Heroin: what kills?
09.02.06
at 13:11
at 13:11
tagged with:
To: letters@independent.co.uk
Dear Sir,
Let's hope that "The Two Sides of Heroin, UK" (Feb 9th) signifies curtains for the worldwide program of brutal prohibition that creates both unlikely heroes and tragic martyrs. Prohibition, and the "War on Drugs", have failed. Worse, they are the primary factors in the misery and death that we see drugs wreaking in communities worldwide.
Compared with alcohol, many are biochemically relatively benign. Yet because of the illegal supply chain, few, except perhaps the affluent Sir Iain Blair attacks, can manage their habit safely. People take more risks to maximise the hit from a limited and uncertain supply. They get dependent on several substances because they have to take what's available from dealers whose only interest is in profit. It was not so in previous eras when predominantly upper class women were the addicts.
The history of prohibition is riddled with the institutional racism Iain Blair rightly condemns - opium in the US because of the moral panic that immigrant Chinese were using opium dens to seduce western women, cocaine because it supposedly turned "negroes" into “frenzied rapists”.
The supply will never be curtailed. If Afghanistan produced none (and it only takes a few acres to produce the entire UK supply), heroin is easily synthesised. It can be so concentrated that a month's individual supply could be concealed under a postage stamp. How can we stop that?
As with all prohibition, the very criminalisation makes it somehow more enticing. Where would be the cachet in something you could buy in measured, safe doses at the newsagent, chemist or over the bar? Humans have used these natural based substances since the dawn of time for medical, recreational and even religious uses. In the past they have actually contributed to social and community cohesion. The death and destruction they wreak now is solely down to this culture of prohibition. If the law kills (let alone the social costs in crime, punishment and rehabilitation) it is an immoral law, and we are all complicit in those deaths.
Sincerely,
Jock Coats
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/trackback/287
Comments
The Above
On 25.11.08 at 01:57 Alan Page (not verified) said:
So you believe that people should be able to go around making absurd, sweeping statements about prohibition and not be challenged over it?
Surely you can see that by limiting/prohibiting certain markets, the development of an illegal trade will naturally result. No matter what that market is in. Consumer demand is the driving force and if consumer choice extends to drugs or child prostitution, there is very little that any opposing force will achieve against it. So yes, viewed from that perspective, prohibition is a waste of time.
However we need some form of agreed consensual communitarian policy in order for society to function as a whole. As such, it is useful to have guidelines limiting/discouraging harmful and destructive behaviours that affect society in general. Montesqieu notes that there was once a law in England which gave 7 year old girls "the right" to choose their husbands. Several centuries of 24 hour drinking and legalised narcotics ended up with the kind of society described by the likes of Dickens, drawn by Hogarth and catalogued by Henry Mayhew. It would seem that an organised attempt to return to that kind of world is being made. And why not? It was incredibly profitable.
I suspect the real difference between you and me is that I have actually read the people I cite. I think that to drag the likes of Richard Cobden and Adam Smith into the same vile catagory as Herbert Spencer (an opponent of both state education and charities if I remember rightly) betrays an astonishing superficiality. But, given the state of the educational system, that is hardly surprising.
We are talking Oxford after all.
The Above
On 25.11.08 at 12:27 Alan Page (not verified) said:
Herbert Spencer believed that Society developed through an evolutionary process, that one generation learned from the preceeding ones mistakes. He believed that the only way society could evolve would be to allow unfettered access to alcohol and other negative consumer markets (like narcotics). He also believed that people who chose to purchase and indulge in such behaviours should be left to face the consquences of their own actions. In this way society would learn from its mistakes and hopefully evolve into something more mature. It is the most viscious, unremittingly inhumane vision that exists in the whole of philosophy aside from Robert Malthus. Unfettered corporate power unleashed against a society with no state support for the victims.
Even it were not the case I don't see how the legalisation of narcotics would affect the outcome of such an evolutionary process. If people are going to take narcotics or bugger seven year olds they will do it anyway irrespective of any "state coercion". This why I am singularly amused that wheras the "war on drugs" is deemed to be futile and unwinnable, the "war on Child pornography" is considered to be winnable. Or at least not discussed in similar rhetorical terms. The human cost of the latter is probably far greater.
Thankfully my Schopenhauerian take on the situation (history as stasis, the world is as it is) tells me that people have always engaged in such behaviours, always will and always do. The big question is whether society should give its blessing to such behaviours or not. The only grounds I can see for drugs legalisation are purely economic and involved with extending the private corporate sector. Oh, and of course letting a lot of middle and upper class people to follow their chosen career path without legal hindrance, musn't forget that one.
The real libertarian position would be to let it be, it's peoples own decisions whether or not to engage in such behaviour, they are intelligent enough to know the illegality of their decisions, let them get on with it and face the possible consequences of their actions. Legalisation is probably the biggest form of State intervention there is after all:
"During the 60's I smoked a fair bit of marijuana, but I stopped doing so when calls were made for it to be legalised. Why should I go begging to "the man" for his blessing?" (Jay Lynch, Underground Cartoonist.)
So all I am asking for is a bit of consistency. Not too hard, is it? Prohibition/state intervention either works or it doesn't. Make up your mind and follow your arguments through to their ultimate conclusions.
Spencer's view of education
On 25.11.08 at 15:08 Alan Page (not verified) said:
Spencer's view of education should be put into the context of their times. He was opposing the setting up of a universal educational system which would be free at the point of access. His position is similar to those who opposed extending the right to vote. In short he protected the rights of the powerful over the needs of the general.
It is not a question of the state churning out and determining various kinds of robots (any private educational establishment does that as well) but extending the right to learn and, thus, empower. In your equation, education is a privilege, in mine it is right. People may not appreciate it at the time, but it is there for them. Personally I would tend towards the idea of voluntary education, the system being opt in and open to all ages at all stages but that is another issue.
As for market anarchists, it seems that your banking pals are facing the threat of nationalisation because they are being very tardy in using taxpayers money for other purposes than having parties and awarding themselves bonuses. No doubt you would oppose such a move.
John Birdman Bryant
On 27.11.08 at 12:16 Alan Page (not verified) said:
Just been reading this fellows blog. A true Libertarian.
Sean Gabb Gary Glitter
On 30.11.08 at 15:14 Alan Page (not verified) said:
Interesting. If you google the above you find out that child pornography is simply another form of child labour and the reason it shouldn't be criminal is because we all probably own cheap shoes that were hand sewn by children. Apparently being banged in a studio is probably much safer for the child than operating machinery anyway.
Well that's all right then, isn't it? Needless to say to let that pass would be remiss.
Articles with similar tags
-
A quiet period
(14-Sep-06)
-
Different students, or more students?
(07-Jul-06)
-
Another Oxford byelection looms
(05-Aug-06)
-
ASDA reborn?
(26-Sep-06)
-
Confidentiality
(06-Oct-06)
-
A clear example of how Land Value Tax could help
(28-Nov-06)
-
Manslaughter, or death by dangerous driving?
(21-Sep-06)
-
Land Value Tax, the fourth option
(24-Apr-06)
-
The madness of UK land law
(14-Feb-06)
-
Tories' Bow Group tax plans
(24-Jul-06)
The Above
According to the Indie, the second major illegal trade is in child prostitution. Kids being brutalised and raped for the sake of supporting criminal gangs.
According to Kinsey, the "insane prohibition" of paedophilia is to blame for this situation. Nobody takes him seriously, either.
Your view of history is also somewhat askew. The Opium Wars were not the result of racism. They came about because we started a policy of underhandedly trading silks for opium with the Chinese. It pretty much disabled their workforce and the Government decided to take action by holding some british tradesmen hostage.
I also note that binge drinking among adolescents is growing. According to the support groups there aren't enough resources to cope. Really? What abouit all the VAT raised? You know the moneys that would do so much to aid addiction once your corporate pals get their hands on the narcotics business?
Rather bizarre, given that Libertarians were saying that 24 hour drinking would put a stop to all of that palaver. But, hey when it comes to licking corporate butt, you Libs have got it made. I salute you.