By Sanj Chowdhary
I’ve not had internet access for a while due to some recent setbacks, and as I live in a tiny Peak District village, accessing a library or carrying out any proper research is difficult to say the least! So it seems for my first ever NORML UK blog entry I am going to have to write about something of which I have personal experience–which if I’m honest is what I prefer to write about anyway! As today marks a year since I was busted for cultivation and also began campaigning for a change to existing drug laws, I thought I would begin to share with you the reasons why I fundamentally disagree with the laws of drug prohibition.
Below you will find the argument I had planned to use in court after my first ever arrest for cannabis (or anything else, for that matter). As it turns out, for one reason or another, I’ve never had the opportunity to share this beyondDarryl Bickler of the Drugs Equality Alliance and a few others last summer. SoI thought I would share it on the NORML UK blog in hopes that it might stimulate some discussion and debate regarding the questions and issues raised.
What aspects of Human Rights, due to the nature of prohibition, do the UK authorities unavoidably infringe?
- The right to privacy. There is no way to investigate or criminalise a person for possession or personal use without infringing the human right to privacy.
- The freedom to manifest one’s religion or spirituality. Many groups use various substances during the practice or manifestation of their religion or spirituality, e.g. Rastafarians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and those from my own religious background, the Sikhs.
- The right to practice one’s cultural and indigenous traditions. My culture has used cannabis for thousands of years for food and medicine; it is such an ingrained component of Indian culture that the Indiangovernment licenses the sale of cannabis and cannabis products.
All of these Human Rights appear to be violated. I accept that these rights are not absolute; it would be absurd to think otherwise, so therefore the question that must be asked is when does a legitimate infringement of human rights become an illegal violation?
In order to help answer this I intend to apply a well known and accepted test set out in international law. It is commonly known as the proportionality test, and it asks three fundamental questions:
- Is it prescribed by Law? Yes.We are signed up to the single treaty on the misuse of drugs, so we have a legal (I would also argue a moral) obligation to control any potentially harmful drugs.
- Is it in pursuit of a legitimate aim?Yes, of course the health and welfare of people/society is legitimate. The protection of the young, of the vulnerable, and of wider society is a perfectly legitimate aim. I would find it difficult to argue otherwise. However, fighting the drug trade is not a legitimate aim in itself. It is not a requirement of International Law. Fighting the drugs war was meant to be a means of achieving legitimate aims and not an aim in itself. Current drugs policy has lost sight of this and continues to promote an approach which has clearly failed to protect the young, the vulnerable, and even society on the whole.
- Is it necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve the aims?
In order for us to consider the answer, we again need to explore a couple of further questions:
- Are there less intrusive means available to achieve the stated aim?The duration of this infringement of rights is perpetual, and the scope of the infringement is total, i.e. everyone in the country is affected.
Because everyone’s rights could theoretically be violated, it means that the law itself is not discriminatory. But as we know from extensive Home Office reports and evidence, it does have significant discriminatory effects in its practical application.
- Has the law been imposed arbitrarily?
Has a full evidence base been taken into account? Has a full and proper scientific evaluation of the current law and other options been explored?
Whilst there have been a number of Parliamentary Select Committees and Scientific Advisory Groups who have repeatedly researched and highlighted the failings of existing policy, successive governments have refused to acknowledge the findings and recommendations, even going as far as sacking the Chief Government Drugs Advisor for deviating from the government’s own preferred line.
When considering whether UK drugs law is arbitrarily imposed, we must also question whether the current system of prohibition has achieved any of the stated aims.
I would contend that not only has prohibition failed to achieve its own stated aims, but by every measure conceivable it has made the potential harms of drug use significantly worse, for both individuals and wider society.
Could the current system ever hope to achieve any of its aims in the future?
This is a question I have asked numerous politicians innumerable times and so far not a single person has been able to supply the evidence to suggest that it could. A standard principle of international law holds that the burden of proof rests on the State to justify why it has violated the human rights of its citizens. They must justify why their system is the best possible solution to both protect human rights and also achieve legitimate aims.
I would conclude that current drug policy, taking the form of prohibition, is far from necessary to achieve a reduction in the potential harms that might stem from the use of various ‘controlled substances’. In a democratic society I believe that there are various existing structures and mechanisms that would be better employed in order to achieve legitimate aims. (Maybe give a tiny summary? It’ll help people get to talking)
After having, as objectively as possible, considered all of the above points and issues raised, I would summarise that whilst there may be legitimate reasons to infringe upon Human Rights, the UK government’s drug policy is indeed inunwarranted violation of at least three fundamental human rights. The government’s continued unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence regarding drug policy and its refusal to accept a succession of recommendations from its own experts and scientists has meant that the current law has been arbitrarily applied. It fails the test of proportionality on the basis that prohibition has not been shown to be necessary or even successful at controlling the potential harms from drugs.
I would readily waive my violated human rights if just a single person could articulate a rational and evidence based argument to show it was for the greater good. I’m yet to come across a single person who has been able to adequately justify their support of prohibition with hard evidence and so I will continue to fight the injustice and persecution that results from the government’s blind allegiance to what is so clearly a failed paradigm.