§ 12. Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)What representations he has received urging a ban on the sale of that. [44254]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth)We have received one letter this year suggesting that khat should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. If, however, there is any new evidence on the matter, I shall be happy to consider it with a view to a further reference to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which last considered it 10 years ago.
§ Dr. TongeI thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that khat is an addictive drug that causes stimulation of the person taking it, leading to euphoria and hallucinations? The person ends up stoned and unable to do anything. Is it not nonsensical that that drug can be legally imported and have value added tax charged on it, when cannabis—a much safer drug in these terms—cannot even be used for legitimate medical purposes, although many doctors are calling for that to be allowed?
Does not the Minister consider the position slightly ridiculous? In view of the failure to make any progress in the drugs war, will he set up a royal commission immediately to investigate the use and misuse of drugs?
§ Mr. HowarthThe hon. Lady will know that khat is regarded as coming within the terms of the Medicines Act 1968.
With the Liberal Democrat party, the needle sometimes seems to get stuck. The hon. Lady trots out the same old line that her party has been trotting out for several years. She asks for a royal commission, but the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis would have only one result: more people would use it. If the hon. Lady wants to contemplate such a development, that is her business; the Government certainly will not.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)Is not the lesson clear—that the prohibition of khat would not decrease but increase its use? It would increase the amount of khat crime, and would drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni populations and the police.
The use of all banned drugs increases. Why do not the Front-Bench Members of the two main parties, and all the other parties, take an intelligent look at what is happening in Switzerland, for example? Drug-related crime in Zurich has recently been reduced by 80 per cent.; meanwhile, in this country it has increased by 30 per cent. In Holland, owing to a policy of decriminalisation, there are virtually no heroin users there under the age of 20, and the number of adult heroin users has fallen.
The lesson is the same throughout the world. America, which has had a prohibition policy for many years, now has the worst drug problems in the world, and we in Britain have the worst drug problems in Europe. When will the Government set up a royal commission, so that we can reinforce the point that prohibition increases drug problems and decriminalisation reduces them?
§ Mr. HowarthIf my hon. Friend wants to use international examples, he should consider Amsterdam. Its drug policy is far more lenient than ours, and its murder rate is three times higher.
17 My hon. Friend should not assume that he has a monopoly on intelligence about these matters. A wide body of evidence from throughout the world suggests that, if any currently illegal substances are decriminalised or too soft a line is taken on them, there can be only one outcome: more people will use those drugs, more people will be drawn into crime and there will be more serious social problems. The option offered by my hon. Friend, the Liberal Democrats and even some Tory Members is not viable. It simply would not work in this country, and it has not worked in any other country.