Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Professor David Nutt is rocking the boat once again. The former chief drugs adviser to the Government, who was sacked in 2009 after saying that tobacco and alcohol are more harmful than some illicit substances, has now added his name to a letter to The Lancet raising questions about the perceived dangers of so-called legal highs. In fact, many of the recorded fatalities were caused by substances that were already illegal, Professor Nutt and Dr Leslie King claim.
All of this only re-emphasises the confusion at the heart of the “war on drugs”, and the extent to which it is failing. In this case it might be more accurately called the “war on legal drugs”, as these synthetic substances, mimicking the effects of proscribed drugs, lie outside the law. There is a cat-and-mouse game being played here. As soon as one pharmaceutical compound is identified, catalogued and placed on a schedule of banned drugs, the makeshift labs create another, barely altered but strictly legal. Such activities only make a further mockery of a system already long since discredited.
As recent experiences in Colorado demonstrate in the case of marijuana, a sane and gradual process of legalisation does not trigger a collapse in civilised behaviour. It also, as it happens, creates a handy yield in tax revenue – not to mention the undoubted benefits from drug use being treated as a health issue, rather than as a simple criminal offence.
Legalised drugs would be far less adulterated, of consistent quality and subject to the kind of rational risk assessment that we apply to tobacco and alcohol. The result of the prohibition is criminalisation and a net increase in the harm done to individuals and society, both here and often in the poor countries where the drugs are produced. Meanwhile, in a spectacular illustration of the law of unintended consequences, the profits from this illicit trade fund all manner of terrorism and organised crime.
The war on drugs is being lost; the choice is only when we move to a more effective regulatory system. It should be guided by the conclusions of a royal commission. Sad to say, for all the contributions from experts such as Professor Nutt, there is little sign of progress.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments