David Cameron's Drug-Induced Idiocy

Writing in The Telegraph, Tom Chivers notes that British Prime Minister David Cameron's drug policy views changed even more dramatically than Barack Obama's once he took power. In 2005, when Cameron was seeking to lead the Conservative Party, he advocated "alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma." He added: "Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades." Today Cameron illustrates his own observation about politicians:

Every time [it is confronted with pro-reform evidence], the Home Office deadbats with bland statement on the lines of: drugs are bad, mmmkay. This time it's: "We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities. Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer. Through the cross-government drug strategy, we are taking action through tough enforcement, both at home and abroad, alongside introducing a temporary control power and robust treatment programmes that lead people into drug free recovery."

If you managed to read all the way through that, you'll notice it says nothing whatsoever about the evidence, despite my specifically asking for a response to the BMJ, WHO and IJDP studies and the Portugal experience. The Home Office, and the Government, is deliberately ignoring the reality of the drug laws' failure.

More on British prohibitionist orthodoxy here and here.

[Thanks to Richard Cowan for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Big shock, there. Next, you'll be telling me that he didn't actually do anything about the UK's spending problem.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm still waiting for a drug warrior to put forth an argument to keep drugs illegal that could not be used as an argument to reinstate alcohol prohibition.

    Even if I can get them to say "We tried alcohol Prohibition and it caused more problems than it solved", they are incapable of applying that same logic to teh drugz.

    I don't get it.

  • RoboCain||

    It's cultural.

  • BakedPenguin||

    This. Alcohol has been in use by the majority of the population for a long period of time.

    Of course, they'll have to try a new tack soon, b/c pot will be going on its second full generation of majority use soon, too.

  • ||

    It's actually quite incredible how much our ancestors used to drink. Even relatively recently, people drank regularly at lunch. During work.

    Long ago, drinking beer instead of water was common.

  • ||

    When I first started working having a couple of beers at lunch was considered perfectly OK. Some time that changed. The 1980s, I think, though, it was probably more of a change over several years starting in the 1970s.

    I may be wrong, but I trace a lot of the Re-Puritanizing (is that a word?) of America to the Carter Administration. Which is ironic since it was at that time that support for MJ legalization reached a peek, IIANM.

  • sarcasmic||

    The 1980s, I think, though


  • Robert||

    I think you have the timing pegged, and it's not ironic, just the overlap of the peak of one wave with the rise of another.

  • ||

    I think that's so.

    Actually, I believe that social attitudes drive change. "Leaders" just get out in front of the parade and wave the baton as though they were in charge.

  • sarcasmic||

    pot will be going on its second full generation of majority use soon

    And it will continue to be illegal for generations to come.

    Marijuana is thoughtcrime.

    The purpose of keeping it illegal is that it separates those who blindly obey people with power from those who do not.

    Those who obey may be given power themselves, and those who do not deserve to be beaten and locked in a cage.

    It ain't gonna be legal for a long time, if ever.

  • Robert||

    Frequently they'll say it's too late for liquor, and give as evidence of that the repeal of its prohibition, but not too late to prevent other substances from becoming accepted, as evidenced by their continued prohib'n. Yeah, circular, but what can you do?

  • ||

    including the possibility of legalisation and regulation

    When you spell it with an "s" the word means the opposite of when you spell with "z".

    Stupid Americans.

  • ||

    When I was editing our law review, I'd Americanize British spellings. Because I was a fucking tyrant, drunk with power.

    I wonder if that's what happened to Obama?

  • Barack Huzzein Obama||

    Let me be clear.


  • Raspberry Tart||

    Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer.

    I think the PM must have said:
    Those giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation must be supported, but to live drug free lives caught in the cycle of dependency is clearly not the answer.

    The original statement makes no sense.

  • ||

    The startling takeaway I got from this is that a conservative British PM is referencing South Park in a familiar way."drugs are bad,mmmkay." All we need now is an earthquake,a comet and another war for the fulfillment of all the ancient mayan and biblical end times prophesies.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties