Of the hard drugs, cocaine has always had the best press. The approving words "recreational" and "lifestyle" are regularly associated with its use. "Cocaine is God's way of saying you're making too much money," the actor Robin Williams once joked. Yet, as a report released yesterday by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs confirms, cocaine is addictive, dangerous, and associated with a wide range of physical and psychological effects, particularly when combined with alcohol. It is predominantly an urban drug but by no means confined to the rich. The evidence of a sharp rise in abuse here is alarming and the report's call for a greater focus on cocaine-specific strategies should be followed through.
The publication of the report came on the day that Britain's Royal Society of Arts (RSA) also unveiled a two-year study recommending that drugs policy, instead of being about crime reduction and the criminal justice system, should be about harm reduction, health, education and social concerns.
But the resurgent debate on drug use and the law is not helped by terminological vagueness on the part of many participants. What exactly is meant by suggestions that drugs should be "legalised"? In the real world it is not a question of legal or illegal, one or the other, and the debate trapped in this false dichotomy quickly becomes a dialogue of the deaf.
When the Taoiseach said recently he was "totally and fundamentally" opposed to the "easy option" and that there was no evidence that legalising drugs worked anywhere, was he out of step with the Minister of State with responsibility for drugs, Noel Ahern? After Gay Byrne admitted he was "coming around to the view" that drugs should be legalised as current criminalisation policies were "not working", the Minister of State accepted he could see merit in the case that the legal provision of heroin to registered users would reduce crime associated with the drugs trade. "But that is not what I would call the legalisation of drugs," Mr Ahern argued. "It's a million miles away from making heroin and other drugs freely available."
Such comments lack clarity - to put it mildly. In truth, responses by the State to drug abuse will inevitably consist of part emphasis on prohibition and part on treatment and education. The purist libertarian case for total personal autonomy and the abolition of all controls founders on the obligation of the State to protect children, the weak, and those caught in the wake of the self-destructive urges of others. The arguments will always be about where to draw the line, and will involve a combination of ethics, science, comparisons of best practice, and spending priorities (e.g. should the Garda devote badly needed resources to pursuing cannabis users?).
But the debate is needed. We must study the experiences of countries like Portugal, which treats rather than punishes users, and Britain. The opening of the door on such debate by the likes of Gay Byrne is welcome.