Will we ever win the Drugs War?

International Drug Pipelines

President Richard Nixon is accredited with coining the phrase war on drugs back in 1971 however; is it really a war that can actually be won?

Since an oriental entrepreneur first realised the financial opportunities of supply & demand, and opened an Opium Den in London, our nation (who are not alone), has had a massive problem trying to combat the negative impacts of drugs.

Addictive drugs first faced widespread prohibition in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but the so-called ’war’ against the illegal drug trade is nothing new, it has been almost constant for centuries.

It all started with the Anglo-Chinese Wars (the First Opium War and Second Opium War), it progressed through the (continuing) issues in Central and South America and latterly, it still manifests itself in Afghanistan. Yet another ‘war’ that has claimed far too many lives during the military ‘policing’ efforts, irrespective of the additional terrorism context this time around.

Back in Victorian London, the media (and several popular British authors of the time) had a tendency towards the romanticism of many of the issues surrounding the illegal drug trade. They portrayed the City as an ‘opium-drenched pit of danger and mystery’ but mostly to boost the appeal of their publications. To be fair, London’s reputation as a centre of opium smoking at the time was mostly unjustified, but it did testify to the power of literary fiction over historical fact.

Much of the literary fiction of the past can also be seen in the media of today, especially (but not exclusively) when it comes to reporting on drugs and crime. To be fair to the media, much of the emotive and sensational headline methodology they use is actually based upon ‘official’ statistics. That and contrived PR campaigns issued by the government and police, both organisations who have a propensity for ‘cooking the books’ when it comes to producing crime figures (see here).

Media headlines and literature aside; there are (without doubt) far too many negative impacts upon our society which find their roots in drug taking and the illegal drug trade.

A report by the UK government‘s drug strategy unit (see here) stated that due to the price of highly addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine; drug use was responsible for the great majority of crime (little surprise there). It said; ”The cost of crime committed to support illegal cocaine and heroin habits amounts to £16 billion a year in the UK” (a shocking figure you must agree).

Note: despite the fact this amount is more than the entire annual UK Home Office budget it should be remembered; without some serious research into the figures and ‘claims’ (which I and many others rarely have time to do), I would suggest they’re only used as indicative.

Between 2011 and 2012, an estimated 8.9% of adults in used an illegal drug. For young people aged between 16 and 24, the figure was 19.3%…(HM Govt)

Whilst people continue to take drugs, and all despite government claims suggesting the figures are actually in decline, demand will always dictate supply. It will also always provide an opportunity for nations and individuals to see a lucrative business opportunity. Is prohibition therefore a viable and effective answer any more? 

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TDPF) say not… In their publicity leaflet ‘Illegal Drugs: The Problem is Prohibition; The Solution is Control and Regulation’ the TDPF seeks to draw public attention to the fact that drug prohibition itself is the major cause of drug-related harm to individuals, communities and nations. They call for this prohibition to be replaced by “effective, just and humane government control and regulation.”

To mark the 50th anniversary of the war on drugs, TDPF along with a range of supporter organisations, launched Count the Costs, a global initiative to raise awareness of the unintended negative impacts of current policies. As the mainly punitive enforcement model which has dominated the ‘war on drugs’ for the last fifty years appears to have mostly failed our society, perhaps it really is time for some fresh thinking?

The disastrous unintended consequences of the war on drugs are so obvious even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime – the agency which oversees the current system – has been forced to acknowledge they exist…(Counting The Cost)

The TDPF suggest there are seven distinct but overlapping areas of cost to our society, all arising from the methods we currently use in our battle against drugs (see here). Despite having a good understanding of many of those issues and the realities  involved here, including those rarely espoused by our government, even I was able to learn from the website.

The saddest part about all this is not the financial cost (although undoubtedly substantial), it is the immense cost in human life. The bodies of thousands being expended with impunity by the few for exceptional personal fortunes - yet another aspect of social decline due to the greed of mankind. (I see a pattern forming with this money thing!)

But to illustrate this issue in summary and provide an answer to the original question; can we ever win the war on drugs? There’s probably about as much chance of that as there is of Barack Obama beating the NRA into submission and turning the USA into a gun free society!

Related articles

• Afghan farmers increase opium growth (oddonion.com)
• Brad Pitt: America’s war on drugs is a charade, and a failure (guardian.co.uk)
• Heroin production has tripled in Helmand since British troops arrived in 2006 (dailymail.co.uk)
• Opium crop in Afghanistan heading for record levels (telegraph.co.uk)

Young Drivers and Road Safety – The long and winding road

After a lifetime of promoting safe riding/driving, enforcement of traffic related legislation and unfortunately, dealing with the aftermath and human tragedy of road collisions, I have more than a passing interest in road safety matters…

There is a long history of road safety education and publicity campaigns in Great Britain (see here) but, despite the best efforts of those road safety professionals and organisations, attempting to supplement government action/inaction on the subject, there are still far too many people killed and seriously injured on our roads

We may not suffer the KSI levels experienced by some of our European counterparts (see here) but even the current government’s policy - Making Roads Safer – acknowledges the fact that, despite the UK having one of the best road safety records in the world; more can be done to prevent deaths and serious injuries.

This week the British media reported that “young drivers could face a curfew as part of government efforts to prevent accidents” and reduce “sky-high” insurance premiums (BBC News).

It is alarming that a fifth of people killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2011 were involved in a collision where at least one driver was aged 17 to 24… Improving the safety of our young drivers is therefore a real priority…(Patrick McLoughlin MP – Transport Secretary)

Responding to the above news, The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) expectedly delivered an opinion on the matter (see here). The IAM director of policy and research Neil Greig welcomed the Green Paper saying it was; “a once in a generation opportunity to help new drivers survive the crucial first six months of driving.” 

Each day, nearly 3,500 people die on the roads. Tens of thousands more are injured. Families are broken apart. The futures of young people are dashed. Road accidents have become the leading cause of death for people aged 15 to 29…(European Youth Forum for Road Safety)

There may have been 100,000 lives saved during last 10 years as a direct/indirect result of European Commission action on road safety however; as the EYFRS have said “this is an unacceptable price to pay for mobility” and I would say now is not the time to be complacent. I don’t expect many would disagree with that.

As a driver foremost but also as a member of the IAM, I agree that many of the Young Driver KSI problem surround the need for ”a system that embeds continuous learning for all new drivers.”

When we all first learn to drive we’re actually learning how to pass the driving test, but there’s so much more that you can achieve in your car…(IAM)

Basic driving skills can actually be learned in a relatively short period of time, you can be taught how to pass your driving test however; the necessary skills required for continued safe driving after that basic training are ongoing life-skills.

Australia…

USA…

As the above video clips show, the United Kingdom is not alone with acknowledging there is a massive problem with our young (and/or newly qualified) drivers being injured and killed on the road. Who (if any of us) will end up being succesful in addressing or eradicating the problem still remains to be seen.

The Government’s THINK! campaign which provides road safety information for road users, along with resources for road safety professionals, aims to; ”encourage safer behaviour to reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads every year.”

The human and social costs of road accidents are immeasurable, and with the price of each fatal casualty on the road estimated to be £1.7 million, it makes no financial sense to cut campaigns…(Dr Alistair Cheyne OBE – IAM Chairman)

At the risk of using business-speak which I abhor; this particular problem (and road safety in general) requires a totally holistic approach to treat the causation factors behind collisions. Vehicles may now be more inherently safe than ever before however; any sustainable improvement in road safety also involves dealing with the human factor. One which will always require a combination of education, practical training, assessment and enforcement action when applicable.

That said, with all the government austerity measures, many public agencies and local authorities are now facing reduced funding. With the expectation of even further cuts probably just over the horizon, there are severe implications for the future of proactive road safety initiatives.

The 20% cuts to police budgets over the next four years will also have a profound impact upon the availability of police resources. The officers once engaged in road safety, the enforcement of traffic legislation, road collision investigation and the influencing of driver behaviour are already in almost terminal decline.

With an 80% reduction of funding for road safety campaigning (in real terms) over recent years, many motoring organisations like the RAC and the IAM, along with Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents have condemned government plans and are worried for the future. Road safety may be public safety function but it’s not one immune to the HM Treasury axe. 

This reduction of road safety resources has compounded the poor safety legacy of an inadequately and poorly maintained road network, an infrastructure which has not received the investment it once enjoyed for many years now. Even the The Road Safety Observatory, which provides independent research and information for anyone working in road safety, shows a cover image depicting a long and winding road.

There are those that argue our older drivers are just as much of a problem to road safety. They use the adage of the elderly driver talking to a young driver who says; “I’ve been driving for fifty years and never had an accident” to which the listener replies; “ok, but I’m sure you’ve caused hundreds” but that’s another story for another day.

Without some tangible reversal of policy, and a little increased funding for the future which is highly unlikely, things don’t look very good for road safety improvements any time soon - despite all the government PR and rhetoric!

More Road Safety campaign clips…

Related articles

• New drivers may face night-time curfew (guardian.co.uk)
• L-drivers face ‘minimum learning period’ in radical overhaul of driving test rules (independent.co.uk)
• Young drivers ‘could face curfew’ (bbc.co.uk)
• Young drivers ‘could have to take motorway lessons’ (telegraph.co.uk)

How come there’s all this bullshit when I’ve only got two cows?

The now familiar “You have two cows“ jokes were originally a parody of the typical educational examples used in introductory-level economics course material.

A typical example is: “You have two cows; you want chickens; you set out to find another farmer who has chickens and wants a cow”.

The above example was used to show the limitations of the barter system, leading to the eventual introduction of currency and money. Some later examples of the jocular parody include…

• SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows. – You give one to your neighbour
• COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. – The State takes both and gives you some milk
• NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.
• BUREAUCRACY: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.
• CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
• RBS (VENTURE CAPITALISM): You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.
• SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
• AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
• GREEK CORPORATION: You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds, dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds. You still only have two cows.
• FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
• JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.
• ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You decide to have lunch.
• SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.
• CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
• INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.
• IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh1t out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.
• BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad and, despite reading the label carefully, you find one of your cows is actually a horse.
  • WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive but more difficult to reach than your two sheep.
  • SCOTS CORPORATION: You have two cows. It’s open to debate as to whether or not you own your cows, or they’re just a constituent part of the greater British herd.
  • NORTHERN IRISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. After hundreds of years you still can’t decide if they are Nationalist or Republican cows… Oh Feck!
• AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for lunch and a few beers to celebrate!

I wonder how the ‘two cows’ illustration should be applied to the British Public Sector and in particular, the management of our Policing and other emergency services? Any ideas?