I write this article with two provisos: I am not presenting any arguments in favour or against the thesis which is at stake, namely the de-criminalisation of drugs; and I assume that the report I refer to represents faithfully the comments of the individuals it concerns. If it does not, I apologise and withdraw my arguments. The article in question is ‘Drug Policy Body Does Not Favour Decriminalisation’ (October 25).

As stated, the purpose of the article is not to argue for or against decriminalisation but only to consider the logic behind the arguments presented by experts in the prevention and cure of substance abuse.

Marilyn Clark, chairwoman of the National Commission on the Abuse of Drugs, Alcohol and other Dependencies, claims that the commission is not considering the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use, the reason being that decriminalisation may convey “a message to society that the decriminalised substance is not viewed as a serious issue, and that it carries little risk, which may in turn lead to increased levels of use in the community”.

She then concedes that there are ‘legal drugs’, namely alcohol and tobacco. I therefore expected the said commission to suggest that these ‘legal drugs’ be made illegal, in order to convey a message to society that we are serious about alcohol and smoking, and hence (if decriminalisation leads to an increase in use, while criminalisation leads to a decrease) there is a decrease in people who abuse of alcohol and smoking. Consistency demands that the commission make such a recommendation. But no such recommendation was forthcoming.

What takes the biscuit however is the commission’s proposal regarding “a scheme whereby only first-time offenders arrested for possession for personal use will be processed through an extra-judicial body”. The reason is to “divert first time offenders from the criminal justice system, to secure timely intervention when needed and to reduce the negative impact of labelling resulting from a criminal conviction”.

So we want the possession of drugs for personal use to be not merely illegal but a criminal offence. Yet, concurrently, we are proposing setting up another institution so that a first-time offender is not labelled a criminal! Try to find any logic in that.

But supposing that some logic exists behind the thinking, why don’t we likewise set up an extra-judicial body for first-time thieves, first-time muggers and first-time fraudsters? If we don’t want one who commits just once the crime of possessing drugs for personal use to be considered a criminal, why should we consider a criminal, who, once in his lifetime, assaults someone on the street? So you assault once and you are not a mugger, you assault twice and you are.

I will not comment on Fr Cordina’s hilarious reflections on marijuana. I turn instead to Fr. Carm Farrugia’s remarks. Farrugia suggests the setting up of a drug court so that offenders will not have to “wait some three years before their case is heard”. This in itself is not a substantial proposal. It amounts to acknowledging that there is one law court dealing with all types of crime which is inefficient, and because of this inefficiency we create another court which deals with a specific type of crime. Yet, if we could reform the existing law courts, there would be no need to create a distinct institution to deal with drug-related cases.

Fr Carm suggests that courts should be lenient with first time offenders. (The assumption in his and in Clark’s argument evidently is that if you are a first time offender we might consider attenuating circumstances, if you relapse, as most drug users do, you are a so-and-so. That the treatment provided following the first offence was defective or that the odds stacked against the user were too great and hence there is nothing extraordinary in his/her relapse, are ruled out a priori). Yet, he claims we shouldn’t decriminalise since “what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong”. It is this last line that I find puzzling, the one on which the whole argument hinges.

A society that wants to discourage this or any other kind of behaviour might rely on other means than the law to achieve its aims

It is not immediately obvious that what is wrong is or ought to be illegal. Failing to donate to a worthy charity is definitely wrong, but it is perfectly legal. Lack of respect towards one’s parents is definitely immoral and considered to be so by (I hope) most members of our society. Yet a law enjoining one to respect his/her parents does seem out of place. Likewise adultery is obviously wrong, but adultery was decriminalised and I don’t think many would clamour to have this kind of trespass back in our legal code. So admitting that ruining one’s health with the poison that drugs are is wrong and immoral, something else is required to justify such behaviour being also criminal and illegal.

A society that wants to discourage this or any other kind of behaviour might rely on other means than the law to achieve its aims. That it should be the law rather than anything else is something that needs to be rationally supported.

My reflections on these comments do not blur the admiration I have for the sterling work that some of these people (Fr Cordina and Fr Farrugia in particular) do with people who are afflicted by drug-related problems.