By Patrycja Les (BA Philosophy, Politics And Economics)
[This essay was written for the Government, Welfare and Policy third-year undergraduate module. Students were tasked with writing a blog-style essay on a topic linked to a group poster project. Topics were chosen by students and reflect their own interests. The essay gave them experience of writing content in an engaging style for a non-expert audience. What you see below is one of this year’s top-marked blog-style essays. Christa Brunnschweiler]
The World Drug Report estimates that 35 million people worldwide suffer from drug use disorders, with only 1 in 7 people receiving treatment (UNODC, 2019). Drug consumption, trade and drug abuse related health consequences remain as challenging issues for policymakers in many countries. Policy strategies vary around the world, but with the majority treating drug possession and use as a criminal offence. However, research increasingly questions the link between enforcement of criminal drug laws and effective deterrence from drug use and harm reduction. If these policies are ineffective, is drug decriminalisation policy a better way to face the drug problem?
Global drug problem
Most people agree that drug policy is needed but, reflecting the complexity of the ‘drug problem’, not many can describe what should be prioritised in such policy. The obvious problems are health implications for people suffering from drug use disorders and access to treatment. However, there are also safety concerns linked to drug market growth, non-medical use of prescribed drugs and other drug-related crimes (UNODC, 2020). In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic brought challenges linked to lockdowns and economic downturn which might cause an increase in drug use (UNODC, 2020).
To tackle these issues, most countries choose to implement very strict policies commonly termed ‘The War on Drugs’ (e.g. the U.S. drug policy or the famously cruel policy in the Philippines). This term refers to a policy that seeks to limit, prevent, and punish the importation, distribution, possession, and use of illegal drugs (Walter, 2018). However, many sources mark these policies as ineffective showing no linkage between enforcement of criminal drug laws and effective deterrence from drug use (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2018; Reuter & Stevens, 2007; Hughes et al., 2018). Considering that the vast majority of countries implement these criminal laws and drug use has still increased by 20% between 2006 and 2013 (Release, 2016), this point appears pertinent.
What are the flaws of criminal drug laws?
First, considering that 80-90% of drug users are not addicted (Hart, 2014) and 83% of all drug-related crimes are simple possession offences (Release, 2016), it makes less sense to spend public money on filling up the prisons instead of prevention and treatment provision. Indeed, the access to treatment globally is still very limited (UNODC, 2020). In addition, laws that criminalize drug use simultaneously cause society to discriminate against drug addicts which undermines the efforts to prevent drug-related harm (UNAIDS, 2020). Moreover, in some countries drug laws enforcement can engineer racial divisions. For instance, by punishing substances more commonly used within the Black community, some US drug laws create racial disparities in conviction rates (Hart, 2014). Another example is the UK’s ‘stop and search’ policing approach, showing that people identifying as Black and Asian are searched significantly more often (6.3 times and 2.5 times) than White people (Release, 2013). These are only two cases among many others in countries which criminalize drugs.
These types of problems suggest that criminal drug laws may cause more harm than effectively tackling the drug problem. High costs of policy implementation including prison maintenance, stigmatisation of drug users, health and safety concerns and contribution to growing inequalities have been, amongst others, the main reasons for some countries to rethink their drug policy and decriminalize drug use. While the models of decriminalisation vary, on average they focus on possession of small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use (Release, 2016). This is no longer treated as a criminal offence, with reaction typically varying from an administrative violation to no response at all (Release, 2016). Decriminalisation may also include investment in harm reduction programs, an emphasis on education on drug consumption and access to anti-overdose measures (Collins et al., 2017).
Is it effective?
To analyse the effects of drug decriminalisation, it is worth looking at policies introduced by Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. These countries prioritise harm reduction which makes them good case studies for non-coercive, health-focused policy implementation. This is distinct to, for example, from Latin American countries who use civil punitive systems instead of criminal drug laws (e.g. a compulsory detention for drug users).
Portugal decriminalised possession and use of all drugs in 2001 as a response to a health crisis and growing drug using population since the 1980s. Drug possession for personal use is treated as an administrative violation which might include fines or community work designated by a special commission (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2018). In the Czech Republic, drug use has always been treated as a health issue and post-1990 drug possession for personal use wasn’t considered a criminal offence. More recent changes to this policy involved specification of the unpunishable thresholds and introduction of distinction between cannabis (possession and self-supply) and other drugs (EMCDDA, 2017a; Release, 2016). The Netherlands created a legal division between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs in 1976. Even though the policy criminalises drugs in theory, the actual law enforcement implies that offences of up to 5 grams of cannabis and up to 0.5 grams of ‘hard’ drugs possession are not prosecuted (Release, 2016).
How does it affect drug use and harm levels?
Interestingly, Portuguese implementation of its decriminalisation policy gained significant media attention. This media coverage reflected significant drops observed in key drug-related statistics: both a decrease in the levels of drug use below the European average and a significant harm reduction: a decline of Tuberculosis, AIDS, HIV, Hepatitis B and C cases and drug-induced deaths (WHO, 2019; Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2018; EMCDDA, 2011). Importantly, these rates remain low today and similar low harm rates (in comparison with Europe) can be observed in the Czech Republic and the Netherlands (EMCDDA, 2017a; EMCDDA, 2019b).
Surprisingly though, cannabis use levels in the Czech Republic are quite high and the number of hard drug users has recently increased by 50% (2007-2017) (EMCDDA, 2017a). Moreover, the Netherlands has one of the top percentages of cannabis, cocaine and MDMA users in Europe (EMCDDA, 2019b). It may seem conflicting, but it seems as though these countries are able to minimise harm without minimising the presence of drugs in the society.
Prevention and treatment provision
Obviously, this could be linked to the countries’ expenditure on harm reduction. However, the following figures do not necessarily indicate that. While Portugal’s and the Czech Republic’s drug-related public expenditure is relatively small, 0.05% and 0.03% of the country’s GDP respectively, the most recent Netherland’s figure is estimated to be 0.5% (EMCDDA, 2017a; EMCDDA, 2019b; EMCDDA, 2017b). While the first two countries’ estimates remain at the very bottom of the European averages, the Netherlands is at the very top (EMCDDA, 2019a).
All three countries have invested in prevention programs for schools and elsewhere, needle and syringe programs, sheltered living projects, low threshold centres and substitution programs (EMCDDA, 2017a; EMCDDA, 2019b; EMCDDA, 2017b). In the Netherlands there are also supervised drug consumption rooms and heroin-assisted treatment available. This data certainly doesn’t make Portugal or the Czech Republic leaders in terms of the provision of harm reduction responses, nor do they have the highest numbers of people entering drug treatments. The Netherlands seems to invest quite a lot more in additional programs, but it is still not as comprehensive as in Germany or Denmark.
Considering the significant differences in data, it is difficult to say that the harm reduction programs or public expenditure are the sole reasons for the low harm rates. In contrast, the UK (which implements criminal drug law) also invests significant amount in harm reduction and has a high number of people entering treatments. Nevertheless, it experiences the 4th highest number of drug-induced deaths in Europe (EMCDDA, 2019c). Therefore, it could be said that decriminalization policy implemented in Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands plays an important role in achieving low harm rates by creating a safe, non-punitive environment for drug users. It also shows that even if a country can’t afford comprehensive harm reduction responses, the policy will still have a positive effect removing the stigma around drug addiction (Release, 2016).
More than just a policy
All things considered, there are a few additional factors relevant to consider alongside the policy. For instance, the policy implementation in Portugal coincided with expansion of the Portuguese welfare state which included, amongst others, a guaranteed minimum income. Moreover, there was a cultural shift observed in the Portuguese society involving a change in the attitudes towards drug dependency and treating it as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offence (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2018). These two factors might have had a significant meaning for the effectiveness of the implemented policy.
Moreover, alongside significant harm associated with drug use, there are also issues related to drug-related crime which are certainly crucial to consider when implementing such policy. However, it is worth highlighting that policy involving decriminalisation of small quantities for personal use, often results in less prison population (from offences for small quantities possession) which allows for money redistribution towards healthcare. Nevertheless, the supply side of the drugs market is certainly a much more complex issue which needs to be addressed for decriminalisation policy implementation.
Is building a safer environment worth it?
Carl Hart stated that people will always be taking drugs (Hart, 2014), meaning that drugs cannot be completely eliminated. Considering that decriminalisation policy can achieve significant harm reduction among drug users, the question should be: why not create a safer environment for drug users and minimise stigma around this part of the society? Decriminalisation policy has been endorsed by several international organisations including UNAIDS, WHO, OHCHR and The Global Commission on Drug Policy (Release, 2016); so, it might be questioned why only so few countries have introduced it. However, considering the additional societal factors and the supply-side of the drug trade, the implementation of such policy cannot only be centred on decriminalisation itself. Nevertheless, Governments should have in mind that the harm created by criminal drug laws potentially may outweigh the harm from decriminalisation (Release, 2016). This should be a sufficient incentive for countries to implement such policy and build a better environment for those who need help, rather than exclusion.
Bibliography
Collins, J., Csete, J., & Shiner, M. (2017, February 16). LSE Events | Drug Policies Beyond the War on Drugs? (LSE, Interviewer)
EMCDDA, E. M. (2011). Drug Policy Profiles: Portugal. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EMCDDA, E. M. (2017a). Czech Republic Country Drug Report. Publications Office of the European Union.
EMCDDA, E. M. (2017b). Portugal Country Drug Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EMCDDA, E. M. (2019a). European Drug Report. Publications Office of the European Union.
EMCDDA, E. M. (2019b). Netherlands Country Drug Report.
EMCDDA, E. M. (2019c). United Kingdom Country Drug Report.
Filipková, T. (2015). Cannabis policy in the Czech Republic. Retrieved from Transnational Institute: https://www.tni.org/en/article/cannabis-policy-in-the-czech-republic
Hart, C. (2014). TEDMED Let’s quit abusing drug users. Retrieved from https://www.tedmed.com/talks/show?id=309156
Hughes, B., Matias, J., & Griffiths, P. (2018). Inconsistencies in the assumptions linking punitive. Addiction, 2155–2157.
Release. (2013). The Numbers in Black and White: Ethnic Disparities in the Policing and Prosecution of Drug Offences in England and Wales. Release Publication & London School of Economics and Political Science .
Release. (2016). ‘A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalisation Policies Across the Globe. Release Publication.
Reuter, P., & Stevens, A. (2007). An Analysis of UK Drug Policy. UK Drug Policy Commission.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation. (2018). Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. Retrieved from https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight
UNAIDS. (2020). Decriminalization works, but too few countries are taking the bold step. Retrieved from https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2020/march/20200303_drugs
UNODC, U. N. (2019). World Drug Report. Retrieved from https://wdr.unodc.org/wdr2019/en/exsum.html
UNODC, U. N. (2020). World Drug Report. Retrieved from https://wdr.unodc.org/wdr2020/en/exsum.html
Walter, A. (2018). Drug Policy: Overview. Salem Press Encyclopedia.
WHO. (2019). World Health Organization. Retrieved from https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/tb_profiles/?_inputs_&entity_type=%22country%22&lan=%22EN%22&iso2=%22PT%22
Banner Image by Colin Davis on Unsplash