Comments

• 

  written on 02-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  You are absolutely right that the Government spin drug stats to show themselves in a positive light. Increases in drug seizures (either number or quantities - whichever is more flattering) have long been proclaimed as success, with as much media mileage being made of dramatic seizures as possible - usually with line about x amount of drugs being 'prevented from reaching the street'. That these efforts could have no obvious link to availability established (reducing availability - despite being a key strategy target has never been measured as part of the strategy) was overlooked. Availability has evidently risen steadily regardless of of the ups and downs of seizure statistics. The phase 2 report of the drug strategy unit in 2003 - commissioned by the Tony Blair and leaked to the Guardian 2 years later noted that:
  
  "The scale of disruption required to reduce the supply of class A drugs sustainably is not achievable, even with more resources" (p.83)
  
  "The balance of drug-related supply-side spend, £365m, does not produce any material payback in reducing drug harms and should be invested in other objectives, such as development, countering organised crime, failed states, drug treatment, or other public goods" (p.94)
  
  "Intervention in the drug supply chain-from the producing countries, through trafficking, to wholesale and retail distribution-is expensive. Supply interruption has been ineffective world-wide in reducing the overall availability of drugs; and it has had little or no impact on reducing harms in the UK" (p.5)
  
  "There is no reason not to seize drugs whenever the opportunity arises, but the drive of the police and other agencies should be to deal with the criminality of those who supply drugs, recognising that drug seizures in themselves are having little or no impact on reducing harms" (p.86)
  
  "...drugs would be seized and proclaimed whenever the opportunity arose" (p.87)
  
  This is where I differ with you Cathy. There really is no evidence that marginal changes in seizures, (even more dramatic ones - were they possible) would improve outcomes on availability, use, misuse or crime. SOCA is obviously not without its internal problems but their real problem is that their mandate is essentially doomed. There is nothing to suggest that it is possible or practical to intercept enough drugs to have any meaningful impact - there is even some to suggest it can create problems or make existing ones worse. The presence of plenty of drugs in the USA being the most obvious example (not to mention prisons the world over), and the current drug war carnage in Mexico is also a salutary lesson.
  
  Such is the dynamic of a completely unregulated illegal market which combines a highly flexible drug supply networks controlled by criminal profiteers, with high levels of demand. Seizures are a cost of business, like VAT from the gangsters perspective (and actually at about the same rate). There may also be survival-of-the-fittest natural selection effect whereby interdiction tends to catch the 'low hanging fruit', the small timers and the incompetents, meaning the most ruthless, cunning, high tech and ingenious are the ones that prosper.
  
  cont...
  
  

• 

  written on 02-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  You again quote Sweden, but there is no evidence that their relatively low level of use is related to their seizures or that use their has risen and fallen with their seizure rates on an annual basis as your analysis might suggest. There is also no wider correlation between a countries level of interdiction/seizures and levels of use, nor is their such a correlation with enforcement more generally. Even if cherry picked examples can give that impression, others will just as easily undermine it, A massive WHO survey this year, for example, had as its headline conclusion:
  
  "Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones."
  
  http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?re ... &ct=1
  Interestingly the only clear social indicator that shows a significant correlation with drug misuse internationally is income inequality - perhaps why the UK and US tend to top the drug use tables and Sweden and the Netherlands tend to be nearer the bottom.
  
  The implication of your piece - that we should either put more resources into customs, or that current interdiction is incompetent - miss the point. Supply side interventions are now, never have been, nor ever will be the answer to the drug problems we face. They are either ineffective or counterproductive. As I have doubtless said before, resources would be far better directed into what we know can work when done properly: public health interventions including prevention, treatment and education - whilst we also look seriously at the bigger questions around income and health inequalities.

• 

  written on 10-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  I think that Steve's various points have to be filed under the heading "Provide No Support for Interdiction Efforts" which of course is a policy position directly derived from the legalisation agenda of Transform. Indeed it would be somewhat surprising if Steve were to argue anything other than for a dramatic reduction rather than an increase in enforcement spending. But of course the case that Transform make in this instance is based solely on the assertion that because drugs remain available in areas that have invested in interdiction efforts therefore interdiction is a failure and money would be better spent in for example health and public education - both of these domains sitting comfortably alongside the policy proposal to legalise all drugs. But Steve persistently refuses to say what level of funding (if any) he would support for enforcement even under a legalised framework. If the various drug testing of arestees studies carried out within the UK have indicated that around 60% of police time is taken up with drug using offenders would Steve support a 60% reduction in enforcement funding? My expectation is that in replying to this post Steve will not answer this question but will instead prefer to keep the discussion of the sucessfulness or failures of enforcement at the abstract level rather than flesh out what a possible enforcement budget would look like under this preferred legalisation framework.
  
  The only other point I would make is that there is nothing in Kathy's blog which suggests that enforcement is "the" answer to the drug problem simply that it is perfectly appropriate to consider the greater gains in interdiction that may be achieved by increased investment in enforcement. I don't see how Steves' assertion that enforcement can never be the sole answer to the drug problem in any way counters the case that Kathy's has made.

• 

  written on 10-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  Hi Neil
  
  We discussed these issues in some detail on a previous blog, and I'm not clear what you are after that I haven't answered previously.
  
  http://policystudies.cps.org.uk/daily_blog/$t ... ngell
  
  What I hope I made clear previously is that reasonably assuming criminal activity related to illegal markets contracted under a legally regulated market scenario (I appreciate that some people dispute this), enforcement resource spending (specifically on illegal drug related crime) would be freed up accordingly. If that was a 60% fall in crime then that would be an incredibly positive step forward IMHO (I don't suggest it would be 60% BTW). In reality the extent of that contraction would depend on the regulatory models adopted, whilst how the resources saved should be reallocated would be an issue for Government and public debate. It could potentially all stay with the police - who would be able to redirect it into other enforcement priorities, or alternatively a proportion could be directed into other areas of government spending. I'm not anti-police, I'm anti crime and pro public health.
  
  My point was one of comparative value for money; I suggested drug related public health interventions as a spending alternative to make the distinction between what I argue are ineffective or counterproductive enforcement efforts (evidence to contrary welcomed) and public health efforts of proven efficacy (costs/outcomes of prison vs residential rehab for example). Within a fixed drug budget i hope you can at least appreciate the logic in this. I would obviously prefer a scenario under which such public health measures did not require additional funding - although I imagine you would agree with me that has not happened yet.
  
  Regards the 'the greater gains in interdiction that may be achieved by increased investment in enforcement' - I would be interested to see evidence that there are any, or that even if there were increased interdiction - that other KPIs (availability, use, misuse, drug related crime, drug deaths etc.) would be significantly impacted in the longer term. I have argued, with at least some evidence from comparative analysis internationally that no such relationship is evident, and also, in some detail, about the the ineffectiveness of and harms created by supply side enforcement.
  
  I don't particularly like being accused of evasiveness and I'm happy to try and answer any questions you have, here or by email. I also think it is the responsibility of the defenders of the status quo to argue their case in the face of reasonable critique and apparent ongoing evidence of failure (increasing availability and use). Where is the cost benefit analysis of enforcement that suggests it meets any reasonable value for money criteria? All other elements of the drugs budget have been subject to detailed audits - why not the billions spent on enforcement? Why were the government's CBAs undertaken for the strategy review last year (by independent academics) not published? I suspect the reason is political; they know what would be exposed.
  
  

• 

  written on 11-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve
  
  Your reply is very interesting but I am struck by the fact that you are unable to put any significant flesh on the bones of what enforcement funding would look like in even general terms under a fully drug legal regime. To me this is a fundamental weakness of the legalisation argument which means that the strongest case you are able to assemble has to do with pointing to the shortcomings of current policies rather than outlining in any detailed way the alternatives that you are proposing. When some years ago I discussed this issue with Danny Kushlick at a public health conference in Scotland one of the audience members pointed out that there was surely a need for those organisations calling for legalisation to develop some modelling work to set out the order of financial savings you are looking for from a shift away from enforcement. Although I can see your preference is to place the burden of explanation on those defending the status quo in fact those who are arguing for a radical change in policy are under at least an equal obligation to set out more clearly the sorts of policy and funding changes that they would see as following on from their favoured policy. I am somewhat surprised though by your suggestion that in the event of a 60% reduction in crime that the cost savings could conceivably all stay with the police. That suggestion looks odd first because one wonders what the logic is that would lead to the police retaining the cost saving but also because the implicit view underlying what you have written that under a fully drug legal regime police funding may stay the same. To say that what would actually happen to enforcement spending under drug legalisation would be determined on the basis of whatever regulatory model were adopted is in a way simply to duck the issue- in this case of course the issue you are ducking is central not peripheral to the policy you are recommending.

• 

  written on 11-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  Im not ducking any issues re regulatory models. The fact is that there are a range of regulatory options for different drugs in different environments that need to be explored, and the changes, when they come, will be phased in cautiously over a number of years with evidence of effectiveness of various models guiding developments. Unlike the dogmatic prohibitionist position and its rigid legal structures we do not presume to know or dictate precisely how this process will unfold or what the end point will look like, and will make sure there is some evidence base before proceeding. In this respect prohibition was both a radical and unevidenced experiment, indeed the lack of evaluation and evidence of efficacy has remained a running theme.
  
  Which regulatory models are adopted is important because the amount of the legal market brought within the legal sphere and level of control applied will determine the degree to which the illicit market contracts. Transform have outlined these options in the past (http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm) and is due to publish a new report early in the new year that provides more detail of regulatory models that we suggest are the most appropriate for different drugs, and how they will operate. We have also commissioned a preliminary comparative cost benefit analysis of the status quo (using Christine Godfrey's work at York University work for the Home Office ) as a starting point and applying the same analysis to a speculative regulatory alternative.
  
  I'm sure you will have a critique of these documents and you're comments will be welcomed. They are discussion documents that provide the basis for a meaningful debate about ways forward - feedback will help adapt and improve their analysis. This is the kind of work, and the kind of debate we do not have with the current policy - The government just repeats its 'belief' the system works without providing the evidence or often even publishing the evidence it has. You apparently take this view of the government with regards many aspects of the treatment system - why do you imagine enforcement to be any different?
  
  In light of the above I think throwing a figure around might not be useful. If you insist however I would speculate that:
  - based on the Strategy Unit report estimates, around one third of all crime is drug related
  - 80-90% of that is a direct result of prohibition/enforcement economic effects/illicit markets
  - approx 80% of that crime would eventually disappear when an optimum regulatory regime had been phased in
  
  On this basis we would be looking at something in the region of a fifth to a quarter of total resources could be saved/redirected, either within enforcement or elsewhere. This estimate has to be caveated for various statistical errors, assumptions, and other reasons outlined.
  
  I don't think naming the precise figure is as central as you suggest. Whether the figure was a 10% or 50% crime reduction/enforcement saving it would still be a huge social positive. It would be hard to engineer a system more ineffectual and destructive than multi billion pound markets in dangerous drugs run by violent gangsters and unregulated street dealers, with a multi billion pound price support system in the form of enforcement and interdiction.
  
  Maybe you can attempt to answer some of my questions.
  

• 

  written on 11-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve
  
  I welcome your candour in suggesting that under a fully legalised regime enforcement spending save may only amount to as you say to around one fifth to one quarter of current expenditure. I am assuming that your proposal only relates to saving in the enforcement sphere since you would have to factor in a possible increase in health related problems (and associated costs) that would arise from any increased use of those drugs that can rapidly produce dependence (heroin and cocaine most notably). Of course, because health costs in terms of treating drug dependence are substantial you could find that the cost savings under legalisation begin to look a lot less substantial than your initial one quarter/one fifth bfigure suggests. However you are right that the actual cost involved under legalisation would depend substantially on the regulatory schema that was being applied and I look forward to seeing the results of the cost benifit analysis you have commissioned. I would be interested to know which team of economists you have given this work to since the York group are clearly internationally renowned for their work in the area of costing the impact of the UK drug problem.

• 

  written on 11-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  Neil
  
  We have only been talking about savings on enforcement spending. There would be other savings, not least in the elsewhere in the criminal justice system, including prisons, probation, and courts. There would also be potential revenue from taxation on legal products to add into the equation. Victim costs of crime are also not factored in yet, and as the York study and the Strategy Unit study make clear - these are where the majority of the costs of prohibition related crime really accrue - something in the region of 13 billion a year (although these are not potential saving to the treasury in the way enforcement savings would be - it is the wider community who carry these costs).

• 

  written on 15-Nov-2008

  DavidRaynes says:

  Professopr McKeganey
  The trouble with debating with Steve Rolles is that he bases much of what he says on HIS assumptions, not on evidence. He has no personal understanding of enforcement and control regimes for legal goods, or illegal goods and much of what he says is nonsense. I have told him many many times that the current market in counterfeit and smuggled tobacco goods amounts to over 20% of the market and it has been much higher. Upto 28% was suggested by sampling a few years ago, There is no basis whatsoever for his assumption that in a legalised market for currently illegal drugs, much reduction of resources (if any) could be made in the total enforcement and regulatory system. I said here in September that in the Regional HMC&E Office I used to run, I frequently spent more effort overall in any month, on the tobacco regime than I did on drugs. Put that against the background that, at the time, my Office made the lions share of large cannabis seizures in the UK and one can appreciate how silly his remarks are. Of course if legalisation is your agenda, Mandy Rice Davies type arguments are what we will get from Transform. We have been diverted by Steve into a blind alley of an argument, which suits his purpose of keeping legalisation being discussed. We are further away from legalisation being taken seriously in the UK than we were when I first started engaging with Steve Rolles, Danny Kushlik and Transform, seven years ago. Those arguing for legalisation have spent and are spending millions, despite that, it is not going to happen. It is not on any serious political agenda, it will stay that way.
  
  A reminder, this debate started because Kathy Gyngell drew attention to the spinning of the drug seizure figures. She was spot on. So lamentable has the performance of SOCA become, from what went before, that the Home Office no longer just spins the figures, it blatantly lies. Large drug seizures, in commercial quantities DO have an effect on the market, the trouble is, as Kathy points out, we are not getting many of them at the moment. She is again spot on. SOCA enforcement and intelligence (they have called the latter "Knowledge", may still do) are not delivering the impact on drug trafficking, targetted directly at the UK, of the predecessor agencies. SOCA was a good idea, very badly implemented, partly because the Home Office allowed lamentably weak performance indicators and measures. Partly through silly internal organisational arangements like paying Officers overtime, (which has crippled SOCA enforcement activity, still does) and too much money spent on top salaries and too many managers. SOCA has failed to service, with good actionable intelligence, the frontier agencies (HMRC & The Border Agency), SOCA has failed to capitalise on "cold finds" (seizures without prior intelligence) made at the frontier. (So substantial is this failure that it is weakening the skills inherited from the pre cursor agencies). SOCA has largely refused to investigate these cases and HMRC have had to cast about for Constabulary effort, inexperienced and under resourced (and where they do take these cases on, diverting Constabulary detectives from local crime). Overall Drugs enforcement, in the UK, is weaker than at any time during the forty years I have been involved with it. We have almost open house. The result is visible in street prices. Serious trafficking is more risk free than it has been for three decades.
  
  Incidentally I do not argue for an increase in enforcement spend, I accept enforcement alone has limitations, I argue for much more efficiency and joined-up activity (some real NATIONAL leadership in SOCA would be nice) and more disruption of markets (highly cost effective). I want more spent on primary prevention (largely ignored in the UK) and more focus, during treatment, on offerring help to addicts to get free of addiction rather than keeping them addicted, at public expense, on an open-ended basis.
  

• 

  written on 15-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve's assessment of the effects of legalisation emphasises only the cost savings and in that regard is a policy that has no negative or un-intented consequences. Your modelling of the effects of legalisation though cannot be on the basis of only the assumed positives because that suggests you have not thought about the negatives or your don't believe there will be any negatives. Tell us Steve what you see as the downside of legalisation or leave us with the impression that legalisation is a rose tinted policy assuming the best of all possible outcomes and unprepared for anything less.

• 

  written on 15-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve's assessment of the effects of legalisation emphasises only the cost savings and in that regard is a policy that has no negative or un-intented consequences. Your modelling of the effects of legalisation though cannot be on the basis of only the assumed positives because that suggests you have not thought about the negatives or your don't believe there will be any negatives. Tell us Steve what you see as the downside of legalisation or leave us with the impression that legalisation is a rose tinted policy assuming the best of all possible outcomes and unprepared for anything less.

• 

  written on 17-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  Neil - I haven't provided an assessment of legalisation/regulation; I have just tried my best to answer a series of questions from you about enforcement spending. I hope you will be able to answer some questions I have in return.
  
  In terms of the negative consequences of what we are advocating we have acknowledged some in our literature - including potential displacement of criminal activity from illegal drugs into other areas, such as fraud, extortion and counterfeiting. I have written a small piece on this point called 'where will all the criminals go' on page 56 of 'After teh War on Drugs - Tools for the Debate' here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Tools_For_The%20Debate.pdf . We do not claim law reform as a panacea to the drug problem - only a solution to (most of ) the problems created by prohibition and illegal markets. We argue that it would also remove key social and political barriers to addressing drug misuse and its underlying causes in the longer term.
  
  The unforeseen consequence most frequently mooted, including by yourself, is - understandably enough - that use would rise. Whilst not discounting the possibility, it assumes that prohibition is effective at restricting use, either by preventing supply and reducing availability, or as a deterrent to individual users. There are a number of issues here and I have written about this in more detail in a section of the report linked above titled 'would prevalence of use rise?' (p.47) - which I direct to rather than repeat the main points here - feedback is welcomed.
  
  Again, obviously, the regulatory mechanisms adopted and parallel public health policy shifts in any post-prohibition scenario would be key to overall impacts - most obviously controls on price, marketing and advertising . To re-emphasize, we are not advocating a free market libertarian model but one based on evidence-based regulation built on established public health principles. I appreciate that you will probably have issues with some of this and I'm happy to continue this dialog here or by email. Its obviously an important issue to thrash out and is both complex and entangled with a range of broader political social and ethical questions many people struggle with.
  
  I view legal regulation as rational response to the existence of drugs in society and prohibition as a radical and failed experiment that was not based on evidence at its inception and has not been supported by evidence of it efficacy subsequently - it seems to make all the problems associated with drugs far worse rather than better. But if you do want to defend the status quo, regards prohibitionist drug laws and their enforcement, I think it is reasonable for me to some questions too:
  
  What evidence do you have to suggest that prohibition has either reduced or contained levels of use or misuse since 1971.
  
  I would be interested in evidence of how prohibition has reduced drug harms, or drug related crime, or analysis of how it can do so.
  
  I am also interested to know if you support the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, and if not; why.
  
  I would also ask how you feel criminalisation, a criminal record, or imprisonment aids recovery for problem users, or helps their life chances (in terms of, for example, employment, social exclusion, housing and personal finances) once their drug issues have been addressed.
  
  I am interested if you think it is ethical, or consistent with comparable law and social policy, to blanket criminalise consenting adult use of certain drugs.
  
  Do you advocate criminalisation of your clients purely on the basis of their drug use?
  
  Do you think maximising harms associated with drug use is an ethical way of attempting to discourage use?
  
  
  
  
  

• 

  written on 17-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  
  David - I have written a section on tobacco and alcohol policy and lessons we can learn from them in terms of informing future developments with currently illegal drugs in the report linked above, titled 'talking about tobacco and alcohol'- page 37. Take a look and let me know your thoughts. I'm happy to continue the discussions, as ever.
  
  

• 

  written on 17-Nov-2008

  DavidRaynes says:

  "Potential displacement of illegal activity", you ARE joking I presume? Have you considered what you are saying? Legalisation of any illegal drug with the obvious creation of a larger market as the substances became more established and there was little incentive not to use, like we have with alcohol & tobacco, would only ENCOURAGE ilegal activity. Just why would trafickers stop? Drugs have to be given away by the state before trafickers even slow down. When we GAVE heroin away to virtually anyone who wanted it, there remained a parralel illegal market (Chinese No 3 and No 4 heroin at the time). Never let the facts get in the way of of the Transform line. Use-reinforcing substances, legal or illegal, are PERFECT for smugglers. Repeat market for the same thing, regular customers, price sensitive (especially if taxes are added as I think you have suggested, Legitimate sellers pressuring government for protection for their businesses. You should quit while you are not ahead.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  well, whilst the use of almost every illegal drug has been rising alarmingly, smoking rates have fallendramatically since the 70s due to a combination of better regulation (of marketing, price, packaging, and now smoking in public places) and effective public health education about risks. This hasn't required criminalising millions of smokers, no one has been arrested or imprisoned for posession, tobacconists are not gunning each other down on street corners, and whilst yes, 25% or so of the UK trade is smuggled, surely this you're not suggesting that is worse than a 100% run by organised criminal gangs and street dealers?.
  
  Governments can intervene in tobacco markets - controlling prices (both generating tax and influencing the level of illicit activity), marketing, availability and so on - approaches completely impossible with illegal drugs entirely left to the whim of criminal markets. No model is perfect but some regulation is better than none at all.
  
  
  

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve I looked at what you have written in your tools for the debate pamphlet. In relation to the unintended consequences of legalisation to do with on going criminality you say in the report that .."since reforms will be phased over a number of years and not happen overnight criminal infrastructures will experience a twilight period diminishing profit opportunities". that to me look exactly like the rose coloured spectacle vision of someone who for the most part thinks that crime post legalisation will simply gradually dry up. I see in your report though that you do acknowledge the possibility of increases in cyber crime extortion and the illicit trade in other goods. You mention these items though as if they are a marginal outcome about which we do not need to be overly concerned when in fact of course if you are the victim of extortion it is rather a serious matter. Indeed if we were to witness an increase in extortion post legalisation that would be a very worrying development.
  
  
  On the question of whether drug use post legalisation would go up I see that you acknowledge in the report that ""drug use may both rise and fall post post prohibition" Again although you mention this issue briefly the idea that drug use may increase under a legalised regime is actually rather important. I am surprised that an organisation which is working determinedly towards legalisation does not appear to have done the work to look at what levels of increase might occur and at what point the benifits of legalisation may be outweighed by the negative effects of an increase in prevalence. When I asked you what kind of modelling you had done associated with legalisation that is basically what I was referring to. The answer to the problem of course cannot be simply to say that drug use may go up or go down; rather if you are arguing for a policy change that you concede may result in drug use increasing you have to do the further work of looking at the possible impact of varying levels of increase in the prevalence of illegal drug use. If you dont do that or dont have that work done what you are in effect calling for is a radical change in the drug laws without really having given much time at all to explore in detail the possible downside of those changes. Now whilst the standard Transform argument is to say that any level of harm associated with an increase in drug use would be compensated for by a reduction in the overal harms associated with legalisation all you are doing when you make that case is simply favouring your preferred option of legalisation. Clearly if drug use increased markedly then the benifits of legalisation even as you assume them to be would start to diminish. Say for example the consumption of heroin were to increase to half that of the consumption of tobacco would you still say that the harms associated with such an increase would be less than the harms associated with the one percent of the population currently using heroin? I suspect not and that you would simply say that heroin could never rise in its level of use to approximate half that of tobacco. But what do you base that view on when heroin in its early stages is a good deal more pleasant a drug to use than either tobacco or alcohol?
  
  
  

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  In the case of tobacco of course whilst we may both celebrate the reduction in consumption associated with the recent health campaigns of organisations like ASH we are in a way forced down the road of trying to reduce consumption by making smoking illegal in certain areas simply because we have no other way of sucesssfully reducing the proportion of the population smoking to the one percent level that are using heroin. In that sense the smoking genie is out of the bottle and in all probability will never be pushed back to the one percent level equivalent to heroin consumption. In sum I would have to say that our experience of legalising tobacco and alcohol are so negative that they show us very clearly the dangers of legalising other substances. Legalisation is also a policy from which there would be no return were things to go wrong. Imagine for example that we were to legalise heroin and cocaine use and we started to see prevalence in the use of these drugs start to increase. At what point would we say that we had got the policy wrong and that we were going to revert back to prohibition?? And even if we wanted to do that what additional harm would we have caused to occur through allowing drug use to increase in the first place. Legalisation in that sense is a shot in the dark with its proponents determinedly believing that it could not go wrong that it could never lead to greater harm but for the most part never really engaging with the level at which the possible harms associated with legalisation might outweigh the benifits they are arguing for. it is in this sense a rose tinted vision of a future that in reality will never arise because as we saw in the Observer poll at the weekend attitudes towards illegal drugs use and illegal drugs trading are becoming harder not softer as we recognise the real threat that illegal drugs pose in our cities and in our villages.
  
  

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com] says:

  Ill try and respond to your comments Neil, and I look forward to hearing from you regards my questions above. In the mean time i will have to assume maybe its you that has the rose tinited view; of the $300 billion a year trade in dangerous drugs run by violent gangsters.
  
  I think you have rather selectively quoted from the the tools report displacement. The complete section says this:
  
  "This concern has cropped up more and more recently, which we take to be a sign that the other more substantive concerns are being adequately responded to. It does have some legitimacy: if the most lucrative source of illegal income is denied to organised criminals, what will they all do? The Association of Chief Police Officers, in arguments to the Home Affairs Select Committee19 suggested it was absurd to think
  legalisation would cause drug gangs to just ‘fade into the night’. Obviously it is ridiculous to imagine they will all ‘go straight’ and get jobs in McDonalds, or selling flowers, but it is equally absurd to suggest they will all embark on some previously unimagined crime spree. Clearly the impacts will differ at the various levels of the
  criminal infrastructure and, since reforms will be phased over a number of years and not happen overnight, criminal drug infrastructures will experience a twilight period of diminishing profit opportunities.
  
  Undoubtedly some criminals will seek out new areas of illegal activity and it is realistic to expect that there may be increases in some areas, such as cyber-crime, extortion or other illicit trades (counterfeit goods etc.). However, crime is to a large extent a function of opportunity, and it is impossible to imagine that there is enough criminal opportunity to absorb the manpower currently operating an illicit drugs market with a
  turnover somewhere in the region of £300 billion pounds a year globally, or over £6 billion a year in the UK alone22. Even if there is some diversion into other criminal activity, the big picture will undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall criminal activity. Getting rid of illegal drug markets is about reducing opportunities for crime.
  
  This concern is a curious one because it seems, when considered closely, to be advocating prohibition as a way of maintaining illegal drug empires so that organised criminals don’t have to change jobs. By contrast, from our perspective the argument is about removing the largest criminal opportunity on earth, not just from
  existing criminals but, significantly, from future generations of criminals. Ending prohibition holds the prospect of diverting millions of potential young drug producers, traffickers, and dealers from a life of crime."
  
  So no, that is not a detailed costing, but we acknowledge the concern and argue why we think there would still be a net gain in terms of reduced crime. I would argue that given the catastrophic impacts of prohibition in terms of crime creation it is the army of civil servants in the home office, or perhaps some academics, who should be pushing for or undertaking this sort of speculative costing analysis. Transform is a tiny organisation operating on a shoestring - we do not have the millions David seems to suggest- unable to commission much research at all, and as a result most of our analysis is based on other peoples data.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  DavidRaynes says:

  Steve you say:
  "whilst yes, 25% or so of the UK trade is smuggled, surely this you're not suggesting that is worse than a 100% run by organised criminal gangs and street dealers?."
  
  The answer is it all depends. As you accept, the criminal market in tobacco products in the UK is huge. There is smaller illegal market in alcohol products but it is substantial and resources go to dealing with it. The real mafia and eastern European criminals are substantially involved in tobacco goods. The real mafia have largely ignored the UK drugs market over the 30 plus years of my experience. The criminal market in tobacco goods is much larger in some other countries than in the UK, even in Europe. To my mind you have this rose tinted picture of what would occur after you get your legalisation because you have no understanding of criminals and how they operate, they are flexible, in most cases (saving "hippy traffickers" like Howard Marks (a declining breed anyway), their criminal activities are not product specific. Our experience of a legal supply of heroin in the UK under a registration scheme showed us that alongside the legal supply there will always be an illegal supply. Sometimes that was partially supplied from legal (registered) sources. The experience was that first time users of heroin in those days did not get their heroin direct from legal supplies. Prof McKeganey is therefore correct you have no real handle on what might happen, you have forgotten (or never knew-indeed were not alive then) what took place in the past. Your legalisation scheme is just an act of faith, it is that, because you fail to be really honest with yourself about the risks, it is the equivalent of a child saying "I want to do that" regardless of the warnings of grown ups. You are also fighting a battle that is over. You talk of the criminalising of users, patently the treatment of users in the UK is not over zealous, this is not the US. The regime we have now is not encouraging of drug use any change to that regime is full of enormous risk, it is not sufficient for it to be an act of faith. The Prof is right, retreat from your unresearched act of faith, should it get carried through, would be impossible. The public intuitively understands that, the reason in my view why the public mood is increasingly against you.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  You again raise the specter of heroin use rising to levels associated with tobacco - we discussed this on Kathy's earlier blog; the comparison is not realistic for series of, I would have thought, obvious reasons. People don't use heroin because they are not interested in it, not because it is unavailable or illegal (it is available). Problematic heroin use is invariably associated with a need to escape from emotional, mental or physical pain and anguish, the same cannot be said for tobacco - patterns of use, harms and motivations for use are very different. With respect. The comparison is essentially meaningless, and strikes me as pointless scaremongering. Heroin use levels have in fact leveled off for a number of years now despite falling prices and increasing availability (the terrifying 'flood' of heroin we are promised every year); demand is saturated. If there are 11 million people out there itching to use it if only it was legal I'm interested to know who you think they are.
  
  FYI: In the preliminary comparative CBA we are working on (that I mentioned earlier) we have run the model under 4 scenarios ; a 50% fall in use, no change, a 50% rise in use and a 100% rise in use.
  
  I think all these are important things to discuss, but it is easy to criticize speculative analysis, and hard to defend it as it is, obviously, speculative. The rose tinted spectacles accusation is ever present - its something we try to be mindful of, and why I find these sorts of discussions useful. That said their is nothing speculative about pointing out the disastrous unintended consequences of current policy - there for all to see - and suggesting that alternatives be maturely and rationally explored. That is what we are trying to do, and the debate we are trying to inform. The Government should really be doing it, but they are not. When they do, i'll go and do something else. Work for David maybe.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve
  
  when you say that heroin use is "invariably associated with a need to escape from emotional, mental or physical pain and anguish" dont you see that there are no end of people in our society who under that heading, with heroin legally available, would indeed stand a real risk of starting to use the drug. I think to that you have to focus not on what would happen in the two to three years post legalisation but the ten, twenty, fifty years after legalisation since the change you are calling for is not a temporary one but a permanent change. if you dont think that it is permanent then it seems to me you do have to do the work of connecting with academic researchers to do the work of modelling what level of increased legalised drug use society could cope with. I do not know what level of funding Transform has but what I do know is that there is an enormous gaping hole in your argument if the case you are making is simply that things arent working now so lets legalise. to call for a specific change in the legal position regarding currently illegal drugs, whether you feel it is fair or not, you simply have to do more analysis about what could happen if the change you are calling for where to be implemented and push the debate beyond your level of faith that things would be OK under a fully legalised regime.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  DavidRaynes says:

  I raise heroin as an example because the UK (almost uniquely) has long understanding of the parralel market and it is something I studied at the time as I worked on the Chinese trafickers. I could have picked cocaine & crack cocaine or free basing or even methamphetamine or ketamine. Doyou really believe that use of these would not increase if there was societal compliance and toleration on your model? If you accept that by legalising cocaine (and derivatives) there would likely be a rise in use (after all there has been a substantial rise under present arrangements) just WHY are you persuaded that trafickers would give up traficking. Why would they? Unless their product was substantially undercut in price by officially sanctioned supply. Illegal suppliers (of anything) can always undercut, through black market activity, any legal supply. I have told you this at great length before (but McKeganey will not have heard it). The range of legal goods that are supplied on the black market in the UK and the world over, extends from aircraft parts to CDs/DVDs to meat and dairy products to mobile phones and computer chips to road fuel. No market is immune from criminal activity NOW. Just WHY would criminals stop supplying cocaine under your model? One of your main arguments for your model is removal or near extinction of the criminal supply with the associated harms. It just does not stack up intellectually. It is a mirage. You and Danny have been told this repeatedly, Danny and I even appeared together in a TV programme where we argued the point. I pointed up that were cocaine to be available in legal packs, the next response would be imitative packaging and counterfeit product-just as we have with cigarettes (container loads of counterfeit product currently). Your whole argument is founded on quicksand, you have not thought it through. It quite suits me to debate on this territory, I know it as well as anyone. You have known me for years but you wrote all your materiel without asking for my views or indeed as far as I can see, the views of anyone who truly understands serious crime. It is truly bizarre and illogical that you are still following this ridiculous line. If you want to argue for legalisation you must surely do it on the basis of less TOTAL harm to individuals, familes and society by the (inevitable) use of such products by some people under your model. I do not think you can make that case. I am encouraged in that view becasue you do not stand and fight on that ground, You fight on mine. A very great mistake.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Tools_For_The%20Debate.pdf] says:

  Neil - you say:
  
  "dont you see that there are no end of people in our society who under that heading, with heroin legally available, would indeed stand a real risk of starting to use the drug."
  
  Neil - you have made the comparison between heroin and smoking and I have highlighted why they are very different and projecting the use of the former based on the latter is not a useful or meaningful exercise. Im also not sure how it supports your point given that tobacco use is falling under something nearer the sort of regulatory regime/ public health approach we are advocating; new social norms about the unacceptability and irresponsibility of smoking are demonstrably emerging without the deployment of punitive prohibitions (certainly not the absolutist blanket ones we have with illegal drugs) yet the exact opposite seems to be happening with cocaine and heroin, by most accounts the (illegal) drugs that cause the most harm. I suggest a public health / regulatory approach is likely to lead to better outcomes on this front, see no evidence that the punitive approach is effective at 'sending out messages' on risk, public health and personal responsibility, and believe any marginal impacts it may have are massively outweighed by the corollary harms created by illegal markets (on both health and crime indicators)
  
  Yes there are people who choose to use drugs (legal and illegal) in destructive ways as a form of escape and that population may go up or down depending of various social economic or cultural variables, regardless of drug policy. We can't predict those future trends but can potentially model based on various scenarios _ I would love to see that work being done, I think it is the responsibility of the government and academia - not just Transform.
  
  However - in the absence of any solid evidence base for a (more than very marginal) deterrent effect from prohibition/enforcement (please show me some if you have it) its hard to accept the carnage created by illegal markets is an acceptable price to pay when the evidence of benefits is simply not apparent. It's fine to demand empirical rigour from me - we are at least attempting to deliver (obviously this is very tricky with speculative modeling - but we can also learn from the way certain products and services are regulated her and around the world - I've provided some examples elsewhere - see 'A leap in the dark?' p.52 of Tools), but where is the same rigour from defenders of the status quo? Where's the evidence that prohibition is an effective deterrent to use? Or that increased supply side interventions reduce drug availability or total harms? Surely producing this would have to be the basis of the assertion that drug use/harm would rise under a regulated regime? You can keep asking me questions about what the future looks like, how it will work and what the consequences will be - ill do my best to answer. But it is not fair to accuse me of evasion for asking for evidence that current policy is effective - it is the absolute moral responsibility of any policy to establish that, and if it cant, for policy alternatives to be explored. So far you've provided none, nor answered any of my questions.
  
  
  
  
  

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  DavidRaynes says:

  "the carnage created by illegal markets is an acceptable price to pay".
  
  You are not listening you are merely rarranging your prejudices. The LEGAL market in tobacco and alcohol creates enormous social carnage and personal harm. You cannot deny it. You are arguing for change. if you want it, it is YOU who must put forward a coherent argument that what you propose will have a better TOTAL outcome for individuals, for familes for society. There is an intelectual dishonesty in your persistence that most of the harms of drugs are caused by their illegality. The evidence that illegality and culture has some effect on limiting use is in the tobacco/alcohol model. It is evidence based. Societal dissaproval works, it started from social taboo in primitive societies. It has persisted into legal frameworks because humans have found merit in it over eons. Society is entitled, if it feels strongly enough, to back up dissapproval with sanctions, that is how democracy works. You have been banging on about legalisation for years, undermining societal dissaproval and trying to give credibility to an intellectually shallow argument. The public mood is against you. The monies you spend could be better spent on something worthwhile. Doing some real good.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve
  
  I have to agree with David Raynes here if you are strongly making the case,as you are, for legalisation then it is up to you to do the analytic work to advise what impact (both positive and negative) legalisation would have if implemented. If you dont do that work either now or in the future the case you are making simply cant progress from the "prohibition isnt working so lets try legalisation". I know that you feel that it is unfair for you and your organisation to be saddled with the burden of undertaking the modelling work to contribute to that analysis but that responsibility flows directly from the case that you are making. With regard to tobacco I do not for one minute suppose that heroin consumption would reach the level of smoking in our society and I agree with you that that is totally unrealistic. But what I would be very concerned about is a situation in which the prevalence of heroin use in society increased to say 10% to 15%. Now you might say that this simply could not happen because there are not that many people who would wish to use heroin. here though you see you hit the barrier I believe that Transform has not sought to explore empirically how many people might be prepared to use heroin if the drug were legal. This to is an important element of the modelling work that needs to be done and the nature of that work goes well beyond throw away lines that extortion may increase or cyber crime may increase. Finally of course whilst you yourself cite smoking as a classic case of the benifits of a regulated maket you cannot possibly think that our existing mechanisisms for regulating smoking could reduce consumption down to one percent of the population. That being the case I think you would have to accept that any regulated market you can think of for legalised drug would have to give up entirely the idea of limiting consumption to the one percent level that heroin consumption is thought to be at present under a prohibitionist system.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles says:

  David - the point regards all those other criminal or quasi-legal markets you cite is that they are the minority of the total market, whereas under prohibition they are 100%. That is massive and important distinction that you fail or are unwilling to acknowledge. If the illicit market in drugs was only halved that would still be massive progress in terms of reducing criminal opportunity and profit.
  
  The reason that organized crime are so powerfully attracted to the drugs market is in large part because of the huge price mark ups - which are in turn created partly by enforcement which effectively acts as a price support mechanism, and partly by straight profiteering in a market with high demand but no reasonably priced market alternative. Cocaine and heroin cost very little to actually produce but - because of the illicit market conditions - are worth more that their weight in gold by the time they reach the streets.
  
  If people have a legal supply option from whom they can get a product of known/ guaranteed purity and strength, at a reasonable price, why would they turn to an illicit supply, even if it was marginally undercutting on price? The attraction to undercut may still be their but the profit incentive will be dramatically reduced, and accordingly so will the extent of criminal control of the market and its associated problems. Your examples of illicit markets are an argument for legal control not against it. To repeat my basic premise: the smaller the proportion of the market that is controlled by criminals the better, the more that is regulated by appropriate legal authorities the better.
  
  Just to further reiterate - the majority of crime cost savings would come from the reduction in acquisitive crime committed by low income dependent users, rather than the reduction in supply side criminal activity.

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles says:

  A lot being chucked at me here - which I will have to return to later or tommorow - other work and parenting duties call, but
  
  Neil - Yes, anyone making the case for a particular policy position has to provide the evidence for it, and whether that responsibility falls more on defending existing policy or those advocating a shift, we will have to agree to disagree on. However, Transform are at least attempting to do this - we are producing a literature review of economic analysis of different polciy models and a preliminary comparative CBA discussion document, as part of the economics thread of our work strategy that also includes building links with economists in academia and policy think tanks, and organising seminars and discussion forums.
  
  By contrast we have spent years lobbying the NAO, Treasury, and parliamentary public accounts committee to extend the CBA of certain elements of drug policy expenditure to enforcement expenditure, as well as publish suppressed research that has been done. All to no avail. Hard to see how any discussion of alternatives is going to get moving if they refuse to evaluate the status quo, and this would appear to be exactly what they want.
  
  Obviously, logically, any exploration of policy alternatives starts with a critique of current policy. This we have done as best we can with the resources at hand - on the critique front at least, our analysis is supported by a substantial body of authoritative work. We are now in a position, and the debate has evolved sufficiently, to allow us to fill in some of the gaps and take the analysis and debate to the next logical step.
  
  
  

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  McKeganey says:

  Steve
  Transform has set about with determination and commtiment criticising current drugs policies and I think you have been rather sucessful in that regard with considerable visibility. But if your organisation is keen to move beyond the critique of current policies to making the case for specific policy change (legalisation) then there is no option other than to flesh out the possible benifits and costs of legalised markedt for currently illegal drugs. Clearly that analysis has to do more than simply acknowledge that some crimes might go up and others might go down and it has as a minimum to consider not wildly exagerated increases in drug consumption but relatively small increases in consumption that could still have a dramatic impact on society. I know that we will return to these issues! Best
  
  Neil

• 

  written on 18-Nov-2008

  DavidRaynes says:

  If you accept the premise (and I think it would be honest to do this)
  that legalisation of drugs would likely increase use, both in lifetime
  use terms (how many actually use at some stage) and lifelong use terms,
  (how long people use for-what period of their life. In this last there
  being room for a TRULY massive increase in consumption), you ought, to
  be off setting what you say are gains against the downside, you ought to
  be modelling the long term social effects and total costs.
  
  Any substantial rise in total quantity of any drug used (legal or
  illegally sourced drug) has a substantial, individual, family and social
  effect and an effect in hard public cash for treatment. There are other
  knock on effects and various costs in (not an exclusive list) individual
  ill health, absence from work and lack of, or diminished, productive
  capacity in the economy. Families are badly affected, the offspring of
  drug addicts (legal or illegal drugs) tending to have diminished
  opportunity and health. A further extension then of the underclass and
  families who need social support.
  
  There is nothing in anything you have ever said that could justify your
  position that criminality involved with supply would reduce very much,
  if at all, if what you propose were to be implemented.
  
  Indeed increased societal acceptance, less social taboo, use of damaging
  substances increasingly tolerated, is bound to cause profound long term
  cultural changes. It is difficult to see an argument that these changes
  would be beneficial. I would quite like to see you try.
  
  Yes, agreed, the proportion of any particular market that is legally
  supplied would increase but if the market is larger, the total amount of
  criminality and the incentive for serious criminality to keep on
  supplying could well be even larger than it is now. In my view you never
  tell the truth about that.
  
  Further there is no guarantee at all that there would be any "peace
  dividend" with a saving in resources (doing the work I used to do). The
  opposite is in fact the case. Why do I say that? I look at the Italian
  and Spanish experience, where despite lower taxes on tobacco goods than
  the UK, the larger markets have been much more controlled by crime than
  in the UK.
  
  If I was doing your job I would seek to radically re-think my arguments,
  to ensure that they are coherent and make sense. At the moment they are
  based on your all too fragile understanding of how the drug market and
  serious or organised criminality works.
  
  If you believe that some of the social (NHS etc) costs on your
  legalisation model, could be met from say (Excise) taxing of the product
  or even just from VAT and company tax, I suggest you consider the ADDED
  INCENTIVE that ANY form of taxation would give to continued criminality.
  
  If your model includes fairly strict distribution controls e.g some form
  of registration for users, yet again there is an ADDED incentive for an
  illegal market to prosper. What about the youth market if you have age
  restrictions, another incentive for traffickers?
  
  Where is this body of authoritative work which challenges what I say to
  you about how this market works? My fees (in relation to your sponsor
  Mr Ross' salary), are relatively modest. I am happy to tell you how it
  really works and to take some of his money which I am told funds you.
  
  Is this the most evil man in the world? Think of the good he could do
  with his money.
  
  http://sorosmonitor.com/

• 

  written on 19-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/] says:

  David - a change legal regulation does not have to be associated with a increase in tolerance or decrease in social taboo. I have argued this in the case of tobacco in the UK where a dramatic and positive result in increasing social disapproval and taboo (and understanding of risk) have increased without resorting to mass cri minalisation of users. I have also argued that the opposite appears to be happening with most illegal drugs, and on that basis that a public health / legal regulation approach holds more potential for public health improvements than a punitive prohibtion based one. More regulation is better than less (or none), and the smaller the illegal market the better. I have written about potential impacts on prevalence elsewhere, as well as addressed some of these other points and provided a link - I'm not sure you have looked at it - so i don't know how far this discussion can go. I would add that 'anti-drug' sentiments (I dont think the term is useful, but anyway) are not the sole preserve of prohibitionists - an aim to reduce drug misuse and drug related harm is at the core of Transforms mission, indeed Transform has police, drug service providers and bereaved parents amongst its broad base of supporters.
  
  regards pricing and level of regulation - these obviously present difficult challenges, balancing the need to discourage illicit activity with the need to control availability and dissuade use. However - i argue that it would be hard to imagine a worse scenario than the current one under which the market is 100% unregulated and in the hands of criminals, and that at least under a system where legal regulation was an option the government would be in a position to intervene on market regulation and make those difficult choices (as they do with tobacco). Even if the response were/are, as inevitable perhaps, imperfect - at least alternatives can be explored and some degree of market regulation is possible. This is not the case when control has been completely abdicated to criminals.
  
  I have repeatedly asked for evidence that prohibition has been an effective deterrent, reduced availability, reduced drug related crime or reduced harms, and I'm still waiting for it - nor has the Governm,ent been able to provide any as the Sci-Tech committee pointed out in 2006. I have argued, using evidence from international and regional comparisons that the there is no consistent link between enforcement regimes and levels of use or harm and await evidence to the contrary, and that drug misuse is predominantly determined by a complex interplay of localised social economic and cultural variable. I argue that these are likey to be more responsive to social policy and public health policy interventions than criminal justice policy and point to the failure of the past 50 year or so experiment with the radical policy of absolute prohibition by way of evidence, and regards the need for - at the very least - a debate on alternative approaches. I have pointed out, unchallenged, that enforcement spending has never been subject to the rigorous cost benefit analysis that other areas of the drug strategy have (or such research has remained unpublished) and argued that the reasons for this are political. Even the head of the UNODC acknowledges the unintended consequences of enforcement approach including the marginalisation of public health efforts and the creation of a "huge criminal black market", noting in addition that "There is indeed a spirit of reform in the air, to make the conventions fit for purpose and adapt them to a reality on the ground that is considerably different from the time they were drafted". http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2008/03/u ... .html
  
  cont...
  

• 

  written on 19-Nov-2008

  SteveRolles [http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Tools_For_The%20Debate.pdf] says:

  cont...
  
  I respect your opinion and experience but don't agree with you, and the fact that you have repeatedly said things I disagree with does not make me dishonest, any more than it makes you correct. You must also be aware that numerous people from the enforcement sphere take a very different view to yours, not least the more than 10,000 former and serving members of law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content ... pid=4
  
  Transform is a registered charity and limited company and have been awarded ECOSOC special consultative status at the UN. We are rather boringly respectable these days (and have never, BTW, been funded by Soros).
  

• 

  written on 19-Nov-2008

  DavidRaynes says:

  You have not dealt with my points about increased consumption and more harm under your more tolerant regime.
  
  You have not dealt with the point about increased social costs (In the wide way I outlined them).
  
  You have produced no modelling of these costs.
  
  You have not identified any expert report in the UK that undermines my assertions of how the market does and would work (under your model).
  
  You accept (afterI I explain to you) that pricing and level of regulation "present difficult challenges". Good, I am making significant progress with you.
  
  You presumably accept that use would go up? (It would be totally illogical not to accept that, given the tobacco/alcohol model).
  
  You presumably accept (now) that enforcement & control effort, I call it the "peace dividend", (and TOTAL overall criminality) would not necessarily reduce in your scenario. If you do not accept that, you produce no evidence to support your position.
  
  Significantly, you do not deal with this point:
  "how long people use for-what period of their life. In this last ther