Written by guest blogger, Louis Daillencourt – for correspondence, please email: ld416@cam.ac.uk

The publication of the United Nations World Drug Report and Home Affairs Select Committee report on drug policy put the question of how to effectively deal with drug use back into the spotlight. These reports argue that prohibition results in high levels of international drug-related crime but do not fundamentally alter the access and usage of drugs in developed countries.

These reports back numerous arguments frequently put forward which advocate for a change in drug policy. But their atomicity is also their weakness. Stressing the lamentable impact of drug-trafficking in producing or transit countries (60 000 people are estimated to have died as a direct result in Mexico alone) is unlikely to change the government’s policy. Humanitarian concerns abroad carry little weight when they do not coincide with a party’s short-term political interests. Former chief government advisor on drugs David Nutt has also argued that prohibition harms science by making it illegal to research drugs’ medicinal potential and denounced the chasm between drug classification and the risks they entail. Nutt’s dismissal, however, is evidence that drug policy is not rational and that cultural aspects are just as important determinants of policy. His oft-mentioned comparison with alcohol (in terms of health risk and social disruption) pays not credit to the fact that most illegal drugs have been introduced over the past 5 or 6 decades while alcohol has been a feature of our society for several centuries. Finally, education and treatment has replaced prohibition and policing in Portugal. This points to a societal shift in the way people perceive drug users. But it cannot be exported. Politicians at home legitimately seeking to lower drug use continue to argue that ending prohibition would send the wrong message to young people – and their electorate.

Ending prohibition has better chances of succeeding if politicians are confronted with one compelling reason, not a multiplicity of opinions backed by interests. What argument is therefore likely to have the most purchase? The experience of the last decades has shown that when it comes to defending the rights of minorities (5% of the world’s adult population has used drugs in 2010), arguing for freedom works. Insofar as one’s freedom does not encroach on someone else’s it should not be restricted. Societal debates such as the rights of homosexuals or the right to a dignified death are testament to this. That of drug policy should be framed in very much the same way. The fundamental premise underpinning progressive social policies have been that people should be free to make their own choices and that laws should evolve to mirror the spirit of societies. This is before one mentions the positive practicalities expected at home and abroad.

While drugs do pose a hazard to individuals, we do not live in a society averse to taking risks (possibly quite the contrary). A policy mix of prevention, education and a better understanding of addiction would go a long way in pacifying social interactions around the issue of drugs.

References:

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime – World Drug Report 2012

House of Commons Home Affairs Committee – Drugs: Breaking the Cycle