|
IV.I A controversial subject
/
In general, legalisation is meant to indicate that the supply and possession of currently illegal drugs, should be legally controlled in the same way that alcohol or tobacco are controlled in most countries. Decriminalisation is often meant to indicate a half-way house\' between legalisation and prohibition - in that, for example, possession of drugs for personal use would not be a criminal offence, but might be the equivalent of getting a parking ticket.
Drug-law reform has re-emerged on the international and domestic policy agendas. More drug use by younger people and the connection with crime have taken the debate beyond cannabis. International conventions allow countries to impose only minor penalties for possession. Several have used this flexibility to withdraw from enforcing some laws. Arguments over legalisation cover individual freedom versus the duty of the state, the harms caused by current laws, how legalisation would work, and the health consequences.
After stewing on the political back burner for some 20 years, the issue of liberalising drug laws has re-emerged on the international policy agenda, to the point where recently the UN International Narcotics Control Board felt the need to refute the arguments in its annual report.
Traditionally the debate has centred on the laws relating to cannabis. Between 1968 and 1972 government-appointed committees in Britain, Canada and the USA concluded that the medical evidence did not justify the severity of the penalties for cannabis possession.
More recently, the House of Lords recommended cannabis be made available to those with ailments such as multiple sclerosis, and that the drug laws be relaxed to allow possession for therapeutic use. An independent inquiry by the Police Federation found a lot of support from politicians and the press in asking for a distinction to be made between \'soft\' and \'hard\' drugs such as cannabis and heroin. They proposed the law be more lenient towards cannabis use while focusing sanctions on heroin and cocaine, so re-directing state funds to regulating these drugs.
IV.II Malleable convention
One reason why more radical law reform proposals have been dismissed is the value placed on maintaining international solidarity in the fight against drug misuse. All the major industrialised nations of the West are among the 109 signatories to the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs which obliges signatories to make possession and other drug-related activities involving a range of drugs (heroin, cocaine, cannabis, etc.) \'punishable offences\'.
This has been interpreted to mean no major relaxation of the drug laws is possible unless the nation opts out of the convention. However, the official commentary to the convention is clear that nations have wide latitude in the interpretations of this provision as it applies to possession. Some have taken it to mean that \'possession\' refers only possessing the drug in the course of drug trafficking, not personal use; others have deemed fines \"or even censure\" as punishment enough for simple possession.
So while the convention is an obstacle to the legal possession and supply of currently illicit drugs, it appears that it is no barrier to the imposition of only minor penalties for possession. Signatories need consider imprisonment only for \'serious offences\'. Several legislatures have used this flexibility to mould the convention\'s provisions to their own local cultures and legal systems.
IV.III Real world experiments
In Holland, the 1976 Opium Act tripled the penalties for dealing but an administrative framework was established which allowed the de facto legalisation of possession. For cannabis only, the drug was allowed to be sold from designated premises. Recently Holland has come under intense pressure to revise its policies.
The Spanish, Portuguese and Italian authorities have given the possession provision of the UN convention its most liberal interpretation. In Spain personal possession of any drug is not a criminal offence. Italy reverted punishes possession of drugs for personal use only by administrative\' sanctions. Belgium has also relaxed its laws in relation to cannabis possession.
In the \'70s 11 US states reduced penalties for personal possession of cannabis. Alaska allowed cultivation for personal use and held that it would be unconstitutional to bar its citizens from smoking cannabis in their own homes.
It is in America that the legalisation battle lines have been drawn most prominently. In the 1980s despite an ever-increasing budget, law enforcement agencies failed to stop widespread use of cocaine and the violence and massive profits for organised crime that followed in its wake. Probably the cocaine issue more than any other prompted a catholic spread of opinion (including academics, journalists, politicians, lawyers and law enforcement officers of both liberal and conservative persuasion) to argue that US drug policy had to be reconsidered. Their motivations are as disparate as their professional interests from civil liberties and reducing social and legal harms caused by prohibitionist laws to crime prevention. Preventing the spread of HIV as a rationale for liberalising drug laws has not been a major feature of the American debate. However, it has been thoroughly integrated into the European debate, which has seen the formation of pan-European organisations dedicated both to the rolling back of the drug laws and to their maintenance or strengthening.
IV.IV Point and counterpoint
The debate is complex more than simply a question of \'Do we legalise or not?\'. What degree of reform are we talking about? What is the likely impact on society of the different options? How many more people would use drugs? At what point would this increase be unacceptable? Should the opportunity be taken to also rationalise controls on alcohol and tobacco?
The arguments generally break down into four areas:
. the freedom of the individual versus the duty of the state;
. the perceived harms caused by enforcing current laws;
. how a legalised control regime would work;
. the potential health harms consequent on drugs being more freely available.
The laws against drugs reflect the fact that people can get into serious health and social problems with drugs like heroin and cocaine far quicker than with alcohol and tobacco. It is a major flaw in the argument for blanket legalisation to treat all drugs the same. There are significant pharmacological differences between drugs and to suggest, for example, that crack is the same as coffee is ridiculous.
Despite our knowledge of their harmful effects, alcohol and tobacco are freely available why not other drugs?
Even if illegal drugs were only as harmful as alcohol and tobacco, why make even more harmful drugs available?
The attempt to ban alcohol in America in the 1920s was a prime example of how the law harmed people\'s health. Many died through drinking bathtub gin and other poorly made alcoholic drinks. From a public health point of view, Prohibition was more successful than generally assumed. The number of heavy users fell as did the incidence of cirrhosis only to rise when alcohol was re-legalised.
Given credible information, people will avoid using drugs they believe are dangerous, just as many have reacted to the knowledge that smoking can kill.
So it seems particularly invidious to encourage the use of other smokable drugs, such as cannabis. This could undo the good that has been done through anti-smoking education. By making cannabis illegal and treating it the same as heroin and cocaine, we undermine the credibility of drug education in the eyes of young people.
Any government legalising cannabis would be sending out the message to society that intoxication is OK.
|
