Edward Ellison

Why does Eddie Ellison, the former operational head of Scotland Yard's Drug Squad, argue for legalisation of all drugs?

Eddie Ellison is a retired Detective Chief Superintendent with, arguably, more operational policing experience in the field of controlled drugs than any other British detective. He spent two years as a Detective Sergeant operating at London's Heathrow Airport with H M Customs and Excise officers seeking to limit drug smuggling. That was followed by a further two years combating major drug suppliers and distributors across London and, returning to the Scotland Yard Central Drug Squad at the rank of Detective Chief Inspector, he took operational command of the growing Squad for three years. As Detective Chief Superintendent heading the Crime Policy Group of Specialist Operations Department he was later attached to the Association of Chief Police Officers review teams that restructured the Regional Crime Squads and Drug Wings and worked with the team that justified and created the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) ......... and, with that background, he argues for 'legalisation'!!!

Why? Simply put, drug misuse presents the greatest threat to the well being of our society than any other activity and prohibition cannot deliver an answer.

Most of us, and that includes Eddie Ellison, share the same aim, "to achieve the lowest level of drug abuse possible - utilising a policy that causes the least harm to the rest of society." This debate is not between supporting any drug use or condemming any drug use. The debate is about the most effective policy and method of reducing the effects of drug abuse.

The meaning of the word 'legalisation' was corrupted from its normal usage in the late sixties when the 'legalisation' argument was clearly used to encourage cannabis use whilst attempting to change the law. The advocated policy of 'Legalisation' is nothing more than a route away from prohibition, with it's detrimental effects outweighing its benefits, towards another approach where the powers of education, health and harm reduction take precedence over condemnation, alienation and punishment.

Well lets start by making it clear what he doesn't means by 'legalisation':

	Legalisation does not mean that we'll all have to take drugs.
	Legalisation does not mean that he even encourages any drug taking.
	Legalisation does not even mean that he approves of drug use at all.

All this 'legalisation' argument does is present an alternative policy for potentially reducing the problems caused to society by the growing use of drugs.

What he is aiming for is exactly what he was aiming for when working against drug suppliers and importers 'the lowest level of drug use achievable', and he argues that it can best be delivered by an evolution of policy towards legalisation. He hasn't changed his mind. He strongly believes that his work after retirement, with the drug charity RELEASE and the lobby group TRANSFORM, and L.E.A.P (Law Enforcement against prohibition) continue to identify him as an anti-drug campaigner.

At the same time he feels that continuing with a policy so dependent upon the criminal law and prohibition is:

	Guaranteed to maintain a high crime rate for the rest of society.
	Guaranteed to present a supply monopoly to the criminal organisations with high levels of illegal profits.
	Guaranteed to ensure that users of the more minor drugs continue to maintain contact with that criminal supply chain and the accompanying ease of moving to more dangerous drugs.
	Guaranteed to ensure that users will continue to overdose and sometimes die because of a lack of testing or legal, clean supply.
	Guaranteed to prevent honest, open debate and education.
	Guaranteed to criminalise individuals who choose to commit acts in private at no threat to others, with a loss of their future individual contribution to society.
	Guaranteed to bring other laws into disrepute through the illogicality and mass distain of drug prohibition.
	Guaranteed to alienate youth from the policing service.
	Guaranteed to waste enormous sums of public monies that could be much better utilised in health support and education.

These are the guarantees of continued prohibition.

The aim of this site is to present the limitations of prohibition, the relative benefits of legalisation, some insight into the problems of drug abuse and some reassurances to those closest to the users.

In spite of the many years of repetitive official claims, drugs do not kill ........... bad drugs kill, bad use of drugs can kill, competition between criminal drug suppliers kills, ignorance kills and lack of supporting resources kills. But the evidence is clear, most drugs do not kill and with a more compassionate, supporting and informed approach, we have a clear chance to reduce the harm that using drugs can cause to both the user and the wider population.

On the site you will find:

In conclusion:
"Each and every police officer has their own ranking of the relative seriousness of all criminal offences that is often based on their background experiences. However hard they try, their attitudes and behaviour are often affected by that assessment. I have never, and can never, see the drug user as a 'criminal'. I see them as, amongst other descriptions, a rebellious youth, a risk taking idiot, a seeker of relief, a lobbyist for independent thought and freedom, someone in need of guidance and help or a very real exasperation to parents and friends. But in as much as the drug use is concerned, not a criminal and therefore the criminal law cannot be the appropriate weapon to counter or deter a choice of use."
Eddie Ellison