Legalise Class-A Drugs and Save Lives

Introduction

The great reforming governments of Harold Wilson shredded obsolete laws. Capital punishment ended as did the criminalisation of abortion. They were both hugely contentious actions with moral and religious opposition. Decriminalisation of abortion ended ‘back-street’ abortions and their grim death toll. Legalising abortion  saved countless women’s lives. The tragedy of wrong convictions and executions was long overdue but was fiercely resisted by populist politicians and the media.

The principal conceptual challenge to decriminalisation of Class-A drug is being blind to the fact that drug users are consumers who need the protection of the law.

The Infantilisation of British Adults

Alcohol and tobacco are toxic and addictive. If they were new products they’d be category ‘A’ drugs. They are legal because of their legacy. Cocaine, heroin and other hard drugs are illegal. They too should be legal. Claiming users need protecting from themselves is laughable.

The catastrophic death-rate2 associated with tobacco, isn’t used by politicians to justify criminalisation. Politicians know that would be resisted by the electorate. Users suffer interference through draconian taxation and lurid health warnings.3 The Class-A death-rate is minimal4 but is exaggerated to justify criminalisation. The exaggeration creates the idea that hard drugs are a menace to society.

Intentional risky behaviour is multi-varied. Some sports depend on extreme risk-taking. Freebase climbing looks suicidal,5 yet it is a celebrated form of climbing with YouTube videos and a dedicated following. Some participants die. More innocuous is show-jumping, which is much loved.6 This is despite the many life-changing injuries and deaths occurring during this ‘innocuous’ activity. Neither freebase climbing or show jumping are in danger of being criminalised.

Criminalisation can protect people from deadly risks. Covid-19 brought massive intrusive government interference. This was a rational response to a major threat created by a pandemic.  Intervention was rational because the population needed robust guidance. Individual freedoms were sacrificed for the greater good. It is a category mistake to think hard drugs come remotely into this arena of risk.

Protecting some people from poor decision-making cannot justify a general curtailment of freedom of choice.

How Powerful are Wider Considerations?

Criminalisation kills Class-A drug consumers. Decriminalisation would introduce regulation in quality control, distribution and sales. Drugs would be safer with known risks where consumers can calibrate their use. Adults would look for an effect and consume accordingly. Consumers as beneficiaries of decriminalisation would have an established price and quality like other retail goods.7

The criminals’ role would disappear as sales migrated to bona fide outlets. Deleting a major criminal activity at the stroke of a pen is serendipity. Two categories of criminals would evaporate. Tens of thousands of people would no longer be imprisoned. Irresponsible drug users like drunk-drivers, would face the consequences. Additional legislation is unnecessary as current laws are capable of dealing with drug users who commit other crimes, whilst under the influence.

Two significant macroeconomic outcomes follow decriminalisation. Prison is very expensive costing £40,000 per prisoner,8 or, about £4.2bn annually in total.9 Removing an entire category of criminal activity would impact on over-crowded prisons immediately. On a human level families wouldn’t be destroyed and the net-negative that prisons represent in terms of lost production would be mitigated.

The second benefit is significant. Addictive drugs are perfect for taxation. Tobacco raises £8.1bn10 and alcohol about £13bn.11 These Class-A drugs are profitable for the Treasury. £21bn is an excellent reason for not criminalising alcohol and tobacco. As there are about two million users of illegal drugs in the UK there is an opportunity to ‘cash in’ as it were.

Presumably those who have an addictive personality12 could transfer their allegiance from alcohol to Class-A drugs. But the addictive population would probably remain the same.

Conclusion

Criminalisation of hard drugs is absurd and is a major contributor to the death of consumers.

Notes

1 The greatest post-war British prime minister: Harold Wilson | Odeboyz’s Blog The Suicide Act preceded the Wilson governments

2 80,000 deaths annually Smoking in the United Kingdom (UK) – statistics & facts | Statista

3 Tobacco packaging guidance: guidance for retailers, manufacturers and distributors of tobacco products, enforcement agencies and the public on tobacco packaging in Great Britain

4 For a comprehensive over-view of drug use and availability see Drug misuse in England and Wales – Office for National Statistics There are under 6,000 deaths related to drug use Drug-related deaths in the United Kingdom – Wikipedia

5 Dean Potter: Behind The Extreme Life, Death & Ascents

6 The Shadow of Death in the Show Jumping Arena – Manchesterjournal

7 Drinkers calibrate their intake by volume and strength of product through the standardised toxicity system. 

8 Annual Cost of Keeping a Prisoner in the UK – Prison Info 5310 are in prison on remand Offender management statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 – GOV.UK

9 Prisons cost £4.2 billion in 2022/23 – Russell Webster

10 Tobacco duties – Office for Budget Responsibility

11 Alcohol duties – Office for Budget Responsibility

12 Addictive personality – Wikipedia

Posted in Health, Politics, Science, Sport, statistics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Trump-Lincoln Memorial

Posted in History, Humour, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Festive Chocolates from Fortnum and Mason, London

Posted in Finance, Humour | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Christmas presents

“Too many people spend money they haven’t earned to buy things they don’t want to impress people they don’t like.”

Posted in Economics, quips | Leave a comment

The perils of being a child film star

“I stopped believing in Santa Claus when my mother took me to see him in a department store, and he asked for my autograph”.1

Short biography: Temple began her film career in 1931 when she was three years old and became well known for her performance in Bright Eyes, released in 1934. She won a special Juvenile Academy Award in February 1935 for her outstanding contribution as a juvenile performer in motion pictures during 1934 and continued to appear in popular films through the remainder of the 1930s…..2

Notes

1 Dorsey, Tim. When Elves Attack: Kindle Edition

2 Shirley Temple – Wikipedia

Posted in Autobiography, Film, Humour | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Positive parenting

Posted in Humour, Sport | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A religious reason for not doing housework

Posted in Humour, Religion | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Rachel Reeves and Competence

Rachel Reeves is incompetent because she misunderstands her role. She thinks being an economist is an advantage as Chancellor of the Exchequer.Her MSc in economics is irrelevant to being Chancellor.1 She’s been appointed as Chancellor to implement Labour’s economic policy and drive the agenda forward. The Treasury’s function is implementing government policy.

The Treasury

Aged 31, in 2010, Rachel won a parliamentary seat and abandoned her career in economics. Her choice was politics not economics.

So what?

The Treasury’s top three3 have decades of implementing economic decision-making from different parties. They serve the government in office. The Treasury is full of experts in every form of economics. An economist as Chancellor is redundant. What matters for Treasury planning is aspirational coherence and a ‘direction of travel’. The Treasury has one job, which is to translate political preferences into economic decisions.

Group Think

“….. between 1922 and 2022 the British political elite suffered from an almost perennial problem of a lack of diversity – being drawn from the more wealthy and educated parts of society.”4

Rachel, her deputy and two of the three Treasury leadership team, went to Oxford University. Her deputy studied the same course as she did. Their late adolescence was spent in the same intellectual environment at the same university. Adolescence is formative and people are impressionable before they find their feet intellectually speaking. They wanted a good degree, which meant ‘critically’ accepting orthodoxy. Having succeeded, they cashed in on their Oxford degree. Rachel, her deputy, and the Treasury team have been groomed. The consequence is a crushing conformity, which is unchallenged because Oxford has captured the political class.5

This was the central plank in the critique of former prime minister,

“Liz Truss and her allies attacking the department for being ideologically anti-growth and anti-democratic in the way it worked with ministers.”6  

Eight7 of Starmer’s cabinet went to Oxford and remain in its clammy intellectual grip. This is a frightening metric and guarantees Group Think.

Political decision-making

Aneurin Bevan’s searing experiences of health care in pre-war Welsh villages formed his decision to introduce a ‘free at the point of use’ health service in 1948. The UK was bankrupt and reliant on America through the Marshall Aid programme.8 Treasury officials denounced him as reckless but the NHS was forced through as a policy decision. Clement Attlee used his massive parliamentary majority to change Britain for the better.

Bevan9 left school at 14 with profound political beliefs. From the working-class Bevan we move to Labour’s Chancellor Hugh Dalton: a virtual aristocrat. He was educated at Eton and Oxford and was a professional economist. Profound political beliefs, a professional economist and commitment to religion informed his decision making. Bevan and Dalton were poles apart but political brothers. Dalton pressured the Treasury to bend to the will of their political leaders. Dalton was one of them, so to speak, and this carried a lot of weight.

Attlee’s government were political risk takers because they had courageous leaders. Both Attlee and Dalton had served in WW1. They were from upper-middle class backgrounds, being educated at private schools. They had servants as children but they’d shared the trenches with working-class heroes and learned that poverty didn’t mean moral failure. Their politics was inclusive. They knew that redistribution of wealth was the only moral course for a Labour government and they were totally unashamed about it. They wanted leveling up.

Conclusion

Starmer’s cabinet have been captured by the Establishment, which is,

“… is a self-selecting, closed elite entrenched within specific institutions — hence, a relatively small social class can exercise all socio-political control.”9 (my emphasis)

The 2025 Budget was timid and apologetic. It needed a bold statement of Labour values on the two-child benefit disgrace. Doing good by stealth is Godly but is awful politics.

Notes

1 Rachel Reeves’s real banking roles revealed after claim she was an economist See also, “I’m really proud of having worked as an economist at the Bank of England before I became an MP, and also in financial services at Halifax Bank of Scotland. I’ve got the experience to do this job as Chancellor of the Exchequer… Rachel Reeves refuses 3 times to explain CV economist claims | Politics | News | Express.co.uk  NB All biographical details were garnered from Wikipedia.

2 PPE is ‘Politics, Philosophy and Economics’.

3 James Bowler, Sam Beckett and Beth Russell. The curious parallel Treasury called the Office of Budget Responsibility was chaired by Richard Hughes for this budget. He too was educated at Oxford. One executive committee member studied at Oxford, the other studied at Manchester. Their responsibility is ensuring that the figures ‘add up’, which is ludicrous. Source Who we are – Office for Budget Responsibility

4 The education of Britain’s political elite 1922-2022 | British Politics and Policy at LSE

5 loc.cit.

6 Treasury ‘orthodoxy’ | Institute for Government

7 Out of 25: Another three went to Cambridge University PowerPoint Presentation Starmer’s higher degree was taken at Oxford

8 The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total). This is about $35bn in 2025 money. Marshall Plan – Wikipedia

9 The Establishment – Wikipedia

Posted in Economics, Finance, History, Politics, statistics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

J S Mill on diversity

It is hardly possible to overrate the value…of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar….Such communication has always been, and is peculiarly in the present age, one of the primary sources of progress.

Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy – Econlib

Posted in Literature, Philosophy, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Putin and Obama have a chat

Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin had a chat after a meeting
Barack said, “Mr. Putin, the reason that I love my country is that a man can walk right into The White House and say, ‘I don’t like the way Barack Obama is running The United States of America.'”
Vladimir responded, “That’s true in Russia, too. Anyone can walk into the Kremlin and say, ‘I don’t like the way Barack Obama is running the United States of America.’

Posted in Politics, Humour | Tagged , | Leave a comment