Dear researcher,
Since the 1990s, the state’s approach to drugs has been based on the four-pillar model: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and law enforcement. What was a milestone in the Platzspitz era is no longer appropriate today. The first three pillars of drug policy remain undisputed: prevention work is important, and people suffering from addiction continue to need support and treatment. However, repression and criminal prosecution do more harm than good. It perpetuates a black market and, with it, illegal structures that severely undermine the other three pillars and the health of drug users. Moreover, it is now clear that, for many people, the use of illegal substances has long since become a perfectly normal part of their lives, without them having developed any addiction problems.
So how should a drug policy for the future be shaped to do justice to everyone?
Dear Stefanie Pfändler
Thank you very much for raising this important issue with me.
Firstly, I would like to emphasise that my thoughts are based on my expertise in the 19th and 20th centuries and that I have only dealt with the four-pillar model to a limited extent from an academic perspective. I find it particularly valuable that you are sharing your practical experiences with me and helping me to understand where the strengths and limitations of this model lie. Nevertheless, I consider this model to be the best available framework at present for addressing addiction as a social and health challenge.
National measures against transnational drug trafficking
I fully agree with your criticism of the fourth pillar – repression: repressive measures often fail to dismantle illegal structures, but merely displace them. One reason for this is the predominantly national focus of law enforcement. Whilst international cooperation does exist (e.g. via Interpol), it is not sufficient. This is because such cooperation is often ineffective in the fight against transnational, illegal drug trafficking, which also leaves its mark here in our country.
Drug trafficking and other illicit markets
In Afghanistan, Syria and Central America, there is a thriving illicit drug trade that is closely intertwined with human trafficking, arms smuggling and destabilising power structures. These are often a legacy of the colonial past. There needs to be international political will to promote fair global power relations, as well as democracy and human rights. Only in this way can strong state institutions emerge that prevent illegal markets from flourishing.
Understanding addiction
At the same time, we must deepen society’s understanding of addiction – through education and public debate. The World Health Organisation (WHO) no longer classifies substance dependence as addiction, but as disorder – and divides it into numerous subcategories. Whilst this categorisation may be clinically useful, it breaks the phenomenon down into its constituent parts without explaining it holistically. Moreover, it does little to answer the question of why some people develop addictive behaviour – and others do not.
International cooperation
Current policy focuses primarily on individual solutions: support for those affected and prevention (both indispensable!) receive more attention than the fight against global drug trafficking networks. However, long-term, international cooperation against illegal markets is also needed to tackle the root causes of drug abuse and to promote healthy, controlled drug use.
If you have any further questions or would like me to provide you with references, please feel free to write to me at any time. I would be delighted to answer your questions.
Kind regards
Elife Biçer