The probe on the drug war by the House of Representatives is getting ridiculous each session. Judging from their line of questioning, I do not think our legislators are serious about analyzing our existing policies, finding the root causes of our drug problem, and formulating a more effective response.
They are not conducting a public hearing to find out if our punitive approach to addressing our drug problem is working or not and if considering alternative approaches like decriminalizing (total or partial) drug usage and focusing on harm reduction, public health, and social equity may get better results.
Those are the kind of discussions our policy makers should be engaged in. Evidence-based policy-making does not mean looking for evidence to ruin the reputation of political enemies. If justice is their goal, they should file cases in court. But “in aid of legislation,” the evidence they should look for are relevant data and scientific studies that support whatever policy they want to promote or to change.
Congress should initiate a thoughtful and intelligent national conversation on what our framework is to respond to our drug problem. Starting with what we think are the root causes of our drug problem in the Philippines.
We tried jailing users and pushers. We rehabilitated them and we also tried killing them. We have several public campaigns of “just say no to drugs.” We organized many task forces and forged multisectoral partnerships from the purok to the national level. We poured so much time, energy and public funds using these strategies and we still have not made things better.
Where are the data and the scientific studies that show our current solutions are working to justify more resources in building more prisons, creating more drug courts, hiring more law enforcement personnel, and funding more anti-drug campaigns that are more of the same?
I am also interested to see the scientific evidence that terrorizing drug users and pushers and killing them if they resisted work better to solve our problem.
I assume that since we criminalize drug use in the Philippines, our lawmakers are adopting the framework that drug use contributes to criminal activity, endangers public safety, and disrupts social order. Thus, it is a public order and safety matter.
Criminalization is seen to deter individuals from using drugs and minimizing harm to others. And that is why we now have issues of over-policing and overpopulated jails and prisons and inefficient use of resources.
Over-policing often leads to abuse of power especially under the context of weak governance and corruption. Such a setup allowed drug cartels and traffickers to operate with impunity.
Reinforcing the public safety view is the preservation of morality and social norms approach. Drug use is viewed as immoral and threatens family values. Historically, anti-drug campaigns have used moral panic to rally support for “war on drugs.” This moralistic approach stigmatizes users and overlooks addiction as a health issue.
Substance abuse often stems from social disconnection, mental health issues or stress, creating a steady demand for drugs. High rates of drug use are recorded in urban areas where communities face unemployment, homelessness, and trauma.
Criminalization also drives users underground and this is being exploited by criminal drug syndicates which grow black markets, increase the profitability (prohibition inflates prices) of organized crime and widens their reach and influence.
Criminalization can also lead to militarization. In conflict zones, drug trafficking can fund armed groups and insurgencies, perpetuating cycles of violence. A famous example of this is the Taliban in Afghanistan which financed its operations through opium production for decades.
Even if we put everyone in prison and execute them (legally or illegally), our drug problem persists.
So if criminalization and violent war on drugs are not working, what will? That should be the agenda of our policymakers.
They can study the case of Portugal, dubbed as the “heroin capital of Europe” in the 1990s, which decriminalized drug use in 2001 and achieved dramatically positive results.
Portugal came up with that decriminalization policy because it defined addiction as an illness. It eliminated the distinction between hard and soft drugs and it concentrated on an individual’s unhealthy relationship with drugs, which is most likely linked to unhealthy relationships with others and the world at large.
Portugal’s “change strategy” is transforming the environment around drug addicts in order to change their behavior to reduce addiction and its toll on individuals and on society overall.
They shifted from the court system for incarceration to the Commission for the Dissuasions from Drug Abuse made up of professional, technical experts. Then they organized mobile teams to provide care for addicts on the streets. They set up a system to test, treat (including primary care), and rehabilitate. They tracked and measured the various costs of drug addiction to individual users and total cost to society. They educated the public, especially addicts, about the disease, its treatment, as well as their healthcare and overall life options to promote a sense of agency. Then they gave treatment officials the power to make decisions about drug users instead of police officers.
Although Portugal’s policy worked well for them and had positive results, decriminalization is just one part of a larger issue. They are now seeing a resurgence of their drug problem. It is because global drug traffickers continue to use Portugal as entry point for access to Europe’s illegal drug market dealers so the supply continued. Another factor is the reduction of resources for its program as Portugal faced economic difficulties. Changing society to lead to changes in behavior of addicts needs more serious investments. Decriminalization is just one step in addressing a complex social problem.
The congressional probe on extra-judicial killings (EJK) as they relate to the war on drugs must go beyond former President Rodrigo R. Duterte and his associates. I think we already have enough laws and established legal procedures to resolve such cases. I cannot think of any new legislation needed for this. Besides, even if they get an admission under oath, the courts still need more proof. As they say, “it is not the truth that matters but what you can prove in court.”
So if we are really serious about solving our drug problem, let us create innovative nonviolent solutions that work instead of blaming each other and making fools of ourselves.
