Drugs policies

Simply put, a drugs policy is a system of principles guiding decisions about laws and regulations that manage substances considered to be dangerous and/or addictive. For example, most state-level drugs policies are targeted towards reduction—that is, the measures they take are intended to reduce the circulation and consumption of drugs. Some even aim at eradication, holding a drug-free world as their imagined goal. Either way, these sorts of policies tend to target either the supply or the demand of drugs. Targeting the supply chain usually involves destroying drug crops and shipments, disrupting smuggling routes and distribution networks, and going after drug dealers. A wide range of measures are associated with reducing demand for drugs, from the criminalization of drug possession to public anti-drug warnings to addiction therapy.By contrast, a small but growing minority of governments are also exploring decriminalization, legalization and regulation as alternative ways to reduce the dangers stemming from underground drug trade. The difference with these more liberal policies is that they usually prioritize reducing the negative impacts of drug use over the reduction of drug use itself.There are a lot of different drugs policies out there, but they all fall into a broad spectrum based on how hostile they are to drug use. At the far end of things are eradication-focused, zero-tolerance policies, which belong in turn to a wider category of policies that depend on legal prohibition while advocating total abstinence. More moderate policies often frame drug use as a public health issue, decriminalizing certain aspects of it while treating addiction as an illness that requires medical treatment. Continuing in the same direction are policies usually described as "harm reduction," where the focus is more on measures that reduce the negative impacts of drug use, such as safe injection sites, drug testing, freely available drug information and counselling.Although legalization combined with regulation is a common policy for dealing with alcohol and tobacco (which also qualify as dangerous and addictive substances), only a few places in the world have established similar systems for "soft" drugs like cannabis. At the furthest end of the spectrum is complete liberalization, where the government doesn't get involved in any way with the circulation and consumption of drugs, which is virtually unheard of, as it would likely contravene most international treaties on drugs.The US's "War On Drugs," introduced under President Richard Nixon in 1971, is one of the most restrictive and punitive drug policy regimes. Although individual states have some leeway in how they implement drug policy, the overall legal landscape is oriented towards drug eradication, abstinence and zero tolerance (that is, full prosecution for first-time drug offenses). These laws are mostly implemented quite strictly by law-enforcement authorities, and drug use carries a strong social stigma. In recent years, there have been some changes to drugs policy that indicate a gradual softening of the US's stance on drugs, such as increased investment in addiction research and therapy, the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use in some states, and the introduction of schemes where some drug offenses can lead to addiction-treatment programs rather than prison sentences.However, "club drugs" like MDMA, cocaine and ketamine are still harshly policed, and the legal-political environment for electronic music events seems to be getting only more hostile—especially during the boom of EDM festivals over the last decade. Electronic dance music events were specifically targeted by the RAVE Act (signed into law as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act in 2003), which extended laws intended for "crack houses" to make the organizers of raves and other dance music events legally responsible for drug use on their premises.Compared to the US, the UK represents a "middle-ground" policy environment. Laws regulating drugs are still based on the principle of prohibition, but there is more consideration given to drug safety and addiction treatment. This is partially a legacy of the so-called "British system," a legal paradigm from the early 20th century that separated the medical treatment of people with addictions from recreational use. In the '60s and '70s, however, drug regulations tightened and became more punitive, with the addition of many substances to the list of controlled drugs, and the criminalization of drug possession in even the smallest quantities. The last Labour government (1997-2010) supported some initiatives that could be considered harm reduction, but this declined as the political landscape changed. When the Conservative party came to power under David Cameron, many harm-reduction organizations lost their funding. But while the top level of politics has been a difficult climate for harm reduction, local support can be found among regional councils and law-enforcement in certain counties.In the UK, police are generally afforded more discretion in implementing the law than in the US, and so the experiences of promoters can vary widely from county to county, town to town. London and Hampshire police, for example, have a reputation for being especially harsh, while Cambridgeshire and Manchester have been more willing to work with clubs and promoters on drug-safety initiatives. Nevertheless, electronic music events are sometimes targeted by indirect means, such as the imposition of last-minute, exorbitant fees levied by local councils or police that make events too expensive to carry out. For example, the Glade Festival of 2010 was cancelled by organizers when the Hampshire Constabulary raised its policing fees to £175,000, compared to £29,000 the previous year.Although the Netherlands is frequently cited as an example of partial legalization and regulation, the country's drugs policy is in fact an interesting combination of tolerance, harm reduction and selective enforcement. While reducing drug use remains one of the official objectives of Dutch drug policy, it's complemented by objectives to reduce harm and "public nuisance," treat addiction and prevent trafficking. According to the law of the land, all drugs are still illegal in the Netherlands, but the authorities don't fully enforce these laws in cases that involve the possession and use of small amounts of soft drugs like cannabis and organic psychedelics. Similarly, the retail sale of cannabis is tolerated in the country's "coffee shops," although there are restrictions on how much they can sell and to whom.This situation enables the Netherlands to comply with prohibition-oriented international treaties while implementing policies that are more focused on harm reduction. But while personal use and retail sale is generally tolerated, large-scale production and trafficking are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, especially for "hard" drugs like heroin or cocaine. This generates a mostly hospitable climate for dance music event organizers, although the police's efforts to apprehend drug dealers sometimes makes for a strange combination of support and surveillance.In recent years, Portugal has been at the center of drug policy discussions around the world. Historically, the country has been a major point of entry for drug smuggling, and so it has been struggling to deal with very high rates of drug addiction. In 2000, a new policy was put into place that decriminalized possession of all drugs for personal use. Much like the Dutch system, drug possession remains illegal, but possession of small amounts of drugs (no more than a ten-day supply) became an administrative offense, rather than a criminal one. In other words, the result of being caught with your personal stash was no longer a trip to court and possibly to prison, but instead to a special committee who deal with drug users. These committees include a social worker, an attorney and a psychiatrist, who together come up with a set of sanctions such as paying a fine, being banned from specific places (such as nightclubs), or losing government subsidies like scholarships. If there's evidence of addiction, the sanctions may include being sent to a drug rehabilitation program or being assigned to community service.These policy changes constitute a form of harm reduction oriented towards public health, prioritizing addiction treatment while discouraging drug use through less radical means than a prison sentence. The effects of these policies on electronic music events can be seen at Portugal's massive BOOM festival, which offers extensive harm-reduction services such as on-site drug testing, counseling, medical care and drug-safety information.It's fairly obvious that the more you prohibit something, the more dangerous it becomes to access and use it. You only need to look at the period of alcohol prohibition in the US (1920-1933), where the combination of organized crime, violent police raids and poorly distilled bootlegger booze made drinking very risky. And so, there's a fundamental question at the base of all drugs policy debates: are you willing to increase the risk to drug users in order to drive drugs underground?Not surprisingly, the answer implicit in different drugs policies depends to a great extent on how policymakers view drug users. Under regimes of severe prohibition, drug users are often depicted as criminal degenerates who deserve the consequences of their risky behavior. In contexts where public health is the priority and the focus is on addiction, drug users are seen as sick, vulnerable people who need support to live a drug-free life. Harm-reduction policies tend to be less pathologizing, seeing drug users as normal, everyday people, most of whom partake in drugs in culturally-specific settings that only rarely lead to harm. All of these approaches share a concern for safety, but they have very different ideas about what safety means.