Making Legalization a Conservative Cause in the U.K.

"Is David Cameron the man to begin digging the grave of prohibition?" asks Independent columnist Johann Hari. Cameron, who is running for leader of the Tories, is the latest prominent British politician to turn against the war on drugs. He calls for legalizing drugs at the international level, leaving each country free to set its own policy.

[Thanks to Terry Mazanec for the link.]

Comments

[joe]

Man, that's bold. I wonder if young, leftish, antiwar Brits who are generally Labour voters would be willing to vote Tory because of this?

[Jennifer]

Wait for our DEA to explain why letting countries settle the drug question on their own is undemocratic.

[linguist]

I wonder if young, leftish, antiwar Brits who are generally Labour voters would be willing to vote Tory because of this?

Nice thought, Joe, but having lived there, I have to say I seriously doubt it. More likely, if the idea gets support among the populace, one of the other smaller parties will incorporate it into an anti-war liberal stance.

[quasibill]

Jennifer:

"Wait for our DEA to explain why letting countries settle the drug question on their own is undemocratic."

I think the answer is already in Raich - it's the same reason why letting the states (which are even more democratic than the federal government) aren't allowed to: the central state must have the power to enforce its policies. And for those who believe in the "New American Century", the federal government is the centralized state that must be empowered at all costs.

"Democracy" is a catch phrase used to dupe those who were educated in our public schools...

[quasibill]

bah. Can tell I didn't get any sleep this weekend.

"aren't allowed to:" should be "decide on their wasn't allowed:"

[JMoore]

joe

Based on my experience, no. This may be a very broad generalisation, but party allegiance in Britain always seemed to me more a function of personal identity than political yearnings.

Besides, all the "young, leftish" Brits of my acquaintance have no trouble getting their drugs of choice, regardless of the law. To them, prohibition is simply irrelevant. If you doubt me, I'll be happy to recommend any number of places in London where "C, S, E, and K" are available in plain view.

[JMoore]

Not, of course, that I have ever been to such places or sampled their offerings.

Although I can tell you, NYC has nothing on London!

[Mike Laursen]

Huh? Aren't drugs already legal at the international level?

[joe]

S?

[Eric II]

Wait for our DEA to explain why letting countries settle the drug question on their own is undemocratic.

Didn't they make that argument when Canada was considering legalization? Or rather, something about how it would be disrepectful of the laws accepted by the American people.

[JMoore]

S ... as in Keanu Reeves' best movie

not that I know the letter code from London's favourite drug den, the Cross.

Not that I've ever been to the Cross, either 🙂

[Eric II]

Huh? Aren't drugs already legal at the international level?

Not really. There are international drug trafficking accords out there, and the UN has adopted resolutions on the subject, as well as created an International Drug Control Program. But on the other hand, I think you're free to sail into international waters, put a Dutch flag on your mast, and toke up to your heart's content.

[Ruthless]

Is David Cameron the Ron Paul of the U.K.? If so, the surface of the grave has yet to be scratched. (Meaning no disrespect to Dr. Paul.)

[Larry Horse]

Nice to hear this, but something that I noticed in the Johann Hari blog is that there is the assumption that when drugs are legalized, the government will provide free treatment centers for addicts. If that was a part of drug legalization, I would have to oppose it. While I guess it would be better than the current situation that allows gangs to run inner cities and Latin American countries, I think it's just as dumb for governments to subsidize drug use through free treatment as it is to ban drug use for adults. Free treatment would create a large moral hazard and get a lot more people trying drugs than they would if they knew there was a serious chance they'd die as a heroin addict if they tried smack. The government has no business providing free treatment, and if people die as a result of their decision to use legalized drugs, then so be it. The only role a government should have is to honestly teach children in school the risks of drugs (which we do now, except for maybe the "honestly" part) so that they can make an informed decision on this when they are adults.

[Jennifer]

there is the assumption that when drugs are legalized, the government will provide free treatment centers for addicts. If that was a part of drug legalization, I would have to oppose it.

What if it were a choice between legal drugs + free treatment, or our current system? Those free treatment centers would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the DEA and all those extra prisons, to say nothing of the immorality of stealing harmless people's freedom.

[Eric II]

Free treatment would create a large moral hazard and get a lot more people trying drugs than they would if they knew there was a serious chance they'd die as a heroin addict if they tried smack.

I don't know about that. Save perhaps for some homeless addicts, I can't see too many drug users finding a stint at a government rehab center to be an appetizing experience. Some might accept it as a necessary hardship, but few would see it as something to shrug their should shoulders at.

This is a situation where I think libertarians would be well-advised not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Though in America at least, I think it's all academic for the time being.

[JD]

Regarding "legal at the international level": the US is party to a number of treaties which require signatories to make certain drugs illegal. This is an extra spanner in the works when discussing legalization, because we can't just repeal the laws without being in violation of the treaties. Personally, I'd be all for that - IMO any treaty that requires us to make domestic laws is a bad treaty - but it makes it politically less feasible. I believe the UN "Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances" of 1988 is one of these, if you want to go read the original text. "Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law...The production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, offering, offering for sale, distribution, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation or exportation of any narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance..." is a pretty good sample.

[R C Dean]

This is an extra spanner in the works when discussing legalization, because we can't just repeal the laws without being in violation of the treaties.

So? If we violate the treaties, exactly what bad thing will happen?

[dot dash dash dot]

R C Dean,

With this trigger-happy Jesusfreak at the wheel, Britain might get invaded for violating those treaties. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the Netherlands isn't currently occupied by U.S. troops or paramilitary DEA agents.

Watch for the allegation that drugs are "chemical weapons" and that legalizing nations are "proliferators" as this progresses.

/Out.

[dhex]

"If that was a part of drug legalization, I would have to oppose it."

for the sake of style, i won't actually ask if you're high. but i'm thinking it real fuckin' hard.

[Larry Horse]

I see what you're saying, but part of why I wouldn't want public drug treatment is that I think that a large motivator for the present public support of anti-drug laws is that there is a public distaste for drug users. I think public treatment would, at least in America, make drug legalization harder as it is seen as giving a hand to and facilitating drug users.

[nmg]

Free treatment? What about *enforced* treatement, which is the usual proposal I've heard voided by those questioning prohibition and suggested as an alternative to imprisoning users.

nmg

[Jeff]

I think "free rehab" might be a reason for some Americans to not support legalization-- although "free hots and a cot for most of your natural life" seems to be a perfectly A-OK method for the same group of idiots. I seriously doubt government-funded rehab would present a "moral hazard" however-- are there significant numbers of people out there who refrain from drugs because they don't think they can afford the tab at a rehab center?

[Cliff]

If drugs were legal, then why would public treatment be available in the first place? Who would want to go into treatment? Would they be forced in to treatment by the state? Who makes those rules?

[bwanadik]

Is David Cameron the Ron Paul of the U.K.?

Hahahaha

Is this the first time two Tory leadership contenders advocated the end of the drug war?

Though obviously neither will win. Davis, who probably will, is a fierce drug warrior, despite being a Randy Barnett fan.

It is becoming a more acceptable position. Slowly, but surely, creeping toward the electoral centre.

[Kahn]

Those free treatment centers would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the DEA and all those extra prisons

Which is precisely the reason we'll never legalize drugs. What are you going to do with all those DEA agents?

Just like, if you passed a flat tax, what would you do with all those IRS agents?

'tis the nature of politics. Once the gov't starts spending money, sooner or later it won't be able to stop if it wants to.

In our "democracy" (as they now teach in public schools), of course, the politicians will never want to stop the spending anyway.

[thoreau]

I thought that there were already a lot of subsidized rehab programs. Besides, the direct costs of Prohibition (cops, prisons, etc.) and the indirect costs (street gangs, Afghan warlords, etc.) are pretty substantial.

I don't know what public opinion in the UK is on drug prohibition. I know that many Europeans seem to have a more sane attitude on this than the US, but I don't know if that sane attitude will translate into policy. I'm not holding my breath. Even here in the US marijuana is widely regarded as a joke, yet it remains illegal.

I don't think we'd actually invade the UK if they legalized pot, but I am 100% certain that we'd levy HUGE trade sanctions. And good luck to any traveler from the UK (or any American tourist coming home) who wants to get through customs without a cavity search.

Of course, this will never happen anyway.

[Kahn]

Besides, the direct costs of Prohibition (cops, prisons, etc.) and the indirect costs (street gangs, Afghan warlords, etc.) are pretty substantial.

What's that got to do with it? Weed prohibition is still alive and well.

You're being entirely too rational.....entirely.

[Isaac Bartram]

thoreau

Travellers returning from Amsterdam do so largely unmolested by Customs.

I realize that the Netherlands' drug laws fall short of legalization. Nevertheless they are the most liberal anywhere (prettymuch).