The recent report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy (based on a panel including the former leaders of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, the UN, the US Federal Reserve and a former US secretary of state) has further highlighted the international aim of a drug free world as unachievable rhetoric. Based on the same principles first floated after the Opium Wars, the commission has damned current policy as having had ?devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.?
Indeed, policy enacted to implement the aim, such as the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in India, are anachronisms: they punish small timers and the vulnerable, whilst damaging public health options. The commission was right: ?fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.?
On the demand side, criminalising personal use to deter consumption, as under current policy, turns otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. Most users, particularly of soft drugs, pose no threat. Some may just prefer a spliff to a more damaging beer when relaxing (extensive research by independent experts, including in the recent commission, shows alcohol is more harmful than marijuana, MDMA and LSD). Yet, unlike for alcohol, possessing a small amount of even a soft drug internationally and in India can still result in rigorous imprisonment. To top it all, a report by WHO in 2008 shows no correlation between severity of law and consumption level?despite an overall stringent world, global consumption has stayed constant at 5%. The counter-effectiveness, not just ineffectiveness, of imprisonment is apparent.
The futility of such imprisonment is also apparent when leaving ordinary users aside and looking at the 10% of ?problem users?. India lags behind but should take a leaf from countries like Portugal, which have shifted the focus on drugs from crime and punishment to public health and education. Rational health policy should no longer be discouraged by ambiguities: although provision of clean syringes for users who inject is accepted as something necessary to help control HIV/AIDS, provision technically counts as ?abetting? under the NDPS Act and is punishable by ?rigorous imprisonment?. As the commission?s report showed, HIV prevalence was up to 24 times lower in countries that have consistently targeted harm reduction, than those who resist doing so. India must overcome poor policy execution (of 40,000 targeted to be brought onto opioid substitution programmes by 2012 only 5,300 have made it so far) if it is to protect citizens? health.
On the supply side, to try and set an example, current laws disproportionately penalise foot soldiers, with 95% of people arrested in the Mexican drug war being small time dealers, according to research by the Economist. This occurs because accumulating evidence against foot soldiers, who the commission recognises as often being victims of drug related violence, is not hard, whereas doing the same against their bosses is. India is similar in this respect, as noted authority on drug law in India, KTS Tulsi, a Supreme Court advocate, says. ?Facts reveal it is only the small-time peddlers who are being caught, most of whom are very poor.? Indeed, the NDPS Act?s focus on deterrence through stiff action can even encourage the involvement of the poor, as risk of capture adds a service premium.
This is evident in the INCB?s recent identification of India as a psychotropic drug production hotspot, and any crackdown attempt to overcome this would be futile. Psychotropic drug production is a hydra?crackdowns result in synthetic substitutes that are often more harmful than the original. One need only examine how Ya Ba use grew to the detriment of Thailand and Bangladesh, after crackdowns on MDMA. Most crackdowns also merely further erode the rule of law, as shown by Thailand where extra-judicial killings were rife in their 2003 campaign and in Mexico where 35,000 have died since 2006. Sustainably reducing production is a googly, with levels having actually risen in the past decade. It?s time for a new approach.
The first rational step is to shift focus from crude deterrence towards education and public health, which would be facilitated by legalising personal use, as in Portugal, to encourage problem users to come into the open and seek help. In addition, to control production, total legalisation must be seriously considered, particularly for soft drugs such as marijuana and MDMA, which are both less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Legalising would overcome quality problems and make people avoid dangerous substitutes. Legalisation of hard drugs is more contentious but regulating and taxing seems the only way of taking billions of dollars away from syndicates and terrorists, alleviating the current position of producer countries trapped in cycles of violence.
As the commission was bold enough to say, ?the time for action is now?. Much has changed since the Opium Wars.
Our approach to drugs, nationally and internationally, must too.