Bob Ainsworth MP, a former drugs minister in the Home Office, took a brave step today in coming out against the so-called “war on drugs”. It would have been braver, of course, for him to have done this when he had some control of the government’s drugs policy. But still, credit where credit’s due and all that…

Much will be written about the many arguments for decriminalising -  and in some cases outright legalising – the various illegal substances. The health benefits for heroin addicts in particular, the libertarian “freedom to choose” viewpoint, the reduction in crime and prison population, taking the control out of the hands of organised criminals — and so on.

This level of debate never reaches the wider public, though.

The anti-drugs propaganda machine, which includes lazy politicians seeking easy political gain and much of the mainstream media, is so noisy that it drowns out any real debate. Likewise, people in positions of authority and power – including many politicians and senior police figures – who want a serious shift in drugs policy are silent. They’re in fear of being the subject of a media witch-hunt and a severe public backlash.

The British public has been fed so much bullshit about drugs, a recent example being the media misinformation furore around mephedrone, that it has simply become a clapping toy monkey, furiously smashing its hands together whenever it’s set off by authoritarian anti-drugs rhetoric.

I have no optimism that Bob Ainsworth speaking out against our drugs policy will lead to a real debate taking place. The public will continue to be fed nonsense, politicians will continue scoring cheap political points by pandering to ignorance, and the war on drugs will continue doing phenomenal damage to our society.

So, how do you convince the public?

An angle which may slip under the debate’s radar is the economic cost. Yet this is the one aspect of the debate that may crack through the walls built around public opinion by anti-drugs propagandists.

At a time when Britain is being slashed to pieces by the Coalition government, when unemployment is rising, when VAT is about to go up, when inflation is going up, why does the Home Office continue to plough billions into pursuing a drugs policy that is completely counter productive?

Let’s take one hypothetical example of how the police waste time and money pursuing this policy.

Police intelligence have been pursuing a lead which says a significant shipment of heroin will be coming into Britain via a major port, in a container, on a cargo ship. They spend weeks tracking who is involved, monitoring them, and planning the drugs bust. Eventually, following a large operation, the cargo is seized.

As a direct result of this seizure, the heroin supply in Britain diminishes. Demand, of course, remains the same. The price of heroin therefore goes up and the quality will very likely go down. Addicts have to spend more to get their hits from the dealers. They have no money, so resort to more petty crime, burglary, or even prostitution to pay for their habit. The police then have to deal with this increase in crime.

Why not have…

…GPs dishing out clean, high-quality heroin, on a prescription basis, to registered addicts who can be monitored, who get the heroin legally and for free and so don’t have to rely on the black-market, who don’t have to fund their habit through crime?

This drastically decreases the financial cost to society and the police.

Tax the good stuff

There’s a libertarian viewpoint with a money-making spin on it, too. It’s argued that some drugs should be legal because its down to individual choice if someone wants to take drugs, not the state’s responsibility to nanny them.

Cannabis is a perfect example. Why not legalise marijuana, which is less harmful than free-to-buy alcohol, and tax it? Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people use it. It could generate a lot of cash for the Treasury.

Should we sell the money angle to the wider public, if we want any chance of convincing them on decriminalisation?