From Free Life No 38, July 2001

Editorial - Drugs Are No Escape from Europe

One of the more interesting ideas to emerge from the current panicky rethink within the Conservative Party is that there should be a debate on drug policy. This has already begun outside the Party. The Metropolitan Police have given up arresting people for possessing small amounts of cannabis, and our former Ambassador to Columbia and our former "drug Czar" have admitted that the war on drugs cannot be won. Jack Straw is not the only father in British politics. He is simply the only one so far unlucky enough to have had a child arrested for drug offences. The apparent willingness of senior Conservatives to think aloud about some degree of legalisation is a welcome sign.

It is also evidence of their slow return to electoral common sense. There is no defence of the war on drugs. It is an infringement of our right to do with ourselves as we please. It is an excuse for infringing a whole range of other substantive and procedural rights. It encourages both petty crime, so far as many users steal to finance their habit, and more serious crime, so far as it places a bounty on the formation of large criminal conspiracies to supply drugs. And, as said, it cannot be won. There is no way that the authorities can intercept even a few per cent of the drugs daily imported into this country and made ready for sale on the streets. Even if they could, most synthetic drugs can be made in the average kitchen from chemicals that are freely available. And, again as said, many of the likely victims of any effort to enforce the law will now be the children of the middle classes.

If the Conservatives were to start a debate within their own party, it could have only one outcome: a recommendation for at least a partial abandonment of the lost war on drugs. From my own knowledge of Conservative politics, I can say that there will be no explosion of outrage among the activists. Most of these are already familiar with the abstract arguments, or are worried about their children. As for the others, they are so focussed on the European issue that they will tolerate any policy change likely to bring a Eurosceptical government to power.

The real explosion would be within the Labour Party. The Government has committed itself against any legalisation. So long as the Conservatives remain equally committed, this is a cheap commitment in political terms. But let the Conservatives advocate legalisation, and the Ministers would find themselves glued to a position for which there was no valid argument. At the same time, they would find the still substantial fringe within the Labour Party and the still more substantial libertarian element among their supporters set against them. Either the Government would stick to its position and suffer endless damage, or it would be forced into a barely less damaging retreat. The Conservatives could not lose.

This being said, taking up the libertarian position on drugs would not be without cost for the Conservatives. For this is not - as I am sure many now think - a diversion from the debate on Europe. In fact, it requires a rethink of both our involvement in the European project and in the great web of treaties and other initiatives that collectively make up the New World Order.

We cannot legalise even cannabis without tearing up a mass of treaty commitments that go back to the 1920s. Almost without exception, drugs were made illegal in the country in response to American pressure; and this pressure is institutionalised within the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the European Union. In the legal sense, an Act of Parliament is enough to change our drugs policy. In the political sense, however, there are all these international commitments to be renegotiated.

It is suggested that decriminalisation - which is the Dutch solution - may save us from these problems. I am not so sure. Holland is a country of little importance; and what happens there can usually be ignored in other countries. But Britain is big enough to be taken as an example. The Americans and all the special interest groups that benefit from the current policy may not be so tolerant.

So let us welcome the calls for a debate, but not suppose that this can serve as an alternative to the debate on national independence. It is just another variation on the theme.

Sean Gabb