Society
The unwinnable war
Douglas Marr
By the time this is read, many of us will have brought in the New Year with the drug of our choice. Our suppliers, ensconced in the remote mountains and valleys of Aberdeenshire and Moray, will have produced some of it locally. More exotic varieties will have been sourced further afield, in Europe or beyond. The dealers and pushers, strategically located on every high street and retail park, will have sold it on at considerable profit, after hooking users with lucrative cut-price offers.
Consumption will have done significant harm to the health of many users and a few will have died as a direct or indirect consequence. Some will have become addicted and resorted to crime or begging to subsidise their habit. Many A and E departments will have been flooded by the literal and metaphorical fallout of this dangerous drug that destroys individuals, families and communities.
I could go on at even more tedious length about the impact of alcohol on Scotland. It's probably enough to echo Nicola Sturgeon's words that 'alcohol misuse is the biggest public health challenge we face'. Whatever our take on minimum pricing, it is encouraging that a public debate on our attitude to the use and abuse of alcohol is gathering pace. The debate is sensitising us to the issues and raising awareness of the cost and consequences of alcohol abuse. There is at last the possibility of a mature conversation leading to consensus on a national strategy to address alcohol misuse. Of course it's unlikely that the consensus will stretch as far as making illegal the manufacture, sale and possession of a drug as medically and socially wasting as alcohol.
It's strange that, while we accept the value of a national debate on alcohol, we deny the worth of a similar debate on other and, possibly less harmful drugs, currently classed as illegal. Former minister Bob Ainsworth was pilloried for calling for a debate on their decriminalisation. His call provoked the usual knee-jerk responses, best encapsulated as 'bury our heads in the sand and it will go away'. If a national debate can lead us towards consensus on addressing alcohol abuse, why would a similar debate not be equally effective in developing a mature strategy on proscribed drugs?
The media regularly describe current policies as the 'war on drugs'. If it is a war then it is a guerrilla war, in which it is difficult to identify and tie down the 'enemy'.
The answer of course is that a minimum of two sides is required for a debate. We will be denied that debate as long as those brave enough to put their heads above the parapet are sniped at from all sides. Ainsworth was in greatest danger from 'friendly fire' when his own party's spokesperson described him as 'extremely irresponsible'. Yet what could be more irresponsible than preventing a reasoned and measured debate on how best to deal with something that is eroding many of our communities? It may be that those who argue most strongly against a rational debate do so because they are aware of the weakness of their arguments and positions.
More than likely, a national debate would demonstrate the failure of current policies. Advocates of zero tolerance would doubtless claim that record drug seizures show the effectiveness of current policies. My own take is the direct opposite, that record seizures merely indicate the Canute-like characteristics of those strategies and measures. All police forces recognise that seizures represent a relatively small proportion of drugs in circulation at any one time. Consequently record seizures simply mean record amounts in circulation.
The media regularly describe current policies as the 'war on drugs'. If it is a war then it is a guerrilla war, in which it is difficult to identify and tie down the 'enemy'. But, as history tells us, guerrilla wars are rarely winnable and most end in compromise and accommodation. The war analogy is helpful, however, as it permits an examination of the concept of 'collateral damage'. The euphemism was used widely during the Vietnam war to desensitise public opinion to the destruction of human life and property in the name of the 'greater good'.
A similar desensitising process accompanies the 'war on drugs'. Those who push a hard line appear to accept as inevitable the waste of mainly young lives in the quest for an illusory victory at some unspecified time in the future. From the relative safety and comfort of their communities and university offices they condemn other communities to the daily grind of drug-related crime and misery.
If we are to deal successfully with drug misuse we cannot afford to pursue a single strategy that rules out all others. The 'just say no' message is facile and fails to recognise the extent to which drug culture has permeated the social lives of many young people. Drug misuse does not respect or recognise social and economic circumstances. How many parents delude themselves by saying, in hope rather than certainty, my child would never do drugs? The stark message to anyone labouring under that misapprehension is – you simply do not know.
Latterly I was the headteacher of two secondary schools. The first was a large inner-city school set amidst areas of debilitating deprivation and widespread drug abuse. The other was in a leafy and very affluent area. The two contrasting schools had one thing in common – young people in both were experimenting with illegal drugs. It is possible that illegality and risk were part of the allure. There is no rhyme or reason why a young person becomes involved with drugs. It is largely unpredictable and more punitive legislation is unlikely to change that.
As soon as a young person is sucked into the hidden, twilight world of drug abuse they are at the mercy of those who ruthlessly exploit their vulnerability.
The impartiality of drug addiction was confirmed for me when a former colleague's son was stabbed to death during a drug-fuelled row in a squalid squat. It's probably quite hard for my former colleague and other grieving and guilt-ridden parents to accept that their dead children were simply collateral damage – a sacrifice worth making. Current attitudes towards the use of illegal drugs cut young people off from sources of support and mainstream society. As soon as a young person is sucked into the hidden, twilight world of drug abuse they are at the mercy of those who ruthlessly exploit their vulnerability.
Few, if any, would argue that drug misuse is in any way desirable or enhances the lives of users. However an increasing number of people are coming to accept that current approaches have failed to address the problem. A surprising 92% of those who responded to a recent survey in the Observer agreed that drug use should be decriminalised. That response may indicate a growing recognition that the so-called war on drugs is unwinnable and is already lost.
The international nature of supply means that individual governments are unlikely to be able to stem the flow. The value of the trade exceeds the GNP of some countries and it is possible that some national governments are at least indirectly involved in supply. Nearer home, the street value of drugs means that there will always be importers and suppliers who believe that reward outweighs risk.
If we are to address successfully the blight arising from illegal drugs we need to destroy the profitability of the trade. We need to attack head on any idea that drug use is in any way sophisticated, edgy or exciting. This requires reconsideration of supply and a debate on alternatives such as supply through prescription. That would go some way to demonstrate drug use for what it is – a debilitating illness.
The Scottish government has shown commendable determination to deal with national misuse of alcohol. It now needs to show similar resolve and courage to open the debate on how to rescue current and future users from the clutches of drug dealers and the generals directing the 'war on drugs'.
Douglas Marr CBE is a former headteacher
