From top: banned substances: Dr Julien Mercille
Updating legislation on illegal drugs could minimise the health risks involved in taking them.
Prohibition makes everything worse.
Dr Julien Mercille writes
Have you heard of the drug 2C1? It’s the drug that killed Alex Ryan this weekend and turned five others into “zombies”, in the never-sensationalist language of the Irish Independent. The drugs were used at a party in Cork.
Also this weekend, we were reminded of the death two years ago of Olivia Beirne, 29-years old, after taking ecstasy. The Independent reported that her father, a retired garda, still believed that his daughter was responsible for taking those dangerous substances, just like all other young and less young who use drugs.
I know something about drugs, not so much out of intensive consumption but more because it’s one of my academic topics (I wrote a book about it).
The first thing you realise when you start reading about the problem of drugs and its solutions is that it’s all very simple.
The overarching point is that the current system of prohibition does not work. (Prohibition is simply when drugs are illegal, and you get arrested for consuming, selling or producing drugs).
What does work is a system that decriminalises or legalises drugs. There are many variations, but simply put, it makes it legal to possess, consume, sell and produce small quantities of drugs.
For example, you could legalise only the possession of up to 1 ounce of weed (marijuana), and allow individuals to grow, say, a maximum of up to six plants at home, in addition to having legal stores where weed can be bought, which would all be tightly regulated.
You can also ban smoking in public spaces, etc. This is what they did recently in Colorado and Washington state in the US. There’s a summary here of the measures by the Drug Policy Alliance, which is an excellent organisation on such matters.
For those who worry that legalisation would lead to a massive growth of drug use, and lots of people being stoned on the job, while driving, or all the time, the experience from places that have liberalised their drug laws (for example, Portugal) show that there may be small increases of consumption of some drugs (e.g., marijuana), but overall it’s absolutely not true that there is a massive rise in consumption. There’s an excellent report on Portugal’s experience here.
Also, big traffickers and producers would still remain illegal, and there wouldn’t be any advertising, and you could only buy drugs in specific stores. So there wouldn’t be packs of weed or heroin on sale on the shelves at Tesco or Spar.
What are the advantages of legalising drugs in such a way? (the following is not specific to Ireland, they’re general conclusions drawn from the experiences of many countries)
1. It saves the State a lot of money because the police don’t have to run around the country arresting students smoking pot or heroin addicts who are homeless and simply have an addiction problem.
2. It generates taxes for the State because drugs is now a legal business, just like tobacco and alcohol. It doesn’t mean we think that drugs are healthy products, it just means that the industry becomes tightly regulated. It thereby generates tax revenues for the exchequer, which can be invested in treatment for addicts.
3. Violent crime decreases. When drugs are illegal, they generate violence. For instance, if two gangs want to divide a neighbourhood to sell drugs and they don’t agree about which street corners belongs to which gang, they’re not going to go see the police or a judge to arbitrate, because they’ll all be thrown in jail! However, if drugs are legal and sold in specific stores, then the problem is solved: the gangs automatically go bankrupt and out of business.4. Quality is much better: under a regulated system, the State can regulate the quality of the drugs, as it does for all foods and alcohol. That gets right to the heart of this weekend’s tragic death. It would not have happened if the stuff had been of good quality.
5. Drug problems become public health issues, not criminal issues. This means that addicts are treated for their addiction instead of getting harassed by the police and arrested. It is proven that treatment of addiction (through clinics, therapy, etc.) is far superior to police operations to reduce drug consumption. In fact, police operation are often useless. You can catch a big trafficker and make it to the front-page of the Indo, but right away another new trafficker will replace the one who’s been arrested.
Finally, none of the above means that drugs are not dangerous. They are dangerous substances, by which I mean that if not used carefully, they can lead to very bad outcomes.
To make them legal simply minimises the risks involved. Prohibition, on the contrary, makes just about everything worse, and that’s why accidents and violence happen.
Julien Mercille is a lecturer at University College Dublin. Follow him on Twitter: @JulienMercille
Was it not lack of (or mis-) information rather than poor quality that led to Alex Ryan’s death in Cork?
Information he would have received in marketing material or from a sales assistant if he was able to buy it legally in a shop.
Agreed, should be mentioned in the article as another strong argument for benefits of legalisation especially in relation to synthetics
Everything(drugs wise) should be legalised. It makes it safer and stops scumbags making money off it. Being illegal does not stop drug use.
Pretty sure this muck would lose its appeal if it was easy to source high grade LSD/Cocaine/MDMA etc.
100% agree.
Why? Because suddenly people who don’t use them will start because why?
Because the thought process is ‘I wanna get high and party’. You’re not overly bothered by what you take to get high just as long as it has no chance of killing you. So you can either get high quality cocaine or MDMA from a trusted and certified legal source or you can take a bunch of synthetic crap that could do anything to you but you assume you’ll be grand cause you’re 21 and nothing bad happens to 21 year olds.
“There’s a need for education.” Says everybody.
The only education required is – don’t eat poison.
If only someone had thought of that sooner!
Don’t agree such harmful substances should be outright legalised but certainly possession of small amounts for personal use should be decriminalised.
Saying that the drug traffickers would just go away though were it regulated is naive. You only have to look at the millions being made smuggling bootleg cigarettes and alcohol to see that there would still be traffickers and smugglers willing to undercut the no-doubt-heavily-taxed legalised drugs on the black market. Plus there are certain popular drugs a government could simply not be able to seen sponsoring. The effect even modern weed has on mental health is staggering, never mind psychoactive substances such as ecstacy and snowblow.
You’re not going to advocate for making booze and fags illegal because of that though, are you. There is no perfect solution to anything.
All I’m saying is that we allowed alcohol and tobacco to become engrained and normalised and we’ve paid a heavy price ever since. I just wouldn’t like us to make the same mistake with a range of even more unpredictable and harmful substances. Would also be legitimising many ruthless drug barons the world over when legal demand outstrips legitimate supply. Guaranteed to see the most wanted become the most powerful when they are in bed with CEOs and Governments looking to facilitate supply to meet the new demand at low cost.
Decriminalisation yes, legalisation no. That’s as close to a perfect solution as you’re going to get if we really want to collectively move away from harmful substances taking a huge toll on society in terms of health, welfare and finances.
You forget *why* people take drugs. Because they’re fun, but more to the point, because people *want* to. Keeping them illegal does not stop people from wanting them. I don’t understand how you’re going to stop people wanting them to “move away from harmful substances” unless you address the issue of people wanting them. I don’t think you’re actually ever going to stop people wanting to take short cuts to make themselves feel good so the best solution is to manage it to the point where it does the least amount of damage. You can only apply that management if you legalise it. Making it illegal just helps people FEEL like they’re doing something about it without actually doing anything about it.
On the “why” bit….
You forgot that many people take drugs to escape. Check stats on drug addicts and you’ll find up to two thirds have had some traumatic / abuse issue from their formative / childhood years.
Skipping over these problem users in making your point… makes your point… well useless, to be honest.
(Apologies for not providing link to “two thirds” claim, can’t locate it presently)
“You forgot that many people take drugs to escape.”
No I didn’t; “I don’t think you’re actually ever going to stop people wanting to take short cuts to make themselves feel good”
In the same way that a non-alcoholic beer is still beer…. but still wide of the mark.
people are going to take them regardless as is teh current situation.
legislation will certainly make them less harmful than they are now which can only be a good thing.
Hi Clampers- I have found correlation ranges between 40% and 60%:
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10721277/
>http://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdfs/SAToolkit_1.pdf
>http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/03/05/ptsd-associated-with-substance-abuse/2004.html
As regards THC content of marijuana…
http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/
Nice work there deluded.
I knew there’d be plenty links on that, thanks Deluded
The model has worked in Portugal where rates of drug use have dropped and the problem is no longer leading to violent crime. Portugal came up with a model where anyone who had less than ten days supply was left be while those over that were to come before a three person commission made up of a solicitor, doctor and healthcare worker (or something similar) who could give counselling or a fine or both, most people get off. Drug use in those in the 15-24 age groups has dropped substantially.
Interesting.
“I know something about drugs, not so much out of intensive consumption but more because it’s one of my academic topics (I wrote a book about it).”
Just to note that Dr. Mercille is not a medical doctor, so should he really make the following juvenile and potentially dangerous conclusion?
“Finally, none of the above means that drugs are not dangerous. They are dangerous substances, by which I mean that if not used carefully, they can lead to very bad outcomes”
Seems a relatively reasonable statement, especially when held against some of the drivel being reported over the past week
Yep. I don’t see how someone needs to be a qualified doctor to state that drugs can be harmful. Some people are just *obsessed* with Merceille.
“Just to note that Dr. Mercille is not a medical doctor, so should he really make the following juvenile and potentially dangerous conclusion?”
AWhy, are you a medical doctor?
I am not a medical doctor . For this reason Un I would not deign to make such a negligible statement as ” Finally, none of the above means that drugs are not dangerous. They are dangerous substances, by which I mean that if not used carefully, they can lead to very bad outcomes”
Have you read his book?
I haven’t read his book nor do I intend to. I have seen him on TV, read his BS contributions and appearance at the banking inquiry. Nothing more than a potpourri of Gallic gestures and smouldering looks:)
And given your expertise in the area of studying his work by watching some TV appearances on areas not related to this, a few columns on a website, disparaging his qualifications and not reading his work, you feel able to basically sh** on it?
Excellent stuff J, excellent stuff.
Are Canadians Gallic?
@Flooded out. I am pretty certain that those in the medical profession and those in possession of reason would agree with my assertion regarding the reckless conclusion that Mercille came to. Granted I may be too kind in holding up this post to certain journalistic standards. Therein lies my error. I now retire from this silly debate.
I’m pretty certain that those in the medical profession aren’t as idiotic to ignore someone’s research because they aren’t a “medical doctor”. It’s fairly clear you have no idea about how research is done at all, let alone medical research.
Your error came in reading a conclusion into the post that was never made.
Silly is one word but not the one I would use.
By this theory, you won’t have an opinion on something until you feel you are a suitably qualified expert in it? Being a medical doctor makes no odds really, would he have to be a GP with little understanding of addiction or would a CNP in addiction be more qualified according to you? Or someone who has studied addiction from a social sciences pov for years with a PhD?
Bit of a ridiculous comment really J
If doctor made such a qualifier, I would also believe it to be reckless. Argument over.
Yes, it does appear it’s over since you have now argued yourself out of your own original point.
“If doctor made such a qualifier, I would also believe it to be reckless. ”
Based on what? You’ve been harping on about medical qualifications, & now you’re saying your opinion holds more weight than those with qualifications anyway.
“Argument over”
Because you say so yeah? Afraid not. This happens to be a bigger issue than you & your blinkers & the wall you’re looking at.
Seems a reasonable conclusion to make, especially if you have written a book on the drug trade which you would imagine covers not just the harm from drugs but from crime, gangs, trafficking etc.
Most drugs are not harmful if used appropriately – see all of medical science. Most drug interventions and policy are (or should be) about harm reduction because that is a more realistic approach than saying hey kids, don’t do drugs. People like drugs because they are fun.
Good point. Read up on methadone, for example, as a current legal drug. It is always going to be linked to heroin users, but it’s other uses are manifold, when used correctly. When abused, it’s an awful drug. Horrendous.
Flooded out. Is his work peer reviewed?
Yes.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2011.619881
http://lap.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/28/0094582X13509790.abstract
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2011.570569
Do you have a relevant critique of his work other than the complete garbage you are throwing around at the moment?
You’re a great little girl J – look at you there with your opinions and everything out “debating” on the Internet- fair play and good on ya
Oh ffs, give it a rest.
I’m sorry Clampers, but are you, like, a Doctor of telling internet commentators to shut up? Because otherwise, I don’t think you have the requisite expertise.
‘Meh’ would’ve been more appropriate…. I’m more annoyed by what I perceive as J’s trolling.
See also his intentional misquoting below.
Dr Meh… I like it :)
Clampers, I deemed his statement to be reckless and expressed my view. You are like the priest of BS, albeit more judgmental than ministerial .
Thanks, at least I stick to facts J, and don’t make stuff up as you have :)
@Clampers. You are also inaccurate regarding my presumed gender:) Have made my point. Back to work for moi.
Apologies, Madame J :)
Even given all the information in the world – there will always be a small section of society that will be reckless for many underlying reasons, this cannot be legislated against, the only solution is harm reduction. The only reason the unfortunate people in Cork bought these untested, unregulated ‘synthesized crap was to get around the prohibition on narcotics, (and not being very prudent with their own health) – it’s timber-headed stupidity that is prolonging the prohibition.
The law specifies chemical compounds and they just make compounds not named isnt it?
You don’t always stick to facts, Clampers. I can recall your understanding of the Irish tax law /tax treatment as being factually incorrect :)
I forgive you Monsieur Clampers:)
He is inferring that drugs if used carefully will “not lead to a bad outcome”. That is not a reasonable statement , it is a negligible one. Where is the medical evidence to prove such an assertion?
Paracetamol will 99.999% of the time, when used carefully, will result in a good outcome…same with a beef burger, Whiskey, peanuts, cheese or using a hammer…everything on earth carries a risk
You have “not lead to a bad outcome” in quotes, as if he said it. He didn’t.
He said ” none of the above means that drugs are not dangerous. They are dangerous substances, by which I mean that if not used carefully, they can lead to very bad outcomes.” This does not infer what you say it does.
And there ya have it, trolling at it’s worst.
Shurrup J, you sound like a crackpot from IONA with your misquoting
Negligent
And it’s not.
He said “They are dangerous substances, by which I mean that if not used carefully, they can lead to very bad outcomes”
He qualified the dangerous i.e. “if not used carefully, they can lead to very bad outcomes”
You keep repeating this without actually explaining what the problem is. Are you suggesting that taking drugs *can’t* lead to very bad outcomes?
I think he’s suggesting that by telling somebody to be careful while doing something, that you’re really saying that they are guaranteed to be 100% safe by following your advice.
“Can” being the operative word, not “will”.
It may surprise you that lots of people used illegal drugs over the weekend and still got up and came to work this morning. Some people have problems, some people don’t and that is much more about their personality/genetics/background then about the drug they took.
Much like a car I suppose.
Highlighting a factual inaccuracy or reckless statement does not qualify as trolling, Clampers. Mercille does profess to be an expert /journalist/academic and so should adhere to certain standards .
If the State were to save money by not expending their police force to deal with drug-related crime, they would be spending far more on scientific testing for “good quality” narcotic substances. And would the Dept of Health then roll out advice to schools on how to take drugs responsibly? There would be scant consensus there from parents. I couldn’t see any government risking their good-guy image to do this.
I’m supportive of the decriminalisation of weed, but the above article does not mention any drug classification.
Also, the Portuguese are not the Irish.
“And would the Dept of Health then roll out advice to schools on how to take drugs responsibly?”
Do they do that for alcohol?
I doubt it, as the law profits drinking under 18.
And what makes you think that if drugs were legalised, that they *wouldn’t* also have an under 18s qualifier?
I never said they wouldn’t.
“And would the Dept of Health then roll out advice to schools on how to take drugs responsibly?”
So we can completely disregard this question then seeing as there is zero evidence they’d ever actually do this?
Of course they wouldn’t – that’s my point!!
Drink & Legalised Drugs, only for 18+ but how many <18 will abstain from using, huh?
Probably the same amount that do, currently. I’m not sure I understand your point here. Are you arguing that we should take under 18 year olds into account when deciding whether or not over 18 year olds should be trusted enough to make their own decisions about what they put in their body? I know I shouldn’t have to regard whether or not a 16 year old smokes weed before I light one up in my sitting room.
“Also, the Portuguese are not the Irish.”
Are you suggesting that the Irish are not to be trusted with such relaxation of drug laws?
Not that level of relaxation, no.
Why? And why are you asking if the Dept of Health are going to advise school children on responsible drug taking when they don’t do that for drink taking?
It is a hypothetical question as I was challenging the points of the article. Under 18s are not permitted alcohol so of course they don’t teach responsible drinking in schools. But plenty of teenagers drink and don’t get advice on drinking safely. Likewise, were there to be a blanket legalisation of drugs as suggested by the article, how would one become informed on how to use drugs sensibly??
Safe substance use is already communicated among peer groups and has been for a long time. Peer groups tend to set the limits on these behaviours, just as they do with alcohol
Besides this, there are several websites dedicated to providing value free advice and information on safe drug use
“Under 18s are not permitted alcohol so of course they don’t teach responsible drinking in schools.”
And there is no evidence that drugs wouldn’t also be prohibited to under 18s if they were legalised so they’re not doing to teach responsible drug use either.
“But plenty of teenagers drink and don’t get advice on drinking safely.”
Would you like to see responsible drinking (and thus also drug taking) taught in schools then?
“how would one become informed on how to use drugs sensibly??”
Google? Why do you think people need to be spoonfed?
@ Moyest
My point on the schools was that I couldn’t see any school agreeing to offer advice on sensible drinking, smoking or drug-taking. If a government were to legalise all drugs and not provide health warnings they would be irresponsible, right? Placing a sticker on a pack of pills like they do for fags and booze is not going to suffice.
@Hoop, I was in a secondary school that held talks for teenagers on alcohol, drugs, and safe sex among other things. It was a programme set up by the school and was very informative. They also covered gambling, homelessness, sexuality, and mental health. It was paid for in part by the school and in part by the parents and was very successful.
Ok, well if you’re advocating for the government to provide educational material on responsible drug taking, I’m not going to disagree with you.
RIght.
So they can just keep taking them as they are.
The argument against prohibition is not nationality dependent, and any suggestion that it might be is obviously ridiculous.
Drug use is a normalised behaviour despite prohibition. Decriminalising is the only logical step to take
why trust one drug and not the other? that’s politics, that is.
GET IN THE BACK OF THE VAN!!!
Why, what are you selling?
Despite what obviously idle worthless dirtman says below I support your contention that the Irish are such a fupping bunch of feckless clowns they could not be trusted with an extra cube of sugar in their Tay – because that’s what you’re saying isn’t it?
I cannot believe I am in total agreement with mercille. I must be high.
One thing is annoying though, since when did the word ‘weed’ become not slang? I always think it cheapens any point being made to use the word weed rather than cannabis or marijuana.
More annoying (IMO) is that ‘alcohol’ has been so far removed from it’s category, that is, it is a ‘drug’, that people get annoyed when one calls it a drug.
Writing in the media is often made along the lines of ‘alcohol, tobacco and drugs’ when it should simply say ‘drugs’ or ‘all drugs, legal and illegal’.
After all, alcohol is, by an extremely large margin, the most dangerous and harmful drug in the country.
Great point Clampers. I was thinking the same thing. There is not a single person in Ireland who does not know the effects of the long-term use of this drug. And yet there are people who cry out about cannabis, which is a far more benign drug.
‘Marijuana’ is also slang, and it’s popularisation as a term in the USA was also political.
Well if the Canadians can set up an industrial grow house in a vacated Hershey
facility in Smiths Falls Ontario and market the marijuana to registered users
it more than a surprise that it has not being done here as every opportunity
has been used to bring in revenue, tax on family home’s, water tax, carbon tax.
Its just that Kenny and Burton haven’t got wind of it yet, incidently you can legally
grow cannabis here with a authorisation from the Social Inclusion Section of the
Dept of Health, did not the Dept of Agriculture not publish a booklet where they
identified it as a cultivation crop.
I’d say you could grow some excellent stuff in the old stripped bogs. And it would give it a nice peaty flavour.
“Weed on the Peat”
If you take an illegal drug you can’t complain if it kills you.
Drug laws aren’t going to change.
Let’s get real.
Being gay was just declared ok a few months ago.
Conservative Ireland have the reigns and will have for centuries to come.
So relax. Take your illegal substances but know that they could be full of any old poo
“If you take an illegal drug you can’t complain if it kills you.”
Correct
I wouldn’t be so sure.
The underlying attitudes are changing radically – both here & across the West. It is not a fringe position to be in favour of decriminalisation anymore.
Homosexuality went from illegal to almost fully accepted in under 20 years – with changing attitudes goign back to the Stonewall riots 20 years before.
My bet is that within the next 10 years most drugs will be legalised in Ireland.
No.
http://testkitplus.com
(Established drug checking services already exist in Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands.)
Has anyone here actually been to either Washington State or Colorado?
I have and I spoke with residents in both Seattle and Denver about the legalization.
General take-aways:
– It’s great they can now buy weed from reputable stores and the city gets some taxes out of it. In fact they reckon the taxes element will force other states into legalizing weed.
– It’s resulted in an influx of “undesirables” – read homeless & weekend trippers looking to stock up (Amsterdam yob parties). I’ve been there a number of times but I’ve never noticed an issue with weekend trippers however the level of homelessness in Denver and Seattle is through the roof (Ireland has no idea what serious homelessness looks like). I’m not sure how much the increase was due to the legalization but locals I spoke with said there was definitely a correlation between the increased levels of homelessness and the drug laws changing.
If they were to legalize soft drugs in Ireland they’d need to put restrictions on it to avoid drug tourism. Also, there is no way some of the hard party drugs could be legalized – they’re too dangerous even in their pure form.
Watched a good doc on Netflix recently on how the War on Drugs has failed and alienated sections of society = “The House We Live In” – I’d give it 10/10. Really good.
Ideally, it could happen across Europe & avoid the drug tourism aspect
“Also, there is no way some of the hard party drugs could be legalized – they’re too dangerous even in their pure form.”
As compared with what?
Illegal hard party drugs in an impure form?
Give me a break .
Hamsterdam?
I was hoping Sarah Murphy would weigh in on this debate, but then I figured she’s too busy getting chonged out of it, so I smiled.