RIP Beer Croggles

Beer Croggles's days are numbered. But it would be such a shame to lose this post that I reproduce it here in full (sans comments and sans permission).

Drug related harm August 1, 2007

I was watching Police 10-7 the other night, and most of the episode consisted of a view into the “war on drugs.” It seemed like they were getting all the facts right and coming to the wrong conclusions.

Here’s a list of the drug-related harms/problems they came up with:

• Lucrative income for gangs and organised crime
• Drug-related violence (including murder)
• Dangerous drug manufacturing labs
• Financial ruin for addicts
• Addiction-fueled theft/robbery
• Difficulty in seeking help
• Drug taking has rebellious, underground image
• Adverse individual health effects from drug use
• Healthcare resources consumed

Before I put forward this perspective, I’ll preface by saying that I limit my drug use to Caffeine and Alcohol (the good stuff, in moderation No Tui, thanks). Drugs have never really appealed. So no need for comments regarding such.

It seems that a hell of a lot of drug related harm stems from the fact that the supply chain for illicit drugs is run by criminals. It seemed bizarre for the Police to be talking about how harmful the gangs and P labs are, then come to the conclusion that we need to keep on acting as normal, putting more money into stopping drug production and import. That can at best reduce the problem, but the undeniable demand for drugs means police actions will never eliminate gang involvement in drugs.

There are a few simple facts that point to an obvious solution:

1. There is considerable demand for mind altering substances. Always has been, always will be.
2. Criminal organisations have no incentives to a) Apply rigorous quality control b) Be honest about the composition of a substance c) Refrain from selling to children d) Develop better or safer drugs
3. Addicts who can’t afford drugs will steal in order to purchase them
4. Law enforcement can only ever affect the price of drugs (supply/demand) and it is futile to have access prevention as a goal
5. Change in drug price (see 4) will have little/no effect on usage levels (see 3)

The Police are fighting an unwinnable war. Any success they have at limiting supply simply drives up prices, which drives up crime. Addicts have to associate with gang members (providing them income in the process), are limited in their ability to get help and face financial desolation due to the high street prices. They are also limited to using the drugs which the gangs choose to produce/import. The gangs’ incentives are to supply a drug that is cheap to produce, addictive and easy to manufacture/smuggle. Harm reduction doesn’t factor.

Think about an alternative solution for a moment. Legalise all drugs. Yep, all of them.

I know this probably provokes an outraged emotional response from you. I firmly believe in the rational reasons behind such a move, yet even I sometimes struggle with the idea emotionally.

It seems clear that most opposition to legalisation of drugs is based on these wishes and emotions, not any rational thought as to how harm can actually be minimised. Lets face it, what we are doing now isn’t working. I’m a middle class, clean-cut white boy, but I’m sure I could get my hands on any drug you’d care to name, given a bit of time. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement, drug access simply isn’t difficult.

Most opposition to these ideas stems from a denial of the fact that what we have tried, for a long time now, simply isn’t working to significantly reduce harm.

So how would the “legalise” alternative work?

A few points to think about:

• A free market, like in all industries, would produce competition. Pharmaceutical firms would engage in research to develop newer, better drugs. Again, suppress your emotional reaction and think about it. Who would choose to take P (nasty shit that it is) after a company had developed a drug with few side effects, low overdose risk and a safer high? Users don’t like the adverse affects of drugs, they are after a certain feeling. So a company which could provide that feeling, without all the negative aspects, would be in to make a profit.
• Importantly, and related to the above point, companies are held responsible for their actions by the court system. A drug supply company would have to produce drugs which were consistent and in keeping with their label. “Bad batches” = lawsuits. Putting consumers in hospital = lawsuits.
• Another result of competition would be a fall in prices. Street prices for drugs are kept artificially high by the restriction on supply. While having a large range of low priced drugs might seem like a bad idea to you, ask how it would be worse that what we have now? At the moment, high prices just mean increased crime. I doubt anyone has ever said “Well I’m broke now, guess there’s no more P for me”
• An argument is always put forward that drug users consume health resources, funded by the taxpayer, so legalisation would force us to pay for their habit. Privatisation of the health system is a matter for another day, for now consider that we’re already paying for their habits. With safer drugs (see above) there would be a lower burden on the health system.
• Drugs are cool. No doubt. How cool would it be to go past your local pharmacy, talk to the old bloke behind the desk and be handed a small brown bottle with administering instructions? Not so cool. Yes, undoubtedly, there would be “cool” drug boutiques. I’m not arguing that the idea of drug use would become completely boring. But it’s bound to become less attractive.
• Drug outlets would have a lot less incentive to sell to minors than the gangs do currently. And as for the drugs that do fall into the hands of minors, I’d rather some teen’s older brother brought them some weed from the corner store than they go to a gang house and buy a tinny cut with P.
• Gangs lose a huge revenue stream. You can’t compete turning cough lollies into nasty drugs when the pharmaceutical company is mass-producing a superior drug with some decent economies of scale. There’s no need to kill other dealers, or initiate retribution over deals gone wrong. No dangerous labs exploding in peoples’ houses.
• Police and the courts gain a massive effective boost in resources. I don’t know how much Police and Court time is used up on the war on drugs, but I’m betting it would be a lot. Implementing this change would be an effective increase in budget for our justice system, with no additional budget allocation required.

I’d love a few comments on this proposal.

Before you do, consider the following:

• Are you commenting on rational (i.e. solution based) or emotional grounds?

• If you have an objection or prediction, would it be worse than what we have now?
  • (e.g. “But companies will make highly addictive drugs!” - The drugs currently pedaled by the gangs are addictive. We couldn’t be much worse off than with Heroin or P.)
  • (e.g. “But legal drugs would mean the usage rate would go up” - Since drug availability is so high now, I doubt it would be a significant change. Any change would be easily offset by the increased safety of the drug supply.)

If you have any points, it would be great to hear them.

Hope this is food for thought for some of you!

Cheers,

Craig