ENCOD BULLETIN 73

A realistic analysis of costs and benefits of current drug policies shows that prohibition is not only ineffective in solving problems, but also associated with major economic and human costs that promote the exclusion and the stigmatization of users.

When we think about changing this scenario, it is important to have in mind the model of society we want to have and what are the tools needed to be able to make the difference. In many countries around the globe, and for many years, decisions concerning drug policy have been in the hands of political leaders and oriented by international agreements and conventions that do not take into account the participation of important actors such as users, farmers, and health workers.

A different model of decision making and a real drug policy reform are issues that do not relate merely to public administration, to a specific political party or the responsibilities of certain political leaders. It is the society as a whole that should guide its own process of change.

It is not possible to design an effective public policy, neither fair nor efficient, nor of quality and satisfaction if there is not a strong participation of concerned citizens. It is also not possible to be a protagonist of changes if people are alienated by the current status quo that many times feeds society with fear and pre-defined “truths”.

In a majority of European countries and even at UN and EU levels, either formal or informal consultations with the civil society have been established. However, the domain of drug policy remains by far the least welcome to new ideas coming from civil society. Anyone that has been following consultation attempts made by governments and multilateral international bodies would agree that something is missing in the drug policy field.

If on the one hand, we acknowledge that consultations with civil society in the drug field are in place, on the other hand, the result of this dialogue and its impact on actual change can be questioned. Two main factors contribute to its lack of efficiency. One is the format of the consultation that often brings together groups with opposite views that have to reach a “final” consensus in a unique recommendation paper. This would be equivalent to government deciding to consult interest groups on a new tobacco regulation and requiring health specialists and the tobacco industry find consensus on a unique set of recommendations. In practice, the result is often the “lowest common denominator” having little if any impact.

The second factor could be described as follows: democratic governments acting in a transparent and participatory way need to consult civil society, but do they really want to listen? Today, even the most consolidated democracies are being impaired by powerful lobby groups. The political discourse is still heavily dominated by “a two-sector model” – the state and the market - leaving civil society’s ability to influence important decisions seriously undermined.

We may agree or disagree in terms of perspectives or ways to achieve our aims. Some organizations or activists want to continue working side by side with governments aiming at gradual changes through dialogues and common projects, and some others prefer to work independently, bringing pressure to bear through opposition, or implementing solutions in the breach of the law. Having different positions is good, the error would be to make them absolute and ignorant to reality.

In the design of new drug policies we all collectively need to take responsibility for change. The active participation of civil society in a variety of sectors and levels is essential in this process. The public debate should be informed by scientific evidence which helps to clarify ideas when looking for strategies for change. It is important to remember that we are able to position ourselves with autonomy, as actors engaged in searching, taking decisions, promoting ruptures, creating new discourses and possibilities, not becoming adapted to, but the opposite, being actively inserted in the world.

We all know that citizens must be heard because they are the ones that have to lead the process that determines their own health and social conditions. Currently this voice is only effectively heard where governments have considered that civil society participation is not only an issue of rights and equity, but also the best way to face the challenge of promoting the efficient use of resources invested in public policy.

A meaningful engagement of civil society is the true sense of democracy, and each of us needs to remind himself of this truth on a daily basis.

By Marisa Felicissimo, ENCOD Steering Committee member and Michaela Bitarello, Psychologist, PhD