Why does the war on drugs fail?

It has been proven for more than 100 years that the war on drugs has not reduced addictive use. In part, this occurs because it does not emphasize what causes an addict to "get" addicted.

What has made the war on drugs fail? Let's see.

• Related article: "Mules: the weakest link in drug trafficking"

Why is the war on drugs not working?

Even if certain substances are prohibited, consumption continues, and it does so in high-risk situations. The war on drugs, as the name suggests, leaves out the figure of the consumer as a person with an addiction or health problem, emphasizing the substance as an active agent.

In reality, the leading role in addiction is embodied by the person, not the substance; a person, with certain physical and psychological traits and predispositions, who develops in a family and social context that, due to different circumstances, promote, allow, or do not limit substance use.

Beyond the high addictive power of some substances, it is not the drug that generates the addiction. This allows us to understand why there are also addictions that do not refer to chemicals, but to activities or people, as for example, in the case of 

gambling, as complex and problematic as any addiction; what's more there may be addictive behavior linked to shopping, food, work, technology, a relationship, etc.

The war on drugs does not diminish violence

The war on drugs does not end the violence surrounding drug trafficking. In fact, it continues to produce violence, deaths and murders. These are often handed over to the security forces, as small traffickers are killed, rather than properly detained as a result of their criminal act. In addition, there is a high mortality rate among criminal gangs, who murder each other, in search of power and control of the drug market.

A clear example that this war has not brought the expected effects is the dry law and the consequent prohibition of the production, distribution and commercialization of alcoholic beverages. As an effect, far from promoting health or reducing morbidity and mortality rates linked to alcohol consumption, deaths occurred caused by, or by ingestion of adulterated alcohol, or by murders of criminal gangs fighting to run the underground market of alcohol.

The effects of the ban

Another side of the war on drugs refers to terms such as penalty against decriminalization, prohibition against legalization. Criminalizing substance use implies that the consuming person is conceptualized as a person who commits a crime.

In Argentina, this is established by the Narcotics Law No. 23,737, approved in 1989 and in force today. Possession for personal consumption is penalized in an attenuated manner from one month to years in prison, with the possibility that the process is suspended by the Judge and that the consumer is subjected to a curative or educational safety measure for as long as necessary for detoxification and rehabilitation. Thus, rehabilitation is thought of as an accessory to grief.

However, the Supreme Court of Justice declared the criminalization of possession for personal use unconstitutional (Arriola ruling) but the law has not yet been modified and at present the criminal proceedings against those found to be in possession of narcotic drugs continue, although a small amount is try.

The need to understand the context of consumption

If we consider that the addict is not a criminal, but a person with a health problem, we will know that jail is not the place where you will be rehabilitated.

Although there are addicted people who commit crimes, in any case they should be penalized for the crime committed and not for the consumption itself.

It is in function of this conception that points to decriminalization and decriminalization of consumers; thinking the penalty only for those who market the drug. In any case, it is important to point out that this entails that the consumer has to obtain drugs from traffickers, which continues to imply risk and illegality.

If the debate revolves around the prohibition or legalization of substances and the elimination of drug traffickers in any case, there is a sliding of the axis of analysis towards the substances, leaving aside the singular relationship of a consumer with the substances that consume. In this way, the emergence of questions that make us wonder about consumption and make it symptomatic, a necessary condition for the start of treatment, could be hindered.

Bibliographic references:

• www.pousta.com/johann-hari-autor-del-libro-destroza-la-guerra-las-drogas-mundo-le-disculpas-latinoamerica/