Bans don't work

Since the not so level-headed Mephedrone debate you’d have hoped that people could see how prohibition can only lead to problems and that legalisation of narcotics isn’t such a bad thing, but judging from the idiotic grumbles I keep hearing, it seems people still aren’t quite getting it.

Unless you’re a holier-than-thou preacher from one of our beloved mainstream religions I’m sure you’ll agree that you don’t have the right to tell someone what they can and can’t do with their body. If somebody wants to dabble with mind-altering substances in their free time, what’s it to you?

Sure, people may be a ‘menace’ to those around them when they’re on such chemicals, but I fail to see how this differs to alcohol consumption

Sure, people may be a ‘menace’ to those around them when they’re on such chemicals, but I fail to see how this differs to alcohol consumption, which seems to be disregarded on grounds of our ‘culture’ (whatever that means). How being sick, getting into fights, having one-night stands, and forgetting about an evening’s events can be seen as perfectly normal behaviour is just beyond me. Besides, most people I know who’ve dabbled with drugs don’t become the raging arseholes most drinkers seem to morph into on Wednesday sports nights, and instead just have a bit of a chat and a boogie.

So let’s imagine for a second a nation where the sale of narcotics is controlled by the state (refrain from the Orwellian utterances, please) or by private companies à la Marlboro or Absolut. Quality would have to be outstanding, and prices competitive – the illicit market would soon cease to exist as it simply wouldn’t be able to compete. So now you have the loss of a frankly scummy market, lower crime rates, and the people who were getting high anyway are doing so in a safer environment with controlled substances.

Nobody would be encouraged to start taking drugs due to their availability, and an adverse effect might even occur. Sure, it’s ‘cool’ to bang chemicals up your nose when it’s illegal, but who wants to conform to something perfectly legal? It’d quickly lose the image of glamour that it currently has, that’s for sure. So the people that were going to get high anyway will do so, and those who want to give it a miss can do as they please. Of course there would have to be regulation on who can buy what when, but that’s a separate argument altogether.

What does prohibition actually achieve? An increase in the street value of the product, drawing people with no aspirations to sell it for a quick buck. As more people sell it (and make a killing) the value drops. At this point, some of the bigger players will be caught and banged up – demand is still there, but supply is low, so price increases. And so the cycle continues – a fluctuation of prices, a lot of dealers getting rich, and some imprisoned.

Most websites were selling ‘good quality’ stuff that was what they said it was, at affordable prices, delivered faster than a Dominos pizza

It goes even further than that, though. Mephedrone as a case in point: most websites were selling ‘good quality’ stuff that was what they said it was, at affordable prices, delivered faster than a Dominos pizza. Following a bunch of hyped media coverage and an unnecessary ban, a bunch of people decide to set up websites of their own selling who-knows-what (if they actually deliver) – we now have a designer drugs market whereby people have no idea what they’re getting but will still take the risk.

I’m not saying that the story of your mother’s brother twice removed isn’t upsetting – I’m sure it’s devastating when you lose someone to drugs. The point is that with some alterations to our legislation and culture around drugs these kinds of horror stories probably wouldn’t exist. Like sexual orientation, race and religion, attitudes towards drugs really need to be dragged from under the carpet and brought into the 21st century.