 To legalize or not to legalize?Where drugs and drug policy are discussed in the world, the Netherlands is also often a topic of debate. Sometimes, it is being seen as a leading country in the area of drugs and drug policy or it is being set as an example of how things should not be done. In general, the Netherlands is reasonably proud of its ‘pragmatic' policy. The question remains, however, whether this pride is justified. A recent broadcast of the Dutch current affairs programme ‘Network' shows that this overall sense of complacency is beginning to show a few cracks.Which direction should we head for? For many years, some people - also in the Netherlands - have argued for the legalisation of drugs. The Netherlands, being the brightest boy in the drug school, could just become that experimental ground in order to establish whether legalisation works in practice. Previous discussions about this subject have often been of a highly emotional nature. This has had a negative influence on the quality of the debate. In order to give a new impulse to the social debate on the legalisation of drugs, dr Jaap van der Stel wrote a survey thesis entitled ‘A new drug policy?'. The thesis is a rational overview of opinions, views and desires. Review of the current Dutch drug policy According to Van der Stel, "the scientific foundation of the policy aimed at maintaining the prohibition policy as well as of the policy drafts aimed at legalisation are still very shaky" (p. 125). After all, he expresses some criticism about the Dutch drug policy. He is of the opinion, for example, that the Dutch government too easily put positive results to its own account but blaims negative results on factors outside of her area of responsibility, i.e. the ‘autonomous developments'. He reproaches the Dutch government with following the current developments too much in stead of creating its own policy and to develop a vision for the future. According to Van der Stel, the Dutch tolerance policy has gone off track and no longer has the original characteristics and contents of its creators. It even caused a high increase of international crime. This calls for modesty when it comes to Dutch pretentions. Van der Stel has burst several bubbles in the direction of prohibitionists as well as supporters of legalisation. What is legalisation actually all about? Not everybody ascribes the same meaning to the term legalisation. Actually, legalisation is a deceptive term. In the popular sense of the word, it means a complete liberalisation of drugs without any regulations and legislation. However, Van der Stel does not wish to speak about legalisation in this way. According to him, the legalisation of drugs means that more regulations and legislation are required. He distinguishes the following elements in legalisation: decriminalisation (removing it from criminal law), limitation, regulation and tax levy. It concerns (1) decriminalising the production, trade and use of drugs, (2) taking legal measures for the controlled production, trade and use of drugs and (3) preventing negative effects (on health). The government is of the opinion that measures should be taken to regulate the availability and the quality of drugs. In such a situation, a shift takes place from external control mechanism to much more personal responsibility of the individual. The consequences of legalisation Van der Stel formulates several mainly economic expectations of what would happen if drugs are legalised: the number of incidental and regular drug users would increase; the use per head of the population would increase (however, mainly in the group of problematic or addicted users); according to Van der Stel, most users would deal with the substance in a controlled manner; the relation between use and social desintegration would be less self-evident; the needs for care and treatment of addiction would decrease, the black market would shrink and consist of increasingly older people and become less violent. That all sounds wonderful but at the same time, Van der Stel has to admit that it is very hard to predict those consequences. It is difficult to discuss legalisation because scientific analyses lack concrete research material and factual data. Therefore, legalisation poses a risk because you are not familiar with the effects of legalisation. Of course, economic considerations are relevant for the debate but they may not have the final word. Certain factors, such as the social side of legalisation cannot be measured by economic standards. After all, Van der Stel rightfully states that an economic analysis could never replace the underlying debate about moral principles and starting points. "The problem in the legalisation debate and the inventarisation of the advantages and disadvantages of legalisation lies in the fact that there is no consensus on the starting points and criteria for the consideration of the policy as well as on the goals that have to be reached [...] The definition and the measurement of the advantages and disadvantages, therefore, strongly depend on the underlying views about man and society. This means that they are value-laden i.e. dependent on these views," Van der Stel states (p. 122). In my opinion, however, Van der Stel does not go into this subject enough. If reationalisation of the legalisation debate means that the moral debate is being undermined, this is an admission of weakness. Future Van der Stel believes that The Netherlands has no other option than to adapt the drug policy. According to him, the time has come to adopt a different approach. The main focus of this approach has to become clear as yet. Van der Stel argues that it would be best for the debate about which policy to make if positions remain to be open and if desired outcomes are not being set beforehand. According to him, a situation in which there is an optimal level of the number of addicts and users per substance would be most ideal. He also believes that intoxicating substances could play a functional part. Nevertheless, no matter what direction it takes, a future policy should be judged on its contribution to the prevention of harm (to health) and on the extent in which this policy contributes to improving the credibility of the maintenance of the set regulations. Should The Netherlands decide to legalise drugs, this would undoubtedly draw much criticism from countries and organisations all over the world. Van der Stel expects that the next fifteen years will be characterised by an easement of the legislation and the legalisation of drugs for specific user groups. "Until that time, we will have to live with the ‘original sin' of tolerance", he says (p. 115). Furthermore, he predicts that informalisation of user patterns and medicalisation of individual problems related to that. The area of the care and treatment of addiction will be dealing with a decreasing market share. On the long term, the line between drugs, psychopharmaca and legal stimulants will become less and less clear. Users should be able to control their use. Pharmacology will be responsible for introducing safe drugs on the market. Van der Stel mentions several times the Calvinistic standards of the Dutch people that make a renewal of the drug policy impossible. In this connection, he speaks about prohibitionists being anti-hedonists, i.e. people who by definition disapprove of experience pleasure in life. According to Van der Stel, the primary focus on public health at the cost of acknowledging the market mechanisms of drugs could achieve the opposite of public health because users are being marginalized. He suggests that legalisation could even improve public health. In his opinion, history teaches us that people can learn to control the use of psychoactive substances in the long term. Van der Stel's background study is certainly a valuable contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, however, he only elaborates on the option of legalisation and not of a more restrictive policy when it comes to a vision for the future. If you read between the lines, Van der Stel supports legalisation. He opts for a drug policy based on quantifiable data but he fails to sufficiently substantiate his own expectations. In my opinion, his risk analysis of drugs within a legalised status is much too optimistic. With reference to: ‘A new drug policy - the advantages and disadvantages of the legalisation of drugs', doctor J.C. van der Stel, Dutch Council for Public Health and Health care (Raad voor de Volksgezondheid & Zorg) and the Council for Social Development Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling), Zoetermeer/Den Haag, The Netherlands, 1999, ISBN90 5732 053 3. This publication can be ordered at the Dutch Council for Public Health and Health care, tel. +31 (0) 79 368 73 11, mail@rvz.net mentioning the publication number 99/11. Please note that this publication is only available in Dutch. Published in De Hoop Magazine, no. 3, 2000 |
Meer informatie |
|