X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Blogs

The War on Drugs is as pointless as it is immoral; obviously it must continue. - Spectator Blogs

10 December 2012

3:29 PM

10 December 2012

3:29 PM

Like Tom Chivers I’d not planned to write anything about the latest suggestion our drug laws are sufficiently confused, antiquated and beyond parody that at some point it might be worth reconsidering them. It’s not that I’ve tired of reform, rather that I’ve pretty much tired of making the case for reform. I have precisely zero expectation that this Prime Minister, who once seemed unusually sane on drug issues, will fulfill the naive and youthful promise he showed on the opposition benches.

But then, like the redoubtable Mr Chivers, I saw Thomas Pascoe’s views on the matter and found myself sufficiently provoked by his argument that I was stirred to action once more. Mr Pascoe has had enough of all these utilitarian and empirical arguments in favour of reform (ie, liberalisation) and wants us to return to first principles. This, he thunders, is a moral issue. And you know what, I kind of agree with him. Consider this passage:

Reading is a moral issue. The fact that large numbers of young people feel the need to obliterate reality through books says something both about them and us. First, reading feeds into a culture in which people take refuge in imaginary lives, rather than taking practical steps to remedy their problems. Second, it implies that as a society we can offer nothing else to these people, that release from the crushing boredom of many people’s daily existence cannot be found in charity work or education or self-betterment.

Legalising books endorses both of those viewpoints. Whether you want to build the New Jerusalem or simply improve your own lot, one way to ensure you fail is to turn inwards and seek the solitary consolation of a fantasy world. To take such a despairing view of people’s prospects is a moral tragedy.

You may notice that I have cheated a little here, substituting “reading” and “books” for “drug use” and “drugs” in Mr Pascoe’s own copy. This is not meant as a cheap-shot. Or, rather, is meant as rather more than just a cheap-shot. Mr Pascoe is on to something: many people do take drugs because they find drugs a welcome relief from the grim tedium of everyday life. There is a measure of escapism to this.

Mr Pascoe takes a dim view of this. Heaven forbid that the common man be permitted any means by which he may, however temporarily, escape the shackles of his dreary existence. Up with this we shall not put. Like Mr Pascoe I consider this a moral matter; unlike him I wonder if it’s really all that morally-virtuous to insist upon limiting other people’s opportunity to enjoy themselves.

[Alt-Text]


It is true that some people use presently illegal drugs in ways that are detrimental to their own health, the well-being of their families and the health of their neighbourhoods. But the fact that some people misuse a pleasure or a particular narcotic is hardly reason to prevent others from using it. Because if is true that some people are ill-equipped to use drugs sensibly it is also true that these people are very much in the minority. Most users of presently-illegal drugs are perfectly normal, functioning, members of society. You probably share an office with some of them. You almost certainly share a train or a bus with some of them. You have no idea who they are, what they look like or what they do. They are all around. They are normal.

This is obviously true of cannabis and ecstasy. It is also true of cocaine. It is probably also more true than you imagine of heroin. That is, there are some heroin users capable of combining heroin use with a “normal” life. (A minority, possibly, but that’s a different matter.)

In the end, the War on Drugs is also both a war on pleasure and a war against boredom. It cannot possibly defeat either foe. Even if you accept its morality, however, one might wonder how you defeat either pleasure-seeking or boredom-aversion. No government intervention can plausibly be expected to manage this.

Most people take drugs because taking drugs is, for a while at least, fun. Then they grow out of it and cease taking illegal drugs because, well, that’s the sort of thing best left to the kids. But even if you are of the view that people actually take drugs simply because they otherwise lead lives of despair and misery it seems harsh to condemn them from seeking relief, however fleeting, from this despair and misery. That’s an odd kind of morality too.

Mr Pascoe suggests the problem is that our present laws have not been applied with sufficient rigour. Well, maybe. But since fighting the drug war “properly” means waging a battle against pleasure or boredom or both it is hard to see how you can possibly prevail absent indulging in measures so harsh they lose any semblance of proportionality or, actually, civilisation.

So, yes, it is a moral matter. Which is also why the moral argument for drug reform does not require reform to be accompanied by “harm reduction” even if said reduction in harm might be a useful, cheerful, empirically-measurable accompaniment to a more moral drugs policy.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close