Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/298224
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 20 APRIL 2014 11 News cedures may act as a deterrent with some people." Decriminalisation, he explains, would reduce drug possession to the same level of offence as a parking violation. "As with parking violations, non-criminal consequences clearly do not serve as a deterrent. If people know they might face criminal pro- cedures, it might make them think twice." The Portugal factor Giglio however admits that he is unfamiliar with how the decriminali- sation model works in other coun- tries. Both Sedqa and Alternattiva Demokratika (which favours decrimi- nalisation) point towards the experi- ence of Portugal, which decriminal- ised drug possession in 2001. This is how Time Magazine de- scribes the policy 13 years later: "Under Portugal's decriminalisation policy, users are not arrested but are instead referred by the police to a "dissuasion" commission. The com- mission is made up of three people, typically an attorney, a social worker and a medical professional. It deter- mines whether the person is addicted – if so, they can be referred to treat- ment or given specific penalties like being banned from a particular neigh- borhood or losing a driver's license. Treatment is not forced, however, and those who are not addicted are often not sanctioned in any way. Only about 5% to 6% of users are brought before such commissions a second time in the same year." Ten years into the new drug regime, The British Journal of Criminology concluded that Portugal's experiment resulted in "less teen drug use, fewer HIV infections, fewer AIDS cases and more drugs seized by law enforce- ment. Adult drug use rates did slightly increase – but this increase was not greater than that seen in nearby coun- tries that did not change their drug policies. The use of drugs by injection declined." Comparable statistics for Malta sug- gest the clean reverse of these trends. European surveys suggest that teen- age drug use is on the increase, as is drug use through intravenous meth- ods. AIDS and HIV have likewise in- creased, though there may be other factors contributing to this phenom- enon. Robert Callus, AD's spokesperson for drug policy, explains that the Green Party's own calls for decrimi- nalisation are fuelled by Portugal's success. "AD's policy, largely based on Por- tugal's model, suggests three main changes to Maltese law: a) Decrimi- nalise drugs for personal use; b) Clas- sify between soft and hard drugs; c) Cultivation for personal use should be treated as simple possession (thus, if decriminalised, not a crime) and not a separate crime that carries a man- datory prison sentence just because the drug happens to be in a form of a plant." Callus also rejects the 'deterrent' argument. "Unfortunately many peo- ple still think that criminalising drug users is some sort of prevention, that it serves a deterrent. It does not and there is plenty of research worldwide to prove this. The most classic case is that of Portugal… which not only didn't it see a significant spike in drug use but [since 2001], drug related crime and disease have significantly decreased. On the other hand, countries with draconian laws on drugs (including Malta) are no better off and drug con- sumption is significantly on the rise." Decriminalisa- tion, he adds, will not increase drug use. "It will only decrease the harm caused by the war on drugs." Another grey area in dealing with drug cases concerns drug users who seek medical attention. Callus draws attention to the fact that Malta's drug policy may discourage people from seeking help, with possibly fatal con- sequences. "We also believe in a no questions asked policy in the case of people taken to hospital suffering from over- dose, as well as for anyone accompa- nying them. Present policy is result- ing in the police being notified, thus many people refuse to seek help following an overdose. This is lead- ing to unnecessary deaths." Decriminalisation vs legalisation Portugal, however, is not the only international model on offer. More recently, Uruguay took the initiative of legalizing marijuana altogether: a trend also taken up in a number of US States such as Colorado. Predictably this has given rise to confusion between the two ap- proaches. For instance, columnist Andrew Borg Cardona – formerly president of the Chamber of Advo- cates – declared yesterday that the government was contemplating "le- galisation of certain drugs"… when in fact it was decriminalisation, not legalisation, that is being contem- plated. The difference is significant. It is perfectly possible to be in favour of decriminalisation but against legali- sation... as exemplified by Angelo Micallef: former KSU president, now active within the Nationalist Party's youth movement MZPN. "There is a stark difference between legalization and decriminalisation. To legalise drugs means making drugs available for sale just like any other medicinal product. To decrim- inalise drugs means to not make it a crime to be caught in possession of drugs and/or consuming drugs." Micallef, who has argued against legalisation in the past, agrees that a discussion on decriminalisation is now needed. "It is clear that sending someone to prison for mere posses- sion for personal use is not only not appropriate but is counterproductive. It is also clear that our national pol- icy on drugs needs reviewing in this sense. People with a drug addiction need assistance not a jail sentence. It thus makes sense to decriminalise so called soft drugs for personal use, more so in the case of first time users. In this way we would stop needlessly involving the police and the courts in a matter which should not concern them and tackle the challenge in a more appropriate manner." As for legalisation, Micallef believes such a move to be somewhat risky and at this stage should not be opted for. But as government is clearly not pursuing this policy, there is little point in exploring it any further… except perhaps to consider the political implica- tions of what is likely to develop into a future war of words. The political considerations Unlike decriminalisation, 'legalisa- tion' also conjures up images of per- missiveness that clearly go beyond the scope of the proposed reform. As such, there may well be a political motive to confuse the two otherwise disparate issues. There are other political implica- tions also. Given the evident reluc- tance of government to elaborate any further, questions may be raised concerning its own motives in mak- ing such a half-baked announcement precisely now. Why not wait until government is ready to launch the white paper before announcing the policy change? Why not wait until answers are ready to hand, to legiti- mate questions on a sensitive issue that is of great concern to the pub- lic? One possible explanation is that, coming so soon after the civil unions bill was approved by parliament – with the Opposition abstaining, and incurring jeers for its pains – it would seem the Prime Minister is keen to exploit an already gaping wound in a Nationalist Party that is torn between liberal and conservative elements. By casually dropping hints of a con- troversial reform that will challenge the 'zero tolerance' policy held by all PN administrations since 1987, Mus- cat may also have issued an indirect challenge to his political adversaries to take a stand on an issue which he knows is internally divisive. Judging by the PN's initial reac- tions, it would appear this strategy (if such it is) is already working. Opposi- tion leader Simon Busuttil passed up an opportunity to explain his party's views on decriminalisation, arguing (not unreasonably) that it is impos- sible to formulate a position until government provides more details on its plans. But if Muscat's proposed drug policy reform is intend- ed to expose further divi- sions in the beleaguered PN, or to paint it into a corner where it cannot take any position at all… it is a highly risky strategy that might (some would ar- gue, already has) expose simi- lar rifts within his own party. Past Labour governments have like- wise defended a zero tolerance policy in their time, and former prime min- ister Alfred Sant – who had waged war on 'drug barons' in the 1990s – is on record stating he disagrees with decriminalisation. He is also a prom- inent candidate for the PL ahead of the European elections in June. Contacted by this newspaper, Sant said he had no comment to make at this stage. "I have nothing to say about it. [AD chairman] Arnold Cas- sola tried to make an issue out of it in a recent televised debate, but it's not an issue as far as I'm concerned…" Sant likewise ignored questions re- garding whether his own views are compatible with the party he intends to represent in the European Parlia- ment. It remains to be seen whether these apparent divergences of opinion be- tween past and present Labour Party leaders will feature in the forthcom- ing electoral campaign. Clearly how- ever, a starting pistol has been fired for what is likely to be the politi- cal controversy of tomorrow. Decriminalisation: the unanswered questions 'Given the evident reluctance of government to elaborate any further, questions may be raised concerning its own motives in making such a half-baked announcement precisely now'