Background

The EU conference green paper defined the concept of a civil society as:

“the associational life operating in the space between the state and market…”.

The definition implies that the individual law abiding citizen is sandwiched between what the state will do to reduce drug dealing, drug taking and drug related crime in its country in reflection to a market that demonstrates evidence of opportunities to make money by supplying and stimulating the demand of illegal substances.

In setting out EU policy, the Commission should consider carefully the disparity that exists between what individual member states support and what individual civilians support. The state is more prepared to accept some kind of watered down proposal that, to the individual civilian, might be almost palatable (and if not palatable then simply ineffective or non invasive) that costs as little as possible and does not involved major shifts in governmental policy or law. Conversely, the view of individual civilians is likely to be that they just want to live in an environment that is drug free and drug related crime free. I believe that this is a reasonable attitude likely to be shared by many.

What the EU said it is doing now to tackle drugs is:

“The EU is tackling supply reduction through a combination of legislative law enforcement initiatives”.

I predicted in 2006 that if this policy continued unchanged and unchallenged it will remain the same EU policy for the next 50 years and would remain equally ineffective. Certainly nothing dramatic has changed at the time of writing this article almost one year further down the line. Whilst the proposal might be an agreeable state for short term elected government ministers it was hardly an attractive one that would encourage active support from civil society. Throwing more law and enforcement at drug traffickers is rather pointless considering the raft of laws and enforcements already in existence that are ignored with impudence and equanimity. The same money would be better spent, in my opinion, by removing the demand for drugs from the market.

Proposal

The solution to the drugs problem is a simple matter of economics. Drug dealers make money by selling addictive drugs. When poeple become addicted they will go back to the drug dealer they first traded with. Drugs become more expensive when demand is higher than supply. The drug dealer can make lots of money (tax free) and will protect his territory fiercely; with guns and violence as and when necessary. The more drug addicts there are in the area - the higher the crime rate soars. The only person who wins is the drug dealer.

If EU countries invested in a program to offer free drug rehabilitation to all drug users, it is possible that most drug users would consider seriously the advantage of getting free drug rehabilitation treatment at the point of need, as opposed to buying more drugs that they do not have the money for. Drugs that are addictive create a captive market. Addicts must have easy and, importantly, immediate access to rehabilitation alternatives, otherwise their continued purchase of drugs will most likely lead to the more expensive route of criminal activity with all its costs and consequences.

Many drugs are smoked. The argument in the UK against legalising cannabis was that taking a soft drug would lead to taking hard drugs. Regardless of the strength ('skunk' being about ten times stronger than what was used by hippyes in the 1960s) exposure to smoking cannabis commonly happens with the smoking of tobacco. Consequently EU countries should consider their policies on the display and sale of tobacco. Children are exposed at a young age to undesirable notions about cigarettes. They are displayed prominently like adult sweets in confectioners and supermarkets and then curious children are told that they are bad. This association of tobacco with children’s confectionary is very unhelpful in the battle to prevent young adults and children from becoming smokers. One should consider how many non smokers smoke cannabis? For information it might be useful to note that nicotine is actually more addictive than heroin.

I would recommend that the EU and its member countries consider seriously to take action on these points by banning the sale of cigarettes in sweet shops and certainly to ban public displays of tobacco products. Present smokers would not be inconvenienced if tobacco was sold, for example, via a pharmacist. This might make common sense in countries where pharmacists have diversified into delivering smoking cessation services and I believe would be a very positive move to the medical profession and the World Health Organisation. Such an EU directive to restrict tobacco sales in this way would probably attract a legal challenge from the tobacco industry (as it has already done in Iceland I understand) but, if fought collectively by EU countries and fought collectively through a European court, the cost could be 25 times cheaper.

There are organisations that would deal with drug rehabilitation and counselling. My proposals would not diminish their importance within their communities. What it would do in the longer term, however, is possibly reduce the demand (and hence the cost and resource) for these organisations. I also feel, however, that it would take a European agreement to avoid the possibility of ‘migration’ of addicts from one country to another, so if drug rehabilitation programmes did offer free drug treatment at the point of need, the recipient would have to produce a valid national insurance number for billing purposes. It may also be worth considering a structure for deferred payment for the cost of treatment by the individual to repay when he or she has recovered; perhaps not unlike the policy for repayment of student loans in the UK. Alternatively the bill could be paid initially through benefit at a rate of 20% of their award and 10% of employment paid by a reduction in tax code through the Inland Revenue.

Initially there is bound to be a rush of addicts trying out the service. To begin with there would need to be venues with high security and police protection from the threats of drug dealers. As long as drug users feel safe in going to a rehabilitation centre the scheme will work. If a drug user can go to any centre throughout the country they may be able to avoid intimidation and blackmail from their local drug dealer / gang. With a little effort the amount of drug users still buying from drug dealers would be greatly reduced. There would be savings in cost to drug related crime, the judicial system, police and medicine.

I do not believe that yet more law and enforcement will reduce drugs, drug dealing, drug taking or drug related violence or crime. If anything it seems that in 2007, gun violence (both gang and drug related) is on the increase. Stemming the flow of drugs without treating the addicts will only increase the demand, and the cost, of the drugs themselves. Restricting the availability of drugs makes them rarer and more expensive, which must surely encourage drug manufacturers to continue in their trade.

Removing the market (i.e. remove an addict’s dependency on its supplier) and you instantly remove the purpose of manufacturing the drugs in the first place. The cost of manufacturing would soon become greater than its street value. What drug dealer can compete with free rehabilitation at the point of sale? Essentially every country in the EU should work towards making the entire industry worthless. No profit – no drug manufacturing – no addicts = less crime, fewer criminals, less violence, fewer guns, happier society, safer streets.

All comments and suggestions are welcome. All theories must stand up to scrutiny. If you can see a flaw in the proposal - or you think that something would work better - I am happy to consider it or even to amend my proposal accordingly. This is not a game of who is more politically electable than another. This is about safer streets, less crime and happier societies.