Time to get real about dealing with drugs

[sundayheraldtalk]

Politicians today rarely talk about a 'war against drugs': if ever there was a war we have lost. Illegal drugs are a fact of life, they will always be with us. But accepting this does not condone drug use nor, as the RSA Commission on illegal drugs said this week, does it mean that we should accept the harms that drugs cause. Instead we need a more pragmatic approach, one that focuses on reducing actual harms with policies grounded in evidence, not driven by posturing or anxiety about some newspaper headlines.

Too often debates about drugs are polarised or the issues over simplified, as has happened in Scotland. Some politicians misrepresent drug treatment as an 'either/or': either 'harm reduction' or abstinence, or methodone versus residential rehab. The reality is that drug treatment involves a journey, the ultimate goal being to become drug free, but with different types of support and treatment along the way, best suited to the needs and circumstances of the individual. The journey can take years, rarely is it a case of 'one leap and you are free' of drug dependency. And the journey is less likely to succeed if the factors which contribute to the drug use or which can lead to relapse are not addressed, such as homelessness, ill health, unemployment or social isolation.

Addressing these factors is made much more difficult by the demonisation of problem drug users. They are not a son or daughter, a brother or sister, or a parent but 'addicts', 'junkies' or 'scum'. Drug dependency drives harmful behaviours (ask anyone who has lived with the problem) and the trade in drugs damages communities and families, but no one chooses to become drug dependent and most 'addicts' want to become drug free.

Illegal drug use remains one of the greatest social problems facing us today, but needs to be placed in context. Overall drug use has in recent years stabilised and there are encouraging signs that drug use among young people may be falling. Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than some illegal drugs, which policy responses and a legal framework for controlling and regulating all drugs should reflect.

There is no room for complacency and there is no silver bullet, but while hysteria makes for good headlines, as the RSA emphasised: a calm, pragmatic and informed approach (based on robust evidence) is necessary if we are to do better at reducing drugs related harms.

Martin Barnes is the Chief Executive of DrugScope - the UK's leading charity for drugs information and drugs policy.

[mcgeachy]

Illegal drugs and the misuse of prescription drugs are as widespread as viruses and they are probably as impossible to purge from society. I believe that national governments have to coordinate a series of policies to minimize the damage drugs do to the fabric of society. And the policies must attack drug use on several fronts: the users, the pushers, the traffickers, and the producers. In developing anti-drug policies, we have to ask some difficult questions and be prepared to look for creative responses.
Why, for instance, are the NATO Forces destroying Afghanistan poppies when the growers have no easy alternative crop? Why don’t the powers that be buy the stuff at a fair price and make morphine for cancer sufferers, thus cutting off much of the illegal source at its root?
Why don’t we make cannabis available for purchase at off-licences to people who are old enough to get irresponsibly drunk, cannabis smokers who would get stoned responsibly in private?

[Atheologist]

The gateway drugs are sugar, nicotine, alcohol and of course prescription medications yet thanks to the government users of these products too many lives, families and communities are at risk. Sadly legal drug pushers were educated in private schools, wear tuxedos and finance political intolerance of intellectual freedom. The recent story about the granny in the UK who will now be jailed for growing a few cannabis plants in her kitchen is indicative of the hypocrisy on the topic. If granny moves to beautiful British Columbia she would be free to grow her own for personal consumption. In downtown Vancouver one can order cannabis and a pizza and the service boasts the same delivery time '30 minutes or free'.

What right do politicians have to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do to their bodies? Do no harm to others or their property doesn't seem to be the modus operandi of the police state, which inflicts harm and imprisons grannies for having a small herb garden. That is the sign of sheer stupidity.

[great]

Nobody has the right to say to another person what to do with his body or life. But when this drugs make so much victims between youth and not only I think that politicians have the right to provide drugs.
_________________
 

[mclovinjester]

I agree with you. This kind of obsession for a certain thing would lead you into addiction. Drugs had become illegalized by the government because this would give great effects on the lives of those would take this. This kind of activity should be avoided because this ruins the lives of those who intake this kind of drugs.
_________________
 

[krssmith]

I agree with all of you, thanks for the posts. I will not ruin the life of those taking it but it would also ruin the lives to those surrounded by them. If you are addicted, you will learn how to steal, tell a lie, like you will do anything even if it's bad just to have money to buy drugs. It will not ruin lives, it also ruins relationships.


Jessa

[ndewan456123]

hi everybody
i was looking up to the replies that other users have posted some are saying taking drug is ones own disecion and noother has any right to say anything
but according to me taking drugs it really a bad thing as it will spoil his/her life as well as their families
so i will say"Say no to Drugs"
_________________
 

[Clifford.Cad]

I think we all are responsible for any crime around us. because if we prohibited crimes of any type around us. than none can do this.

=================