Drug policy
As a Liberal politician one has to be principelled in the first place and pragmatic in the second. That does however not mean that any political problem can be solved by a single debate. A key example of this are the endless debates on drug policy. Experience in my own organisation (IFLRY) has shown that a single debate on drug policy does not lead to any constructive solutions if the day-to-day realities of addicts and the people who are trying to help them are not taken into consideration.
Individual freedom leaves more room for different interpretations than for example Christian morality. This is reflected in any debate on drug policy.
On the one hand there are the anti-prohibitionists who, by some kind of principle, are against any prohibition of drugs. They usually quote John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and use the failed alcohol prohibition in the States during the thirties as an example of how useless prohibition is.
Although it is clear that individual freedom is a very important value, this freedom does not mean that everyone is on his own and that, as a liberal, you cannot have opinions about other peoples' ideas and actions. To say that the decision whether or not to use drugs is everybody's own responsibility is nothing but an easy way out of a complicated issue.
On the other hand we find those Liberals who feel that the individual should be protected against himself and see a role for the state here. They feel a very repressive policy on drugs is needed. In their view, the individual cannot be allowed self-destruction.
The individual should perhaps be protected by the state against some dangers, one of them being drugs. On the other hand, there is a danger of this protection interfering too much with individual freedom. A relevant question in the context of this article is also how to realise this protection in the most effective way. A drug policy consisting of nothing more than prohibition is definitely not the answer.
To begin with this leads to the question what should be considered as drugs. After that the aims of a drug policy should be defined. Finally the most effective means have to be chosen.
What Are Drugs?
Although hashish may stink when being smoked it hardly causes any trouble. Alcohol, which is socially accepted, and therefore not considered a drug, causes much more serious problems. Drunken people tend to get aggressive. Many people die in car accidents caused by drunken drivers.
it is important to realise that the answer every individual will give to the question "what are drugs?" is often more determined by cultural background, moral obligations and taboos than by medical fact. Despite the fact that alcohol is more destructive and more addictive than marijuana, most people consider marijuana to be a dangerous drug and alcohol a necessity for any social occasion.
To discuss drugs and drug policy in a political context it is necessary to have some workable definition: a drug is in general a substance which makes the user feel happier, more energetic, more relaxed, etc. depending on the kind of drug being used. The difference between the average drug and watching a good movie, which can have the same effect, is that regular use of the drug creates a dependence. The user starts to need the drug and needs it in increasing quantities.
As far as dependence is concerned, it is important to realise that this is often not just a physical dependence but also a mental one. In many cases this is a main reason to start using drugs, an escape from a reality which is somehow difficult to cope with. This is very important to realise when discussing drug-policy.
Drug Problems
A drug becomes a political problem when it has either serious adverse effects on the user or on the user's environment. The main problems, the ones that create a demand for political solutions, are the following:
- The drug is damaging the health of the user;
- Damage caused by the addiction to the user's surroundings;
- Crime related to drug use.
This summary clearly focuses on the drug users and the harm their addiction causes to their environment, although admittedly drug trafficking and production are also important issues.
The Aims Of A Drug Policy
A political solution for the problems caused by drug use can clearly not be just to legalise drugs or to prohibit them. They ignore a social problem by trying to define it as a legal one.
A drug policy should focus on harm-reduction. Reduction of harm for both the user and the user's environment. As long as there is no clear harm caused by a certain drug, the state has no reason to interfere in people using this drug or not.
Health
Some drugs have a very clear destructive effect. Substances like heroin, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol can kill. It may take years, but kill they will. The question if you can allow people to destroy their health is not as easy to answer as it may seem. If one decides to forbid for example the four substances mentioned here, should one not also forbid car-racing, parachute-jumping, etc?
In the case of some substances it is clear that the user is not able to make a conscious choice. Once addicted to heroin, the only aim in life is to get more heroin, literally regardless of anything. This fact probably justifies a role of society in helping drug addicts.
The Users Environment
Clearly, use of addictive and destructive drugs not only affects the user. The ruthless pursuit of more and more drugs to satisfy the addiction will obviously affect the user's surroundings. Families and relationships have been destroyed by bottles and needles and pills.
This should also make clear that help to a drug user should include help to the family, partner, etc. Very often, social problems are a main reason to start using drugs. Also, drug users often end up in a new social environment, the one of drug users and dealers. To help a user to become "clean" and then to put him back in a troubled social environment does not solve anything. The psychological pressure will be pushing the user into old habits.
Drug-Related Crime
Drugs are expensive. To finance a heroin addiction can cost up to US $750 a day. This is one of the reasons that drug use causes crime. The first thing to do about this is to prevent people from starting to use drugs and to help drug addicts lose their dependence. However, legalisation of certain drugs is another possibility.
Legalisation of drugs, meaning that they do not have to bought on the black market but can for example be prescribed by a doctor, will lead to a lesser need to obtain the drug through any illegal means.
The policy in the Netherlands towards marijuana proves how useful legalisation can be. This drug, which is pretty harmless compared to alcohol, is no longer part of the criminal world. The advantage of this is that it avoids the user getting in contact with crime and especially with drug dealers who also sell much more dangerous products.
Those politicians who have any moral objections against legalising marijuana should answer this question: why is it that cigarettes and whisky can be bought on every street corner while there is clear medical evidence that both tobacco and alcohol are more destructive and more addictive?
Another interesting experiment with legalisation is run by Doctor Marks in his drug dependency clinic in Liverpool (UK). He is prescribing heroin to his patients (addicts) as part of a larger programme of medical help and resocialisation. Advantages: it is possible to stay in contact with his parents, they do not have any need to steal, etc, etc,. Again, as I stated earlier, this way of "legalisation" also only works as one part of a larger programme of measures.
Clearly legalisation will only work if it is part of a larger package of measures: information, prevention, medical help and social programmes. I do not believe in legalisation as a principle or as an aim in itself.
Helping Drug Addicts
To start with the easy part, one thing that does not help addicts is punishment, be it legal or social. The individual that starts using drugs usually does this because of social problems. There is no use adding more problems by putting them in prison. First of all, drugs are usually widely available in prisons. Secondly, forcing a user to give up his addiction without taking away the problems that caused the addiction in the first place, leads to nothing.
A complete programme for helping drug addicts should first of all contain a medical programme against the physical addiction. But apart from that a social and psychological programme to take away the "mental addiction", to take away the problems that made the user seek refuge in the mental state caused by drugs is vital. In most cases this social programme will not only include the user but also friends, family, etc.
The need for help does not end when the user is "clean". Long after support will be necessary. The ex-user has to be helped finding a job, building up a life again, or in short, to become part of society again.
Prevention Programmes
An important aspect of any effective drug policy is prevention through information. In the same way many countries point out the dangers of alcohol and tobacco to their citizens this should also be done with other drugs. Everybody, but especially young people, should be informed about the different drugs, their dangers and effects.
In the Netherlands for example, vast information programmes exist. Many schools have special classes about this subject (as a part of biology and social sciences) and often doctors, policemen or even former addicts are invited to relate their experiences.
This leads to much fewer young people wanting to experiment with drugs. Creating taboos and forbidding drugs will often make it only more fascinating to "do drugs".
Finally
It is clear that a debate on drug policy is more than discussing prohibition and legalisation. The reality is that drugs will be available as long as their is a demand. There will be a demand as long as there are people who need to escape from reality.
Drug users need social policy, not criminal policy!
Jan Weijers is Executive Director of IFLRY (International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth). This article expresses his personal opinions which are not necessarily those of the IFLRY Bureau or Member Organisations. This article originally appeared in the Liberal Times (issue 1 of July 1992), a publication of the Liberal International.
