Letters to the Editor: Decriminalise drugs for the greater good
'Decriminalisation addresses social justice issues by reducing the disproportionate impact of drug laws on marginalised communities' and 'decreases costs associated with the justice system'. Picture: iStock
With an Oireachtas committee currently debating drug decriminalisation I would like to bring attention to many of the arguments.
The debate over drug decriminalisation often focuses on potential misuse, but it’s essential to consider the benefits.
Decriminalising medicinal cannabis and other drugs can significantly improve patient outcomes. Studies indicate that such measures offer relief for chronic pain, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis (National Academies of Sciences, 2017), while enabling crucial clinical research that leads to innovative treatments (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2018). Furthermore, regulated medicinal products ensure quality and dosage control, minimising risks associated with unregulated substances.
Critics argue that decriminalisation might increase crime, yet evidence suggests otherwise. This approach tends to reduce drug-related crime, shifting focus from punitive measures to rehabilitation. It allows law enforcement to prioritise serious crimes, enhancing public safety. Additionally, decriminalisation undermines black markets, thereby diminishing the influence of organised crime.
From an economic perspective, studies show decriminalisation offers substantial savings. Reducing incarceration for drug offences alleviates prison overcrowding, where non-violent offences currently contribute significantly to the prison population. This shift can help address issues of prison overcrowding and allow resources to be redirected to tackling serious crimes.
CLIMATE & SUSTAINABILITY HUB
Moreover, decriminalisation decreases costs associated with the justice system. Preventive measures and treatments for drug misuse are more cost-effective than incarceration (Zarkin et al, 2012), and a licensing system can generate revenue to support vital public services like healthcare and education.
Public health concerns are often cited against decriminalisation, but this approach promotes harm reduction. It encourages safer usage practices and reduces overdose rates and the spread of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis (Hughes and Stevens, 2010). Moreover, revenue from licensing can fund educational campaigns about drug risks, fostering informed decision-making (Kilmer and Pacula, 2016). Decriminalisation also allows individuals to seek treatment without fear, improving overall public health outcomes.
Lastly, drug decriminalisation addresses social justice issues by reducing the disproportionate impact of drug laws on marginalised communities, as studies show. Changing the legal status can diminish stigma, fostering open discussions about drug use and addiction. Evidence shows that emphasising rehabilitation over punishment supports reintegration and reduces recidivism, promoting a fairer and more equitable society.
In conclusion, the decriminalisation of drugs presents a multifaceted opportunity to enhance public health, safety, and justice while fostering economic and social benefits. It is time to reconsider our stance on drug policy for the greater good of society.
Contrary to Mary Fitzgerald’s belief, people of all ages and walks of life have long exercised their ‘choice in how they want to exit this planet’ and no one could stop them — as countless heartbroken family, friends and relatives the length and breadth of this green island can readily testify — ‘Defending the Right to Die’ (Irish Examiner letters, June 26). Ms Fitzgerald thinks being able to do so in hospital rather than at home or along a lonely stretch of riverbank will ‘not bring about compulsory medically assisted death’.
In fact, there is no sure way of knowing what such a paradigm shift in our thinking might yet ‘bring about’. Currently we live on the cusp of an era which sees all death as a loss and such deaths especially as a tragedy.
We can still lament the carnage in Ukraine and Gaza and see war as an evil precisely because of the destruction of human life brought about. However, in recent years there has been a shift to what might be termed ‘a culture of death’ where ending of life is seen as a solution to our varied problems, expressed principally in the philosophies of abortion and euthanasia. Such a change in our approach and attitude to human death cannot but have implications for the mindset of future societies into which our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be born. There are already alarming signs of what the future may hold when we look at cases from countries which have embraced euthanasia — always at first in a limited way and then by degrees with increasing liberality.
Consider the case of Zoraya ter Beek, a physically healthy 29-year-old Dutch woman who committed medically assisted suicide a month ago because she felt unhappy and struggled with mental issues. Still in Holland, where in 2019 a 74-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s in a nursing home had to be held down on the mattress by her family and injected by her doctor after she appeared to change her mind at the last minute about her ‘wish to die’ (the doctor was subsequently cleared of wrongdoing by a court on the basis that failing to administer the injection would have undermined the patient’s wishes).
It is clear that in countries where euthanasia has become normalised there has been a tendency not only for people suffering ill-health or mental health issues, but more pointedly for health professionals, to see death as a solution, making it less likely they will continue to explore other avenues.
It might be a small bit of plastic the EU has forced upon us but this toggle attaching the plastic cap to the milk carton has become one big headache. The unavoidable struggle to avoid pulling it off altogether defeats the directive, that asks us to adjust to it. If you are successful in leaving the cap attached you now have the problem of the cap getting in the way when pouring the milk.
I understand this additional piece of plastic is intended to prevent the plastic tops going astray but the nonsensical method of producing more plastic is defeating the intent. Surely, we should simply go back to when we didn’t have plastic caps on the cartons, when with two simple moves we were able to flip the carton open to a pouring spout.
This would remove millions of potential plastic caps from the environment and not adding — as they are doing — millions of plastic toggles that are likely to end up in fish and birds.
Anybody interested in a peaceful world will celebrate the belated release from prison of the political prisoner and award-winning journalist and publisher Julian Assange, whose work in the public interest has served the cause of peace-making.
Anyone with any doubts should just watch what has become known as the ‘Collateral Murder’ video, which shows the targeted killing of nine Iraqi civilians including two Reuters war correspondents, and the injuring of two children in Baghdad in July 2007, by the crew of two Apache AH-64 helicopter gunships who can, after the killing spree, be heard gloating at their murderous actions.
Julian’s work sought to bring transparency and accountability to the dark, corrupt, and criminal activity of governments and militaries, particularly the war crimes of the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan. His work endangered nobody. The US government admitted under oath as far back as 2013 that it had not found any evidence that anyone had come to harm as a result of Wikileaks’ publications. Yet he was made to suffer incredibly, pursued by an odious, blood-drenched US government while locked up in a tiny cell 23 hours a day for over five years in the notorious Belmarsh prison, often termed Britain’s Guantanamo.
Julian should never have been imprisoned and could have been released much earlier had media organisations and governments joined the international campaign to free him.
In October 2021, our organisation with many others penned a detailed letter to Simon Coveney, the foreign affairs minister at that time, to lobby by all means necessary, including via Ireland’s then membership of the United Nations Security Council, for Julian’s release. The letter was subsequently launched as an Uplift campaign and signed by several hundred people including many Irish personalities and trade unionists. We are still awaiting a reply from Simon Coveney.
If media pundits and organisations, including those who benefitted from Julian’s journalism, are concerned that his understandable plea deal may restrict investigative journalism in the US then let them lead a campaign for a total pardon for Julian. He deserves no less.
