Personal and financial costs of a failed drugs policy

The home affairs select committee report calling for a complete rethink of the UK's failing drug laws is a welcome injection of common sense. Sadly, the fact that the prime minister dismissed it out of hand suggests that ministers are still running scared on the issue, even as the public mood and expert view continues to shift (David Cameron urged to take 'now or never' step on drugs reform, 10 December).

This kneejerk rejection is disappointing and irresponsible. As the committee points out, the "principal aim of government drugs policy should be ... to minimise the damage caused to the victims of drug-related crime, drug users and others". Yet the UK is spending around £3bn and sentencing 42,000 people every year under a drugs policy that lacks co-ordination, fails to prioritise public health and is often self-defeating. 

There is now growing agreement that the "war on drugs" has failed and we need to move away from prohibition of personal use towards an evidence-based, public-health approach, within a regulated environment. This goes further than decriminalisation and is the only way to effectively address the supply side of the equation. That's why, as well as learning from countries like Portugal, the proposed royal commission should also be considering alternatives to prohibition, such as the ambitious routes taken by some South American countries. In Brighton and Hove, we have already set up a commission to examine drugs policy and addiction treatment in the city, taking the views of experts and practitioners.

Finally, in light of the intense pressures on the public purse, we need an urgent review of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, with a full cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment to compare its effectiveness in reducing the societal, economic and health costs of drug misuse with other approaches.
Caroline Lucas MP
Green, Brighton Pavilion

It is odd that drug reform seems to concentrate on dealing with the problem once it exists, with little or no mention of preventing it in the first place. I wrote to you a couple of months ago about the distinction between party drugs and hard drugs (Letters, 16 October), using my son as an example. He is now dead, evidently from a heroin overdose.

In our relentless, unbearable grief we search for answers. Like so many of his friends, our son dabbled with party drugs, but, faced with the humiliation of redundancy and the hopelessness of unemployment, he was seduced into using heroin against the pleas of his friends and the taboos of the culture. He fought bravely to overcome the addiction and started a new career overseas, and in no way did he fit the stereotype of the addled dope-head. Yet, despite being successful, adored and happy, he succumbed to the same dark forces in a country where possession is punished with extraordinary severity. He died from respiratory arrest, recklessly injecting alone after his period of abstinence.

The craving is never completely lost, even when the trigger is gone and the barriers are high, and no amount of criminalising will suppress the user's urges. Heroin and other hard drugs are an international industry which the party drugs are not. The principal targets should be the pushers and dealers who create the market for this highly lucrative commerce. Heaven knows it was easy enough for my child to meet them – surely this is where resources should be concentrated.
Name and address supplied