Thread by @julianbuchanan

1/ THREAD: Could legal regulation of drugs end up benefitting the privileged and penalising the poor?

2/ Criminologist Dr Julian Buchanan says drug reform is well overdue, but argues that legalising prohibited drugs, like cannabis, might end up only benefitting those who can afford legally-approved drugs.

3/ It's widely accepted among drug policy experts that prohibition has caused more damage than the drugs the government is supposedly protecting us all from. Reform is long overdue. However, we need to think critically and carefully before drifting towards alternative models.

4/ After decades of frustration from the arbitrary criminalisation of some drugs, while other more dangerous legal drugs (alcohol, pharmaceuticals, caffeine and tobacco) have gone under the drug radar, reform now seems imminent.

5/ ‘Drug Regulation’ is the popular rally call, but what does it mean? The main thrust of legal regulation appears to be ‘we need to get the drug market out of the handsof the criminal underworld’.

I wouldn’t disagree with taking drugs out of the hands of gangsters. However....

6/ Let us be clear, most damage suffered by people who use illicit drugs isn’t caused by the criminal underworld, most damage actually results from government criminalisation and enforcement.

7/ A drug conviction seriously threatens life opportunities for employment, relationships, housing, insurance and overseas travel. Tough enforcement mean users have little idea of the content or purity of what they are purchasing.

8/ This uncertainty and lack of consumer rights about the content of the product they purchased puts people at risk of poisoning and/or overdose, while stigma and criminalisation create a great reluctance to seek help should they need it.

9/ In the absence of state regulation, the daily activities of growing, producing, buying, selling & exchanging goods (such as homegrown fruit, veggies, bread, cakes etc) doesn’t get taken over by dangerous criminals who manage business with guns, knives and baseball bats.

10/ No. This only occurs, when the sale of a product in demand is denied by severe law enforcement measures and extreme penalties. It is prohibition that has created a hostile and violent environment within which the lucrative underground drug business operates.

11/ This could be avoided with sensible and responsible drug regulation. However, ‘legal regulation’ remains a rather fluid concept to support, one that could easily lend itself to punitive drug law enforcement measures.

12/ Legal regulation is simply a call for government to control and regulate drugs so they are legally available in certain circumstances.

13/ Actually, this is what is already in place under the present failed regime of prohibition. For example, opiates are currently a legally ‘regulated’ drug, They are legally available to buy as panadeine, paracodol or codeine in pharmacists in most countries.

14/ Opiates are also currently legally regulated and used widely in medicine. Under legal regulation most opiate products are illegal to possess and supply, and anyone caught in breach faces serious charges. Life imprisonment in some countries.

15/ So while legal regulation means the government could approve and legally regulate a wider range of drugs than currently available, the state may also continue to prohibit and punish possession of unapproved and unregulated drugs.

16/ Under legal regulation government may decide pharmaceutical companies are the only state-approved dealers. Govt could make it an offence to be in possession of any drug that's from an unregulated source – and that could include homegrown cannabis for example.

17/ The law enforcement debacle of prohibition that has criminalised drug possession then continues. Legal regulation is then simply Prohibition 2.0

18/ Unfortunately, government does not have a good track record of regulating the pharmaceutical, alcohol and tobacco industry, so placing hope in the state to sensibly regulate ‘drugs’ in a manner that protects human rights and promotes harm reduction maybe a little optimistic.

19/ Indeed, unless there is clear model of Legal Regulation, it's likely the state, who've resolutely upheld a punitive system of drug prohibition, will deliver a punitive model of regulation that punishes poss., production &/or cultivation of unapproved drugs for personal use.

20/ Before we ask the state to regulate drugs, we must first and foremost, ensure we abolish drug prohibition and restore the human right for adults to possess, produce and/or cultivate any substance for personal use; without threat, punishment, or
incarceration by the state.

21/ Once this is secured we have a strong foundation to secure a suitable models of regulation, health education and treatment. Unless we address the failures underpinning prohibition, a legal regulation model is likely to be constructed through the 'lens' of prohibition.

22/ Prohibition 2.0 will result in disproportionate law enforcement measures imposed on the poor, the indigenous and minority ethnic groups for new offences of possession of ‘unapproved’ drugs; unapproved cultivation/production; unapproves sale/exchange etc

23/ However, the privileged, who have been inadvertently affected by prohibition – would benefit most from legal regulation, as they have the funds to purchase a clean, legally-regulated supply, resources to buy licenses and meet government demands.

24/ Will the needs of the less privileged – so often unfairly targeted by drug law enforcement – be prioritised in drug law reform models calling for 'legal regulation', I think not.

Thanks for reading - almost at the end of this thread!

25/ I'll leave you with a graphic to communicate the essence of what good Legal Regulation should look like.

More drug policy ideas here:
julianbuchanan.wordpress.com
Or DM me