The side effects of taking some illegal drugs such as ecstasy and cannabis can include paranoia, fear and bouts of irrationality.  It seems debating their classification can induce the same effects. 

The sacking of Professor David Nutt by the Home Secretary last week demonstrates the level of fear and polarisation that dominates the drugs debate. 

Why does fear continue to trump facts when it comes to drugs?  Professor Nutt’s dismissal raises significant questions about the utility (futility?) of evidence-based approaches to policy, particularly in the area of drugs.  Few policy areas are as polarised.   Any attempt to consider the possibility of a regulated drugs market is labeled as pro-advocacy; any hesitancy about regulation as dogmatically pro-criminalisation.

For the past couple months Demos has been designing a new project of work that seeks to crack this stymied debate. Demos is seeking to apply systems theory to imagine what the world could potentially look like if drugs were regulated as opposed to criminalised. Without imagining what such a world would entail it is impossible to move beyond the current impasse.  It is shocking that those in both camps (legalisation versus criminalisation) have not engaged in future thinking exercises to strengthen their arguments by considering the following questions: 

 

•       How would a shift from an illegal to regulated system affect patterns of drug use?  Would they increase or decrease?
•       How would addiction and dependency be addressed in a regulated system?  Could it be addressed more effectively?  
•       How would gangs and dealers currently employed in illegal drugs trade respond?
•       To what degree could the state gain control of the use of recreational drugs through regulation?
•       What price would enable regulated drugs to replace the illegal markets (without leading to significant increase in use)?

 

There are a number of compelling arguments why now is the right time for future thinking in this area.  First, scenario-based planning is rarely applied to this field of policy.  By imagining the consequences of an alternative drug policy we can begin to apply a consequentialist moral framework to the question of drugs, as opposed to the current political principle tug-a-war.  What if regulating drugs led to a significantly better world with fewer drug users, billions of dollars saved on enforcement efforts and a neutralised criminal underworld?  In 2003 – 2004 the economic and social costs associated with Class A drug use in England and Wales were about £15 billion, 90 per cent of which were the result of drug-related crimes.  How much of these costs could be translated to surplus if drugs were regulated?  Finally, a number of developments in Central and South America (which you can read about here and here) demand us to take the idea of de-criminalisation seriously at least to the extent of considering the possible consequences.  For many, to open up the debate to consequentialist arguments is simply too frightening:  what if the world does look to be a better place on balance if drugs were regulated?  On the other hand, what if it looks worse? 

 The main goal of this project is to initiate a number of strands of enquiry that would enable drug policy debates to be better informed. To be clear this is not an advocacy project. It is an attempt to move beyond advocacy, beyond criminalisation and beyond the fear that has mired this area of policy.  A much-needed rational approach to the debate about drugs policy must start with a consideration of the likely consequences.