IT was George Santayana who said, ‘Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it’.
It’s a sentiment which springs quickly to mind when considering the ‘Combating the Abuse of Drugs Bill’ currently making its way through Parliament. After all, we are not the first country to confront drug use in our society nor are we likely to be the last.In fact, far from being unique, we seem intent on joining that large fraternity of nations who have tried, and failed, to wage ‘war on drugs’; most having emerged with burgeoning prison populations and little else to show for their heavy-handed efforts.In the US (from whence we derive the phrase ‘war on drugs’), a significant number of the over two million individuals currently in prison were convicted of (often non-violent) drug-related offences.Yet, in spite of the imposition of heavy penalties for drug possession, the trade has not dwindled at all.In fact, ironically, the quantity and quality of products available have increased.Like us they are focused almost exclusively on punishment, eschewing the treatment and harm-reduction policies that have become increasingly commonplace elsewhere.The recalcitrance of successive American governments is likely due in large part to the pervasive influence of religion in American politics and the consequent predominantly moral perspective taken on the issue there (anything less than the harshest, most aggressive punishment is regarded as condoning drug use).While the influence of religion on our politics may be harder to discern, the moral dimension is not.How else do we account for a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years for the possession of marijuana, for example? Is that justifiable on any ground other than the need to satisfy moral indignation? It is certainly not required to safeguard public safety.Did I miss the numerous news reports about roving bands of armed potheads terrorising our communities? No, there were no such reports because no such threat exists.Policymaking should never be utopian in character.That is for artists.Government should concern itself with a sober (pardon the pun) confrontation with reality of society’s problems.It is not fatalistic to acknowledge that drug use is a reality from which we will not succeed in becoming the first society in the history of mankind to escape.If the creation of a safer, healthier society is the desire of Government then it is toward that end (and not unachievable dreams) policy should be directed.The threat of harsher penalties has nowhere succeeded in achieving a reduction in drug use (in part because the likelihood of actually being caught remains low).In fact, it has never achieved anything more than a soothing of righteous indignation.To use once again the example of the US (that great bastion of ideological policymaking), the production, sale and distribution of alcohol were prohibited between 1920 and 1933.During that time, the consumption of alcohol actually increased and the trade in alcohol (worth millions annually) was bestowed (like a gift) on the criminal gangs responsible for the violence associated with it (think Al Capone).Yet, in spite of its abysmal failure, that period was subsequently dubbed the ‘Noble Experiment’.The same might one day be said about this period in Namibia.Our history may one day be that from which another will fail to learn.If Santayana had a dollar….H Gurirab WindhoekAfter all, we are not the first country to confront drug use in our society nor are we likely to be the last.In fact, far from being unique, we seem intent on joining that large fraternity of nations who have tried, and failed, to wage ‘war on drugs’; most having emerged with burgeoning prison populations and little else to show for their heavy-handed efforts.In the US (from whence we derive the phrase ‘war on drugs’), a significant number of the over two million individuals currently in prison were convicted of (often non-violent) drug-related offences.Yet, in spite of the imposition of heavy penalties for drug possession, the trade has not dwindled at all.In fact, ironically, the quantity and quality of products available have increased.Like us they are focused almost exclusively on punishment, eschewing the treatment and harm-reduction policies that have become increasingly commonplace elsewhere.The recalcitrance of successive American governments is likely due in large part to the pervasive influence of religion in American politics and the consequent predominantly moral perspective taken on the issue there (anything less than the harshest, most aggressive punishment is regarded as condoning drug use).While the influence of religion on our politics may be harder to discern, the moral dimension is not.How else do we account for a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years for the possession of marijuana, for example? Is that justifiable on any ground other than the need to satisfy moral indignation? It is certainly not required to safeguard public safety.Did I miss the numerous news reports about roving bands of armed potheads terrorising our communities? No, there were no such reports because no such threat exists.Policymaking should never be utopian in character.That is for artists.Government should concern itself with a sober (pardon the pun) confrontation with reality of society’s problems.It is not fatalistic to acknowledge that drug use is a reality from which we will not succeed in becoming the first society in the history of mankind to escape.If the creation of a safer, healthier society is the desire of Government then it is toward that end (and not unachievable dreams) policy should be directed.The threat of harsher penalties has nowhere succeeded in achieving a reduction in drug use (in part because the likelihood of actually being caught remains low).In fact, it has never achieved anything more than a soothing of righteous indignation.To use once again the example of the US (that great bastion of ideological policymaking), the production, sale and distribution of alcohol were prohibited between 1920 and 1933.During that time, the consumption of alcohol actually increased and the trade in alcohol (worth millions annually) was bestowed (like a gift) on the criminal gangs responsible for the violence associated with it (think Al Capone).Yet, in spite of its abysmal failure, that period was subsequently dubbed the ‘Noble Experiment’.The same might one day be said about this period in Namibia.Our history may one day be that from which another will fail to learn.If Santayana had a dollar….H Gurirab Windhoek
Stay informed with The Namibian – your source for credible journalism. Get in-depth reporting and opinions for
only N$85 a month. Invest in journalism, invest in democracy –
Subscribe Now!