In numerous countries around the world governments are beginning to rethink their policies towards illicit drugs. For more than 40 years the defining position has been that of the U.S. endorsed 'War on Drugs', the idea that illicit drugs should be prohibited and their supply and consumption, eradicated.
The rethink is prompted by growing evidence that prohibition has not solved the problems. Production and consumption of drugs such as cannabis are at record levels, the cost of the War is unsustainable, and it has created a host of secondary harms - organised crime, violence, corruption, drug-related crime, and unsustainable rates of incarceration.
The interesting moral question with regard to drugs is how best to protect society's interests. If prohibition has failed us what else can be done?
Various countries have experimented with alternatives to prohibition. Alaska in the 1970s legalised but then in 1990 re-criminalised cannabis. Portugal decriminalised the possession of drugs in 2001, while Holland distinguishes between hard and soft drugs with appropriate policies."
Dr Peter Enderwick, Chair of International Business at AUT University says the arguments both for and against decriminalisation are powerful.
"Decriminalisation would allow drugs to be treated consistently with regard to other substances including tobacco and alcohol. It would enable a policy switch to education which many see as the more powerful deterrent to use. It would 'legalise' a market that has been driven underground with problems of quality and control by organised crime.
"There is also the cognitive liberty argument that people should be free to make choices regarding such substances," he says. "However, the addictive nature of these products means that such choice may not be rational or informed. It is important to also understand that decriminalisation would need to be accompanied by regulation, at least comparable to what we see in the markets for alcohol and tobacco."
The case for continued prohibition is that decriminalisation could encourage not just consumption but also production. There is a widespread view that drugs are rarely a victimless crime and that drugs are no different to other crimes. Should we then decriminalise human trafficking for example?
"Holders of the 'gateway theory' believe that decriminalising even soft drugs like cannabis leads to increased consumption of more dangerous substances. Furthermore, we could argue that the War on Drugs was never a war that could be won. Rather, like speeding or drink driving, it should be seen as a campaign to contain rather than eradicate the problem."
Enderwick says for New Zealand, the timing is opportune.
"We have a widely acknowledged problem of alcohol abuse, a legislative dilemma with regard to cannabis synthetics such as Kronic, and record rates of incarceration, many drug-related. What can politicians do? Interestingly, public opinion polls suggest not much. There is widespread public opposition to decriminalisation in many parts of the world and for political leaders, however sympathetic, such reforms could be political suicide."
An interesting policy debate, but perhaps one on which we may see little movement in the immediate future.
For more information, click here
Does prohibition lead to the eradication of illegal drugs?
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.