Cutting costs without cutting public spending: an end to the ‘War on Drugs’

We’re being told by the Tories and Lib Dems that cuts in public spending are inevitable as we try and negotiate our way through the economic minefield. Labour also indicate towards these cuts, but argue that they should be delayed until the economy recovers. So, where and how could money be saved in some areas to maintain or increase levels of spending in others?

One of the biggest examples of money being wasted is the “War on Drugs”.

The cost of Labour’s futile efforts to crack-down on drugs since 1997 is £10bn. A large amount, but not overly huge in context with government spending. However, this isn’t where the cost ends. I’ll develop on this a bit later.

Drugs policy in the UK is one of prohibition. But, if history tells us anything it’s that this just doesn’t work. Take the prohibition on alcohol in 1920s America as the obvious example. Prohibiton does not stop drug use, it just places the control of the industry firmly in the hands of those who are running the black market. In real money terms the illegal drugs trade is worth £160bn – straight into the pockets of organised criminals.

Let’s take heroin, as an example. Nick Davies writes in his book ‘Flat Earth News’ about the case for pharmaceutically legalising heroin for registered addicts. He argues several points which I shall go through now.

Firstly, the NHS will know the purity of the heroin being given to the addict. This is important because a lot of heroin addicts overdose as they do not know how strong the heroin is. Purity varies on the black market as heroin is cut with other drugs or substances in order to increase the profit margins for the dealers. The reason that many heroin addicts fall ill is because the heroin is impure, not because heroin is bad for you. Opiates don’t harm the body. Heroin was used as an anaesthetic in military hospitals for years. There is no evidence to suggest that pure heroin taken in modest amounts, although highly unadvisable, does not do you any damage. This would mean the cost to the NHS of treating people who have been adversely affected by impure heroin would dwindle drastically.

Secondly, if the addicts are getting what they need for free on the NHS then they won’t be spending all of their money on the drugs. This is what leads to high statistics for petty crime, as addicts resort to stealing in order to fund their habits. This would lessen the cost in crime caused by heroin addicts. Also, the heath cost would diminish as addicts would be able to feed themselves properly, having dispoasable income in their pockets.

Thirdly, this removes the need for a heroin black market. Although this probably wouldn’t completely disappear, it would be hugely damaged and much smaller. Demand would free-fall, meaning that a significantly lesser amount of money would fall into the hands of organised crime gangs.

For a more detailed analysis by Davies, read his book or click here.

So, not only would the cost in cracking down on drugs evapourate, so would the health and crime costs too.

A vast amount of money is spent tackling drugs like MDMA and cocaine. We’re routinely blasted with anti-drugs propaganda which amplifies modest-risks as inevitable life-destroyers. The government and anti-drugs lobby just don’t listen to the experts. Ben Goldacre in his Bad Science column highlights this:

The Commons home affairs select committee is looking at the best way to deal with cocaine. You may wonder why they’re bothering. When the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs looked at the evidence on the reclassification of cannabis it was ignored. When Professor David Nutt, the new head of the advisory council, wrote a scientific paper on the relatively modest risks of MDMA (the active ingredient in the club drug ecstasy) he was attacked by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith.

MDMA, or Ecstasy if you prefer, always recieves incredibly bad press. Leah Betts died after taking an Ecstasy pill on her 18th birthday. The media presented this as though she died as a direct consequence of ingesting the pill. We know now that she died because she drank too much water. But the moral panic had already kicked in and her parents were leading campaigns against the drug, backed by the mainstream media. In truth, the government estimates that 7 people for every million users die every year on average whilst on ecstasy. These deaths are related to indirect effects, mostly through overheating leading to massive organ failure, drinking too much water causing the brain to expand or an overdose. So why do we waste all this money in media campaigns and police crackdowns? Even the ACMD rate it as less of a health and society risk than alcohol. Their report which was rebuffed by Jacqui Smith, who isn’t a scientist, can be found here. These are a couple of particularly interesting extracts from it:

Early rat studies on the pharmacology of MDMA found that as well as levating serotonin it also damaged serotonin neurons (those that release serotonin) in the brain (reviewed by Green et al., 2003). Subsequent studies in non-human primates produced similar findings (Hatzidimitriou et al., 1999), although in mice dopamine neurons were also affected. Although the doses used in these studies were considerably higher than those typically taken recreationally, these preliminary findings raise concerns that MDMA might produce similar nerve cell damage in humans. However, a recent non-human primate study using dosing similar to that seen in humans showed no effect (Fantegrossi et al., 2004).

In contrast to alcohol and stimulants, there are few public order offences deriving solely from the use of MDMA (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2008).

MDMA is used widely as part of the club scene alongside other recreational drugs. The ACMD acknowledges the FRANK website and associated campaigns; however, there is a need for the ‘media-savvy’ user population, in particular, to receive accurate information from a credible and reliable source on risk and harm reduction advice. Such advice on the dangers of use of MDMA with other drugs (poly-drug abuse) should be developed with a special emphasis on guidance for young people in reducing harm.

We are fighting a ‘war’ based on populist myth and a lack of common sense. It’s costing us a vast amount of money from the NHS to the Home Office – all plundering billions into a drugs policy that doesn’t work, in a time when cuts in public spending are looming on the horizon. The total cost of tackling class A drugs is a staggering £110bn in ten years.

Let’s just get real and stop the ignorance shown towards drugs. De-criminalisation saves money and lives.