The War on Drugs - Success or Failure?

The debate on drug laws has been ongoing since the misuse of drugs act was first introduced in 1971. With other countries taking a more liberal approach, is it time for us to see change in the way we tackle the drug problem?

The question of reformation has gained relevance recently due to Richard Branson's plea to the government for a change in the laws against drugs. He believes that drugs should not be treated as a criminal matter and instead as a health issue; suggesting that this approach would be more effective in weaning people off drugs. There have been ongoing arguments on the success of the “War on Drugs” and the answer to society's apparent problem has never been clear-cut. Portugal is an example of a county reaping the benefits of a more liberal approach to illegal drugs; having decriminalised them in 2001. This has resulted in a decline in users of hard drugs and a rise of those seeking treatment. There was also a decrease in cases of HIV, although Portugal still has a higher amount of HIV victims than the EU average.

I spoke to Andrew Stradling, a consultant in Emergency Medicine, who has been a doctor since 1996. “There's a good argument that the NHS shouldn't be involved in tackling the 'sharp end' of drug abuse (no pun intended), as this is the role of public education and the law.” he explains. “The NHS should be there to support and treat people, but part of the NHS is involved in public health education.” By educating people about drugs it acts as harm reduction which is an effective way of decreasing the problems caused by drug abuse. Most people see the drugs classification system as a guide to how dangerous they are. Professor David Nutt, a member of the governmental advisory board, has recently resigned over this issue. He claimed that drugs should be classified by the harm they cause, also stating that LSD (a class A drug) was less dangerous than both cigarettes and alcohol. Andrew explains that; “The current drug system is based partly on scientific/medical evidence, but is also highly political”. Which leaves the question, should we be leaving an issue that is fundamentally medical to political opinion?

In tackling the drug problem, Andrew reinforces the idea that harm reduction is a good method; “Projects such as safe needle exchanges are excellent value for money, offering advice as well as equipment, to prevent the spread of blood-borne diseases in intravenous drug users”. When considering the economic factor of drug use, there is arising arguments that millions of pounds could be saved through the decriminalisation of drugs. This is seen to be beneficial as less police time and government money would be spent on tackling the problem, prisons would be emptied and there could be revenue through taxation and distribution of drugs. In the current economic climate, this would be highly positive for the UK. Despite arguments for this, there is the idea that drug uses causes criminality due to high cost and this is a large economic factor against decriminalisation.

Manchester, like any large city, has a long history of drug use. Unlike some cities, Manchester has had drug use embedded in their culture. With the rise of the club scene in Manchester during the 1980s came the rise of drug dealing and use. Michael Linnell, press officer of the Manchester branch of Lifeline has been handling drug users for 27 years. Despite the idea that drug use causes criminality, Michael explains that crime associated with drug use is very petty. He elaborates; “If you put the cost of all the drug crime in the last 20 years together, you would probably get the same amount that a banker lost in one year”. Michael's organisation has recently been going through a process of change, coinciding with the Conservative government coming into administration. In the past their group was primarily concerned in keeping people in treatment for twelve weeks. As levels of drug use were fairly low, their organisation was very successful at doing this. The new administration has abstinence as a goal and is all about recovery. “There is a debate of science versus morality” explains Michael, “No one knows where it's going or what changes there will be.” He feels that in terms of preventing harm and usage reduction, the war on drugs has been unsuccessful, and is in fact making the matter worse for many drug victims. “The law doesn't seem to make any difference to drug use, Ketamine was a legal high until 2006, they brought it into the misuse of drugs act and the usage doubled.”

Despite this view, he also explains that drug use amongst young people has been on a constant decline since 1999. However, Lifeline doesn't often deal with these groups of people, primarily dealing with “40 year old heroin and crack users who have been in and out of prison all their lives”. Michael explains that many of his service users have had some serious problems before their drug use that would perhaps explain why they are in that situation and that these problems are prevalent in poorer areas; “I've met more bank robbers than bank managers” he remarked. “But alcohol abuse amongst the middle classes who are using it in social situations or as an escape is more common than ever”. He suggests the idea of recreational drug use to escape from society is not necessarily a negative issue; “In a society where people are equal and feel involved there would probably only be recreational use amongst people who can't deal with society, which is 99% of us!”. This reinforces the idea that the problem of drugs is rooted in our society and is a more complex issue than initially perceived. “When you talk about poverty, mental health problems, alcoholism and drug problems, you're talking about the same group of people” he explains.

After returning from a conference in Budapest, Michael explains how legal highs have the potential to affect the situation greatly. “There is a lot more variety in drugs; amphetamine users are finding they're not injecting amphetamine, but other chemicals that are mass produced by China”. This raises another problem – for legal highs to be sold without prosecution, the dosage is left out, which is the most important information for the drug user. This is furthering harm as many legal highs are more dangerous than those available illegally. Evidently this is a huge problem with the law, not only in the world of legal drugs, but in street drugs also, where users are not sure what chemicals or agents are in their drugs. There are also problems during drug “droughts”, ketamine users have been injecting legal highs that are said to have similar effects, but instead are much more dangerous.

As mentioned, added damage is brought upon the user by the drug being illegal and the charges that come with this. “If you're a long term heroin user with a criminal record and have been in and out of prison, you'll find it very hard to get on in this current climate, to put it lightly”. This raises the point, should we look at drug users as drug victims rather than drug criminals? It seems logical that if you are a user of heroin and the drug has ruined your life, a criminal record will not only prevent you from being part of a normal society e.g. getting a job, but in turn could further your need for drugs. It should also be noted that in many cases of drug decriminalisation, more people come forward for rehabilitation to help with their problem.

“Stating that the war on drugs is a failure is a very easy thing to say, it is a complete waste of time, but the question is what can we replace it with?” Michael remarked. It seems that the matter of decriminalisation is not as simple as many might suggest. There would need to be regulations, but regulations have been seen in legal drugs already, for instance the smoking ban and the age limit for alcohol. While this seems a simple solution for some drugs, Michael feels that with harder drugs there is no easy answer; “How can we regulate rock cocaine when we know it is so damaging to its users and most people will use it in a way that will ruin them?”. The issue with reformation is that the situation must not become a “free for all” where drug use spirals out of control.

Lewis Hobbs is a regular drug user, primarily the drug cannabis, which has experienced a change in classification several times over the years. In 2004 cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C and a notable drop in usage occured. Despite this, in January 2009 the drug was reclassified to class B. Lewis began his drug use when cannabis was class C and continues despite the drug being reclassified. “Drug class doesn't make a difference to people using drugs, when you live that kind of lifestyle drugs are such a normal and everyday thing.” Lewis has been reprimanded by the police twice for cannabis use, after his first warning he received an £80 fine. Despite this he remains a fervent user. He claims that this isn't the only way legality has affected him. “I've bought cannabis that has been contaminated and sand blasted; so that it weighs more.” explains Lewis, “There’s no way of complaining or checking what you're buying, which is the main problem with it being illegal for me”. If the drugs weigh more, it puts more money in the hands of the drug dealer, which is another unfortunate effect of drugs being confined to the black market. If laws were reformed and drugs could be regulated. This would ensure less people are effected by dangerous agents including in street drugs.

The argument for cannabis' illegality despite it being comparatively less damaging than alcohol and tobacco is to do with the suggestion that it is a “gateway drug”. This refers to the idea that users who start on cannabis are much more likely to do more drugs. There is evidence for this as many hard drug users did start on cannabis. Lewis does not believe this is linked; “I don't partake in any other drugs, I know people that have smoked cannabis and don't do other drugs, I know people that do harder drugs that haven't smoked cannabis” he explains, “In the same way, some friends have used drugs in a harmful way whilst others haven't, it's all down to personal choice”. Users like Lewis who take drugs recreationally don't seem to add to the drug problem, Lewis compares his use of illegal drugs to that of the average person, “Everyone needs their release or escapism, whether it be drugs, television or alcohol”. From what has been said by Michael and Lewis, recreational drug use as an escape doesn't seem to be a major problem, with no significant wider effects, so why are these people being prosecuted? The bigger problem seems to be those who are abusing drugs in a way that is ruining their life and causing crime. It seems their problems are further exacerbated by the law. The enforcing of drug laws is still relatively successful in terms of catching those dealing and propagating the problem. It is the effect that the laws have on the small time users seem to put the laws in a bad light.

The drug problem seems to be more than just a case of prohibition or not. As Michael stated, many of the problematic drug users he is involved with have had serious problems before their drug use, and he sees problems mainly within the working class community in poorer areas. These are the people that will feel most alienated from society and would be experiencing problems that the people in charge of placing the drug laws may not understand. This could explain the current lack of reformation. Instead of trying to prosecute and punish drug users, perhaps a more successful technique would be to address the fundamental problems that have caused that person to use drugs. For now though, an alternative approach still doesn't seem apparent. Despite growing suggestions and evidence no one knows exactly how reforms will affect the problem and what the wider issues may be.