It’s time to admit ‘war on drugs’ has failed

Legalization and regulation are best way to reduce harm, write David-Martin Milot and Steve Rolles.

The pending legalization of recreational cannabis has opened peoples’ minds to the idea of responsible regulation of other drugs. At the same time, public-health officials from Toronto and Montreal have publicly endorsed ending the criminalization of people who use drugs, as a key tool for implementing a public-health response to the opioid crisis.

The window of opportunity is now wide open, and a real debate is beginning.

But what are the options for dealing with the realities of illegal drug use and criminally controlled drug markets?

“Legalizing all drugs” may seem a frightening proposition. But it becomes a perfectly reasonable option when seen as pragmatic regulation and risk management for certain products and behaviours that prohibition and repression have only made more problematic. Regulation of risky products and behaviours is a key role of government and is the norm in most policy arenas. It’s prohibition that is the failed and radical experiment here. Nor are legally regulated drugs purely hypothetical. For example, Swiss doctors have been prescribing heroin for the last 25 years to stabilize and treat people with heroin dependency.

The “war on drugs,” as it was called by former U.S. president Richard Nixon, legitimizes the violation of human rights in many countries, represents a major obstacle to reaching publichealth objectives, exacerbates violence and criminality, and is costing billions. The rates of use of an expanding variety of substances are increasing in most countries, at the same time as more effective legal regulation of tobacco is decreasing harmful consumption of that substance.

Should we continue investing in a strategy that fails so miserably? Once decisionmakers are humble enough to recognize that the hypocrisy of harshly enforced prohibition has only amplified the problems related to drug use, they will implement drugregulation policies that are more efficient.

This is not about “relaxing ” drug laws, or promoting drugs.

We have to choose whether we want governments or gangsters in control of drug markets. The past half century shows that the “war on drugs” is no third option that makes drugs magically disappear.

Which drugs would be available, to whom, and where?

These are potentially tricky questions, but ones we are able to answer under a legally regulated model where government has taken back control, rather than abdicating all responsibility to criminal market forces. More risky substances could be available only via a medical prescription model with supervised use, like heroin in Switzerland. Certain medium-risk drugs, including certain stimulants and party drugs, could be available on a rationed basis to adults from pharmacies, perhaps with a licensedbuyer model, once they have proven they understand the risks. Other lower-risk drugs could be more available through appropriate licensed retailing, as we are about to do with cannabis. Wider drug regulation would allow the redirection of resources into more efficient prevention and targeted treatment, facilitating better access to the most vulnerable individuals. And the forces of commercialization that have been so historically damaging with alcohol and tobacco could be curtailed with appropriate bans on marketing and branding. If done responsibly, drug use would be safer, pressures to increase use can be mitigated and resources for proven public-health responses increased, as criminality and the illegal market contract.

The idea of wider legalization may seem a counterintuitive response to the current crisis, but is in reality a rational, evidence-based and responsible policy option that policy-makers must now seriously explore. The war on drugs has failed. Canada can carry the torch of global leadership to next level by showing the world how to end it.