AUTHOR: Peter Dunne
I have just attended the High Level Session of the 52nd Session of UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna.
New Zealand is not a member of the Commission, but is a party to all the relevant UN Conventions. The Vienna meeting was an opportunity to review progress over the last 10 years, and to chart a course for the future.
One of the most contentious issues was around whether future drug policy should be emphasise supply control, or harm reduction. In essence, the argument boils down to whether the focus should be on stopping the supply the drugs, or managing the consequences of the misuse of drugs. Of course, things are not that absolute, and like all these issues, positions are quickly polarised. “Supply controllers” are dismissed as reactionaries, while “harm reductionists” are accused of being apologists for the legalisation of drugs.
I was given the privilege of chairing the roundtable session on harm reduction. This session was attended by well over 50 countries, and was by far the largest roundtable session of the conference. During its half day session, well over 40 countries contributed to the debate.
Let me offer the following observations based on that experience. The Dutch representative stated the position most clearly from my point of view. She said that prevention was better than cure; cure was better than harm reduction; and, harm reduction was better than nothing. In my own remarks to the plenary session the day before I had called for a comprehensive approach based on the three equal pillars of supply control; demand reduction and problem limitation. This call won support from many countries including Australia, Canada and the United States. This type of balanced approach seems to be what most countries are following, with the hard line states more strongly focused on the single pillar of supply control being countries like Sudan, Japan, Russia and Malaysia. The most interesting observation came from Iran’s representative who acknowledged that his country’s historical hard line had not worked, and they were now focusing heavily on primary prevention and education as the way forward.
So what does all this mean for future New Zealand drug policy? First, it confirms that our approach is line with the international mainstream. Second, we will not be taking a softer line on drugs, and all the existing legal prohibitions will remain in force. At the same time, we will continue to place an emphasis on minimising the personal, social and economic consequences of the misuse of drugs. I think we need to be doing more with regard to the provision of treatment services, particularly for the young, and that we need to be placing much greater emphasis on effective evaluation of the programmes we do have in place to ensure they always remain fit for purpose.
Those who try to polarise the debate as one between supply control and harm reduction miss the point. The drug debate is not one that will be won at the margins. It is one that requires a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach, based on a sound legal framework, and society’s compassion to deal with the individual consequences of misuse.