DECRIMINALISATION OF DRUGS

Should Recreational Drug Users Face Penalties, And Does Their
Criminalisation Solve Anything?

No one should be put into prison for taking a drug. He/she usually
has enough problems.

The laws prohibiting the use of drugs are cruel, do not achieve the
proposed aims and cause more problems than they solve.

I believe they will be removed eventually. Drugs are defined as "any
substance that can be used to modify a chemical process or processes
in the body, for example to treat an illness, relieve a symptom,
enhance a performance or ability, or to alter states of mind".
Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, coffee and tobacco are all
drugs. Before you think "alcohol, tobacco and coffee are not drugs",
consider the following: every year in the USA 300,000 people die due
to smoking of tobacco. 150,000 die because of alcohol.

The chronic effects of tobacco and alcohol are devastating. Studies
have shown that alcohol has the highest addiction liability rating of
all drugs (1958 Maurice Seevers). Despite all this not only are
alcohol and tobacco legal but we are allowed to advertise them and
governments earn huge amounts of tax from their sale. My argument is
not that one drug is any better or worse than the other but I wish to
show that drugs are not illegal because they are bad. If that was the
case then certainly alcohol and cigarettes would be made illegal.
Alcohol and cigarettes are not illegal for various reasons and most
people realise that making them illegal would not solve the problems
but create a far worse problem as happened in the past. The present
drug laws greatly increase the price of illegal drugs, often forcing
users to steal to get the money to obtain them; encourage people to
become criminals by creating an extremely lucrative black market in
drugs; cause deaths and illness including AIDS because there is no
quality control in the black market.

Prohibition kills by making drug use more dangerous.

Illegal drugs contain poisons, are of uncertain potency, and often
are injected with dirty needles.

Many deaths are caused by infections, accidental overdoses, and poisoning.

Prohibition causes a decrease in civil liberties - because drug
offences differ from violent crimes in that there is rarely a
complaining witness to a drug transaction and thus to be effective,
drug agents must be authorised to intrude into the innermost private
lives of suspected drug criminals. In his study "Thinking about Drug
Legalization" James Ostrowski says: "the war on drugs is immoral as
well as impractical. It imposes enormous costs, including the
ultimate cost of death, on large numbers of non-drug abusing citizens
in the failed attempt to save a relatively small group of hard-core
drug abusers from themselves. It is immoral and absurd to force some
people to bear costs so that others might be prevented from choosing
to do harm to themselves." The usual reaction of governments in
relation to drugs is to increase penalties and to spend more money on
Police Special Forces but the result is always the same: drug use
continues and the mafia makes a killing. The idea that increased
penalties will solve the drug problem is as old as it is ridiculous.
Declarations of "war on drugs", declarations of "plague of drugs",
increased penalties, young girls being put in prison for six months
for arriving in Malta with a joint - but the situation remains the
same - and society as a whole suffers because of laws which are
fundamentally flawed.

Philip Manduca is a lawyer

It is important to stress that we, as Agenzija Sedqa, the national
agency against the abuse of alcohol and drugs, are in no way trying
to interfere with young people's right to enjoy themselves. On the
contrary, through our prevention programmes, we empower and encourage
people, especially young people, to have fun. This, however, should
be done in a healthy way. The agency believes, in fact, that no drugs
can be regarded as 'recreational'. All of them, categorically, have
their own harmful effects, both physical and psychological, and these
outweigh by far any of the short-term positive 'feelings' that any of
these drugs might have. To give a practical example: individuals
taking ecstasy, even once, apart from the rush associated with it,
will feel an increase in heart rate, muscle tremor, tightness in jaw
muscles and will be affected negatively by nausea, insomnia and
numbness among other things.

Taking ecstasy on a regular basis, on the other hand, will result in
more tolerance. Even with other drugs, such as LSD, cocaine and
downers such as marijuana and heroin, when a person can tolerate
more, it becomes a vicious circle.

The person will feel the need to increase the dose in order to
achieve the same effect, and once into the habit, it becomes more
likely to experience the negative side effects associated with its
use, rather than the hyped euphoria that lead the person to take it
in the first place. When discussing 'drugs', we need to be reminded
that when using regularly, the person will become hooked or addicted,
even if one might not recognise it as such. It is a fact that many
ecstasy users may not become addicted physically, meaning that they
will not experience withdrawals symptoms if they do not use it for a
period of time, but nonetheless, the psychological urge remains.
Furthermore, the term 'recreational' might give the impression that
these drugs could be enjoyed without experiencing any short and
long-term effects, but this is certainly not the case. Liberalising,
or decriminalising, any type of drug specifically for 'recreational
use' will give the wrong message, and will make it possible for young
people to feel ok about 'playing with fire'. Within this context, the
agency opposes any direct or indirect attempts to liberalise
'recreational' drugs, under the pretext of damage control. We hold
this position not without reason.

From our work experience, and especially the scientific research
available, we are convinced that at the end of the day,
'recreational' drugs are simply harmful.

Using 'recreational' drugs, even occasionally, starts a process that
leads to destructive behaviour, negative lifestyles, poor health and
an inferior quality of life. This conviction is based on facts rather
then on myths.

The experience of the many sad stories stemming from such abuse we
encounter every day lead us to our firm position: that we are against
the liberalisation of any illegal 'recreational' drugs.

Albert Buttigieg is primary prevention coordinator at Sedqa