Super-strength alcohol 'is killing more ... than crack or heroin'

Of course because the actual headline has the words 'homeless people' in the '...' it will be taken less seriously. But I'm interested because of the link to drugs policy. The popular press's knee-jerk reaction to deaths from substance abuse is to call for bans. There's a hypocrisy about this because it's almost certain that we will not hear calls for illegalising alcohol despite the huge health and mortality figures associated with it. Yet what, essentially, is the difference between that and, say, cannabis, or cocaine? The biggest problems with the latter are those caused by the crime they produce and that is a function of their classification as banned substances. Rather than treating alcohol like these drugs which would be a logical response on precedent, perhaps it's time to treat these substances like alcohol and nicotine: regulate, tax, educate and treat. Portugal has been doing so for the last 9 years, I can't find indications that it has made society worse there; something of the reverse, in fact. Nor have I heard horror stories from holiday-makers coming back from Portugal, many of whom, I suspect, have never even realised what Portugal's laws on drugs are.

Super-strength alcohol 'is killing more homeless people than crack or heroin' | Society | The Observer: "these drinks are killing more people than heroin or crack,"

Radical alternatives proposed for cannabis controls - science-in-society

I think I've become pretty convinced that the present regimes for controlling recreational use of mood-altering substances is driven more by prejudice and moral panic than by evidence. This conviction has been bolstered by a recent report on cannabis. Here's one report: Radical alternatives proposed for cannabis controls - science-in-society - 30 December 2008 - New Scientist And the salient bit of the report: "Despite the undoubted dangers associated with marijuana, the Beckley report concludes that it is far less harmful to users and to society in general than other illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and far less damaging than the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. There have been only two documented deaths from marijuana overdose, the report notes. This contrasts with 200,000 deaths from all causes each year attributed to other illegal drugs, 2.5 million deaths annually related to alcohol and 5 million to smoking."
The article in NS ends with a resume of the known effects with some illuminating comparisons with alcohol usage demonstrating there's a lot of institutionalised hypocrisy abou the whole thing.

Why more young people say cannabis is a drag

A little while back I drew attention to the stats underlying this article: Why more young people say cannabis is a drag | Society | The Guardian and I asked for any clues as to why cannabis use should be shrinking (being picked up by increasing use of Cocaine, though). I wondered verbally (but not on blog, I was surprised to discover) whether it might be linked to smoking and health education. Well, it may be that I was right: "'A lot of young people are strongly anti-cigarette smoking and as society changes the way it views tobacco it seems to be changing attitudes to cannabis as well,' said Paul Griffiths, of the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug abuse.
The trend is evident across Europe, where smoking bans are now widespread. The drug experts say cannabis use has always been more prevalent amongst tobacco smokers than among non-smokers and as it becomes less socially acceptable to smoke a cigarette in public so it has become more difficult to find a place to smoke a joint."

Drug use falling, says British Crime Survey

Who'd 'a' thought it? Not me, that's for sure. But I'm not unhappy to find this out.Drug use falling, says British Crime Survey | Society | guardian.co.uk: "The use of illicit drugs is in decline in Britain, according to figures published today, with cocaine use falling and cannabis use at its lowest for a decade."
What I can't find a clue about though is 'why?'. What is or are the causal factor/s. Anyone got some clues?

Drrug prohibition is untenable hypocrisy

This is stated in a provocative way. "If you voted in the last election, you probably voted for prohibition. You voted to gift hundreds of billions of pounds to organised crime each year, to undermine the social and economic development of producer countries such as Colombia, Afghanistan as well as transit countries such as Guinea Bissau and Jamaica. You voted to double the amount of acquisitive crime in the UK and to double the prison population with it. Your 'X' contributed to misery and degradation for millions of the most marginalised people on earth. Unless we all do something to change it, you will probably vote for prohibition next time too."
But I must admit that I am coming round to agree. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to find ways to cut down drug use (heck, the history of China and the opium war tells us what negative effects a large addict population delivers socially). It is to say that legal prohibition actually makes it harder and more expensive to deal with drug addiction. A teacher who has written the report that triggered this article says this.

I find that when presented with the facts, the students I teach are quite capable of considering issues such as this, and reaching rational conclusions even if they started with a blind Daily Mail-esque approach. I find it a shame that no mainstream political party accords the electorate the same respect.

And indeed, I found this gave me pause for thought.

As Joseph McNamara, former police chief of Kansas City and San Jose put it: "The drug war cannot stand the light of day. It will collapse as quickly as the Vietnam war, as soon as people find out what's really going on." Tragically and despicably, the government's commitment to populist posturing means that the collapse will come far too late for many.

The comments on the opinion piece are interesting too, many mentioning the USAmerican experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920's.
Remember, the real debate isn't about whether drug taking is bad (leaving aside prescription drugs but including alcohol and nicotine), but on the best tactics for combatting drug abuse.
Danny Kushlick: Drug prohibition – an untenable hypocrisy | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk: