In her refreshingly frank piece, Femke Halsema, the mayor of Amsterdam, worries that the Netherlands could become a narco state (Opinion, 5 January). She makes some strong points, one of which deserves more emphasis: the standard response by governments to illegal drugs has long been one of “prohibition, criminalisation, stiff penalties”.
Not only has this approach been tested to destruction over the last 50 years, but, perversely, it provides an incentive to drug producers, smugglers and dealers. How? Because in a market where demand remains stable, restricting supply means higher prices. In other words, current policy makes the drugs trade more profitable – we are in the ludicrous position where our drugs laws actually enrich the organised crime gangs that control the trade. Moreover, our leaders are well aware of this, even if they only say so after they have left office.
Are there states we assume to be civilised that are actually already de facto narco states? After all, when governments are spending huge amounts of taxpayers’ money ostensibly to stop the drugs trade, but are in reality making it more profitable, how could we tell?
Robin Prior
Wargrave, Berkshire
• Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1920s was synonymous with gangsters who provided illegal – and more dangerous – booze and made a lot of money. Every policy of drug prohibition since has produced the same results: opportunities for criminals and dangerously unregulated quality.
Why do these failed policies persist? Cynically, it is hard not to conclude that illegal drugs users are a convenient folk devil on which to hang “get tough” policies. Banging of the law-and-order drum in electioneering crowds out reason.
The evidence for the approach advocated by Femke Halsema is overwhelming, and evidence for prohibition is zero. Politicians are failing their people by sacrificing public wellbeing on the altar of authoritarian populist rhetoric.
In the UK in the 80s, groundbreaking clinics offering maintenance prescription of heroin were ordered to close for being “soft on drugs”; the pioneers left the country to continue elsewhere. We are long overdue a rational policy focused on wellbeing.
Bill Nightingale
Leyland, Lancashire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
