presiding 
over a policy that is creating mayhem from Bogota to Brixton - drug 
prohibition. Far from engaging in a debate on the efficacy of 
continuing a policy that costs the UK UKP16bn a year in drug-related 
crime, he has become trapped in a meaningless furore over the 
relative naughtiness of producing, supplying and possessing dope.

In the week that Mr Clarke decided to make no new decision about 
cannabis classification, what should have been a significant 
opportunity for intelligent people to discuss the efficacy, or not, 
of attempted prohibition, sometimes became a parade of misinformation.

In an otherwise cogent piece articulating the idiocy of cannabis 
reclassification, Marcel Berlins espoused some long-standing drugs 
propaganda, and dismissed the legalisation discourse with 
disappointing flippancy (Charles Clarke shouldn't fret about the 
legal chaos over cannabis. It's not even on his boss's respect 
agenda, January 18).

Berlins was absolutely right to point out that cannabis is not 
demonised in the same way that other drugs are, but then went on to 
repeat the myths that demonise other so-called "hard" drugs. Indeed, 
if you look at the drug classification system as a whole, it becomes 
very clear that the drugs with the highest classifications are not 
the ones that cause the most harm, such as alcohol and tobacco, but 
those with the highest demonisation quotient. Not since Paul Betts' 
Sorted campaign have we been told that ecstasy is "quite often 
fatal". In fact, even in the unregulated illegal market ecstasy is 
relatively safe, with a tiny number of deaths each year compared to 
the number of doses taken.

And no, "pot" isn't stronger than it was in the 60s. There have 
always been both strong and weak versions of cannabis, as recent 
European research tells us. What has happened is that prohibition has 
created a skunk monoculture where growers produce the variety with 
the highest yield, potency and profit margin - thus denying consumers 
the opportunity to buy weaker versions. As for legalisation, of 
course it would "make the product less subject to criminal 
influence". It is prohibition that gifts the entire market to 
criminals and unregulated dealers. And mark my words, legalisation 
will happen. Global drug prohibition will be history within 15 years 
- - its counterproductivity makes it untenable in the long term. Twenty 
billion pounds a year for another 10 years ... you do the maths.

Danny Kushlick is the director of Transform Drug Policy Foundation 
and a former drug counsellor in the criminal justice system tdpf.org.uk

The Response column offers those who have been written about in the 
Guardian an opportunity to reply. If you wish to respond, at greater 
length than in a letter, to an article in which you have featured 
either directly or indirectly, please email  
or write to Response, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 
3ER. We cannot guarantee to publish all responses, and we reserve the 
right to edit pieces for both length and content
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom