Why does the war on drugs fail?

A psychological explanation for why prohibition and the use of weapons do not work.

It has been proven for over 100 years that the war on drugs has not reduced addictive use. In part, this is because it does not emphasize what causes an addict to "become" addicted.

What is it that has caused the war on drugs to fail? Let's take a look.

Why the war on drugs does not work?

No matter how much certain substances are prohibited, consumption continues, and it does so in very risky situations. The war on drugs, as its name indicates, leaves aside the figure of the consumer as a person with an addiction or a health problem, emphasizing or health problem, emphasizing the substance as the active agent.

In reality, the leading role in addiction is played by the person, not the substance; a person, with certain physical and psychological traits and predispositions, who develops in a family and social context that, due to different circumstances, promotes, allows or does not limit the consumption of substances, promotes, allows or does not limit the consumption of substances..

Beyond the high addictive power of some substances, it is not the drug that generates the addiction. This allows us to understand why there are also addictions that do not refer to chemical substances, but to activities or people, as for example, in the case of pathological gambling, as complex and problematic as any other addiction. addictive behavior can be linked to shopping, food, work, technology, a relationship, etc.technology, a relationship, etc.

War on drugs does not reduce violence

The war on drugs does not end the violence that surrounds drug trafficking. In fact, it continues to produce violence, deaths and murders. These are usually at the hands of the security forces, as small-scale traffickers are killed instead of being arrested as a consequence of their criminal act. In addition, there is a high mortality rate among criminal gangs, who kill each other in search of power and control of the narcotics market.

A clear example that this war has not brought the expected effects is the dry law and the consequent prohibition of the production, distribution and commercialization of alcoholic beverages. As a result, far from promoting health or reducing morbidity and mortality rates linked to alcohol consumption, deaths were caused either by the ingestion of adulterated alcohol or by murders by criminal gangs fighting for control of the market. criminal gangs fighting to manage the clandestine alcohol market. alcohol market.

The effects of prohibition

Another side of the war on drugs refers to terms such as criminalization versus decriminalization, prohibition versus legalization. Criminalizing substance use implies that the drug user is conceptualized as a person who commits a crime. is conceptualized as a person who commits a crime..

In Argentina, this is established in the Narcotics Law No. 23.737, passed in 1989 and in force today. Possession for personal consumption is punished in an attenuated manner, from one month to years of imprisonment. from one month to years of imprisonment, with the possibility that the process may be suspended by the judge and that the consumer may be subjected to a curative or educational security measure for the time necessary for his detoxification and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is thus considered as an accessory to the penalty.

However, the Supreme Court of Justice declared unconstitutional the criminalization of possession for personal use (Arriola ruling), but the law has not yet been modified and criminal proceedings continue against those found in possession of narcotics, even in small quantities.

The need to understand the context of consumption

If we consider that the addict is not a criminal, but a person with a health problem, we will know that prison is not the place where they will be rehabilitated..

Although there are addicts who commit crimes, in any case they should be penalized for the crime committed and not for the consumption itself.

It is on the basis of this conception that decriminalization and decriminalization of drug users. of the consumers; thinking of penalization only for those who commercialize the drug. In any case, it is important to note that this means that the consumer has to obtain drugs from traffickers, which continues to imply risk and illegality.

If the debate revolves around the prohibition or legalization of substances and the elimination of drug traffickers in any way, the focus of analysis shifts to the substances, leaving aside the singular relationship of a consumer with the substances he or she consumes. In this way, the emergence of questions that raise questions about consumption and make it symptomatic, a necessary condition for the initiation of treatment, could be hindered.