Few politicians dare to acknowledge how the global war on drugs never truly has been carried out against controlled substances, but against a huge part of Earth’s population.
Being a drug user has become very stigmatized in today’s society because a criminal culture has been created. Those who become particularly affected by this criminalization are the addicts, which are estimated by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime to be 27 million people. Suffering from the disease of addiction, these people are looked down upon as less valuable and therefore become written off as criminals instead of patients who need help. It might be hard to feel sympathy for these people, who struggle under the weight of social stigmas against their sickness, but putting them in jail is not going to solve the problem because it does not get rid of all the drugs from the world.
If that is how we are going to treat sufferers, then how can we call ourselves humane?
Getting proper help for drug addiction is a human right that not has been fully developed in all countries of the U.N., which is one reason a lot of addicts are afraid of seeking help. In countries such as Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands, governments have opened state-funded clinics for the purpose of treating drug addicts and helping them live a normal- functioning life. Resources are being prioritized to help addicts instead of putting them in jail. These countries are carrying out the war on drugs directly against controlled substances, instead of attacking the addicts and blaming them for the problems that stem from their disease.
The access to such treatment is currently not a civil right in all countries, which could be one of many contributing factors of high numbers of drug-related deaths.
In 2013, there were an estimated 187,100 drug-related deaths, according to the UNODC. But if politicians do not want to learn from this and take a different approach on the strategy of the war on drugs today, the deaths of these people have all been in vain.
Diplomat Kofi Annan’s speech during the U.N. General Assembly Special Session, held April 19-21, acknowledged the failure of the slogan “A drug-free world, we can do it,” used for the 1998 UNGASS meeting.
“Drugs have destroyed many lives, but wrongheaded governmental policies have destroyed many more,” Annan said. “I think it is obvious that after 40 years of war on drugs, it has not worked.”
In other words, the agenda of the slogan has so far produced results in which the positive effects do not outweigh the negatives. “A drug-free world, we can do it,” became the U.N.’s global implementation of “The War on Drugs” carried out by President Richard Nixon in 1971. But what is easily forgotten during the implementation of such an act is that the war is directly carried out against the drug users, living human beings who are equally as valuable as non-drug users, instead of the physical existence of the controlled substances.
According to the 2015 World Drug Report, carried out by the UNODC, an estimated 246 million people had tried an illegal drug in 2013. This is a very big part of the world’s population, which is currently estimated at around 7.4 billion, and all those people are ironically considered enemies in the eyes of the U.N. and their vision. Annan has stated that the global criminalization of drugs is costing approximately $700 billion each year, while the drug users consume drugs worth $300 billion each year. What the world’s politicians need to realize is that a drug-free world is an unrealistic expectation. The methods implemented to obtain that vision today is currently costing more than double the market value of the controlled substances.
If all that money could be spent on harm reduction methods instead, such as needle-exchange programs, the number of drug-related deaths could potentially be decreased and more addicts would be able live normal lives.
We need to understand that saving lives is a brave act that defines our humanity. By creating a criminal culture wherein we define drug users as criminals and incarcerate them, we are not being human. Declaring a war against the drug users is separating them from society, especially the addicts who are dependent on certain substances. That does not solve the problem.
In order to bring peace to this war on drugs, we need to connect people with each other, not isolate them.
Using the brutal force of government to force others to pay for a drug addict’s rehabilitation isn’t quite as “lofty-sounding” when put in such honest terms, honest terms which this virtue-signaling author avoids using to make his point.
NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAMS?
Consider:
1. Needle exchanges fight disease at expense of bigger drug problem. The drug problem is arguably bigger and more threatening to public health and stability than disease problems. And, yet, needle exchanges seem to place the interests of fighting diseases over the interests of fighting drugs, in so far as needle exchanges actually enable drug-use, in order to reduce the spread of disease.
2. Needle exchanges don’t save lives; they cause drug-related deaths. Addicts still are prone to death, perhaps not from HIV, but from overdose, collapsed veins, poisoned dope, or the violence and criminality that go along with the illicit drug trade.
3. Needle exchange harm-reduction puts expediency over principle. There are certain principles that should not be sacrificed to expediency. The individual choice to do drugs should be met sternly with the principle that it is wrong and that an individual that chooses to do drugs should suffer the consequences on their own, without burdening other taxpayers. The idea of needle exchange harm reduction sacrifices these principles to the expediency of reducing harm to the individuals involved. Such infractions on principle fore expediency’s sake are inappropriate.
4. Needle exchanges involve the State in drug paraphernalia distribution. Atlantic City judges ruled in 2005 against Needle Exchanges on the basis that: “Atlantic City and its employees are not exempt from the (criminal) code provisions prohibiting the possession, use and distribution of drugs and drug paraphernalia simply because they adopted a needle-exchange program for beneficent reasons.
5. Drug dealers sell drugs near needle exchanges. Commonly, drug dealers operate unimpeded by police when they are in the area of an NEP. For example, in Vancouver Canada’s Downtown Eastside area “The dealers hang around with impunity on the corner of Hastings and Main and the police don’t touch them.”
6. A needle exchange has a positive effect now, but not later. Some studies have shown that needle exchanges no effect on drug use, or a small deterring effect. These studies however tend to focus on the short term, what isn’t looked at is the mass effect, on a large population scale, as well as over a very long period time. Any sort of needle exchange is a step towards condoning drug use, or at least accepting it. To eradicate drugs you never want to have any sort of acceptance of the substance. Also some studies talk about how needle exchanges give drug users, networks and a chance to get better. It would probably be a lot easier and more beneficial to simply set up networks specifically for helping people who have drug addictions.
7. Needle exchanged increase discarded needles on streets. Reports of discarded needles in public places outside of NEP sites abound from cities with NEP’s. Here is just one example. In Cairns Australia, City Place has been revealed as Cairn’s biggest drug shooting gallery with 1000 syringes discarded since January in toilets and streets surrounding the inner city mall. Addicts are also dumping hundreds of used syringes at many of the city’s other popular public places, including the Esplanade near children’s playgrounds, the city library, in gardens and in various other public places.
8. Needle exchanges generally degrade community cleanliness. Needle exchanges bring in drug-addicts, who are generally less clean than other individuals. Aside from discarding needles in the street and in parks, they are generally much more prone to leaving trash around, defecating outside, and spreading illnesses and even diseases in a community.
9. Needle exchanges generally degrade community safety. Drug-addicts are unstable and prone to crime. By bringing more drug-addicts into a community area, needle exchanges can jeopardize the safety of a community.
I’d ask the author to rethink if there’s a more humane, effective public health response than continuing to support injection drug use.