Alex Sciberras, Lawyer

Drug prohibition started in earnest in 1880s in the UK and became a global phenomenon by the 1920s. Then, in the 1960s under President Richard Nixon, the US heralded the war on drugs with the world soon following suit.

Since then, the war on drugs has cost taxpayers trillions and millions of users have been incarcerated. Minorities and the marginalised have been victimised and nations have been ravished by barons and law enforcement alike.

However, despite that great and, at times, inhumane cost, we have little to show for it. Drugs are still ever present on our streets, their prices always diminishing and the drug trade has kept on growing, with more recent figures putting the yearly global trade value at $320 billion.

This abject failure of national drug policies has been noted by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a committee of world leaders. In its 2011 report, it emphatically stated that “the global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world”.

This reality is the same the world over, including Malta. Prohibition has not worked. Harsh penalties have served to criminalise the victims of drug abuse while having limited effect on the drug trade itself. Surely, it is time to realise that the old recipe is not producing the desired result and it is high time we re-assess our approach to the drug issue.

It is time to bring the drug world out into the open

This does not imply we take a libertine approach. That drugs are harmful and can lead a person to dysfunction and possible fatality in case of misuse is a fact. There is inherent value in promoting the dangers of drug abuse and strive to limit its use, if not its eradication. However, the approach to-date has been anything but fruitful. It has created an underworld where drug lords flourish and drug routes abound, affecting all in its path.

For starters, we need to discriminate between drugs. The term drugs is used too loosely, encapsulating into one category a wide range of substances, at times in an arbitrary manner. This highlights a general lack of understanding and results in inefficient methods in confronting the problem. Not all substances are equal and our approach to their use and distribution should be induced by knowledge rather than unquestioned populist bias. Hard drugs need a different approach to softer ones.

Criminalising use of cannabis, a drug that does less harm than alcohol, is nonsensical. There is a strong case to be made for a mature debate to legalise cannabis use as a recreational drug. Enforcing penalties has not diminished marijuana’s appeal, especially to today’s youth.

There are those who argue that it serves as a gateway drug. While research is not definitive in this regard, I would argue that it is the interaction with dealers who have an interest in moving users to harder drugs that leads to this slippery slope.

Experience abroad has also shown that legalisation does not lead to increased use. Legalisation, on the other hand, removes power from drug pushers and allows the government to have a much better understanding and, consequently, be able to react effectively to its evident rise in use.

The case with harder drugs is different. However, even here our approach needs to change. There is no value in criminalising users, people who are already suffering from social exclusion and limited life opportunities. Rather, our focus should shift towards more education, understanding and regulation.

Ultimately, we all must recognise a hard truth. Drug use has accompanied human civilisation throughout all of its history. Hardline law enforcement cannot and will not change that. Honest understanding, knowledge, interaction with victims and better rehabilitation may prove more successful. It is time to bring the drug world out into the open.

Clyde Puli, PN Spokesman on the Family and Social Policy

There will always be divergences. You cannot expect policies to stay fixed. Circumstances change and, at times, even the most well-intentioned measures can have unexpected consequences. New scientific data might offer new insights as would other countries’ experiences. Finally, differences in details should not obscure what has been generally agreed to.

The government’s electoral programme promised to “launch a national public debate on the possibility of legalising the recreational use of cannabis”. A very cautious pledge. At first glance, it looks like the government is trying to hedge its bets on both sides of the debate. Meanwhile, as with other social policies, it is looking to see how it can cash politically on the matter and present itself as some champion of ‘liberal’ values. Problem is, this time not even the government seems ready to believe its own hype.

A cavalier attitude in drugs policy can only spell danger

Smoking marijuana has been described as a “personal choice” while the government closes loopholes – and curtails “personal choice” – for so-called “legal highs”. It’s a good sign that, beyond the rhetoric, the government realises there is an opportunity cost as in every other policy option.

This should be fairly obvious. Policies on tobacco, fatty foods or alcohol all carry a price tag. We have accepted to pay some of the ‘costs’ implied, whether they concern public health, social policy or even public order. This is why evidence is important. In the case of a drugs policy that would mean, first and foremost, medical information. But it should not be limited to that; there are also psychological and sociological issues to consider. The latter aspect would, among other things, take the Maltese dimension into account.

We also have to listen carefully to what people with experience in the sector have to say. Caritas director Leonid McKay and, Anton Grech, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at the Health Ministry, have already weighed in on the subject.

The first made it clear that any benefits resulting from legalisation are outweighed by the disadvantages.

Grech, who made it clear he is not ready to take sides until a proper, informed debate gets going, has, nonetheless, made clear the connection between cannabis use and psychosis.

As in most other cases, this is hardly a black-or-white, yes-or-no issue. There are different policy options and they must be assessed separately and on their own merits. An open mind must be kept throughout. It is also essential that any government policy is underpinned by values we share in common and that they leave space for human understanding.

This is most certainly true for drugs policies. We are speaking of highly-sensitive matters such as people’s health (and lives), the well-being of families. Ensuring that help is available to those who seek it should remain the topmost priority. I include here special and exceptional considerations in the case of medical use of certain drugs.

Joseph Muscat said recently our drug laws have failed and that if we keep on using the same recipe it will give us the same result. He said that just before he spoke on the possibility of legalising cannabis.

I do not know how he measures failure or if he is trying to make some causality there. I do not know what different ‘recipe’ he is willing to try. But it looks like, instead of the thorough preparation that precedes good policymaking, he is setting the stage to a script that has already been written.

A cavalier attitude in drugs policy can only spell danger.

‘Personal choice’ is what happens when you make up your mind what brand of cola to drink. With addiction robbing such a fundamental human quality as the freedom to decide for yourself, personal choice becomes no more than an illusion.

If you would like to put any questions to the two parties in Parliament send an e-mail marked clearly Question Time to editor@timesofmalta.com.