Britain's Drug Laws: Lessons from "The Wire"?

Greetings readers,

I hope this finds you in fine fettle on what is a bright Summer morning on this grey, rain-infested isle. So this morning, I was rather interested to hear the drugs debate (part MMLXIII) between Roger Howard, CEO of the UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC, catchy...), who provide "independent and objective analysis of UK drug policy", and Iain Duncan Smith (cha-too), chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, a centre-right political think-tank, which he set up. Combined with the BBC's article on this same topic, I felt compelled to proffer some of my own thoughts on this never-ending topic of debate.

So essentially, Roger Howard is suggesting that police should take a "smarter" approach to tackling drugs in order tor reduce the levels of violent crime. The UKDPC's recent report on the issue apparently says the government's strategy focuses too much seizures and arrests, and not enough on reducing harm. Indeed, Roger Howard cited the example of the US city of Boston, where murder rates apparently fell when the police offered amnesty to drug dealers on the proviso they stopped killing each other. In fact, the situation was a little more complex than this: drug dealers were given an ultimatum to either accept a programme of rehabilitation and "get out of the game", or face the police coming down on them harder than ever before. This makes complete sense to me. It's hardly as if the police in Boston took a softly softly approach.

I'm not entirely sure exactly where I stand on this ongoing debate. I suppose I am progressive and liberal but believe that a pragmatic approach is most important. To slightly tangentialise, I think we need to take one step back and re-address the classification system. I can hear the audible yawn as I type this! But seriously, I think the UK needs to wise up and take a more enlightened approach. Personally, I think we should de-criminalise drugs altogether, and follow a policy more like they have in Portugal. I genuinely believe that once you have de-criminalised drugs, there will be a net benefit to society. Yes, there will inevitably be a period of difficult transition, and drug use and corresponding crime is likely to spike, but ultimately you will take the drugs market out of the organised crime syndicates' hands, and be able to offer cleaner, purer and safer drugs to users. This will not only reduce the number of deaths, but will also add to "de-mystifying" drugs to young people, who often start taking drugs out of sheer rebellion (and boredom). Trust me, I know from experience. Kids will basically become less interested in drugs.

But let's put our feet firmly back on the ground for second. I know that de-criminalisation is not going to happen any time soon, or indeed in my lifetime. So to the problem at hand. Well, people will always take drugs. Fact. Whatever your position on this contentious topic, a significant portion of society get their kicks one way or another. According to figures from the British Crime Survey and Office for National Statistics, over 10% of the population consumed at least one drug between 2006-7. About 8% used cannabis, 2% ecstasy, and almost 3% in the case of cocaine. In absolute terms that's nearly 5 million people smoking cannabis, and almost 2 million people taking cocaine. WISE UP. Drug taking transcends every age and socio-economic group of society! I genuinely believe that we should at least revert cannabis back to a class C drug (bravo, Jacqui Smith, you idiot), and make ecstasy and cocaine class B drugs. Or perhaps make cocaine a class A/B drug, as it can be very harmful and addictive. OK, so I'm really having a rant now, but you get the message. ESTABLISHMENT, ARE YOU LISTENING? COME ON, YOU ALL DID A BIT OF "PUFF" AT OXFORD, RIGHT? Liars, the lot of you.

Anyway, back to the debate. I'm currently working my way through series 2 of "the Wire", and must say it is absolutely fantastic. I am totally hooked, and drawn in. And it is interesting to see how crime and drugs are inextricably linked. But as D'Angelo, one of the main characters in the drama says in series 1, "it don't gotta be like this" (the game). At the end of series 1, the po-lice do get Barksdale, but on such a minor sentence, it ain't even worth it (thanks to his slimy Jewish lawyer). So whilst Barksdale (head honcho of this drugs operation, supplying drugs to the towers and low rises) gets sent down, he simply hands over the business to the next chain in command, Stringer Bell. And of course he makes sure that the trustworthy young recruits working for them are brought up the chain, given more responsibility, and therefore more reward. Ultimately, the cycle of dealing, violence, extortion, money laundering and homicide continues. During the period of transition, other gangs try and deal on Barksdale's patches, but are beaten down. Violence breeds violence. And as naive as I am to the drug dealing criminal underworld, I doubt that things are very different over here. Breaking up well organised crime syndicates is nigh-on impossible. Yes, there are some dumb foot soldiers on the ground, but the people at the top are far from stupid, and probably have their heads firmly round the concept of free-market economics. Go figure.

Personally I am with Roger Howard, despite the fact that he was beaten down by Iain Duncan Smith (cha-too). I think that if we accept the greatest transgression to the fabric of society is killing another person, then changing drug policy to tackle this is a step forward. I am all in favour of introducing safe houses and organised places where addicts can go and take drugs safely, with clean syringes and other paraphernalia they need. I am also in favour of drug rehabilitation programmes, and do not believe that locking up users is the answer. Essentially this will render public places like local parks safer, and allow kids to play freely and without danger. It will also allow police to closer monitor the drugs trade, and ensure that less users die from dirty drugs, syringes and secondary complications. As Mr Howard put it, "it doesn't mean don't arrest and seize, it means you do it in a smarter way so that you constantly think of how it will have a sustainable impact".

Listen to the debate from the "Today Programme" here.

Law enforcement on the drugs trade is of course necessary, but let us not forget that it is a market that has several million consumers in this country alone. It's not about getting the harmless users out there, it's about protecting them, our kids and society at large.

Rant over.

Thank you for reading.

Currently at the end of my first listen of Moderat's eponymously titled debut album, and have found it to have real depth, and fantastic production. A marriage between Apparat and Modeselektor was always going to be a real aural treat. "Rusty Nails" in particular is a real dubstep delight (even if they did rip off Burial, just a little bit).

Peace,

F.