It was meant to bring a drug-free world. But
instead the hardline ‘war on drugs’ approach has resulted in more violence,
criminalised drug users and exacerbated HIV and Hepatitis C infection. Yet the
UN has just endorsed a similar approach.
While
Manenberg mothers were trying to keep their children indoors last week as local
gangsters went to war over drug territory, in faraway New York, the United
Nations General Assembly Special Session (Ungass) on drugs was meeting for the
first time in 17 years to assess global progress against illegal drugs.
Mexico,
Colombia and Venezuela – the countries worst affected by illegal drug wars –
lobbied for the global meeting to re-evaluate global strategy. The “war on
drugs” approach, based on prohibiting drugs and penalising their use,
possession, sale and production, has utterly failed to stem the drug trade.
In the
1920s, US gangster Al Capone became rich and powerful from the prohibition on
alcohol, reportedly raking in $60-million a year as he ruthlessly destroyed his
opponents. Today, global organised crime networks have followed in Capone’s
footsteps, but their trade is in illegal drugs following the legalisation of
alcohol.
Many
argue that the best way to take the wind out of the drug barons’ sails would be
to decriminalise drugs and regulate their use. But Russia, China, Indonesia and
Saudi Arabia still favour a hardline approach that has yielded very little but
misery, and Ungass yielded to their influence this week by adopting a vague
statement that offers little that is new.
Since the
last Ungass on drugs in 1998, thousands of people have been killed and injured
in violent drug wars. The life expectancy for Mexican men has decreased since
that country deployed its military to the drug war in 2006.
Meanwhile
drug abuse has not lessened. In the US alone between 2001 and 2014, deaths from
heroin overdoses have increased by 500%, according to the US Centres for
Disease Control.
With
prohibition, drug users are the soft targets. Every fifth prisoner worldwide is
being incarcerated for a drug-related crime, and this figure is as high as 50%
in US federal prisons. The vast majority are serving time simply for possessing
illegal drugs.
Criminalising
drug dependency instead of treating it as a health issue has stigmatised drug
users and driven them away from health facilities. The rate of HIV and Hepatitis
C infection is disproportionately high among injecting drug users, particularly
in Russia, which does not allow “harm reduction” programmes that give clean
needles to them to minimise their risk of passing HIV and Hepatitis C to one
another.
Although
the US has advocated harsh law enforcement since President Richard Nixon’s
time, last week even the US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy appealed to Ungass to
treat substance abuse as a “chronic illness”.
“Forty-five
years ago, we began war on drugs that became war on people who use drugs. It
stigmatised and penalised and didn’t address the root problem,” said Murthy.
But the
statement Ungass adopted last Thursday was a disappointment to many. It is
short on implementation plans and silent on “harm reduction” – including needle
exchange and opioid substitution, which helps those dependent on injecting
heroin to replace it with less harmful oral methadone. Unlike in 1998, however,
the statement does stress that the health aspect of drug abuse features
prominently as well as the need for “scientific evidence-based” strategies.
Ungass
consensus was never going to be possible in a world where a person can be
executed in Indonesia or beheaded in Saudi Arabia for drug possession, but use
the same drugs without imprisonment in Portugal and the Czech Republic.
Even the
South African leaders at Ungass were conflicted, with Minister of Police Nathi
Nhleko favouring a more hardline approach, while Social Development Deputy
Minister Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu advocated an approach based on human rights,
health and “harm reduction”, via her role as chairwoman of the African Union
technical team on drugs.
In the
months leading up to Ungass, there has been an explosion of debate about how
best to address the problem of drugs. Many countries and organisations have
spoken out about the need for drug dependence to be treated as a health problem
rather than a criminal offence.
One of
the most important interventions came from a special 22-person Commission on
Drugs set up by The Lancet journal and Johns Hopkins University.
The
commission, which included health experts from a range of countries, suggests
that global drug policies have not been based on scientific evidence. It argues
that the UN has failed to distinguish between “drug use and drug abuse”, and
that only a minority of drug users will become dependent.
“The idea
that all drug use is dangerous and evil has led to enforcement-heavy policies
and has made it difficult to see potentially dangerous drugs in the same light
as potentially dangerous foods, tobacco, and alcohol, for which the goal of
social policy is to reduce potential harms,” argues the commission.
“Policies
meant to prohibit or greatly suppress drugs … have contributed directly and
indirectly to lethal violence, communicable-disease transmission,
discrimination, forced displacement [of rural communities growing coca, poppy
and marijuana crops], unnecessary physical pain, and the undermining of
people’s right to health,” concluded the commission.
But will
Ungass 2016 have any impact on the Manenberg mothers, or the thousands of
people dependent on tik, nyaope or whoonga?
Shaun
Shelly, the advocacy coordinator for the TB/HIV Care Association’s StepUp
Project which delivers harm reduction services to injecting drug users, doesn’t
believe so. Our drug dependency problems are a product of social ills,
including poverty and unemployment, he argues.
“We need
to address inequality and economic disparity,” says Shelly. “These are our real
enemy, and they’re far more difficult to target than drugs. It will take real
political will and investment to address these issues."
By Kerry
Cullinan
No comments:
Post a Comment