NEVER drink and drive. Never expect animals to perform for live TV. And never ask a politician about their drug history without expecting an awkward response.

President Clinton epitomised this taboo when he admitted smoking cannabis – before cautiously adding that he “didn’t inhale.” When Scotland’s political leaders faced the same question, three – Sturgeon, Davidson and Rennie – said they had tried illegal drugs, while Mr Murphy’s response left confusion to reign over his relationship with glue sniffing.

This awkwardness stems not from a desire to be honest about recreational drug use, but an assumption that it’s best to condemn yourself in public for such “moral lapses” just in case the Scottish Calvinist instinct kicks in.

For that reason few politicians were likely to have attended last night’s launch of the Psychedelic Society of Edinburgh, which hosted drug researchers who support the legalisation of cannabis and ecstasy for medical purposes.

Professor David Nutt, previously the UK Government’s drugs adviser, has called for Scotland to take a lead in reforming drugs laws by moving away from prosecution to prevention and regulation. Should it?

I think it should and it’s deadly serious. There have been at least three recent shootings in Glasgow fuelled by gangs seeking control of the drugs trade. In 2013, 526 people lost their lives in registered drug-related incidents and official statistics concede that true numbers are likely to be higher.

While opponents of drug reform fear that state-sanctioned drug clinics and regulation will normalise addiction and increase access to drugs, I’m unconvinced. It’s the current settlement of prosecution, prohibition and incarceration that is failing on all fronts.

Within such a complex problem it’s understandable that persuading people of decriminalisation and regulation take time and evidence.

Supporters of drugs reform sometimes fail to find a focus in their case. Is drugs reform about making extra tax income from the market sales? Does it protect the individual freedom to choose, like with alcohol and cigarettes? Will reform lower prison and policing costs, thereby freeing up resources for treatment? Is it the aim to remove the multi-billion pound drug monopoly from organised crime and dealers?

There are merits in each argument but together they can paint a confused picture of whether drug reformers want a free market, a boost to state finances or a solution to crime.

Instead I believe the first priority for the Government and campaigners must start from a simple desire to improve public health: reducing needless deaths and treating addiction as a health not a criminal problem.

Those who wring their hands over fears that decriminalisation would create widespread drug use ignored the UK’s £8 billion mass black market that preys on the vulnerable and enriches the cartels. They underestimate the stigma and the fear of addicts who face imprisonment or death.

Imagine if those with alcohol problems faced the court and prison system rather than receiving health advice and social support. Of course we don’t have to imagine the calamity of alcohol prohibition – that was as unenforceable and ineffective as the current war on drugs.

Already Latin and Southern American countries – which have often borne the brunt of drug trafficking violence – have turned towards decriminalisation. In Mexico, war over the drugs trade has taken over 100,000 lives – all because government tried to stamp out a substance and its suppliers rather than regulating the market. Now US states – the latest being Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC – have opted to legalise cannabis, bringing hope that the drug market may be taken out of the hands of cross-continental gangs.

In Europe, Portugal is held up as a shining example of drug reform success. While police figures were originally sceptical of change, abolishing the crime of drugs possession was followed by a fall in addiction, an increase in those seeking treatment and a substantial fall in drug-related deaths.

It should come as no surprise that recovery from addiction is best achieved outside prison with access to services, family and friends. Rehabilitation – the major challenge for the Scottish Prison Service – improves when sentences are balanced with community responsibilities.

That lesson applies to drugs reform too. Locking people away makes social problems worse not better. The prominence of drugs dependence in Scotland festers due to a lack of opportunity for stability, employment, happiness and relationships.

The politicians know all of this. What we lack is political will: the courage to break out from a dying taboo of social embarrassment and unhealthy silence.

If Scotland aspires to become an independent country it requires independent thinking on drugs policy.

For too many it is a matter of life or death.