I have been thinking about writing on drug policy for awhile but
have not been able to develop a framework for my thoughts so I
decided to just set them out randomly and see if they organize
themselves.
This
is written in a Canadian context but will likely apply to other
jurisdictions as well. This post is not about medical or prescription
drug policy but about the non-medical or recreational use of drugs
including drug addiction and what is often referred to as drug abuse.
The
first thing to note is that drug addiction is the only medical
condition that has been criminalized and the only medical condition
that people think can be cured or controlled with only will power.
Have
we learned any lessons and will we pay attention to them. I suggest
we know that prohibition does not work and education does.
From
1918 to 1920 in Canada and 1920 to 1923 in the United States
prohibition of alcohol sales and consumption was enacted. While well
intentioned (sparked partly by the effect of drunkenness on the
family resulting in families housing and food money being spent on
alcohol as swell as the rise in domestic violence) it only made the
situation worse by driving the production and sale of alcohol into
the hands of organized crime.
On
the other hand there was never any talk of tobacco prohibition, even
after it’s health effects were well known, mainly due to it’s
widespread use in society. What worked instead to reduce consumption
was education. While some people did quit smoking the major
reduction, from a large majority of people smoking to a small
minority of people smoking, was from people not taking up smoking,
which is why it took at least two generations to get to where we are
now.
However
the tobacco/nicotine industry is not ready to fade away. They have
promoted vaping, ostensibly as a way for people to give up smoking
and as a safer alternative to tobacco, which it may be. However it is
clear their real intention is to create a new younger market of
people addicted to their products. We need a serious education
campaign about the tobacco industry’s true intentions here and the
dangers of vaping.
What
about marijuana. At one time, at least in Canada, marijuana
was legally classed as a
narcotic although pharmacologically it
is not one. Indeed, marijuana is clearly less harmful than tobacco
and arguably less harmful than alcohol. Partly for that reason,
although probably more because of it’s increased middle class use,
attitudes and laws have changed. It is now available through a legal
market, although for purposes of the legal market the scientific name
cannabis is now used and anyone with previous marijuana “marketing”
experience cannot be involved in the legal sale of cannabis. That is
not to say that
there are no health concerns, particularly
for people under 25, and
education about them should be extensive, although certainly not of
the inaccurate “Reefer Madness” type. Health Canada has useful
and rational information on the health effects of cannabis and other
drugs on it’s website.
One
major thing legalized cannabis use has done is take the market way
from organized crime and reduced the amount of police resources
devoted to it.
Then
came the opioid crisis and it seemed that people were ready to accept
that drug addiction is something that happens to people rather than
something they choose. But it soon became apparent that only applied
to the middle class where the pushers were the medical system and the
dealers the pharmaceutical industry.
We
see the same class distinction with harder drugs. Cocaine use by the
wealthy class at fancy parties in their lavish homes is glamorized
while crack cocaine use by the poor is demonized (unless you are the
mayor of a major North American city, then it is just a curiosity).
We
even see harm reduction aimed at saving live attacked by the middle
class.
What
is most puzzling is the objection to safe injection and use sites
where users can use drugs safely with clean equipment and dispose of
it safely. It seems that people prefer people using drugs on the
streets and in parks leaving behind dangerous needles than people
being able to do it somewhere without risking their lives.
Safe
supply is perhaps even more controversial but it definitely safes
lives by ensuring users are using the drug they are addicted to and
not given more dangerous and laced deadly drugs. It also requires
them to interact with medical professionals that can help them get
off the drugs or switch to safer methadone as a transition away from
drugs altogether.
And
of course it takes a market away from organized crime and frees up
police resources and funds that can be more effectively used for
health and social services.
The
main argument against harm reduction seems to be the idea that the
more dangerous you make drug use the more likely people will be to
quit, but addiction does not work that way. It more likely just a
nicer way of saying “the only good addict is a dead addict”.
This
is the point where people usually say what if that was your child, or
sibling or someone you know that fell on hard times, but that is not
relevant. What is relevant is that drug users are fellow human beings
and their lives have value.
