Decriminalising drug victims

The idea behind the decriminalisation of certain drugs is to render the activity of drug traffickers less profitable and drug use would decrease.

One must also look at the results in countries that have decriminalised drug victims. In some countries, these are not breaking the law if using a drug in a quantity meant for personal use. At the same time, the possession of the illegal drug is a crime in itself. There is thus a lack of logical harmony between two aspects of the law, especially since you can hardly use what you do not possess – except what is collective.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy Report June 2011 believes in decriminalisation of the victim leading to a reduction in trafficking.

Among the commissioners one finds César Gaviria, former President of Colombia; Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico; Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil (chair); George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece; George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State, United States (honorary chair); Javier Solana, former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy; Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations; Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, and Marion Caspers-Merk, former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health.

The following is the United Nations estimate of annual drug consumption 1998 to 2008.

Cannabis –147.4 million → 160 million = 8.5 per cent increase.

Cocaine – 13.4 million → 17 million = 27 per cent increase.

Opiates – 12.9 million → 17.35 million = 34.5 per cent increase.

Based on the above figures, the commission declared that the war on drugs had failed.

I wish to link the discouragement of drug trafficking to the idea of self-defence. The law considers a situation of self-defence when one is protecting oneself, one’s family and one’s property from harm. This concession may be extended to the area of drug victims.

A family must have the right to hostility towards a trafficker who is harming a member of the family by the offer or sale of illicit drugs. Some think that the victim of the trafficker is willingly accepting to be harmed and, thus, his family’s hostility towards the trafficker is not a case of defence of the family.

I beg to differ. I agree that victims have a degree of volition when accepting to become victims of traffickers.

However, when a habitual victim of drug use accepts to obtain some more of the horrible substance, the degree of volition here is conditioned because this victim may be considered a sick person due to habituation. A family using hostility against a trafficker harming a member physically and mentally is justified in taking all measures of investigation to defend their family member and discourage the trafficker from harming him.

I now wish to quote Alternattiva Demokratika’s youth PRO, Robert Callus (June 8

“Alternattiva Demokratika Żgħażagħ agrees with Sedqa clinical director George Grech’s call for discussing some form of decriminalisation of drug use, meaning considering addicts as patients who need specialised help… Drug addiction is on the increase and so is availability. Yet, while many drug users get busted frequently and end up serving prison sentences, most drug traffickers rarely make it to the law courts… It is imperative that the government starts giving more weight to the experts and, above all, starts gathering the point of view of all stakeholders on this urgent issue.”

The local situation regarding the possibility of decriminalisation is that both major parties are against. Some organisations helping addicts are in favour of the examination of this problem in view to studying the effects of decriminalisation and believe that a reduction of trafficking will follow.

Caritas, which has worked massively to help addicts, has also many times declared it considers addicts as victims, which may be interpreted as the non-prosecution of victims of traffickers.

On June 30, Caritas made an alternative suggestion calling for a drug court, explaining: “We do not think that punishment and prison are the best measures to improve the behaviour of these young people...” and appealed for drug users not to be sent to prison. “Youths seeking help are not criminals but people who need care,” said Mgr Victor Grech, Caritas director. A multidisciplinary team would deal with each case, which would also reduce the number of pending cases.

It seems as if the idea of a drug court is a solution that replaces decriminalisation and would probably leave most satisfied, whether they be victims or protectors of society.

President George Abela fears that prison does not help rehabilitate or integrate victims of drug abuse, stating that “A prison sentence can do more harm than good”.

Will a drug court figure in one of the forthcoming electoral manifestoes?

Dr Licari is a researcher in multiculturalism.