There can be no doubt that the daft war on drugs is devastating many of the world's poorest countries, from Africa to Latin America. But this has been ignored by major charities that claim to campaign for international development, presumably for fear of upsetting their donors. Now one has broken ranks, with the release of an important report from Christian Aid condemning what it calls "a blind spot in development thinking". Christian Aid deserves credit for taking a stand, one which has caused internal palpitations. The report itself highlights the hypocrisy of successive British governments that have poured money into aid yet supported the prohibition ripping apart poor communities. One day they will see that sanctimonious talk of saving the world is not a solution to complex problems. [continues 474 words]
The stench of hypocrisy has long hung over the drugs debate. Politicians joke about their own use, then talk tough about the dangers and the need to crack down on criminals. This could be heard again last week when the candidates for the Labour leadership were quizzed by a radio listener over cannabis. "I've had a few smokes when I was at college," replied Liz Kendall. "I did inhale... but that's never been my favourite form of relaxation." Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper also admitted taking the odd toke during student days; only the austere Jeremy Corbyn had never tried cannabis. All three former users stressed these were youthful indiscretions as politicians always do. Yet they are in good company at Westminster: cabinet ministers have made similar confessions and even the Prime Minister admitted to smoking dope at school. [continues 758 words]
Decriminalisation Would Safeguard Families and Drive the Gangs Out of Business Outside of their families and friends, few tears will have been shed for the eight heroin smugglers just executed by firing squad in Indonesia. They may have claimed to have become reformed characters in jail, but they knew the Indonesian penalty for trafficking drugs. Yet the pantomime of death played out in the full glare of the global media reminded us of two things: first, the hideous barbarity of the death penalty; and second, the dreadful futility of the war on drugs. [continues 827 words]
It Would Save Money, Be Tough on Crime and Aid Global Security. What Could Be More Conservative? Two European countries have decriminalised all drugs and disproved the argument that usage rises when prohibition is lifted Afew weeks ago I had a coffee with one of the most admired Tory thinkers. A radical libertarian, he spent his time railing against the interventions of Europe and inadequacies of government, arguing how they combined to infringe basic freedoms. Given the stridency of his views and hostility to the state, I asked if he supported the legalisation of drugs. "Oh no," he said. "That's totally different. It's just wrong." [continues 916 words]
Four decades ago, Richard Nixon was casting around for a new enemy to shore up support for his unique brand of uncompassionate conservatism. Having risen to national prominence as an anti-communist campaigner, then turning his attention to crime, he found a new foe in the 1970s counter-culture. The media was full of stories of clean-cut young men returning from Vietnam as wrecked junkies, while intellectuals such as Timothy Leary were promoting the use of LSD. So Nixon, elected on a wafer-thin margin and desperate to turn back the tide of permissiveness, declared war on drugs. [continues 774 words]
