THE CASE FOR THE DECRIMINALISATION OF DRUGS

by William McKelvey MP

The use of illicit drugs in Scotland is still growing relentlessly as it has been over the past 20 years. The trail of destruction and damage it causes, not only to the drug user but also to their families and the wider community, is one of the most serious problems facing Scotland today. Yet still our politicians are very reluctant to discuss and debate the issue and will run a mile before contemplating any different stance to the war on drugs for fear of incurring the wrath of the righteous. By not facing up to these moral puritans we bury our heads in the sand and are implicated in allowing the deaths, broken families, crime and disillusionment to continue as well as the relentless growth in the use of illicit drugs.

In Scotland we have the distinction of having the world's youngest injectors of heroin according to an unpublished World Health Organisation report. It revealed a world beating average of 16 years, with the youngest injector in the study just 12 years old. It is not surprising that in the US, Glasgow is known as the junkie capital of Europe! Indeed with almost 100 drug-related deaths in Strathclyde alone this year it cannot be disputed that we have a serious problem. So despite UK-wide spending in excess of 500 million pounds last year to combat drugs today there are even more drugs on the market.

For those who would advocate that we need to spend more on prohibition it is well worth studying the experience of the US - 440,000 prisoners in local jails, 87,000 in federal prisons and we can add to that 2.7 million people on probation and more than 500,000 on parole. These figures represent the highest proportion of the US population incarcerated in their entire history, as well as the highest proportion incarcerated in any country in the world. In 1992 some 535,000 people were arrested for possession, sale or manufacture of cannabis. In six cases life sentences were imposed. And despite spending over $20 billion per year on criminal justice approaches the supply of illegal drugs of higher purity is more available than ever in the US. There must therefore be much more applied thinking to alternative strategies to the war on drugs.

No one has yet provided the solution to eliminate drug use since choices are far more complex than simply illegality versus decriminalisaion or legalisation. But what the experience of other countries' success and failures have shown is the need to stop vilifying drug users. It cannot be acceptable that in 1991 70 per cent (2,928) of the 4,152 people found guilty of drug offences in Scotand were for possession of cannabis. Neither can it be acceptable that 80 per cent of police resources used in the fight against drug trafficking is devoted to cannabis offences.

We should immediately decriminalise the sale and possession of small amounts of cannabis and make it available by prescription to those suffering from AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other diseases where it can be of great help.

I personally found it very disappointing that the Select Committee on Scottish Afairs' attempt to recommend a Dutch approach of decriminalising small amounts of cannabis for personal use was voted down by a majority of a single vote in the Spring of last year. Fiscal fines are a form of fixed penalty in exchange for proceedings not being instituted. Acceptance of a fiscal fine is not treated as a conviction. I support the extension of fiscal fines to those found in possession of cannabis as a substitute for decriminalisation for now. But my ultimate aim would be the decriminalisation of cannabis.

But what about hard drugs, particularly heroin? The more I read, the more people I come across who work with addicts, the more I hear from drug users and their families, the more I become aware of the objections to methadone substitution. It is certainly more harmful than unadulterated heroin and more addictive. It may be useful and effective as part of a long term maintenance programme but as a means of helping an addicted person be weaned from their addiction it has proved inadequate.

I am now more in favour of providing pure clean supplies of pharmaceutical heroin through the NHS to heroin users who wish to kick the habit. I believe that if heroin was decriminalised and supplied free of charge to those prepared to take part in a drug reduction programme it would reduce the level of mixing drugs and the death rate would decline and moreover the maiming by loss of limbs by those injecting drug cocktails would decrease radically. I am also convinced that the 16 billion pounds drugs-related crime bill would also drop.

I am pragmatic however, and recognise that there is a place for a methadone maintenance programme for those reluctant to go on a drug-reduction programme. Long-term maintenance on methadone has been shown in Edinburgh to stabilise lifestyles and give a chance to addicts to lead fairly normal lives, often working and being able to make or repair relationships. I acknowledge that to adopt such policies widely will be expensive but we need to look at the overall savings in terms of life, in terms of street safety and the reduction in crime and misery. (The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs calculated the cost where a whole parallel economy existed in some housing estates based on shoplifting to order and other crimes costing 936 million pounds per year in goods stolen). Furthermore, the eventual drying up of a once very profitable business for the drug barons must provide a safeguard for new generations of potential users. The Swiss and the Dutch have already reached this conclusion and have begun similar programmes to this.

I don't want to see more deaths, more addicts, further increases in crime and the desperation of families and whole communities, whilst we watch and wait for the Swiss and Dutch results. I believe the time has come for us to have the courage to act. We need to accept that young people often take drugs because they like them, at least in the initial stages. The problem as I see it has been the type of drug education young people have received.

Education needs to begin at least two years before the likely age of experimentation. This could mean beginning drug education as early as eight years old. This education has to be appropriate for the age group concerned. Primary school children are more likely than adolescents to heed the voices of those in authority but for teenagers, life skills approaches are more appropriate. I welcome the recent initiative to make information about drugs widely available to secondary school pupils and if this is seen as harm reduction rather than a full discouragement of drugs I believe such education is likely to be more effective in safeguarding young people. There is a particular need for action on Ecstasy. The drug is widely used, or thought to be widely used. No one knows what they are getting when they buy an Ecstasy tablet. Teaching people how to take drugs safely raises difficult ethical consideration I know, but it is appropriate at raves and other gatherings where young people are going to take drugs anyway. Instead of getting information about the drug and how to use it from the dealers, information should be widely available. I cannot think of a situation more in need of a clear harm reduction message. The suggestion of water being freely and widely available at raves and for chill-out areas to be provided is very welcome.

Given the widespread ignorance about drugs it is not surprising that parliament is fearful of the public reaction to decriminalisation. However, where medical approaches have been prope'rly implemented public acceptance has been forthcoming. I believe that this could be extended to selective decriminalisation when the benefits become apparent. There are, however, limits as to how far parliament can go at present. We are signatories to various treaties on narcotics trafficking which restrict our freedom of movement on legislation. We need to tread carefully on decriminalisation but we should not be deterred.

Drugs bring out a set of emotional responses in politicians - "over my dead body" is a frequently heard comment regarding liberalisation. But I have seen members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs views change towards a more tolerant or realistic approach to substitute prescribing and harm reduction. If a crime reduction pay-off can be shown - (the police accept a 30 per cent reduction in Edinburgh following the introduction of the methadone programme) then MPs will see the case can be made for being softer on drugs.

When politicians grasp the nettle and stop moralising about drug use the argument against decriminalisation will be outdated. Through decriminalising cannabis, licensing drugs such as heroin for those who will benefit from a reduction programme and moving to a methadone programme to stabilise the remainder who need support, together with education programmes for very young children as well as older children and their parents, plus life skill courses and diversions from prosecution, we may yet beat the big time drug dealers.

William McKelvey is the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.