Recorded drugs offences were up 14.5 per cent last year. Illegal drugs are now available in virtually every Irish community and there is little sign that current policies are reducing drug use. This week's question for the first in a new series of debates about public policy is: Should illegal drugs be decriminalised?
YESargues Seán Cassin, who believes that the way Portugal has dealt with the problem is worth following
John Stuart Mill had a close friendship with the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge; he must have known Coleridge was addicted to opium. I wonder if that influenced his book On Liberty, about the rights of the individual. I'm afraid that, 200 years after his birth, Mill, like Coleridge, would be aghast at our approach to individual rights - one which would label Coleridge a criminal drug user. Perhaps today Kubla Khanor The Rhyme of the Ancient Marinerwould never see the light of day.
Arguments about decriminalising personal drug use stem from Mill's belief that "in each person's own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise".
The experiences of millenniums of human civilisation seem to support the human rights view of drug use. We have been using intoxicants as far back as 3000BC when the Sumerians discovered poppies to make opiates and painted the flower on their cave walls. Despite the toxic threat, we use drugs to excite and delight, to expand our minds and find deeper meaning or simply to make our otherwise drab existences a bit more endurable.
Making us criminals for this is disproportionate, and simply adds to the drabness.
The human rights view of drug use is the opposite of our drug-free world view. The latter holds that drug use is harmful; it is a crime against society that must be legislated against and stopped by enforcement. The human rights view, by contrast, is vehemently opposed to any statutory prohibition of a person's right to use mood-altering drugs, as long as such use does not cause harm to others.
It allows the toxic risk entailed in this use. Mill would say: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." ( On Liberty, 1869).
Mill's rights of the individual would imply a lot more than decriminalising drugs. In his view, even milder administrative sanctions are contrary to the freedom of the person to choose. Decriminalisation retains control by the state at the boundary line between the individual's personal freedoms and the need to protect others in the society.
Once the possession of an illegal drug is in small quantity and for personal use, decriminalisation calls for the removal of any criminal charges or convictions whatsoever. With decriminalisation, there is still a restriction of the individual's freedoms as civil penalties - like a fine or attending treatment for the possession or use of drugs - are envisaged.
In July 2001, Portugal's government implemented such a decriminalisation drug policy. From that date, users of any illegal drug apprehended by police were brought not before the courts, but before special commissions composed of health, legal, and social work professionals, whose aim was to give drug users the opportunity to access treatment for addiction and other problems related to drug use.
That public-health-led approach had as its main goal the provision of immediate treatment for problematic drug users, aimed at minimising the social costs of drug use. With this reform, the state began viewing drug users not as criminals, but as victims of drugs. Experience of this initiative so far allows some conclusions to be drawn:
• The Portuguese authorities have been successful in implementing a significant national programme of change in the way they deal with drug offenders without major delays or administrative problems;
• It has been possible for the police, health and social services to work together to prioritise help for drug users over punishment;
• The new system has led to an improvement in the ability of the authorities to identify and intervene early in a young person's drug problem, and to deal with cases more quickly and cheaply than the courts were able to;
• Tens of thousands of drug users have been diverted from the criminal justice system in Portugal over the first three years, producing significant resource savings in the court and prison systems;
• The introduction of this new approach has not led to a significant increase in drug use in Portugal, or of drug users moving to Portugal because of the perceived lower risk of imprisonment.
In conclusion, decriminalisation has its origins in the rights of the person to control and enjoy their own bodies. Decriminalisation of the use of mood-altering substances goes some of the way towards respecting this right, while also balancing the rights of society to be safe and protected.
In Ireland, it would mean that a drug user would not end up with a criminal record that militates against future employment, mortgages or credit ratings. Practically, we cannot continue to fill Garda stations, courts and prisons with the thousands of illegal drug users in our country.
The Portuguese have shown us an alternative that can work, save costs, save human resources and ultimately save lives. Why not try it?
[ www.drugpolicy.ieOpens in new window ]
NOargues Grainne Kenny, who says that tough laws are the last line of protection against drug abuse
Arguments against decriminalising drugs can be presented on many levels. Liberal drug laws are accompanied by a large number of negative effects on the individual, the family and society. It is not prohibition but the drug itself that generates misery and dissipation, often leading to criminal activities. These negative effects are the reason why I, and theEurope Against Drugs group of which I am international president, oppose, on humanitarian grounds, liberal drug policies.
Decriminalisation means bringing the drug problem out of the scope of penal (criminal) law. Law enforcement would no longer be provided for the export, import, manufacture, distribution, sale, publicising, possession and use of drugs that are, up to now, controlled within the scope of international conventions. Legalisation goes hand-in-hand with decriminalisation.
In the case of the former, a form of more-or-less free distribution of drugs would have to be organised, while with decriminalisation (taking drugs out of the penal law system) the Government would have to regulate their distribution and make rules for it. The consequences would therefore be that society would come under increased pressure from the drugs market due to the addictive nature of the substances. Alcohol and tobacco are a good example of this, as they are still our most-abused substances, with illegal cigarettes being our most smuggled commodity.
Which drugs should be decriminalised? All drugs? Should it be a free-for-all? Or should it be cannabis only? Or should it include ecstasy, heroin, cocaine or perhaps crack cocaine? The future drugs according to the UN are amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS). Should they too be decriminalised?
Who is to be responsible for the quality and strength of the drugs? The Minister for Health or perhaps the pharmacist? If only weak drugs are to be decriminalised, then no one will buy them. A black market for the stronger and cheaper drugs will continue to flourish.
What about age restrictions? Drug use usually starts in the teenage years, often through peer pressure at school. What is a parent to say to a teenager who has begun to smoke an "occasional" joint?
They will get the same tired old argument: "it isn't dangerous because it's legal". Our nearest neighbour, England, is a good case to study. In 2004, the home secretary decided, against the wishes of parent groups, mental health specialists and many NGOs, to act on the advice of an "expert" group to down-classify cannabis. This meant that people found in possession of small amounts would be subject to a caution only, and have the drug confiscated. The result has been a 22 per cent increase in the number of UK hospital admissions of cannabis users with mental illness. A 1 per cent rise among 11 to 15-year-olds smoking cannabis, believing it to be legal, is also recorded.
Cannabis seizures in London have also risen by one-third in the past year. Likewise, experiments with medically-controlled distribution of narcotics in Sweden and England in the 1960s led to a huge increase in the number of drug addicts.
Advocates of decriminalisation claim that so-called repressive policies have failed and are responsible for suffering and crime. However, the drug misery is greatest where drug policy is least "repressive". For instance, in the city of Zurich - where a policy of libertarianism bordering on depravity is being pursued - conspicuous drug scenes and dealing are tolerated by the authorities.
After closing the so-called "needle parks", they are now herding sick and diseased human beings into "fixer rooms" or "shooting galleries" in an effort to sweep the spreading epidemic under the carpet.
In The Netherlands, use of cocaine and heroin has escalated, with 20 per cent of youngsters aged between 15 and 16 using the former in the past year. Irish drug gangs are now operating from that country due to the lax laws. So crime has risen there.
Drugs are a chemical straitjacket and narcotic laws contain manifold possibilities to help the addict achieve a drug-free life. Drug courts for non-violent offenders are an example.
On the other hand, Sweden, a country known for its liberal and humanitarian outlook, has the lowest levels of drug use in Europe, despite its laws being the most restrictive. Consumption is illegal and prevention is a priority. Parents demand it. The growing numbers of parents organisations throughout Europe are steadfastly opposed to decriminalisation or legalisation. Informed parents are the first line of defence against drug use. Tough laws are the last line of protection.
Addiction is life-long. Nevertheless, the addicts must be offered the chance to recover and regain their dignity while accepting responsibility for themselves and for others.
Decriminalisation is an admission of failure.
• Grainne Kennyis international president of Europe Against Drugs (Eurad) and a board member of Drug Watch International (USA)
online: join the debate @ www.ireland.com/head2head