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. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

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. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

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'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs Coffee House

The ‘war on drugs’ has not been won. Dangerous ‘legal highs’ are booming

30 May 2014

8:00 AM

30 May 2014

8:00 AM

It’s fashionable nowadays to claim that young people in Britain don’t know how to have a good time. There’s certainly plenty of evidence to suggest we’re avoiding the drugs our parents’ generation got their kicks from. Fraser Nelson discussed this in The Spectator last November, arguing that Britain’s youth were becoming more abstemious:

‘Marijuana, LSD, speed, cocaine — surveys show that every drug you can think of is plunging in popularity amongst the young. The proportion of under-20s who say they have taken drugs in the past month has halved over the last decade. Only two drugs are on the up and both are legal: Ritalin and Modafinil, stimulants that can power students through ten-hour study sessions.

‘It’s a long way from Woodstock. Whereas older generations took drugs to party (and still do), Britain’s young are now popping pills that help them work harder.

‘Shunned by the youth, Britain’s drug dealers are watching their market collapse. Over the past two decades, the street price of cannabis, cocaine and Ecstasy has fallen by at least two-thirds. A tab of LSD is now cheaper than a half pint of cider. Never have illegal drugs been more affordable — but never have young people shown less interest.’

Fraser is in some ways right. The popularity of ‘every drug you can think of’ may be plunging. But what about the ones you can’t think of? What about the 97 so-called ‘legal highs’ that have emerged onto the market in the last year? And how to explain the 670,000 young people in the UK between the ages of 15 -24 who say they have taken a legal high at least once, according to a UN report published last year? Young people may not be taking cocaine, cannabis and LSD as much as they used to, but let’s not play dumb here – they are still taking drugs (and not just ones to make them study harder).

These new drugs are hitting the market at a remarkable and unprecedented rate. Since 2008, 348 new types of synthetic drugs have appeared in more than 90 countries around the world. The list of substances controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act may be long, but you can guarantee the list of drugs not yet classified is even longer.

Fraser points to the fact that the street market for drugs has begun to collapse. But what he fails to mention is the rise of internet drug emporiums. Legal highs (and illegal ones) can be bought from efficient retailers, who will zip them to your house via the Royal Mail – the oblivious drug mule. The UK now has the largest market for legal highs in the EU. These types of substances are particularly easy to flog via the internet, because they don’t fall foul of the law.

[Alt-Text]


But a drug that has evaded criminal classification is no safer than one that hasn’t. Both can be dangerous. In 2011-2012, 6,486 people in England were treated for abusing legal highs, an increase of 39% compared with five years previously.

In the face of this, the law has been playing catch up. But given the almost infinite scope to alter the chemical structure of these new drugs, new formulations are outpacing efforts to impose control.

Legislation is occasionally updated, as was the case with mephedrone, a drug that was popular (and legal) during some of my time at university. Like many legal highs, it mimicked the effect of an illegal drug – in this case, speed and ecstasy. In 2010, it was made illegal in the UK, and became a class B substance.

But mephedrone is an exception to the rule. Last year, the Centre for Social Justice criticised the government’s response to the ever-expanding range of legal highs, saying it had only used temporary banning orders three times to control approximately 15 substances since 2010. More than 150 new substances have gone on sale since then.

The law simply cannot cope with this new era of drug use. The intensely prescriptive approach – whereby drugs can be legal or illegal simply through a small change in molecular structure – is unhelpful, creating the illusion that legal highs are ‘low risk’ in comparison with illegal drugs. When coupled with the fact that illegal drug use is in decline, this illusion fuels the mistaken impression that the ‘war on drugs’ is won.

But drug use hasn’t died; it has mutated. We now have two competitive markets for unregulated drugs – one illegal, one ‘legal’. Why not use the surge in the growth of legal highs as a chance to address this? Nixon’s rhetoric about the ‘war on drugs’ dates from 1971 – the same year Britain established the Misuse of Drugs Act. Both are archaic. Both are failing. We should push for a sensible discussion on drug use in Britain that may bring with it the possibility of legalisation and regulation of certain drugs. We shouldn’t be so scared of this; the current situation is far murkier.

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