Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1474369
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 24 JULY 2022 9 INTERVIEW rights-based' drug policy dinance – which is very archaic – or, even better, remove it alto- gether… so as to 'start afresh'. So while the approach may be towards a more human-rights based policy, there are still cer- tain elements – including the UN conventions I mentioned earlier; and the way they are still some- times being interpreted – that are holding the process back. In fact, your articles places a lot of emphasis on human rights: in particular, the 'Right to Health for People Who Use Drugs (PWUD)'. Now: some people out there (and I'm not one of them, myself) might contend that… those 'PWUD' willingly chose to jeopardise their own health, by 'using drugs' in the first place. So why should the rest of us care about their 'right to health'? How would you answer a ques- tion like that? Interestingly enough, this was actually part of the focus of my Masters thesis: which explored – among other things – how a punitive, draconian approach to drug policy, also results in the 'dehumanisation' of people who use drugs. But let me start with this: hu- man rights law is above and be- yond all international drug-con- trol policies, and conventions. So even if a country chooses – as Malta did, until recently – to adopt a fully-criminalised ap- proach… you still cannot be in breach of human rights. For example: if your legislation permits you to arrest and im- prison people, for drug-related offences… it doesn't mean you can also violate their fundamen- tal human right to, say, a fair trial; or to be treated with dignity, and so on. But when it comes specifical- ly to the right to health: there is a tendency to assume that the 'right to health', means 'the right to be healthy'. But that is not the case at all. Nowhere do the UN conventions mention a 'right to be healthy'; but they do include a number of rights, freedoms and entitlements - as well as responsi- bilities – to which all human be- ings (without exception) are enti- tled, simply by virtue of existing. In other words: irrespective of whether or not a person uses an illicit substance… they continue to retain full access to human rights, as human beings. So if, for example, we deny someone the right to information, regard- ing what a particular substance may contain… that is also, up to a point, 'endangering' that person's health. As such, it is a violation of that person's basic right to health… and it's not the only example, ei- ther. Let's take the case of someone who was arrested on cannabis possession and/or consumption charges, 20 years ago or more. As a result, they would have a taint- ed criminal record - in the same way as if they had acted violently; or committed some other serious crime - and therefore, all those years later, they are still being de- nied equal job opportunities: as well as certain other social ben- efits. Another example – which I my- self find particularly disturbing, to tell you the truth - is the fact that, to this day, we still have an 'Addict's Registry' in this coun- try. Every person who has ever needed detox services - or rehab, or any such government service - in the past, has to be included in this registry… for life! And this issue copped up again recently, because there were peo- ple who needed medicinal canna- bis… but because they had a her- oin problem 20 years ago, they were denied access to treatment on the pretext that: 'Once an ad- dict, always an addict…' Which brings me to the most important part of all: the way we actually talk about 'PWUD'. First of all, the tendency here is to always speak about… 'addicts'. And I hate that label. It's not a term I would ever use, myself; I prefer to talk about 'People Who use Drugs'… not just because it's more accurate – in the sense that, not all PWUD are necessar- ily 'addicted' – but also, because it changes the way we frame the entire issue. For starters: the word 'addict' carries a lot of negative con- notations. As do similar terms, such as 'junkie'. Historically, these labels are associated with all sorts of other societal prob- lems… and in any case, they do not do justice to the issue itself. If you look into more recent research into addiction, and problem drug-use in general: there are a lot of other variables involved in the development of problematic behaviour… and they are not necessarily linked to the use of any one chemical, or substance. So by simply reducing PWUD to 'addicts', or 'junkies'… all it really does is, is encourage us to look at those people as being, themselves, 'the problem'. That is why I prefer to use the acro- nym PWUD: because it places the 'person' as the main focus of our approach. It prioritises 'the person', over 'the problem'; and as such, it also reminds us that – as human beings - those peo- ple have rights which must be re- spected, too… Yet in your article, you also al- luded to a 'diplomatic consen- sus to adhere to a threat-based language' [and to resist the de- criminalisation process in other ways]. Here in Malta, most of the resistance has come from national drug agencies such as Caritas, the Oasi Foundation, Sedqa, and so on. Why do you think those agencies are so sceptical of decriminalisation? Do you share the (admittedly cynical) view that those agen- cies are - at least, in part – con- cerned with a potential loss of their own power and influence? I understand what you're driv- ing at, but… to be honest, what I really would like to see is more dialogue. And obviously that in- cludes those organisations, too: because they do have a lot of valid ideas, and perspectives. Unfortu- nately, however, it often seems as though they have not been keep- ing up with recent research and data on the subject. For example: it is one thing to remind people about the health risks involved in using cannabis. But to create the impression that the substance is so 'dangerous', that a child might be harmed just by 'touching a cannabis plant'… I mean, come on. There is noth- ing to be gained from using such extremist language. It does not contribute to any positive out- come: because if you take things to such extremes… no one will listen to you, at the end of the day. It would be more helpful, to stick to a more scientific, facts- based approach. And I think that was one of the biggest problems with the for- mer approach to drug policy, as a whole: it was always rooted in this idea that 'Drugs are bad'… and that we must therefore do everything in our power, to 'wipe them from the face of the earth', so that we can all live in a 'drug- free society'… Part of the problem with this ap- proach is it is simply 'unrealistic': in the sense that, if people want to consume a certain substance… they will try to get hold of that substance, regardless whether it's 'illegal' or not. But another part if that… it al- so endangers the lives of some of those people; in fact, this is what the most recent research shows, about the public health outcomes of prohibitive drug policies. By making drugs as 'difficult to ac- cess' as possible, we only suc- ceeded in making them more 'dangerous'… At the risk of another devil's ad- vocate question: some would ar- gue that these issues have all al- ready been addressed, through the recent cannabis reform it- self. What do you yourself make of that? Is our new drug policy really more 'human rights-ori- ented', than our old one? To be fair: this is something 'new' for Malta… and as such, it is an exciting time to be living in. Because in reality, [the cannabis reform] does place us right at the very top of the table, when it comes to a human rights-based approach to drugs. But it also depends on wheth- er certain parameters of the law start being implemented. For example: the expungement of criminal records. We have no information on that, for now. Seven months after the law was enacted, we still don't know if anyone really did have their criminal records 'cleaned', as promised. Nor do we even know how many people are still in prison [on prior drug convictions]; and whether – on the same principle as the expungement of criminal records – they can now be re- leased. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that we have taken important steps forward; and perhaps the most important step of all, is that – through the formation of NGOs such as Relief – the dia- logue now includes the voices of PWUD themselves. All I can really add, then, is that it is crucial that we continue in the same spirit of open, honest dialogue with each other.