War on Drugs - does it work?
- Basic facts about the war on drugs -

By Rajesh Khongbantabam *

The Efforts to curb a citizens' drug use have existed almost as long as drugs have been used. One of the earliest recorded drug laws comes from 17th century Russia where the Czar Michael Federovitch ruled that anyone caught with tobacco should be tortured until he gave up the name of the supplier.

In more recent times, most countries around the world established national drug policies including India which enfoced the NDPS act to curb drug related offences. Even in our state,there is a prohibition act that applies to alcohol resulting in enforcing a dry state.

Along with the rise in worlwide trade, the use, manufacture and sale of drugs has become a global issue. The United Nations work to establish an international system of drug control in which countries are obliged to criminalize all non-medical use, manufacture and sale of drugs. The United States spearding the movement is pushing for international cooperation and direct action against drug production and trafficking. Yet illicit drugs play a major role in economies around the world and drug use continues to rise.

Access to Treatment and policy focused on Demand reduction rather than Supply reduction is a growing trend in each and every countries drug policy including india. The policies on demand reduction and supply reduction are being entwined with each other and getting more confused. Everyday, instances of gross human rights violation in the name of demand reduction has become a regular feature.

In 1985, India had already adopted the Narcotic and Psychotrophic act which was enacted to avert the drug lords and reducing their supply. However, this act becomes one of the harshest acts in indian penal code. The Act provioded for sentences of 10-20 yrs for offences related with drug and death penalty for commercial dealings for over a certain quantities that lies at the mercy of either Investigating or Prosecuting officers.

Subsequently,the NDPS act was revised in 2001 and this amendments make the penal code related to drug use more realistic and progressive.Although this measure on the part of judiciary is a part of liberal reforms,still the interpretation of drug related offences with regard to both selling and consumption lies at the mercy of the officer handling the case.

It is notewothy to mention that the younger brother of this writer is still being incarcerated at sajiwa jail for three years.His drug related offence will be more deemed to be fit into demand reduction measures rather than supply reduction measures or to be simply put, a drug users' working as a salesman in a retail shoe store being tried for offences related with supplying a huge amount of illicit drugs in terms of kilos.

Amazing!!! But I didn't find it strange or surprising if we took into account the system of the Indian prosecution with the power they have to change the amount of seizure as per their convenience looking to strike for a big booty. Research has long established that most drug sales are between friends who have known each other, either for a long time or someone who can be relied upon not to spill the beans.

Still, under this tight definition, most drug users' are at the mercy of investigating officer to be classed as "Drug dealers" and as such my younger brother happens to be on the wrong side of the law and a victim of the above circumstances. Treatment availability and policy focused on demand reduction rather than supply reduction is a growing trend in national drug policy, especially since intravenous drug users are at high risk of HIV/AIDS infection, However, criminal enforcement remains the central theme in world drug policy.

CAN WE WIN THE WAR ON DRUGS THIS WAY ?

We could win the war on drugs if we might as well be successful in at least one of this three areas:

• We could stop drug production in other countries.
  There is no credible evidence anywhere to suggest that there is any possibility that drug production can be eliminated in other countries. Lessons from the experiences of United States clearly suggest, (On December 28, 1992 ABC Television aired a major special on the drug war in Bolivia which, according to the Bush Administration, is their "best hope" for winning the drug war in South America. They concluded decisively that there was no hope and that the war on drug production has already been lost.). The US Government also states that, in the unlikely event that drug production was stopped in major producing countries, several countries would suffer a major economic collapse.
• We could stop drugs at the border.
  There is no credible evidence anywhere that we could stop, or even greatly reduce, the flow of drugs across our borders. In fact, all of the Government's own evidence shows that this is impossible and it is a waste of money to try. Any examination of the statistics regarding border interdiction shows quite clearly that border interdiction is an expensive failure The best Federal Government evidence has concluded that there is no way to stop, or even greatly reduce, either production of drugs in foreign countries or the smuggling of drugs into the US.
  (In 1988, Stirling Johson, the Federal prosecutor for New York, stated that the police would have to increase drug seizures by at least 1,400 percent to have any impact at all on the drug market, assuming there were no corresponding increases in production.) That was before the police busted twenty tons of cocaine in a single location and had to revise all their estimates of the cocaine market upward.
• We could stop the sale of drugs within the Country and the State.

The first question to address is how many drug dealers are there?

There is no credible evidence anywhere that we could stop, or even greatly reduce, the sale of drugs within the country or the state. Tough drug laws have done all they could do and still have'nt solved the problem. The "get-tough" policy is over. Like wise the above mentioned fact, all of the Government's own evidence shows that this is impossible and not only is it a waste of money to try, but it actually does more harm than if we did nothing at all.

Under the law, all drug users could be Drug Dealers because the interpretation of the laws & Act and the amount of seizure could be manipulated and is at the mercy of enforcement officer and we are left with the same problem of potentially incarcerating many more drug users'. The implications of the NDPS Act were that petty drug users' were given harsh sentences, while the real culprits somehow managed to escape the dragnet.

(In United States, any distribution of illegal drugs is considered a sale, regardless of whether there is a profit or monetary interest involved. Therefore, under the law, anyone who ever passed a joint to the next person at a rock concert is a "drug dealer". If we use the strict legal definition of a "dealer" then there are somewhere between 12 and 40 million drug dealers in the United States).

---

* Rajesh khongbantabam is a key correspondent of HDN (Health & Development Network, Thailand) and writes about AIDS inflicted and help available for them. He is based at Imphal, Manipur.
This article was webcasted at e-pao.net on 24th June 2009.

---