How to talk to your government about change

The international goal of eradicating illegal drug use is being called into question in various quarters around the world, showing cracks in both its central dogma and in its applicability. But the voices of dissent arising from civil society, and as they take hold and begin to bring into its discourse scientific information and data from best practices, are not all identical, nor do they all push from the same angle.

The International Drug Policy Consortium, IDPC has recently launched a guide for drug policy reform activists that sets out the core concepts at play in calling for a revision of the current international policy mirrored in international conventions of 1961 and 1971 that, enforced through domestic legislation, outlaw all contact with illegal substances not limited to ‘medical and scientific’ purposes. The guide offers members of civil society a clear and concise overview of the key topics in drug policy, and is meant to help policy discussions and the interactions between civil society and governments, and governmental organizations.

“The guide has two purposes, one is to guide policy makers at the national level, on what best practices are used around the world and what evidence supports those practices. It is also a tool for civil society advocates, to go to their policy makers, to go to their governments, and show them what other countries are doing in terms of drug policy,” said IDPC’s Ann Fordham, (photo) one of the authors of the Guide, based in London, and recently in Brazil for the II Latin America Conference on Drug Policy.

“This is not a guide for attacking governments, quite the contrary, we want to establish partnerships with policy makers, and this guide ought to help build on what venues there are for developing new and better drug policies,” added Graziela Touze, president of Argentina’s  Intercambios Asociación Civil, one of the civil society organizations organizing the meeting held in Rio. “We have expertise that needs to be included in official policy making,” she added.

 “We are in a quite uncertain period on drug policy making, with a lot of debate going on particularly last year, on the failure of the prohibition.” Fordham said, pointing out that the drug market is growing year after year, more people are becoming addicted to drugs, that trafficking routes lead to unstable economies. “There is so much evidence that it has come to a pretty serious indictment of the current approach.”

High level Principles for an effective Drug Policy

If the current drug policy is askew, its harmful consequences affect different areas around the world in different ways. If you live in a drug producing area, a drug trafficking route or a drug using area of the world, it is likely that you will experience different harmful effects of the current war on drugs. The IDPC guide has winnowed down criticism of the current policy and its application, to core principles that ought to be upheld for reducing social harm. It has named them the “High level principles for an effective Drug Policy”, they are:

Drug policy should be developed through a structured and objective assessment of priorities and evidence.  All activities should be undertaken in full compliance with international human rights law. Drug policies should focus on reducing the harmful effects rather than the scale of drug use and markets. Policy and activities should seek to promote the social inclusion of marginalized groups. Governments should build open and constructive relationships with civil society in the discussion and delivery of their strategies.

“Unlike the current one size fits all approach of prohibition, The IDPC’s approach is multifaceted. What we are saying is that what works in one part of the world does not necessarily work in another. There is not just one answer, what we have and what we offer are sets of ideas and principles from which other new ideas can also be developed. But there are core principles that need to be promoted that could be applicable to all, I believe,” said Fordham.

The guide does not push for legalization, Fordham was clear that, in her view, activists must adapt to changing politics, be sensitive to political climate, and that they must adopt a constructive approach: “You cant just go in there hard and try and force a legalization of all drugs immediately; we understand that policy makers have different sets of priorities, and the guide tries to help to find that balance.”

Elections have their particular impact on drug policy

Touze (photo) stressed regional differences, three South American nations for example, domestic politics intervenes quite differently. “Argentina is currently going through a favorable period for policy makers. We have a new government and they are not sure of which way to go. So we can bring them the information they need. Other situations are not as favorable; our colleagues described difficulties for example, with pressing this agenda with the new government in Chile. In Brazil of course, with the pending elections the moment is not ripe for such discussions.  But overall, I think Latin America is providing us with lots of opportunities to work with the authorities.

Fordham noted that initially the new government in the UK seems to be taking a step backwards in drug policy, asking that support for drug users be given stressing the goal of abstinence:  

“In the UK, under the Labor government, harm reduction was quite heavily supported. Now, under the new conservative government there has been a backlash, accusing drug policy of being over reliant on methadone and that there has not been enough encouragement for people to stay drug free. The UK is moving away from methadone maintenance and towards abstinence programming.”

The role of the media, cutting both ways

Touze and Fordham agree that the media is an important player in drug policy discussions. “We at the IDPC look quite a lot at the media, and I think things are shifting, the media does not focus solely on portraying drug users as junkies and the scapegoats of our society, but that is because of the hard work of drug policy reform activists,” said Fordham, noting a recent piece in the Guardian about how actually calling drug users junkies actually inhibits people’s ability to be reached and further marginalizes them.” This of course comes out of a study, reflecting the growing contribution of scientific research to drug policy discussions. The media has also been looked for by top researchers or doctors who are trying to reach the public. Fordham was particularly appreciative of the Ian Guilmore, head of the Royal Society of Physicians who issued a public declaration as he retired, calling for changes in drug policy.

“He came out basically because he has been treating heroin addicts for years and he says the problems are getting worse, they are addicts with multi faceted problems, not only are they injecting, they are coming in with other health and social, and economic problems associated with their drug use, and he said it is time to discuss other policy options. And he did say Legalization. The top physician in the country and he has come out in favor of that. That has really opened up the debate in the UK and now some very right wing media like the Sun and the tabloid the Sunday People, actually ran a reasonably balanced article on drug policy and in favor of opening up the debate,” said Fordham.

Touze acknowledges however, that media positioning is complicated, “I believe the media is responsible for cementing the connection between drugs and crime. They are partially responsible for demonizing the association between poverty, youth and drugs. If you see a young man depicted in the media, and he is poor and using drugs, he is portrayed as a criminal. Of course it is not necessarily true of all media, but it is still the average practice,” countered Touze.

“There are cases in which the media has actually lead to changing policy in a negative way, we hope that by helping drug policy reformists refine their strategies, we can bring the media the important information that has been left out,” said Touze. Her colleague at the IDPC noted that media hype on mephedrone drug deaths actually led the government in the UK to outlaw substances before the scientific links of those deaths and the substances were ascertained.

Fordham noted that part of what makes Prohibition weak is that it acts as a barrier to the free flow of information. And information is crucial for control. "The problem is every time something is scheduled (prohibited) drug users and producers shift towards something else. When people arrive in hospital saying they are using Ivory Wave for example, the staff has no idea what substances are involved. At least the doctors had come to grips with mephedrone and knew how to treat it, while with the new legal highs they are left in the dark," said Fordham.

The IDPC guide does not take a specific stand on legalization, but, according to its authors, it hopes to show the many alternatives and policy options that need to come to light. In keeping with Mr. Gilmore's statement in the UK favoring the decriminalization of drugs after years of experience with the declining health of heroin users, the guide stresses, the time has come to ally critcial examination of data to policymaking and enforcing.

Cover photo: detail of the guide

Photos of Touze and Fordham: Marcia Farias, Viva Rio

Read Further:

The IDPC Drug Policy Guide (PDF)

The IDPC website