It was good to see you devote space to a discussion about drug legalisation (Should drugs be legalised?, G2, 21 September). However, none of the commentators articulated the full meaning of legalisation: government control and regulation of producers and suppliers. The implications of shifting control of drug supply from the illicit to licit markets are vast. They include: the collapse of one of the largest sources of income for organised criminal groups, the restabilisation of entire regions of the world, whose politics and economics are perverted by the vast amounts of money tied up in the illicit market. At the consumer end, it means that current illicit supply would be dispensed or sold with age controls, purity guides and health warnings, from pharmacists or licensed retailers.
While any discussion is welcomed in this arena, the distinction between legalisation (cannabis in Uruguay) and decriminalisation (all drugs in Portugal) is key to definitively laying out the alternative policy options. One day these will be substantive issues with which senior politicians will engage. We can help them by articulating them with the utmost clarity.
Danny Kushlick
Founder and head of external affairs, Transform Drug Policy Foundation
• In her rather intemperate article, Kathy Gyngell claims that the “casualties of drugs are casualties of uninhibited freedom, not prohibition”. Nonsense. Just one prohibited drug, ecstasy, was linked to 63 deaths last year. The mother of one of those young people, Maxine Allen, said: “The drugs are now being made by people at home. The pill that my daughter took was home-made, it is so dangerous.” She is right: the sooner drugs are legalised and regulated, as is alcohol, the better. The tax take would be an enormous bonus, too.
Tony Jackson
Oxford
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
