by Julian Buchanan, Associate Professor Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand, 2nd April 2015 It is widely assumed that the so called ‘war on drugs’ (the war between drugs), has been a disastrous failure, and faced with mounting evidence and criticism, governments would eventually seek legislative and policy change. The evidence presented is largely based upon an analysis of the inability of drug prohibition to reduce the supply and demand for banned substances, supplemented by a critique outlining the widespread harms caused by prohibition. However, with a different agenda and focus, it might be that this ‘evidence’ in terms of the failure to dent supply and demand, has over time (fifty years), become secondary to other, government and business interests. Seen in a different light, the Drug War has been a major success, providing considerable opportunities and benefits:
- It protects the market share and place, of the privileged and promoted legal drugs; – alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, sugar and pharmaceuticals.
- It provides the police with excellent powers to easily stop, search, arrest and interrogate.
- It successfully attracts much needed funding for police, armed services and security services.
- It provides excellent opportunities for significant additional resources for the police/state through the seizure of assets.
- It provides excellent business opportunities and raw material for the ever burgeoning penal industrial complex.
- It provides considerable opportunities for new technology development and sales, in the invasive and expanding drug testing industry.
- It provides the drug rehabilitation business with an endless supply of illicit users, who must always abstain, and forever be in recovery.
- It provides excellent opportunities for the state to target, monitor, control and punish the poor, indigenous people, Black and minority ethnic groups and people of colour.
- It provides politicians with a societal scapegoat, and the chance to rally support and votes by getting ‘tough’ on this constructed enemies within: the ‘addict’; and the ‘demon drugs’.
- It provides the news media with easy, cheap dirty stories and pictures of the apparent horrors associated with illicit drug use, and this sell ‘news’.
- It provides a much needed distraction from the serious problems caused by the more harmful, addictive and culturally embedded legal drugs – alcohol, tobacco, sugar and pharmaceuticals.
- It rallies otherwise disparate nations together by finding common ground to fight a shared war against a global enemy – ‘drugs’.
- It provides the Banks with massive investments from money laundering.
- It provides researchers and academics will a constant and reliable stream of research funding to search for negative evidence to uphold prohibition, support moral panics (reefer madness, crack babies etc), and in providing endless monitoring studies of drug prevalence.
- It allows governments to detract attention from the real structural drivers behind most addiction (inequality, stigma, exclusion, poverty and blocked opportunities) and instead misleadingly shift attention onto the supposed ‘demonising power’ of the illicit drug.
- It provides careers for drug enforcement and drug policy entrepreneurs, (particularly centred around he UN) allowing excellent opportunities for travel and internationally career enhancement. The inertia is consolidated by numerous meetings, events, conferences, working parties, inquiries, reviews and committees.
If these are key drivers that sustain the war between drugs, then endless research reports and campaigns appealing to the beneficiaries of this drug war, (by highlighting the limited impact prohibition has upon supply and demand, or the negative unintended outcomes from criminalisation), may have limited political impact or sway in the face of at least sixteen significant benefits.
Here’s the way I see it:
1. Most harm arising from recreational drug use comes from drug policy abuse.
2. Problematic drug use is largely caused by personal, social and political dislocation (Alexander 2008), and again harm is exerted considerably by drug policy abuse.
Drug taking is not of itself a ‘problem’, so I have no real concern on learning about a person using drugs (apart from concern from the risks of drug policy harm), any more than I do upon learning about someone using caffeine or alcohol.
So my concern is for small minority who struggle with problematic drug use and further suffer considerable drug policy abuse.
Problematic drug use (and indeed drug use) should never have been constructed as a crime problem, and neither should it be particularly seen as a medical problem or a disease. Problematic drug use is largely caused by personal, social, cultural and political issues (and at times will may also include psychological, physiological and legal issues), this is something I observed and learned on Merseyside in the mid 1980s when working as a drug worker and researching as an academic.
I argue problematic drug use is largely driven by environmental factors:
- Buchanan, J. & Young, L. (2000) ‘Examining the Relationship Between Material Conditions, Long Term Problematic Drug Use and Social Exclusion: A New Strategy for Social Inclusion’ in J. Bradshaw & R. Sainsbury (eds) Experiencing Poverty, pp. 120-143 London, Ashgate Press, click: Buchanan and Young 2000
- Buchanan J & Young L (2000) Problem Drug Use, Social Exclusion and Social Reintegration – the client speaks Understanding and responding to drug use: the role of qualitative research Greenwood G & Robertson K (eds.) pp155-161 EMCDDA click here
- Buchanan, J. & Young, L. (2000) ‘The War on Drugs – A War on Drug Users’. Drugs: Education, Prevention Policy, 7(4), 409-422 click here
- Buchanan, J. (2004) ‘Missing links? Problem drug use and social exclusion’ Probation Journal,51(4) click here
- Buchanan, J. (2006) ‘Understanding Problematic Drug Use: A Medical Matter or a Social Issue ?’. British Journal of Community Justice, 4, (2) click here
References: Alexander, B.K. (2008). The globalisation of addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A Strict Regulation Approach…
- Gangsters can’t be in charge of them we must end prohibition.
- Drugs are dangerous and need to be strictly regulated.
- Only approved companies can produce them.
- Only approved outlets can sell them.
- Only approved regulated drugs can be sold.
- Individuals are not allowed to manufacture or cultivate drugs.
- Possession of unregulated drugs is an offence.
- Individuals can only consume ‘approved’ drugs.
- Police can enter without a warrant if unregulated drug production/cultivation is suspected.
- We now have legal state approved drugs, & outlawed underground unregulated drugs.
- Tough enforcement applies to possession and supply of all unregulated drugs.
- You have arrived at your destination, a full circle, welcome to New Prohibition.
This model has been adopted in New Zealand for the ‘regulation’ of New Psychoactive Substances.
Human Rights Approach…
Because prohibition of drugs has proven to be a damaging breach of human rights that has done more harm than the drugs ever could…
- Gangsters can’t be in charge of them we must end prohibition.
- Commercially sold drugs should be regulated.
- Only approved companies should produce them for commercial sale
- Only approved outlets should sell them.
- Only approved regulated drugs should be commercially sold.
- Strict regulatory controls will exist on business (advertising, packaging, distribution, sale etc).
- Individuals can manufacture or cultivate any substance for personal use only.
- Individuals can possess and consume any substance for personal use.
- Registered societies and clubs can meet exchange information, knowledge and equipment.
- The fundamental human right for a person to consume in their body, what they choose, without threat, controls or punishment from the state remain paramount and should always be protected.
Our concern with control and regulation should be centred upon multi-national corporations and business enterprises and the individual must be protected from the abuses to their freedom and liberty.
by Julian Buchanan, 7th March 2015
The so called ‘War on Drugs’ never existed. There has never been a campaign against drugs. Society and governments appreciate the benefits and pleasures derived from drugs. Drugs have never been as popular as they are now. The overall availability, promotion and use of pharmaceutical and legal highs such as caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and sugar, has never been greater. These drugs escaped under the radar of the prohibitionist drug discourse that conveniently excludes them.
What we have is a drug war, a war between drugs, or more accurately, a process best understood as a politically driven Drug Apartheid; an arbitrary separation, not of people, but of drugs, where alcohol, tobacco and caffeine enjoy privilege, power and promotion, while ‘controlled’ drugs – portrayed as unpredictable, threatening and dangerous – are subject to propaganda, misinformation and marginalisation. Society has been successfully indoctrinated, at a personal, cultural and institutional level, to believe this unfounded, unscientific and deeply damaging social construction of ‘drugs’.
Anyone seeking to expose or challenge the drug apartheid, risks being ridiculed, and is vulnerable to public humiliation, as experienced by Professor David Nutt. The unwarranted and ill-founded attack on David Nutt was no isolated incident. Further, to deter any association with outlawed drugs, armed forces, customs officials, and police invest massive energy and resources, while magistrates and Judges impose some of the severest sentences available to the courts for drug violations. Such is the power of the drug apartheid, that a criminal conviction for using the ‘wrong drug’ results in life-long consequences for travel, employment, housing, relationship and opportunities. The ever increasing business opportunities and technologies, spawned from the drug apartheid, drug testing (urine, blood, hair, sweat, saliva, and waste water!), has enabled the oppressive regime to extend beyond law enforcement agencies, to the civil arena, so that surveillance, monitoring and sanctions to maintain the drug apartheid are now carried out by employers, benefit agencies, schools, colleges and even in homes by parents on their children.
This untenable and indefensible position, of outlawing some drugs and privileging others, was enshrined in the 1961 UN Single Convention, a law that is rooted in moral and politically ideology from the 1930s, 40s & 50s. The decision to isolate a group of substances was never based upon science, reason or evidence. Yet ironically, since it’s inception, drug reformers have tried to end this drug war by confronting ideologically driven politicians, governments and NGO’s with evidence inquiries, research and debate.
This drug reform effort, has for five decades (1960-2010), resulted in no significant drug law or policy change by any major advanced western capitalist country. The vast array of campaigns, reports, research, presentations, inquiries, reviews, and publications have for decades been consigned to a vacuum, while the increasingly wealthy and all powerful multi-national companies, with a vested interest in maintaining the drug apartheid, have worked closely alongside politicians and government agencies, to maintain drug policy inertia through propaganda, procrastination, misinformation and distortion.
The latest US opinion poll (the General Social Survey), that explores support for cannabis legalisation, indicates that for almost 40 years (1970-2007) public interest in legalising cannabis changed little, fluctuating between 16% and 33% during that period. However, in the seven year period since 2007, support for legalisation has risen rapidly from 31% to 52%. How do we make sense of this dramatic shift?
One influential contributing factor over this period, has been the global and widespread increased access to the internet, and the mass engagement with social media such as Twitter, Facebook, Scoop.it, LinkenIn and YouTube. Social media provides an alternative source to information, evidence and peer exchange, and has I believe, played a significant part in enabling the wider public to gain access to independent, research based knowledge and reason, necessary to critically consider and question the basis of the Drug Policy Sham. In particular, the widespread dissemination of research evidence, facts and case stories (such as Charlotte Figi), about cannabis to the public, has resulted in long overdue, and much needed calls for decriminalisation and legalisation, to allow people suffering with life limiting illnesses, that fail to respond to medicine, to explore possible benefits from cannabis, and sensibly too, to allow recreational use of cannabis. Personal possession of cannabis should never have been outlawed, but neither should personal possession of any substance. The risks associated with personal consumption of any substance is a health and social care issue, not a law enforcement issue (if it’s an issue at all!).
The public acceptance of cannabis is a very significant shift, indeed, it could mark the ’tipping point’ – the start of the process that could see the end of the drug apartheid. But let’s be clear here, cannabis reform in the US is not occurring because fifty years of research, evidence and debate has finally persuaded politicians the drug war was a mistake, and the politicians are seeking legislative change. No, cannabis is being embraced, essentially because public insight and awareness has significantly increased since 2007, and there has been a shift in public opinion, that has resulted in serious electoral pressure upon politicians to enact cannabis law reform. The drive is coming from the grassroots, it’s not being led by politicians, instead governments are being forced to change.
In an era where the interests and activities of multi-national companies and politicians are becoming increasingly enmeshed. An era where democracy seems unresponsive to the needs of the vulnerable, and shows little interest in the protection of the common good, another four decades of inquiries, reports, reviews towards incremental change, would be a grave strategic mistake. The leverage for drug reform will be found not in trying to persuade politicians or the UNODC to lead the way, but rather, by winning over mass public support, and utilising social media to develop well informed evidence based, community movements, to disseminate accurate information, share case studies and rally a public outcry to demands change.
Despite this encouraging drug law reform development, in respect of cannabis, the attempts towards genuine global drug reform could easily be thwarted. If, as drug reformers, we are not clear in our arguments and strategies for reform, which should be firmly rooted in protecting human rights and promoting harm reduction, cannabis will simply be invited to join the other privileged legal drugs in the drug apartheid. This could be a positive outcome for: big business, who can extend their repertoire and profit from the commercial sale of cannabis; for the state, who can profit from taxes, as well as continue to utilise drug laws as a key control mechanism for stopping, searching, arresting and punishing the poor, indigenous and minority ethnic groups; and the business enterprises spawned from the drug wars, (the industrial penal complex, the drug testing industry and the drug treatment industries). In this pivotal period for drug reform, simply privileging cannabis and failing to address the fundamentally flawed system of drug control would amount to colluding with a corrupt system.
Some drug reform entrepreneurs may attempt to hail privileging cannabis as an incremental step in the right direction, but the widespread and growing public support for decriminalisation, (and ultimately the regulation of all drugs), could be dissipated by this tokenistic gesture to invite cannabis to sit around the table of the powerful. While alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and maybe cannabis enjoy privileged status, the scourge, oppression and madness of a drug apartheid, remains an affront to human rights, a system of punishment and control that will continue to haunt this generation and future generations to come, one that will be remembered shamefully in history. The international system of drug control is deeply flawed and damaging to individuals, communities and countries. It needs naming, exposing and dismantling. There can be no minor adjustments, or so-called incremental steps to accommodate the status quo, abolition is what is required not compromise. This period of history will be recalled for the needless self-inflicted harm, imposed across the globe by a drug apartheid, in which drug laws and drug policy have caused considerably more harm than the drugs ever could.
The NZ Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 was never world leading drug reform as frequently claimed by the drug reform bandwagon and recently re-asserted in an article by one of it’s key proponents. It was world leading drug legislation (not reform), that succeeded in gaining almost unanimous support across New Zealand Parliament, because this new drug law extended prohibition to include EVERY new psychoactive substance not currently incorporated within the Misuse of Drugs Act. A law that makes drugs illegal and punishes personal possession and supply, while approving other drugs may sound strangely familiar.
The key problem with this Act, is it’s a magic trick. It can be whatever you want it to be, it depends upon how you tell it, what you tell, and what you omit. To prohibitionists, it was sold as offering an end to the legal high ‘cat n mouse’ game, by introducing a once-and-for-all blanket ban on all substances currently legal. The Act removed legal highs from circulation and prevented them being sold in corner shops. By extending prohibition, the PSA means no psychoactive substance whatsoever can be legally possessed in New Zealand, unless approved by the state. Further, the PSA makes personal possession of any new psychoactive drugs a punishable offence (s.71), it introduced new police powers to enter premises without a warrant (s.77), and a two year prison sentence for anyone supplying an ‘unapproved’ psychoactive drugs (s.70). Issues I highlighted in writing and in an oral presentation to the Health Select Committee.
To drug reformers these worrying aspects of the PSA were frequently airbrushed out of the story, and interestingly, are hardly mentioned in the recent New Scientist article. Instead, to the drug reformer the PSA was sold as offering ‘world-leading’ drug reform, an exciting framework to regulate new psychoactive substances (that the same law made illegal), – provided these new substances could be demonstrated to be low risk. But it was always unclear what exactly is a ‘psychoactive’ substance, what would be considered ‘low risk’, and would there ever be a political willingness to approve any new drug?
What the PSA has effectively done is to outlaw those drugs that were legal, impose punishments for possession of these drugs, and offer the possibility that, if proved low risk, some of these drugs might possibly, one day, be approved for circulation. This is prohibition under the guise of reform. Instead of the tedious and expensive process of having to use the Misuse of Drugs Act, to ban each individual drug that comes on the market, the PSA has simply banned the lot, albeit with a slim backdoor possibility that some ‘low risk’ drugs might, one day, be accommodated. The Act delivered what the Health Minister Peter Dunne always promised it would when in July 2012 he declared : “We are winning the battle [against drugs] and we are about to deliver the knockout blow with this legislation”.
We know from difficult experience with the 40 year old Misuse of Drugs Act, that bad laws are hard to change. The problem with our New Zealand PSA 2013 is, it was from the outset, a compromised pig in a poke. Unfortunately, proponents had little time or interest for considering the risks in blending prohibitionist agendas with drug reform aspirations. It seemed the intoxication of promoting world leading reform was too great to be worrying over the detail. Maybe drug reform proponents thought the most important goal was to send out a global message that countries are rolling out world leading drug reform, in an attempt to create a momentum? Whatever the misguided motivation, we are sadly left with an Act that has ultimately extended prohibition and widened the scope of the drug wars. I’m sure reformers didn’t intend this.
So the real lessons from here in New Zealand are: don’t get high on drug reform; think critically about what is being proposed; be willing to ask the tough questions; and don’t be tempted to form an alliance with prohibitionists on some shared pseudo agenda, simply to get drug reform legislation passed.
If we have learned nothing else from the drug wars, it is that a non-negotiable principle in any reform, must be that personal possession of any substance must never be an offence, but our ‘world leading’ kiwi drug ‘reform’ has succeeded in outlawing personal possession of all new psychoactive drugs – even those not yet invented.
Bad drug laws are hard to change, and here in New Zealand, we now have two bad drug laws, the MDA and the PSA.
Julian Buchanan Associate Professor of Criminology Institute of Criminology Victoria University of Wellington Kelburn Campus Wellington 6140 Aotearoa New Zealand
by Julian Buchanan 7th October 2014
Regulation – the promised land?
At a time when it is now widely accepted we need to manage drugs differently, because the prohibition of particular drugs has caused more damage than the drugs the state was purported to be protecting us from, there is a risk drug reformers seize any offers of apparent positive change – without thinking more critically about what is on offer. After decades of frustration from the archaic criminalisation of possession of particular drugs, while other more dangerous legal drugs went under the radar, some level of drug reform now appears likely, and there is a rally call to unite under the the very broad umbrella of drug ‘regulation’ as the way ahead.
The main thrust of prioritising regulation appears to be we need to get the drug market out of the hands of the criminal underworld. I wouldn’t disagree with taking drugs out of the hands of gangsters, however, let’s be clear here, most damage suffered by people who use illicit drugs isn’t caused by the criminal underworld, most damage results from criminalisation and policing. In the absence of strict state regulation the daily activity of growing, making, buying, selling and exchanging goods and services doesn’t inevitably drift into the hands of dangerous criminals who manage business with guns, knives and baseball bats, but extreme law enforcement measures and severe penalties, have created a hostile and violent environment within which a lucrative underground drug business must operates.
The notion that decriminalisation, rather than regulation, as an initial first step would result in the illegal drug market entirely managed by gangsters is somewhat exaggerated. If we prioritised decriminalisation rather than strict state control (regulation) then cannabis, which is the drug most frequently used illicit drug and the one that occupies most police time, would largely be home grown, shared and exchanged by friends, local growers and societies. Other illicit drugs that are not easily ‘home grown’ could, in a more relaxed transitionary period of drug policy development, be more easily purchased via websites such as Silk Road that operate a consumer rating system, not dissimilar to TradeMe or Ebay. Not perfect, not properly regulated, but this can hardly be described as a threatening market ruled by violence, exploitation and gangsters. The present criminal sub-culture that surrounds the illicit drug market has much more to do with the environment created by fierce law enforcement and prohibition than any preferred pattern of operation by producers, buyers and sellers of drugs, and little to do with the product on sale.
Decriminalisation as a first step towards living with drugs would importantly protect users (particularly the poor, indigenous people and people of colour who are targeted by law enforcement agencies) from police stop and searches, drug related arrests, penalties and incarceration. Drug users would be free from the serious and life long damage of a drug conviction. This would provide more time to look critically and carefully at drug market regulation. The history of regulation involving legal substances alcohol and tobacco has not exactly inspired confidence. The recent significant increase in drug overdose deaths in the USA due largely to regulated painkilling drugs featured in the article below is a reminder of the serious problems that can arise – despite regulation.
The Carrot of Tackling Stigma
If multi-national corporations, and in the example above BigPharma, have unbridled control and extensive freedom to promote and distribute their commercial drug products, major problems can arise from the culture and patterns of drug use. In addition to highlighting the problem of fatal overdoses in the USA the article promotes the need to tackle the stigma of addiction. So after years of trying to combat stigma, discrimination and hostility towards people who use illicit drugs, drug reformers now have the support of the all-powerful USA to unite and push to remove stigma from addiction. An attractive proposition – how could we disagree with removing stigma, surely it’s a campaign worth joining? In and of itself, it certainly would be, but If we look closely, the momentum in the USA to remove stigma is strongly tied with a commitment to promote and embrace the abstinence based disease model of addiction – and the burgeoning rehab and drug testing industry associated with it.
This commitment to the disease and abstinence model has been reinforced by recent high profile appointments in the US drugs field of ‘recovering addicts’ such as Mr. Botticelli the Drug Czar, who will lead the campaign to end the stigma of addiction by pushing for a global adoption of the twelve steps disease model of addiction where the ‘sick’ will forever be in recovery and will be required to live a life of sobriety. No thanks. Like the US campaign to end stigma that has a worrying sting in the tail (promoting abstinence and the adoption of a disease model of addiction), the drive towards drug regulation may also contain some nasty surprises. Strict state regulation per se is a dangerous path to follow, much depends upon what state controls and punishments are imposed. The devil is in the detail and it seems somewhat strange to immediately place trust in the perpetrator to become the new arbitrator and designer of drug control regulations. Under the guise of protecting the individual from the potential harm of illicit drugs the paternalistic state has been trusted with powers over the sovereignty of what a person can consume in their own body. This trust has been misplaced, and these law enforcement powers have been woefully abused. The war on illicit drugs will be remembered with great shame and incredulity in history, and lessons should be learned from this breach of human rights.
New Zealand Psychoactive Substances Regulation
A worrying example of a regulatory model widely promoted by some drug reformers, is the New Zealand Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 which ‘regulated’ legal highs. Under this model, instead of all substances being legal to possess (unless specified and banned under the NZ Misuse of Drugs Act 1975), all psychoactive substances in New Zealand are now illegal to possess unless approved by the state and purchased from an approved commercial seller. In this model of regulation personal possession of any ‘unregulated’ psychoactive substance is an offence that carries a $500 fine, while supply of any unregulated substance is an offence that can lead to two years in prison. Doesn’t this sound a little like repackaged prohibition? The degree of perceived threat posed by unregulated psychoactive substances is such that in order to prevent unregulated supplies New Zealand police have been issued with new intrusive warrantless powers for substances that were previously legal:
What this regulatory model has effectively done is widen the net of prohibition, state control and punishment in New Zealand to include every new psychoactive substance. This raises further important questions regarding how we define what is a psychoactive substance.
After thirty years of working in the drugs field and seeing the terrible damage caused by the war on people who use illicit drugs, it is clear that more harm has been caused by drug policy than from drug use, and whatever regulatory model is eventually rolled out, the non-negotiable priority is that we must ensure personal possession is not an offence, civil or criminal. The individual must have the sovereign right over their own body to consume what they wish – without fear, threat or punishment from the state – the human right to choose. Regulations instead should be confined to market related issues such as production, distribution, sale and advertising and seek to protect the rights and freedom of the individual.
Out of the Frying Pan and into the Fire
A united drug reform campaign to end prohibition and stigma sounds like a dream ticket – but not if drug regulation provides the state with new powers to punish personal possession of unregulated substances, and not if combating stigma means enforcing abstinence and rolling out a the 12 step disease model of addiction – that’s akin to jumping out of the ‘frying pan into the fire’.
Hard fought campaigns for drug law change should not be squandered. For forty years the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and in New Zealand Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 have been impervious to any positive reform and this illustrates just how difficult it might be to make positive amendments to any new drug legislation. Whereas, punitive orientated amendments to drug laws have been much easier to achieve. Considerable caution should therefore be exercised before supporting any new drug laws.
This war between drugs (legal vs illegal) maintained by a relentless, oppressive and robust global drug apartheid, must collapse, like slavery, like the Berlin wall and the South African racial apartheid. The global human and environmental damage caused by the war on illegal drugs is comparable to these terrible historic injustices, and similarly the insidious legacy of propaganda, lies and prejudice will take many decades to dispel.
The legal drug industry profiteers realise support from the law enforcement regime of the drug apartheid is in its final chapter, and we observe a strategic shift and reconfiguration taking place to secure new civil controls through abstinence, drug testing and a disease model. As drug reformers we need to push for revolutionary reform at this critical moment in time, and demand a rational, evidenced based approach to drug policy with human rights and harm reduction at the centre. The campaign to end drug prohibition should not be dissipated by an invitation to cannabis to join the elite substances on the privileged and powerful side of the drug apartheid, nor by the offer to replace prohibition with strict state regulation that incorporates punishment for unapproved possession. No, tweaking or transforming the present corrupt model rooted in racism, self-interest and misinformation is not an option.
The Way Ahead?
The first and foremost change to reduce harm and restore human rights is to prioritise the decriminalisation of personal possession of all substances. Once the human right to possess and consume what an individual chooses with their own body is restored, without fear, threat or punishment from the state, then the complex and tricky road of developing appropriate drug market regulations can begin, but there are a number of potential threats to derail this much needed drug policy change as illustrated in the graphic above. Drug policy change is now possible and indeed likely, but we need to make sure the opportunity is not squandered or hijacked by drug reform entrepreneurs because it could be another four decades before the next opportunity arises.
Julian Buchanan is Associate Professor at the Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
by Julian Buchanan Wednesday 27th August 2014
This is a thought provoking animation. It Illustrates well that prohibition, incarceration and fierce law enforcement have failed to deter illegal drugs (depicted by DRUGO the Dragon). Indeed prohibition has caused more collateral damage than the illicit drugs would ever posed [see]. But while the analogy in this animation is thought provoking and challenges the folly of prohibition, it is also somewhat misleading and rooted in some of the myths that have helped sustain the War on illegal Drugs.
While DRUGO, the outlawed and persecuted dragon in the animation is demonised, the many unspoken relatives of DRUGO (who we are led to believe are not part of the dragon family), better known as LEGALO (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, pharmaceutical drugs, food drugs etc) – have been living like royalty in the kingdom, fully accommodated, promoted, integrated and supported by Kings and Queens across the nations, and enjoyed by the masses. But the LEGALO dragons have been airbrushed out of the animation as if they were not brothers and sisters of DRUGO.
The animation suggests a life without DRUGO might be a desirable utopia (really?) but concludes pragmatically it might be better to learn to live with DRUGO. As if somehow a world without those drugs that have been criminalised (cannabis, opiates, LSD, cocaine etc) might in some way be desirable? This is a seriously misleading inference. Illegal drugs have never been the main problem – it’s drug policies and cultures that have resulted in the main problems.
In contrast to his relatives LEGALO, DRUGO is presented as dangerous beast that might cause less harm if we manage him better yet the animation is ominously silent about the legal and cultural accommodation and privilege enjoyed by the LEGALO dragons and in doing so, this video feeds into the distorted dominant discourses on what we have come to see and understand as ‘drugs’. It perpetuates the bifurcation between illicit and legal drugs and misleading concerning the relative inherent harms between these substances.
The Global Commission of Drug Policy have made a remarkable and helpful contribution to promoting drug reform and I applaud them. however, while this animation is made with good intentions and will no doubt encourage many positive outcomes in terms of beginning a debate – if genuine and lasting drug policy reform is to occur we need to acknowledge and indeed address, the propaganda, misinformation and lies at the heart of the problem.
There has never been a war on the drugs, society loves drugs and uses them liberally. What we have is a war against a particular drug dragon (DRUGO). Not only have the other drug dragons (LEGALO) more powerful and dangerous, they have been privileged and are not even recognised as drug dragons. The video suggests there is only one threat and one dragon.
So this animation sidesteps the crux of the problem – the fiercely imposed drug apartheid upheld by myths, misinformation and at times barbaric treatment of illicit drugs and indeed illicit drug users. If we are to tackle the drug apartheid we need to acknowledge and address the institutionalised inequalities, the abuse of power and the false assumption that have created this untenable bifurcation of substances.
It’s ironic too because the animation suggests society is hostile to drugs and needs to learn to be more tolerant and accommodating of drugs. When in reality society is probably more pro-drugs and using more substances now than it’s ever done with BigPharma and BigLegalDrugsBusiness sitting very nicely with us wherever we go and whatever we do readily supplying and encouraging (legal) drug use. But then people using LEGALO like those in this video aren’t taking dangerous drugs – are they?
There is a need for a more honest, mature and informed discussion on what we call ‘drugs’. A debate that acknowledges the oppressive, discriminatory and hypocritical position of current laws, policies and attitudes towards those substances (and their users) that have been outlawed. A debate that stops ignoring legal substances which are often more dangerous than illicit drugs and wrongly excluded from any drugs discourse.
Let the debate begin soon.Julian Buchanan
Julian Buchanan is Associate Professor at the Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.