Prohibition is stupid. Still.

Via UK Libertarian, here’s today’s boogeyman de jour.

DEADLY mephedrone is to be made a class B drug after a Wales on Sunday story sparked a Welsh MP into action.

It will put the narcotic – known on the street as meow meow, MCAT or meph – on a par with amphetamines.

Parliamentary questions about the potentially-lethal drug were tabled by Clwyd West MP and Shadow Welsh Minister David Jones when he read in WoS how teenager Max Llewellyn killed himself. The 18-year-old became depressed after using the drug. He was found hanging in a forest seven miles from his home.

We have a drug that is potentially- in at least one case, anyway- dangerous. Thus, we must utterly abdicate all control and content of the drug to those who have absolutely no reason to make it safe, and in fact, are incentivized due to prohibition to keep it dangerous.

Nice.

You see, as the UK libertarian puts so, so well, prohibition is, by design, faulty. By criminalizing the trade of certain drugs, this is what Governent does:

a) Utterly removes any and all possibility of having good regulation of the sale, possession, or content of the drugs*

b) puts the sale, posession, and content of the drugs into (largely) the hands of those who have no issue with breaking the law to make a sale.

c) makes the very trade dangerous for those involved, thus raising prices, and, very often, increasing the potency of the drugs (as happened in the US’s prohibition of alcohol).

This is because, if you’re going to get 20 to life for holding a kilo of a drug, you’re going to make damn sure you make a huge return on it. This can mean making it extra potent, and cutting it with other substances (sometimes drugs; sometimes, sometimes God Holy knows what), thus selling to more customers and making bigger returns, or raising the prices to cover your risk.

Just because the law is against you does not mean the laws of economics will turn a blind eye. And finally…

d) by criminalizing the trade, there is little reason for those selling the drugs to not become involved in gang violence, or to sell to kids (when’s the last time your pot dealer checked for ID?), as long as it means getting rid of his merch before the cops find him. In for a penny, in for a pound, after all.

Put simply, prohibition is a cluster fuck. Far from “saving” society from the effects of narcotics, it gives the dealers of such narcotics economic incentives to dirty up their drugs, to steal and commit fraud, and to commit violence to make a quick buck (In a way, dealers and politicians are two peas in a pod). And these are just the effects on the trade of drugs. Don’t forget the human rights abuses committed by governments in the name of “no tolerance” drug policies.But I digress, and badly.

So, why, oh, God, why, does this happen:

“It’s the fact that you can get it freely on the net,” she said.

“Any child can get hold of it – you don’t have to be 18 to go on eBay. For us awareness is what we want. We want parents to be aware of the effects and for it not to be so freely available on the internet. I’m so pleased it is getting classed.”

This is where I must put the inevitable disclaimer: Yes, it’s awful what happened and I don’t dare insult the family of those affected by MCAT, or indeed any drug.

But, I really think, if protection and safety is the motivating factor, that classifying this drug is the wrong move. Yes, you could buy it at any age, and it’s freely available. But under prohibition, this is also the case. What’s solved? Nothing. Here’s an idea: regulate. Put an age warning on it, slap on fair tax, keep it controlled to an appropriate degree. But tagging it “Class B” (as if classes actually have any meaning; as Prof Nutt showed last year, rather than being a guide for the harm caused by drugs, they’re political footballs used to calm worrying voters) can’t solve anything. It’s most likely going to make things worse.

Prohibition has become a fact of political life. It’s a white elephant policy, it has no real use, it’s been around too long, but no one has the balls to throw it out (This is why the SSDP has a white elephant as it’s logo- also, because no one is willing to discuss the elephant in the room that is drug prohibition). It’s the default for any drug issues, the “we can all sleep easy even though we actually did nothing” approach. Look no further than the Wales Online article and you’ll see…

Mr Jones added: “The problem with it, of course, is the fact that it is not illegal.

UK Lib is astounded by the amazing feat of logic here, as am I.

Drugs are bad and therefore must be banned. That’s the modern approach, and damn the real life consequences. Welcome to politics. At least we don’t have double standards when it comes to dangerous, potentially deadly, often abused drugs…

“We would urge young people to educate themselves about this drug before getting involved with it and, if they are already using this substance, then to try and keep themselves safe by staying close to friends and not to mix it with other drugs or alcohol.”

….Oh, FFS.

As a final note, Government talking shop Talk to Frank has another God awful poll that we bloggers love to troll so much. This time, the implication is “If drugs are legal, people will think they’re safe. Therefore we mus prohibit them (maximizing their danger) to send a message to kids, and to hell with the consequences”.

The results, however, make for happy reading.

*This is where me and UK Lib may differ- as an anarcho-capitalist, he would no doubt argue for utterly free market in drugs, whereas I would like largely free trade, but with adequete regulation regards content, consumer info, etc. But when faced against the leviathan of prohibition, the difference between these two positions is a moot point.

Be Sociable, Share!

•