The global discussion continues over drug use, its impacts, and how best to deal with the scenario.
Our Future Planet considers the arguments.
Whether any state has the right to decide what drugs people should or should not take remains a hotly debated topic. Uncertainty over the true damage of certain drugs and the political significance of the issues continue to cloud the argument, while billions of individuals remain criminalised.
There are some pretty astonishing statistics surrounding planetary drug markets. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) exists to provide the EU and Member States with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid evidence base to support the drugs debate. Today it offers policymakers the data they need for drawing up informed drug laws and strategies.
According to EMCDDA data for EU drug use in 2009, ‘Cannabis lifetime prevalence is at least 74 million, some 22 per cent of European adults. Last year use is about 22.5 million European adults or a third of lifetime users. Last month use is about 12 million Europeans.’
For Cocaine, the lifetime prevalence was ‘about 13 million, 3.9 per cent of European adults. Last year use: 4 million European adults or a third of lifetime users, last month use: around 1.5 million.’
EMCDDA also reckons ‘problem opioid users: estimated at between 1.2 and 1.5 million Europeans. Drug induced deaths accounted for 4 per cent of all deaths of Europeans aged 15–39, with opioids being found in around three quarters.’
The figures illustrate the scale of the difficulties. Although law and the harshness of penalties varies throughout the EU, Cannabis for example remains largely illegal. Whether it’s possible to effectively police laws widely ignored by over a fifth of the population is an interesting question.
Also, when such relatively high percentages of people ignore laws, it may be there are better ways to spend money, perhaps on drugs perceived as more harmful, or in treatment and recovery infrastructure. And there’s the question of whether States can ethically criminalise populations voting with their behaviours in such ways.
International row
Another organisation working to establish meaningful strategy and widen the global debate is the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC). Equally, the International Narcotics Control Board monitors implementation of United Nations drug intervention. Polarities between these organisations go some way towards explaining the rift between law and reality and the challenges involved.
‘The UN’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) annual report, released today, pointedly criticises Argentina, Brazil and Mexico for moving to decriminalise the possession of drugs for personal consumption, cautioning that such moves may “send the wrong message.”’ reveals a 24 February 2010 IDPC statement.
‘The INCB report expresses concern over “the growing movement to decriminalise the possession of controlled drugs” and calls for this movement to be “resolutely countered” by the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the United States.
‘According to the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the criticisms leveled today clearly overstep the INCB’s mandate and constitute unwarranted intrusions into these countries’ sovereign decision making. TNI and WOLA are non governmental organisations with expertise in both the UN drug control system and Latin American drug policy developments.’
“There are too many consumers and small time drug offenders overcrowding Latin American jails. This is not only inhumane, it also means justice systems are diverting their scarce resources and attention away from big traffickers,” said Pien Metaal, TNI Drugs and Democracy Program Researcher. “Part of the overcrowding problem stems from disproportionate prison sentences for non violent offenders.”
IDPC argues that ‘Experiences so far with decriminalisation of possession of drugs for personal use have not led to significant increases in drug use. In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs for personal use, and has since seen a decrease in heroin use and in related adverse consequences, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS.’
There are other more ethical elements to the conversation. ‘Last year, the INCB uses its annual report to reprimand Bolivia for the continuation of coca chewing and other traditional uses of coca.’ continues IDPC.
‘In 2008, Bolivia enshrined in its Constitution the coca leaf as a cultural heritage. “The INCB again shows itself to be out of touch with reality by demanding that Bolivia stamp out coca use, also wrongfully prohibited in the Conventions,” said Metaal.’
Such arguments theorise the State has no right to impinge on personal activities of significance from a cultural or heritage perspective. The Latin America Information Office (LAIO) argues ‘Coca eradication, which in Bolivia involves the manual removal and destruction of coca crops, has had major negative economic and social repercussions on farming communities.’
LAIO says ‘Soldiers conducting forced coca eradication operations have committed gross human rights violations including the harassment, torture, and murder of indigenous people in the Chapare region.’
‘At a World Health Organisation Assembly in 1992, then Bolivian President Paz Zamora said, “Coca is an Andean tradition while cocaine is a Western habit.” In the Andes, the cultivation and consumption of coca leaves dates back over 4,000 years to the pre Columbian civilisations in which the leaves were used in ceremonies to worship and express gratitude to the ‘Pachamama,” or Mother Earth, for providing the means for life to continue. Coca leaves are still valued in Andean culture and serve a sacred role in spiritual functions today.’
‘Coca leaves are also chewed in social settings, and used for medicinal purposes in herbal teas and poultices,’ continues LAIO. ‘They have several medicinal applications, including the treatment of physiological and psychological sicknesses, stomach and digestive ailments, improving metabolism, and preventing vertigo.’
‘Communities have continued to rely on this traditional crop to help cope with hunger pangs and the extreme environmental conditions in which they live, particularly the high altitudes.’
Further difficulties surround the use of drug enforcement as a potential political tool, both for internal lobbying and international power bartering. ‘The US decision, under the Bush Administration, to blacklist Bolivia for the first time ever in its 2009 list of “Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug Producing Countries“ was perceived by many experts as politically motivated rather than based on serious criteria.’ suggests LAIO.
Ultimate dilemma
It’s tough to balance the potentially life threatening impacts of opioids with more benign drug practices. Perhaps the biggest issue is that of information, or misinformation.
In 2009, the UK’s Chief Advisor on drugs was sacked after criticising government policies on cannabis. The trouble is when governments ignore scientific policy, their stance on drugs seems increasingly politicised.
This can undermine public confidence and potentially deepen the raft between legal policy and the real life scenario. That certain drug use can cause misery remains obvious. What’s less certain is the best way to deal with this, and whether widespread criminalisation of otherwise law abiding citizens actually works, and the ethical logic behind doing so.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!
Resources:
Transform Drug Policy Foundation Reviews:
Submission to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2008 review of Cannabis Classification
Submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry: The Cocaine Trade
Submission to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Ecstasy review. September 2008
A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of the Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs
Drug policy 1997-2007 - The evidence un-spun: Overwhelming Failure
Submission to the Department of Health Consultation on the future of tobacco control. September 2008
New Scientist: It's lack of balance that makes skunk cannabis do harm
Video’s
