There was a shocking documentary on Channel 5 on 19th July 2018, filmed at a prison in the North East. 50% of all inmates were there on drugs offences, drugs were endemic within the walls with dealers openly, and with the full knowledge of the guards, trading drugs, some making £3000 a week inside. More shocking was that some prisoners wanted to be inside as the gains were so lucrative.
I knew it was bad but had no idea it was that bad.
The following morning on LBC I listened aghast as Nick Ferrari revealed the crime statistics that have just been released. 50% of all crime is committed in London, shocking but no surprise, and nationwide over 90% of crime is never solved. Most of it drug related.
Ferrari also posited to an ex-police officer that under-reporting means that the situation was even worse than that. He conceded that it was.
Simply put, crime is now out of control. So, is it time to redefine crime?
Now when you can walk along any street in any medium sized town, let alone Khan’s London, and smell the stink of cannabis and watch completely unabashed and unworried drug dealers plying their trade you know there is a problem.
The war on drugs is lost.
The link between drug dealing and gang, gun and knife crime is undeniable. The fact that most of the criminals involved and their unfortunate victims are black or Eastern European is also undeniable. But what is also undeniable, and unforgivable is that in the face of this evidence this Government, and all governments before them, have had no strategy to deal with it. Nor, as far as I am aware, does UKIP.
So, I’m going to start the debate. This is what I believe.
1. The drug problem must now be considered a medical and mental issue rather than a criminal one.
2. The victims of drugs are the hopeless emaciated users of them, the stabbed kids and those burgled to fund the habit. Not the chattering classes or, probably, most readers here. These victims need help and medical intervention, not punishment.
3. The catalyst that feeds this evil industry are the largely middle-class and middle-aged cocaine users who with their decadence, depravity and holier-than-thou attitudes pump the real money – tens of billions- into that which creates this whole economy in the first place.
In short, it’s not the fault of Winston in Brixton, it’s the fault of Hooray Henry in Hampstead.
However, Hooray Henry is not going to get stabbed on the street, or go to jail even in the infinitesimally small chance that he’s caught. Senior police officers are not directing their diminishing forces to catch him either. There is a pervasive line of thought and an unwritten rule that Henry, with his dinner-party and week-end drug habit, is not the problem, when in fact he is the prime cause. By the way, Henry votes Tory.
So, what should we do?
Simple. We take the money out the system and put the revenues back into the Police and NHS though licences and taxes.
If all drugs are decriminalised, and available through secure Government licensed premises, to registered users at sub-street prices two things will happen, and fast.
The first is that all the drugs dealers will be out of business overnight as the Government would have just disrupted and dismantled their entire economic model; and secondly, the ‘naughtiness’ and rituals of the undercover drug users would have been turned into banality. It will go out of fashion.
As an example, in the early ‘80’s CB radios were legalised. Within months the trade and use of them was wiped out as the trend died off naturally.
But more significantly, in Colorado and in Portugal, there is already compelling evidence that legalisation and/or decriminalisation is not only reducing crime and death rates dramatically, but also, amongst the youth, new users of drugs are in dramatic decline. Canada is following suit. Why not the UK?
Combined with humane and considerate treatment of those addicted to drugs, this policy would have dramatic effects, and very quickly.
Decriminalisation will free up, not only half our prison space, but an equivalent amount of police time and vast amounts of money. In addition, revenues from legitimately licensed drugs will add billions to the public purse. It only makes sense to do this.
There is, currently, amongst the two major political parties, no appetite for this radical approach which is why I strongly suggest UKIP pick up the ball and run with it. Remember this is not, in 2018 Britain, a moral question, it’s purely practical. We cannot go on like this.
Let’s get the debate started, and back it up with facts from criminologists, scientists and medical practitioners first, and start making some changes.
i was in prison last year the drug epidemic in prison is a joke i was in for drugs offences and tested positive for drugs when arrested but i was never tested for drugs while in prison, but other inmates i knew that were not inside for drugs offences were regulary tested where is the sense in that. it s to keep the figures down, if they did tests on every inmate the results would 80% positive that would be such an embarrassment to the prison service and the state
Hope all is going ok for you on the out.
Hi Jason.
It would be good to have an article from you on this subject ( Viv? is that OK)
Or talk to me directly ( Viv can give you my email address )
Best of luck.
Hope you are OK now.
K.
hello Mr Bav thanks for the article. I kind of agree, well always have, that individuals should be free to choose, ie no state interference. You (rightly) suggest decriminalising” . I prefer legalising.
The difference is significant. Yes UKIP should support legalising all restricted drugs. Money should be diverted from the criminal justice system to the health system. Citizens should be allowed to choose, even if they end up in an opium den. The same for prostitution, legalise it. The government needs restricting not its citizens.
I remember a discussion amongst user-dealers along the lines of preferred ways to smuggle drugs into prisons, tennis balls over the fence, drones, inside nappies on family visits, well one of them said,
“no, too much bother, we just get the guards to bring drugs in for us.”
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-legalization-and-decriminalization/
I agree . Legalise.
I agree, much of the crime that takes place nowadays is inevitably drugs-related.
If drugs could be somehow decriminalised and regulated, the crime figures could/should drop dramatically as a result.
I might not feel comfortable with ‘hard’ drugs like cocaine and heroin being available ‘off-the-shelf’ at supermarkets, but certainly there is a case for ‘softer’ drugs like cannabis.
What draws younger people into being tempted to try cannabis, or other drugs for that matter? The fact they are ‘illegal’, “ooh we’re not supposed to do that” etc. Take the ‘edginess’ away, and you may find that kids become less likely to start on the so-called ‘softer’ drugs, because its no longer “cool” to do so.
But then again, cannabis has some proven medicinal values for treating certain ailments, and we can’t have our governments upsetting the Big Pharma corporations and denting their profits by allowing access to natural remedies instead of expensive chemical formulations?
Also, stop and think about Afghanistan for a second, why is this seemingly backwards stone-age country of such significance to the USA and the West? Could it be perhaps for control of the poppy fields, from where the opiates (heroin) are produced? Ask yourself the question of why the EU is so keen for Albania to become a member state? Could it have anything to do with Albania being a route to smuggle these opiates into Europe from Afghanistan?
The mind indeed boggles, and while I know there is a serious drug problem (and I don’t like it one bit), it would come as a shock to many people to learn that this is all being done DELIBERATELY and facilitated by our own governments. For what purpose, you might ask. Engineered control. Read “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, as mentioned in Viv’s article today. And think of the words “people must love their servitude”, when you look at drug addicts, completely under somebody else’s control.
It’s frightening…
Hi Stuart. The problem with the drugs issue is that no one at a senior level within this party ….or any other… is prepared to talk about it. Where are our MEP’s or spokesmen? They either do not have the intellectual capacity to debate…. or are too sh*t scared to do so.
That’s why UKIP can’t win elections.
No guts…. No glory….
The only decent senior officer we have.. one who speaks up… is Freddy, as far as I can see.
I was talking about it as a candidate in 2007. The Lib Dem said lets put cannabis before a royal commission. There was a huge sigh of relief, and all the candidates rushed to agree.
I spoke last, and said if doctors can prescribe heroin in the best interests of their patients, with say, MS, why not cannabis? I got a huge round of applause to the other candidates dismay…
Mr Bav I am not at all convinced that there ever was a serious war on drugs -never mind losing that war. Would our jails not have more rich, professional and celebrity status inmates than they currently have if the authorities were serious about drug crime? Currently, as far as I can see it just selective low life that are thrown in jail. Much of the establishment’s week-end would be taken up visiting family in penal centres and we couldn’t do with that could we.
But you make many valid points and we should give serious thought to the problem and come up with a policy to this most serious issue in society.
I agree that “The war on drugs is lost” and with most of the article. However I think that regarding it as a medical issue is also a big mistake.
Many people warn and rightly so about the danger of big government. Individual medics are generally honest, dedicated, hard working individuals whose concern for their patients is wholly admirable. However some, for better or for worse, are idealogically driven.
The BMA is a trade union. One that claims to represent all doctors even though many doctors are not members. In my opinion they already have far too much influence on the Government.
I believe UKIP is absolutely correct to advocate for a small state. Handing power over to the medical establishment in this case is not the answer. I don’t have space here to present a full argument but in my opinion we should be advocating full legalisation (with appropriate licensing). Not just decriminalisation. Most drug users do not experience serious medical problems and for those that do, we should certainly try to provide medical assistance.
All done gradually like boiled frogs
Simple make it legal and taxable5% VAT for a year or two . Income tax on earnings a humanitarian rate of 5% flat rate. Discounts for 3 years registration. Free packets with disgusting pictures, but Guaranteed strengths by weights and measures , Designated drug dealing streets, then Rates for using special streets. then corporation tax because all the benefits provided. Normalisation and a Profession of registeredand qualified drug dealig with a degree…….Join the rest of us mugs.
Not keen on decriminalisation of class-A drugs as it will just encourage sociopaths to get off their nut and wreck the country;
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/484882/The-Houses-Charliement-MPs-cocaine-scandal-drugs-investigation
Interesting and informative article. I just wonder what the attitude of the potential UKIP voter would be. We need to be sure that such policy would result in a net gain rather than a net loss of votes at this critical time. For now that consideration outweighs common sense in dealing with the issue.
UKIP at some point has to have principles, an outlook on society.
I would have liked to have UKIP promote Freedom for citizens and smaller government.
Since joining this site have spoken for UKIP adopting free speech as a policy and spoken against UKIP’s manifesto policy of free speech “within the law” You either have free speech or you do not.
The same with freedom to use substances, the debate is not about whether substance can be harmful, it is about personal freedom versus the state. Citizen versus government.
UKIP should not be using a slide rule to calculate popularity of its policies to gain power and votes, rather it should be a light in a dark world, a beacon to attract people to its cause.
Liberty, freedom and reducing governmental reach should be a core value of UKIP. If that means legalising substances, so be it. If that means rights to defend oneself in your home, so be it.
You either have freedom or you do not. UKIP should stand for individual freedom, whether its a vote catcher or not.
I like that definition Chris, ‘ light in a dark world’ …. If UKIP can reinvent itself as a party of light handedness and freedom, rather than (erroneously) perceived as ultra-conservative, then it would make huge gains.
I think thats worth working on as an idea.
I remember going on an American base in England as a young child (post WW2) and just feeling the difference of culture.
Perhaps Mr Bav., I will expand upon the idea over the next few days, as a 100 to 300 word idea and send you copy for comment via Viv if agreeable. As Freddy would say, I am not a political philosopher but,
Lets do it.
Chris,
I agree; we need our freedom back, but I am just concerned about the timing with our having to defeat Treason May as the first priority.
Of course I could go on about our unseen core values again…
Jack T, I am free to speak simply because I have no influence over reality, Your point has strong validity and is probably tactically sound. Its just as well I’m not in charge of spending UKIP’s political capital. Still I will fly a kite or two.
I just think that as the conservatives have abandoned the tory model of the 1950s and haven’t a clue what Labour is now, perhaps there’s room for UKIP to speak directly to voters in the gap they’ve left open. You should go on about core values. i hope you will tear down any construct or ideas I put on paper and expose weaknesses.
I appreciate your comment Jack T – thanks.