Misguided narratives halt Drug Reform / A.J. Hendry
The hardline approach has failed. For political leaders the choice is clear, find the courage of your convictions, or allow the needless suffering of the status quo to continue.
Increasingly, Drug Reform, or should I say the lack of it, is a hot topic of conversation.
This week, Health Minister Andrew Little admitted in an interview with RNZ that our current laws were not fit for purpose, and were in fact criminalizing “a lot of behaviour that possibly isn’t criminal”. And yet, despite this view, Little indicated that the Government was not willing to move forward with decisive action to address the issues in our current legislation and approach, claiming the Government did not have the social licence to move towards decriminalization. He pointed to the failed referendum on the legalization of cannabis as proof of this, despite the fact that the referendum lost by a narrow margin, and was not dealing with decriminalization but legalization.
However, in a follow up panel with RNZ it was National MP Paul Goldsmith who really captured the heart of why drug reform is so hard to progress, laying out a commonly held view that the illegality of illegal drugs, and punitive consequences for those who use them, is necessary to “send a clear message” that these substances aren’t ok.
And it is this idea, that is slowing progress, not just on drug reform, but also on a range of other important social issues.
It is the idea, that if something is wrong, or causes harm, punitive and legislative responses are needed to "send a signal" that x behaviour will not be tolerated. Believing that a hard line will be enough to stop such behaviour from occurring.
Young people and crime, truancy, addiction, gang growth, all issues that we've been told can be fixed if only the Government would enact decisive and punitive legislative solutions.
And yet, these issues are complex, and very rarely does a hammer fix a cracked vase.
Coming back to the Drug Reform debate, there's no doubt that abuse of elicit substances can cause harm. No one is arguing that meth is safe, or that we should celebrate someone being addicted to synnies. No, the conversation we're having is how do we mitigate harm, and what is the best way to ensure that people who do suffer from addiction get the help they need?
I've never met someone struggling with addiction who said that the law was strong enough to make them quit.
It's not.
Personally, where I've witnessed people heal from addiction has been when the underlying reasons for use are addressed. That could be trauma, mental illness, housing insecurity, lack of connection, love, safety, the list could go on. But, when we address the root of the issue, we see change.
It's just like the crime conversation, instead of reacting out of a place of fear, we need to take a moment to understand what is happening in our communities, and then respond appropriately.
A case in point was a young person I worked with in my very early career as a Youth Worker. I was called in by his parents and his school to “stop him using drugs” and “get him to class”. In my initial conversation with him, it became very clear this young man was dealing with a range of challenges, including significant challenges relating to unresolved trauma, loss of community and connection, and untreated anxiety and depression. When we started to address these issues, and began to provide this young man with the care, love and support he needed, we saw change. It wasn’t overnight, but gradually the young man was in a position where he no longer needed to use substances to cope or make sense of his reality.
People suffering from addiction don’t need the law to tell them that the substances they are using are harming them. Most of the people I speak to in this situation know this already.
A hard line, and a criminal conviction, won’t heal anyone. If anything, it only makes the road to recovery that much harder.
Now, I think it’s important to recognize, that most people involved in this conversation want the same thing. I don’t believe anyone enjoys seeing the harm that addiction inflicts upon our loved ones and communities. I am certain that we all want to reduce drug related harm.
The question of course is how do we do that?
And that is where we need to start dealing with the reality.
It is abundantly clear that the hardline approach has been tried, and proven to have failed. The status quo isn’t working. Criminalizing people who are unwell, has never helped someone heal. What works, is addressing the underlying reasons people use in order to support people on their journey of healing and recovery.
Decriminalization shouldn't be a radical position. Knowing what we know now about addiction, it is surely the most beneficial way forward.
But, until we actually commit to recognizing addiction as a health-based issue, and respond to it as one, we're going to continue seeing our whānau and communities harmed.
And this is where we need our leaders to lead.
In light of the suffering and harm caused by the status quo, it is not enough for Andrew Little to say “the country isn’t ready”. It is the role of our Government to lead this conversation, to articulate the way forward, and to outline the reason for change. It is up to our elected leaders to find the courage of their own convictions, and lead us forward.
Our current approach is causing untold harm.
The good news is, the status quo does not need to remain.
We can do better.
In fact, it’s past time we did.
#HealthNotHandcuffs
A.J. Hendry is a Laidlaw College graduate, and a Youth Development Worker and housing advocate, working in the Youth Housing and Homelessness space. He leads a service supporting rangatahi experiencing homelessness and is also an advocate working collectively to end youth homelessness in Aotearoa. He is also the curator and creator of When Lambs Are Silent.
Though we try to keep up with all our comment’s and feedback, we do sometimes struggle to monitor all platforms. If you do want to engage in the conversation join us on facebook and find the relevant post or connect directly with A.J on his facebook page here.
Thanks AJ - excellent stuff
A great read as always. One thought arising from the first part about the cannabis referendum was the way it was talked about as if we wouldn't be able to vote about it again for a long time. Yet when it comes to alcohol, a referendum was held at every general election from1894 to 1987 with the exception only of 1931 and 1951. So, why can't we have a referenda similar system for drugs, that would properly gauge the changing public views, instead of relying on the loudest voices.