Drug prevention benefits from compassion and acceptance

by druginc

Drug prevention benefits from compassion and acceptance

By mr. Kaj Hollemans, KH Legal Advice (@KHLA2014)

The starting point of Dutch drug policy was always:

Prevention is better than treatment
Treating is better than harm reduction
Harm reduction is better than doing nothing

Traditionally, Dutch drug policy has focused on the prevention of drug use and on limiting the risks of drug use; for the user himself, the immediate environment and for society. Recently, however, there seems to have been a turnaround. The CDA and the CU are in charge when it comes to drug policy and that has the necessary consequences, both in terms of rhetoric and policy.

Repression

On July 1 Minister of Justice and Security Grapperhaus gave the following answers in response to parliamentary questions from D66 and the PvdA on the report that repression alone is not enough in dealing with drugs:

“There is no unilaterally repressive approach in Dutch drug policy. Attention is also paid to prevention and discouragement of drug use. The prevention policy is strongly committed to the prevention of use and its normalization within certain groups. The State Secretary for Health, Welfare and Sport has asked the Trimbos Institute to develop a new approach together with other parties to prevent young people from starting drug use and to counteract normalization. We will continue to question the normalization of drug use within certain groups and work to reach the targeted audiences with the right message.”

In short, the drug policy of 2019 focuses on repression and prevention, with prevention being seen primarily as an extension of repression. Prevention is only aimed at preventing and discouraging use. Hardly any attention is paid to the other, at least as important, form of prevention, namely harm reduction, where the emphasis is on limiting health damage caused by drug use.

Harm reduction

Harm reduction focuses on limiting health damage caused by the use of drugs acceptance of use is paramount. However, that is not the case. See for example the recent announcement to tackle drug use at festivals. “It is stuff that is bad for health and disruptive to society. By buying it you finance the crime, ”said the minister. He wants to socialize drug use questioning and tackling it harder. “Taking massive pills at festivals sends the wrong signal, it must stop. You have to dare to denounce the drug use of yoga nuns. ”

Yoga nuivers

The term “yoga nuzzles” was first used in 2018. According to the Van Dale means it: "Someone who usually lives a healthy and conscious life, but occasionally indulges in party drugs and cocaine, for example in the nightlife." The fact that Justice uses precisely this frame gives food for thought. After all, these are hard-working, mature citizens who fully participate in society and are concerned about the climate, sustainability, responsibility, freedom and identity. These people consciously choose to use drugs from time to time to escape the daily stress and put it into perspective.

However, the minister (as a representative of the authority) sends out a clear signal that he will not tolerate this choice. Such a person is part of the problem, because he perpetuates the crime by buying drugs. There is no room for compassion within this rhetoric. “Then you shouldn't have used drugs” is the adage. His implicit message is that someone who has used drugs and gets into trouble as a result, should not count on help. This is an undesirable development, which can lead to people no longer daring to seek help if they run into problems as a result of drug use.

If the government no longer accepts the use of drugs, there is insufficient attention to harm reduction. Limiting the health damage caused by drug use has no priority and that leads to potentially dangerous situations.

Drug precursors

Before the summer recess, the minister will send a letter to the House discussing the policy regarding the problem of synthetic drugs, including enforcement policy at festivals and events, and developments in the field of legislation.

One of the components of the new policy will in any case be a stricter approach to drug precursors; chemicals used for drug production. Most chemicals used as drug precursors also have important legal applications (such as in the synthesis of plastics, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, perfumes, cleaning agents or fragrances).

The First Chamber was in 2010 still believe that drug precursors cannot be banned, because they can also be used for many legal purposes. It is very important to find a good balance between preventing illegal use and not hindering legal use (for example, commercial use of the chemical industry).

But a stricter approach to drug precursors does not only have negative effects on business. It may also lead to the use of more harmful and hazardous substances for the production of XTC and other synthetic drugs, which entails a greater risk to the health of users and society. I understand that people want to tackle drug production, but if you endanger the user and his environment, I wonder who will ultimately benefit from it. It cannot be that people will soon fall dead, because if necessary, politicians had to ban harmless chemicals used in drug production. Then you make the problem even bigger. Moreover, you thereby also act contrary to the principles of Dutch drug policy.

Related Articles

Comments

[adrate banner="89"]