Licensing Drugs
A Thinkable
Solution
Sean Blanchard
takes issue with the politicians who have ignored John
Grieve's call for a new look at a major cause of crime.
When Commander
John Grieve of the Metropolitan Police suggested that
'licensing' the possession & supply of all illegal
drugs should be studied, he called it 'time to think the
unthinkable'. The Prime Minister's Office & other
politicians proved him right: by and large they agreed
that they weren't going to think about it!
However, it
isn't as unthinkable as all that. Mr Grieve, the Met's
director of intelligence has 25 years' experience &
says that methods so far have failed. He called for serious
research on alternatives to drug prohibition. The suggestion
was 'licensing' - 'some to possess, some to use, some
to supply'.
But licensing
is an ambiguous term. There are four obvious systems already
used to control anti-social activities that prohibition
cannot eliminate, which could be adapted to Mr Grieve's
purpose.
Drug
Pubs.
Licensed premises
for drug sales, as with alcohol. Alcohol is the world's
most popular addictive drug, the cause of tremendous crime
& misery as well as pleasure. Yet the business isn't
controlled by criminals, & there is little black market
trading. Boozing is kept to an acceptable level by licensing
the dealers, who have to be of good character & have
no criminal record, & the places where dealing is
allowed. Drug-pubs could be licensed by local magistrates,
& fined or shut down in the same way as conventional
pubs if they breached the laws. Landlords would be unlikely
to dare serve children, or accept stolen goods as payment,
for fear of losing their livelihood.
Alcohol laws
punish excesses rather than possession. You have to be
incapable, disorderly or in charge of a car to get into
trouble. Excesses are easy for police to spot without
searching anyone; no need to prove to whom a package of
drugs belongs. Driving under the influence of drugs is
already illegal; the problem is setting a legal limit
& developing a roadside test to prove a driver is
over it.
It might be
better if the Monopolies Commission kept the drinks trade
out of this new market. Most drinkers, crack heads, junkies
& cannabis smokers only mix with each other socially
out of necessity. With separate licences to serve different
drugs, the opening hours & decor could be adjusted
accordingly - amphetamine bars would open all night, junkie
pubs would incorporate needle exchanges. Bar serving only
cannabis & soft drinks would be as close as the UK
could get to the informal Dutch 'coffee-bar' system.
Registering
Users.
The system
of addicts registering with doctors amounted to licensing
some users. Although widely admired, it was overwhelmed
in the early Eighties by a heroin boom, financial cuts,
& opposition from some drug clinics. Users get reliable
clean drugs & other medical help. Society benefits
as those who register have no need to commit crimes to
get their fix. Consultant psychiatrist Dr John Marks,
who still offers maintenance from a clinic on Merseyside,
told the Independent Newspaper a few weeks ago that his
patients had an average 6.8 convictions in the year before
registering & 0.4 in the year after. Licensing for
all drug users probably wouldn't work. Occasional users
wouldn't register, & could still buy drugs informally
from those who did. Since smokeable forms of heroin &
cocaine have appeared there are far more casual users,
who don't develop the habits until they have both the
money & the psychological tendency to addiction. Medical
registration never worked well for users of more than
one drug, or at all for non-addictive drugs such as LSD
& cannabis.
The system
would add to NHS costs, though that would be partly countered
by decreased illness among users getting better quality
goods. Licensing users does not have to be done by doctors.
No medical approval is needed for other potentially dangerous
hobbies: gun owners have to apply to the police; motorcyclists
take a skills test; mountaineers need no permits from
anyone to put themselves at risk.
Manufacture/import
licensing is the system used to control world wide tobacco
dealing, which also worked for cannabis & opium crops
in India under the British Empire. There are taxes &
quotas on growing tobacco, sales through state controlled
warehouses, export & import tariffs and licences for
manufacturers, wholesalers & retail dealers. The public
are discouraged from using it by high taxes, limits on
advertising & health education. This may not seem
very effective as this dangerous addictive drug is for
sale on every street. Tobacco still causes more health
damage than all the illegal drugs put together.
Very detailed
proposals for legalising cannabis along these lines were
presented to several US state legislatures in the Eighties
- non e were agreed. It would be trickier to keep control
of chemical drugs from factory sources to point of sale,
but it is done for medicines. Criminal intelligence departments
already keep a close eye on buyers of chemicals that could
be made into illegal drugs.
The big problem
with a tobacco model would be security for general-purpose
shops selling drugs. Some addicts would still commit crimes
to get their supplies, so security would have to be at
least as good as at most off-licences. Perhaps there would
be dispensing machines that would take cash or credit
cards & drop the consumers' drug choice neatly wrapped
into their hot little hands.
Licensed
Drug Clubs.
Clubs with
strict membership rules could be as tightly controlled
as gun clubs or casino gambling, or as liberally as working
mens clubs. Different clubs could cater for users of different
drugs; quite a few existing night-clubs would happily
sell Ecstasy & cannabis, even if it meant losing their
drinks licence. A Licensed club would have the advantages
of a drug-pub with less chance of encouraging new users.
Some harm-reduction could be managed by price controls.
People overdoing it could be warned by the landlord or
by their friends & refused service. If part of the
membership fee went on medical insurance there would be
the equivalent of a register of users funding their own
support network.
These ideas
for alternatives to drug prohibition have two problems
in common: International Law & Politics.
Drugs are a
world-wide business & no method of controlling them
can working only one country. Under the 1961 United Nations
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, all the currently
illegal substances must be limited to medical & scientific
uses. It does not fix penalties but says that serious
offences should be 'adequately punished'.
A broad interpretation
is that this excludes personal possession, but the British
government has never accepted this. To licence sales or
imports, the Convention would have to be changed. There
is also an agreement on border controls which would have
to be amended.
The main problem
is political. Laws & treaties can be changed, but
nobody in the main parties would want to be the first
to propose licensing drug sales. The day after Mr Grieve's
speech, John Major's office fervently rejected any legal
changes. They said that 'legislation is only favoured
by American right wing free marketeers'. Tim Rathbone
MP, who chairs a parliamentary group on drug abuse, said
it would be 'doing nobody a favour if you try to find
a short cut, which is what legislation is'. Only a handful
of MPs support even reducing penalties for cannabis possession,
which has been recommended by the Government's official
advisers.
Government
policy is to 'reduce the demand for, as well as the supply
of, drugs'. The UK has the heaviest penalties in Europe,
which have not reduced either supply or demand. Instead,
drug related crime & social damage have multiplied
enormously since penalties were increased in 1971. Yet
politicians don't want to consider the idea that prohibition
has been a failure.
One of the
official arguments against 'licensing' is that there would
be a blurring of distinctions between the dangers of different
drugs. This is also a huge fault in the present law. We
have exactly the same penalties for uppers, downers and
mind benders, which have very different effects &
are taken for very different reasons.
Changes in
the way drugs are supplied would make it possible, at
last, to have decent education in the differences between
drugs, & in what ways each can be dangerous.
Addicts would
still prostitute themselves or steal to raise money for
their habits - as some drinkers do. There would still
be a need for social services, rehabilitation clinics,
and policing; but all should be easier in a more tightly
monitored market.
There are also
good financial reasons for state licensing of drugs, which
would produce lots of tax money, save police resources,
and damage the economic base of organised crime.
It's not a
question of thinking the impossible: change is perfectly
possible, given the political will. As Mr Grieve said,
'Either we go to war on dealers across the globe, or we
have to come up with new options.'
Written by
Sean Blanchard
Originally
published by Police Review 3 June 1994.