UK Why do we so wilfully cover up the failure, of the war on drugs? Options

[TeachMe]

Why do we so wilfully cover up the failure of the war on drugs?

The vulnerable are left unprotected by our attitudes to substance abuse, argues a leading documentary maker

Comments (15)

Angus Macqueen The Observer, Sunday 1 August 2010 Article historyAsuccess rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Where were the headlines? Surely the press, obsessed by crime and drug-fuelled violence, would have it splashed across the front page. Not a peep. Why not?

If heroin gets in, we can only suppose cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in equally successfully. Gordon Meldrum, of the Scottish branch of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, tasked with coordinating our battle against drugs smuggling, shrugs: "1% or 10% – it is not good enough." He claims that a breakthrough in targeting top smugglers is around the corner, but when asked if there is any chance of achieving the 60-70% target the United Nations estimates would be required to change fundamentally the market in illegal drugs, he simply shakes his head.

I have been making a documentary series, Our Drugs War. They are not my first films on drugs. But even I was stunned by McKeganey's 1% figure – and the lack of response. I quoted it in interviews with senior police officers, drugs advisers and politicians; few expressed surprise, few felt that current policies were remotely adequate. Most questioned whether the Home Office was the best place to make drugs policy; surely it is an issue for health. But these public figures would only express their worries away from the camera.

I would ask why they were so concerned about opening up the debate. The response was almost comic in its predictability: "The Daily Mail." Anyone who steps out of line on policy gets shot down fast. Just ask Professor David Nutt, one of the world leaders on the effects of drugs on the brain and the now ex-chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. The home secretary summarily sacked him for stepping out of line.

Drugs policies have little to do with science, health risk or harm. They have been hijacked by the emotive rhetoric of moralists.

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse – the truth is that there is a collective lack of will to address one of our major social problems. We bury our heads and pretend that banning drugs equals regulation. Quite the reverse; driving drugs underground leaves them unregulated and consumers unprotected. Just what is in the drugs they buy, what dose is safe, what are the side effects? And not just "old" drugs such as cocaine. There's the astonishing market in synthetic drugs which has grown up largely since the banning of ecstasy – operating in grey areas of legality and fuelling weekend parties up and down the country.

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears. Last year mephedrone was the craze, got banned and has been replaced by naphyrone. Ban… ban… ban… As John Arthur, head of the Edinburgh drugs charity Crew, says: "It seems to make sense to ban, but it does not work. It makes things worse. It criminalises everything."

This summer the nation's kids are out on the round of music festivals where alcohol is sold more cheaply than water and tobacco companies can be sponsors. Yet to get their fix they will either end up breaking the law, buying dodgy stuff from dealers in toilets, or they will swallow many pills before the festival to avoid security checks.

The only way to control and channel this demand is to tell the truth. If a drug really kills, tell us. If it is really dangerous, tell us. But equally, be honest when it is not. Regulate supply via prescription or chemists.

Look at the impact of tobacco education. In my lifetime we have moved away from a society where we smoked in trains, planes and pubs. We have easily accepted that we cannot smoke in any of them. We have been persuaded that tobacco really kills. Yet those who choose to go on smoking are free to do so. Because they want to.

Why should other drugs be so different? Some poor souls will end up as addicts – that is inevitable. But it should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Addictions of all types are usually a product of self-medication to avoid facing the world and we should do everything to help.

Treatment is much, much cheaper than putting people through the justice system and maybe locking them up in prison – where they will come across more drugs, of course. In this age of cuts, huge savings could be made at every stage of the drugs story.



Then there is the wider context and cost – be it in Latin America, Mexico or now Afghanistan. I went to Kabul, where the west finances both sides of the conflict. On one side, soldiers die and our tax money is spent to uphold a government riddled with drug-related corruption. On the other, the huge profits from an illegal heroin trade supply over 60% of the Taliban's finance.

Drugs money in one form or another makes up almost half of Afghanistan's GDP. These vast sums are generated solely because heroin is illegal.

On the frontline our policy has been equally confused. Some years British troops in Afghanistan are ordered to eliminate poppy production; other years eradication is deemed counterproductive because it will alienate the farmers we need on our side.

General Stanley McChrystal, before he was replaced, was for leaving most farmers in peace, while the Kabul government, presumably operating on last year's plans, sent teams down to Helmand on a determined drive to eradicate.

The counter-narcotics minister in Kabul shrewdly observes that if we ever stop it here, heroin will simply be grown somewhere else – the profits are too attractive.

Regulating drugs sensibly is not a magic solution. I make no bones about the dangers of drugs, be they heroin or the industrial cleaner, GBL [gamma butyrolactone]. People will continue to die each year.

I do not wish to undervalue the real emotion of each family, but we have to start being brave enough to acknowledge the level of failure of present strategies. Drugs are not a problem of morality and crime but of health.

One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."


Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4


hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/01/angus-macqueen-drugs-trade-policy

[groovelick]

Angus is being a busy man this week http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?show...=227338&hl=

Lets just hope he's ready for murdocracy onslaught he will get

This post has been edited by groovelick: Aug 1 2010, 01:25 AM

[groovelick]

More from Angus here

[groovelick]

Why do we so wilfully cover up the failure of the war on drugs?


One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."


Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4


hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/01/angus-macqueen-drugs-trade-policy

Thats the lead quote in a few articles in other news sources quoating the Gaurdian

[Arbuscule]

Cheers Teach me and Groovelick

I'm really puzzled as to why the Daily Mail have such clout Dunno if their 'middlebrow' target audience are so important cos they tend to be 'swing' voters.

tbh it's infuriated me most my life as my family read the Mail the Express and the Telegraph. I grew up on that poison back in the day when Irish Republicans and Socialists/ commies were the Hate Mail's main preocupations (they didn't much care for hippies and punks either )

In some ways I can thank the Mail for my anarchic views which were largely formed in reaction to those cnuts. Never thought I'd thank the Daily Mosley for anything


Anyone have any serious thoughts about why the Mail weild such power ?

[Hughie Green]

Excellent article except for the usual piffle about the imaginary Taliban/Heroin connection

[AngryAfghan]

Anyone have any serious thoughts about why the Mail weild such power ?

Because most people are ignorant, it's actually embarassing. "Daily Mosley"

This post has been edited by AngryAfghan: Aug 1 2010, 03:45 AM

[Pyro420]

Excellent article except for the usual piffle about the imaginary Taliban/Heroin connection

dont know where you get the idea that the Taliban aren't involved in the heroin trade from?
initially they weren't, accepted, but in the post 9/11 world theyve realised how much money they can make. trust me i have a mate currently in Lashkar Gar who tells me what they find..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ncy-817230.html

[bongme]

Hi

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse

True But there again...

Daily Mail Fears NO one We all know bout the daily mail as a population EVEN there own readers CONSTANTLY are forever telling the Mail off for mistruths, misinformation and so on!!!

Its about time this UK media started telling the Public the truth about most political things instead of back hander deals and waving flags of we know best or flags of we know all etc.. Bullshiters and they think the rest of the UK are to stupid to see that they are stupid even more so! we don't all live in Fairland!

We pay these twats Millions a year to repeat and repeat the same shit about cannabis and may other subjects too! They lie they cheat and mislead the public at every-turn for headlines grabbing!

I keep saying it the public are not stupid but THEY keeping forgetting that!

pretend that banning drugs equals regulation

Been saying this for years! They ban everything except Booze as THEY see it as widely excepted well i have news for the news SO IS Cannabis widely excepted to!!

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears

We told you all this 7 years ago before the Big bad banner boys and girls come along and now have made it all worse as we can now all see what we all said and the public predicted... again not listening to the public! (I have even videos showing you what would happen as it happened in other countries around the world, BUT you ignored the public again with proof..)

Seems to me we have a very small amount of people in power-chairs telling everyone else what to do and yet they are always wrong against the publics wishers and they get paid to lie and be so underhanded towards the public and we pay them to be like this some UK roundabout this is eh!!

Fuck them 'WE dont do drugs... WE just smoke weed'

And one more time PUBLIC Getting stoned again...


Bongme

[Fong76]

one of the main probs with drugs (and the war on drugs) is a great way of grabbing a few cheap, quick, easy and generally question free headlines. Politicians take up the normal postures and just spout the same old rhetoric & sweeping statments like "drugs kill, soft drug use lead to harder drug use" etc etc. The herd that is middle britain goes "oooh, what a hero, my kids are now safer". Brownie points acquired, next question.

The issue is bounced around between the political parties like a slow moving ping pong ball. None of which, have the political will to make the obvious right move and to regulate (and tax) the industry. Besides [i]most [/i]of these guys aren't really in the business of serving the comunity first - the recent-ish scandal surronding expenses should of been a bit of a clue ! The ones with half a grasp on the situation wouldn't risk the political suicide that would ensue when making a real prolonged stand aganst the party line on a topic so volatile.

Throw in the mix all the sponsors behind each of the parties all wanting a return on their investment & all the people that are now employed in this great war - as in what else would they all do if not sniffing out shit. Sensationalism of the news media doesnt help and also that essentially the criminals want to keep it illegal/underground the issue becomes more blurry than trying to play a game of Sudoku with 10 pints of Stella on board!

Personally i would like to know what liability (if any) does the Gov expose itself too, in knowingly allowing it citizens to take (even at predicted levels) the amount of massively adulterated/altered substances that it could provide easily itself, in far safer circumstances, quantities, strengths though chemists (etc). With weed being sprayed with crap, anything you like thrown into powdered and tableted substances. Surely this would be more of an issue, in that it is a ticking time bomd medically (?)

apoligees rant over...

Fong

[groovelick]

one of the main probs with drugs (and the war on drugs) is a great way of grabbing a few cheap, quick, easy and generally question free headlines. Politicians take up the normal postures and just spout the same old rhetoric & sweeping statments like "drugs kill, soft drug use lead to harder drug use" etc etc. The herd that is middle britain goes "oooh, what a hero, my kids are now safer". Brownie points acquired, next question.

The issue is bounced around between the political parties like a slow moving ping pong ball. None of which, have the political will to make the obvious right move and to regulate (and tax) the industry. Besides [i]most [/i]of these guys aren't really in the business of serving the comunity first - the recent-ish scandal surronding expenses should of been a bit of a clue ! The ones with half a grasp on the situation wouldn't risk the political suicide that would ensue when making a real prolonged stand aganst the party line on a topic so volatile.

Throw in the mix all the sponsors behind each of the parties all wanting a return on their investment & all the people that are now employed in this great war - as in what else would they all do if not sniffing out shit. Sensationalism of the news media doesnt help and also that essentially the criminals want to keep it illegal/underground the issue becomes more blurry than trying to play a game of Sudoku with 10 pints of Stella on board!

Personally i would like to know what liability (if any) does the Gov expose itself too, in knowingly allowing it citizens to take (even at predicted levels) the amount of massively adulterated/altered substances that it could provide easily itself, in far safer circumstances, quantities, strengths though chemists (etc). With weed being sprayed with crap, anything you like thrown into powdered and tableted substances. Surely this would be more of an issue, in that it is a ticking time bomd medically (?)

apoligees rant over...

Fong

£12 Billion for a 1% success rate is not a cheap head line, the real head line is £12billion wasted in an exercise in futility, Look at asbos they are getting rid of cause it only had a 50% success rate and the cost of that is lower per annum than the 12 billion spent on the W.O.D.

[Hughie Green]

Excellent article except for the usual piffle about the imaginary Taliban/Heroin connection

dont know where you get the idea that the Taliban aren't involved in the heroin trade from?
initially they weren't, accepted, but in the post 9/11 world theyve realised how much money they can make. trust me i have a mate currently in Lashkar Gar who tells me what they find..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ncy-817230.html

OK then can you explain why the Taliban almost completely wiped out Opium production in 2001 when they were in control of Afghanistan and since their removal from power the production of Opium has soared to previously unheard of levels, how would they fund themselves by wiping out the Opium production that is Afghanistans only
cash crop?, I suppose your mate in Lashkar Gar is a squaddie so tell us what they have found then, let me see if I can guess, they have found Opium in the worlds largest producer country, so come on then pyro prove to us the Taliban are in control of the Opium/Heroin trade with some anecdotal evidence from a single squaddie.

Also how was it the Taliban were able to almost completely eradicate Opium production in one year and the American military and its allies have been unable to do the same given that they have had 9 years and access to a vast array of satellite imagery and precision mapping and hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment?

it is estimated that the Afghani Opium crop is worth $70 billion a year, if the Taliban are the ones in control of this vast fortune why is it they are still using abandoned Russian tank and artillery shells as IEDs, surely if they have access to this vast fortune they would be able to purchase some modern weaponry such as mines
and misssiles, the reason the Taliban destroyed Opium production was not due to religious zeal as the Western media would have us believe but to stop the revenue
stream of their enemies to prevent them rearming and fighting back, at that time the enemies of the Taliban were and are the Afghan government and the tribal warlords
formerly named the mojahedin and now referred to as "the Northern alliance",

it is the tribal warlords and sections of the Afghani government that are in control of the Opium/Heroin trade presumably aided by the CIA, much easier to allow them to make a fortune than to keep bribing them to stay onside, it is common knowledge that the CIA involve themselves with drug production in countries the American military are operating in so much so they made a movie about it, remember Air America?
if you believe the Taliban are in control of the drugs trade then you probably believe that using cannabis funds terror and every bit of Afghani Black that has recently
arrived in the UK is helping the Taliban or is it the case that our drug of choice cannabis is innocent and harmless while somebody else's drug of choice heroin or opium is vilified as evil because the same biased Western media that demonises our drug of choice tells us so?.

This post has been edited by Hughie Green: Aug 1 2010, 04:07 PM

[Jessiedog]

Jolly good post, Fong - welcome to the mad house!


Hughie,

Agree with everything you say, except that I understand that "the Taliban" have developed a new strategy since "the war". They will still not grow, or deal directly in opium, nor in processing - it's against their ethos to do so - BUT in order to help finance their war efforts, they now "tax" every aspect of growth, production and distribution (at @ 10% I understand,) and, in return, provide some protection for these activities (particularly distribution,) - or at least "allow" these activities to continue.





Meanwhile,


Monday 2nd August 8:00pm on Channel 4 (in the UK,) is the first of a three-part documentary by Angus MacQueen called "Our Drugs War" - should be very good from what I've read - he seems very geared towards legalisation of some drugs, prescribing others, etc. It seems very well researched.

DXoes anyone know how I can watch this over the internet (I'm not in the UK, so iPlayer is no good)? I don't need to see it "live" - just to catch it at some point.



Blessings all.





Woof

[Pyro420]

Hughie, are you mentally ill? you seem to me to be paranoid and delusional with obsesive compulsive issues- trying and make me out as some kind of demoniser of drugs, over and over again, no matter how tenuous the link? not a dig thats a genuine question?
anyway, you obviously didnt click on the link in my post so here it is copied and pasted for you- neither i nor anyone else in this thread ever said the Taliban controlled the opium/heroin trade, Afghanistan is far too fractured and tribal for them to do that, but i was refuting your claim that the Taliban/Heroin connection is "imaginary"- they 100% are involved in it, dont take my word for it though, read this, look at the sources, and tell me again there is no connection. i suppose that is a CIA operative holding the type 56S next to the opium farmer is it?

Drugs for guns: how the Afghan heroin trade is fuelling the Taliban insurgency

By Jerome Starkey in Kunduz

Tuesday, 29 April 2008



The heroin flooding Britain's streets is threatening the lives of UK troops in Afghanistan, an Independent investigation can reveal.

Russian gangsters who smuggle drugs into Britain are buying cheap heroin from Afghanistan and paying for it with guns. Smugglers told The Independent how Russian arms dealers meet Taliban drug lords at a bazaar near the old Afghan-Soviet border, deep in Tajikistan's desert. The bazaar exists solely to trade Afghan drugs for Russian guns – and sometimes a bit of sex on the side.

The drugs are destined for Britain's streets. The guns go straight to the Taliban front line. The weapons on sale include machine guns, sniper rifles and anti-aircraft weapons like the ones used in the attempt to assassinate the Afghan President Hamid Karzai last weekend.

"We never sell the drugs for money," boasted one of the smugglers. "We exchange them for ammunition and Kalashnikovs."

The drugs come mostly from Helmand, where most of Britain's 7,800 troops are based. The opium grown there is turned into heroin at factories inside Afghanistan, sold into Tajikistan and smuggled to Europe. The guns are broken down into parts, smuggled back into Afghanistan and delivered to the Taliban. One kilogram of heroin can buy about 30 AK-47 assault rifles at the bazaar.

Nato claims the Taliban get between 40 and 60 per cent of their income from drugs. The smugglers' claims suggest the real cost could be far higher.

The smugglers described a bleak village with no homes, hidden in the desert near the border. Inside open-air courtyards up to 300 shopkeepers sit in small booths. They act as agents of the Russian mafia who supply the guns and spirit the drugs away. The Afghans are agents of corrupt officials in their government, said a mid-level lieutenant Daoud.

Around them lurk Tajik prostitutes, selling themselves for a few scraps of surplus heroin. "They will do anything. They just want some heroin and we always have some spare," said another smuggler.

We interviewed three smugglers in the lawless border areas north and east of Kunduz, a city in northern Afghanistan, as well as a Taliban go-between who was visiting from Helmand.

Speaking from his headquarters in Kunduz province, Daoud said Afghan smugglers lug sacks of grade-A heroin across the river Oxus, which marks the Tajik border. They drive pick-ups as far as they can, take motorbikes where the cars can't go, and finish the journey on foot. "We leave early in the evening and get there around 9am the next day," he said. "There aren't even any tracks because we never ride the motorbikes to the same place twice."

The heroin is harvested from opium farms across Afghanistan and taken to factories in the remote Pamir mountains in the Badakhshan region, where it is turned into heroin. It takes about 15kg of opium to make 1kg of heroin, said Daoud. From Badakhshan it is brought west to Kunduz, for the trip to Tajikistan. The weapons follow similar routes, but in the opposite direction, south and east to the fighting.

"We are like a company," said Daoud. "We have some big sponsors who support us in the government."

A kilogram of the best Afghan heroin is worth £600 in Afghanistan. It is worth twice as much at the bazaar in Tajikistan. But rather than take cash, they take weapon parts, because they double their value in Afghanistan. An AK-47 assault rifle costs £50 at the bazaar. It is worth up to £100 in northern Afghanistan, and even more in the south and east where demand for guns is higher, because of the fighting.

The Taliban go-between said fighters in Helmand expect to get six AK-47s for 1kg of good quality heroin, a similar number of rocket-propelled grenades or a dozen boxes of ammunition.

British special forces have arrested or killed drugs smugglers linked to the insurgency, alongside a secretive unit of the Afghan army called 333, but the bulk of the International Security Assistance Force is handicapped by its mandate which does not include counter-narcotics operations, unless they can be linked to the insurgency.

The smugglers claimed they are "untouchable" because their bosses include cabinet-level officials in the government. British officials suspect senior government insiders are involved in the drugs trade, but they have struggled to get the support from Mr Karzai, or the evidence, to arrest them.

Opium production has soared since 2001. The head of British-led efforts to crack down on the crop, David Belgrove, said: "This proves what we and the rest of the international community have been saying. There's clear evidence that the drugs trade fuels the insurgency."

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, the US general, Dan McNeill, pledged to take his mandate to the limit to target drug traffickers. But so far, the smugglers insist they are not feeling the pinch.

Violence last year reached record highs, and the Taliban have launched two attacks in Kabul this year. "The heroin is what lets us fight," said the Taliban go-between.

[Sylar]

DXoes anyone know how I can watch this over the internet (I'm not in the UK, so iPlayer is no good)? I don't need to see it "live" - just to catch it at some point.

Your going to need a proxy using a uk based IP, google "vpn proxy uk" and just follow the links of your choice