From the BBC
The herbal stimulant khat is to be banned by the government, against the advice of its own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. In January the ACMD said khat should remain a legal substance, saying there was "insufficient evidence" it caused health problems.(1)1. There's a bit in one of PJ O'Rourke's books where he describes taking it and it sounded like quite a mild buzz.
But Home Secretary Theresa May has decided to ban it, saying the risks posed could have been underestimated.(2)
Khat will be treated as a class C drug, like anabolic steroids and ketamine. The Home Office said the ban was intended to "protect vulnerable members of our communities"(3) and would be brought in at the "earliest possible opportunity".
Khat is already banned in most of Europe and in a number of other countries, including the US and Canada. The UK's decision to follow suit is based on security and international considerations, in particular concerns the UK could be used as a transit route for khat to other European countries.(4)
"Failure to take decisive action and change the UK's legislative position on khat would place the UK at a serious risk of becoming a single, regional hub for the illegal onward trafficking,"(5) Mrs May said in a statement.
But campaigners said they were "disappointed and concerned" at the government's decision to reject the advisory council's advice. "A more proportionate alternative to banning khat and criminalising its use would have been an import ban or making it a supply offence only as applies, for example, to controlled anabolic steroids," said Martin Barnes from charity Drugscope.(6)
2. That's an argument for doing more research, and perhaps taking the "we want people to make their own choices" line than Cameron likes to roll out whenever it suits him.
3. "communities". Right, so it's puritan dog-whistling in favour of non-white puritans against the non-white people who like taking khat.
4. If they create a stupid law then that's their problem. Let them deal with it.
5. And this is a bad thing, how? Do the French care that white van men are filling up with booze at Calais, despite much of it being illegal? Of course not. Whole industries are built on idiot neighbours, from Canadian whisky to gambling in Nevada.
6. I'll never understand that argument. If we think it's OK for someone to possess a drug, why is it wrong for someone to sell it to them?
9 comments:
I've been waiting for them to try and ban that one for ages. It was Baroness Warsi who first seriously suggested it a few years ago and from then it was only a matter of time.
The thing about khat is supposedly that it's amphetamine-like in it's effect, being slightly more psychosis-inducing than for example cannabis. All the more reason why it's strange that cannabis is banned while khat has been allowed, but there's probably some economics of prohibition involved, similar to cannabis; prohibition encourages breeding for potency, which in turn increases the likelyhood of negative incidents in susceptible individuals, reinforcing the case for prohibition.
Mark,
Yeah. I suspect that once you could get a brown muslim to say that they weren't good, they could do it without being accused of being racists.
Kj,
It's hard to tell with the psychosis link, as there's the whole matter of self-medication - people who are mentally ill tend to take drugs to try to calm down from their mental illness.
Your second point is spot on. You're going to get more potent drugs when you need to reduce the visibility of drugs. Most of the booze produced during prohibition was spirits, as the value of shipments was higher.
6. I'll never understand that argument. If we think it's OK for someone to possess a drug, why is it wrong for someone to sell it to them?
Possession is not taxable. Selling is.
I think all drugs should be legalised, but if you were somehow able to stop Somalis getting hold of khat, you would free up about 10% of beds in London psychiatric hospitals and you would also free up psychiatric nurses and doctors to help people who don't bring shit upon themselves.
I don't know about the self-medication thing. If it works, they won't show up to hospital, I guess.
"Leg-iron said...
6. I'll never understand that argument. If we think it's OK for someone to possess a drug, why is it wrong for someone to sell it to them?
Possession is not taxable. Selling is."
I am not sure that is the reason. It is because we regard drug users as "victims" but sellers as "criminals". Of course without users their would be no sellers.
And if users are unpunished there are even more sellers.
"doej105 said...
I think all drugs should be legalised, but if you were somehow able to stop Somalis getting hold of khat, you would free up about 10% of beds in London psychiatric hospitals and you would also free up psychiatric nurses and doctors to help people who don't bring shit upon themselves."
A better immigration policy would have had the same effect. Somalis are the less benefical of all immigrant groups in the UK so stopping them coming here would be a great idea.
I always understood that the people who most wanted khat banned were Somali women. I guess you can read all sorts into that.
Leg-iron,
Your point makes no sense. Taxing rather than banning means more government revenue.
doej,
I doubt it's 10%. But there's also the problem that somalis were genuinely refugees from a war, which rarely has a good effect on people's mental state.
L Fairfax,
That's part of the general fearmongering about drugs. That your kids are only smoking weed because dealers are forcing it on them.
H,
Organisations against women having the vote in the US warned that the first thing that would happen is that women would push for prohibition.
Post a Comment