Contested Issues in Anti-Narcotics and Drug Policies Globally

Narcotics and Drugs are a rapidly growing issue among young individuals in today’s world. This article will elaborate on the issue of Narcotics and Drugs, evaluate the policies and legislations that have been enacted on the matter, and discuss the legal and social debates around the issue.

It is crucial to uncover the rate of drug use in different age groups to better address the issue. As reported by The National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics, the rate of adolescents using drugs stands at 8.33% in the 12-17-year age group while the most popular drug among those adolescents is marijuana [1]. As for the young adult group of 18-25 years, the number is relatively higher, 39% to be precise. In particular, out of the adult population of 26 years and older, 16.6% were identified as those who had substance use disorder within the last year [2].

Although the Control of Narcotics Substances Act of 1997 regulates the operation and use of drugs with strict punishment for getting involved in activities related to these products [3], Pakistan still has key concerns in its anti-narcotics and drug policies needing improvement comprising of issues like strict legislations, enforcement disparities, and research obstruction. Nevertheless, drug use persists, and according to recent data, 6.4 million people have consumed cannabis alone to date in 2013 [4]. The reason why enforcement efforts are being criticized is that they raise sociopolitical concerns for human rights as well as for minorities. Secondly, legal restraints have in the past hampered the exploration of legitimate uses of prohibited substances in the treatment of illnesses. These challenges point out the importance of undertaking a comprehensive approach to address drug issues in light of public health, human rights, equity, and social justice in Pakistan [5].

International Laws

On the international level, three principal documents govern the control of drugs: the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 [6]. These conventions focus mainly on the manufacturing, sale, and use of narcotics and psychotropic substances where abstinence and prevention are sought to be achieved. There are exceptional legal cases that have influenced the debater on the issue of drug policies. In the Harmelin v Michigan [1991] case, the U.S. Supreme Court sustained a life imprisonment term for a first-time offender on his/her conviction of possession of a large amount of cocaine as an extension of mandatory minimum imprisoning sentences [7]. Conversely, Robinson v California [1962] declared that it is unconstitutional to treat drug addiction as a crime as per the Eighth Amendment equal to cruel and inhumane punishment as the addiction is a medical condition.

Legalization vs. Prohibition

Drug legalization and prohibition is one of the hotly contested topics today with stakeholders in the field of policymaking, Health, and society in general. There are several reasons why people support legalization; it can help improve the quality of drugs, minimize their availability on the black market, and possible ways of adopting measures to reduce harm. For example, Portugal made the possession of drugs for personal use legal in 2001, and instead of criminalization of the possession of drugs focus turned to prevention and treatment. These policy changes reduced drug-related death and HIV infection rates and hence possible benefits to public health [8].

While proponents assert that legalization is beneficial to the Country, its people, and its economy, opponents argue that the legalization will increase the use of the drugs, the consequences on the health of the public, and overall societal ills [9]. In the United States, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 set severe measures of punishment for any drug offenses indicating a policy of prohibition that sought to discourage people from using drugs. This legislation has enacted the concept of mandatory minimum sentences as well as implementing different measures based on the type of the substance, specifically crack cocaine and powder cocaine which was deemed quite disproportionate in terms of sentencing [10].

Several new studies on marijuana legalization in different states of America contribute even more to this discussion. In the last five years, the consumption of cannabis for recreational purposes has been legalized in Colorado and Washington and, subsequently in 22 states across the country If the positive prospects of this passage were to obtain, a decade after the passage of this bill or law the two states would have seen dramatic changes in their economic fortunes [11]. However, consumption has grown remarkably; the daily usage of cannabis has increased sevenfold where it was 2.5 million in 2000 to 17.7 million in 2022. The potency has also increased threefold, thus resulting in increased rates of consumption of the drug. It was predicted that legalization would help minimize the rates of spiking instances of both addiction to opioids and crime; however, that was not the case [12]. However, research on using high-potency marijuana has revealed that it poses various effects such as cognitive problems, high incidences of accidents, mental health complications and the creation of a new cannabis market [13].

These differences help to illustrate some of the issues that are often faced when determining the best drug policies to put in place. Although there is an opportunity to regulate and possibly limit the use of such substances after their legalization, there are also problems in the sphere of health care and protection of the population. On the other hand, the policy of abstinence seeks to prevent use of the drugs, yet contributes to problems like the increased rate of prison population and inequalities [14]. Thus, politicians should think over the advantages and disadvantages of the revealed approaches and apply the options that could provide suitable solutions for the existing drug use problems in society.

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Judges must enforce statutory minimum prison sentences as per law for particular crime categories like drug offenses absent recognition of specific offender characteristics. These laws were established to fight crime while promoting equal sentences but they have generated numerous adverse effects [15].

Mandatory minimums function as one of the main factors behind current prison overcrowding throughout the United States. The mandatory minimum policy has caused the U.S. prison population to expand 222% between 1980 and 2010 while accounting for half of the total increase in prison terms. These legislative policies consistently have a greater negative impact on minority population groups. Federal prosecutors have applied mandatory sentencing to more than half of their cases leading to excessive population growth in federal prisons during recent decades among poor minority groups [16].

The criminal justice system fermentation reached its peak through the case of Harmelin v Michigan [1991]. The top court in the United States decided to enforce life-long imprisonment without parole for a first-time drug offender who had 672 grams of cocaine during the Harmelin v Michigan [1991] trial [17].

Racial Disparities in Enforcement

Drug laws have persisted in showing racial distortions when executed by law enforcement agencies across the United States. Research data shows that law enforcement executes drug regulations against minority populations with increased severity which produces substantial racial differences in prison populations. The United States government executed crack cocaine enforcement during the 1980s and 1990s through methods that severely affected African Americans though white populations showed equal drug consumption patterns [18].

The discriminatory enforcement of drug laws in the country received attention in the case of Robinson v California [1962]. The United States Supreme Court eliminated a California drug addiction criminalization law because they realized these laws would enable discriminatory treatment of specific population groups. Addiction received medical recognition through this decision which removed criminal penalties thus establishing standard treatment for drug law enforcement [19].

Impact of Legalization on Public Health

Health assessment regarding drug legalization serves as a necessary foundation for developing effective policy decisions. Correcting the government stance toward cannabis by decriminalization in the Netherlands during the 1970s brought about higher cannabis consumption but prevented other hard drug usage from increasing demonstrating that managed systems could help address public health problems. After conducting research, the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction discovered dangerous contaminants such as lead bacteria and pesticides inside the cannabis products sold through Dutch coffee shops [20]. Testing revealed microbiological contaminants in twenty percent of the total 105 analyzed samples along with pesticide pollution detected in thirty-three percent of these samples. Consumer safety requires controlled manufacturing practices to protect those who use cannabis.

During Thailand’s government-led anti-drug campaign of 2003, the execution of extrajudicial killings resulted in extensive human rights violations even though efforts to combat drug addiction and trafficking proved unsuccessful. Between January and March 2003, the anti-drug campaign financed through government budgets resulted in approximately 2,800 unlawful murders. The resulting approach proved short-sighted because it neither addressed drug problems nor demonstrated why harsh but health-unaware laws remain dangerous [21].

The War on Drugs and Human Rights

The United States’ international “Drug War” initiative has received criticism for causing dangerous drug substances enhanced fatal street drug trades and various serious human rights abuses worldwide. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines introduced his anti-drug campaign in 2016 which has produced thousands of unlawful deaths despite international criticism from human rights groups. Available evidence indicates mortality numbers from the drug war surpass official records by reaching at least 25% higher [22].

Saudi Arabia’s government continues drug executions at frequent rates as part of their “war on drugs” leading to ethical inquiries about executing offenders for non-violent drug crimes. Saudi Arabia killed at least 22 drug offenders through executions throughout the year 2022. These extreme cases show how drug enforcement measures function alongside human rights preservation so authorities can manage drug policies with equal respect for both public health needs and fundamental human dignity [23].

Barriers to Research on Controlled Substances

Medical research into the therapeutic potential of controlled substances has continuously faced barriers because of strict prohibition laws. Under the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, the United States denied clinicians opportunities to research by criminalizing unlicensed opiate ownership and manufacturing for importation or exportation [24].

Despite contrary medical evidence cannabis maintains its Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act which designates high abuse potential and no recognized therapeutic applications. The current Schedule I status creates onerous regulatory limitations that block research progress for cannabis along with its cannabinoids.

The regulations present numerous obstacles to researchers who attempt scientific studies. Researchers face excessive delays in their research timeline when they need to study Schedule I substances because they must overcome long and complex federal agency approval procedures [25]. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) sustained a monopoly on research-quality cannabis production up until 2021 because of the persistent challenges in availability. Scientists condemn the NIDA-provided cannabis due to its lacking potency together with poor quality attributes that prevent successful research.

Technology development and therapeutic applications progress is delayed by regulatory barriers which result in a restricted understanding of controlled substances’ therapeutic potential that in turn impacts clinical care and healthcare standards [26]. For proper scientific research about substance safety and effectiveness, the elimination of barriers should take place [27].

Conclusion

Anti-narcotics and drug policies require comprehensive solutions that unite public health protection with human rights principles and social equity standards. Widespread punitive control measures have shown limited effectiveness in managing drug use throughout history and they instead produce adverse societal complications as well as human rights complications and health emergencies. The worldwide drug war meets criticism because it makes both health crises and violent situations worse it does not stop drug supply or use. Drug policy based on human rights philosophy must safeguard individual rights while simultaneously decreasing the harmful consequences. According to the United Nations criminals who receive harsh punishments for drugs do not reduce their drug offences and instead experience major human rights violations.

A public health-oriented strategy envisions substance addiction treatment exclusively as a healthcare challenge instead of determining it to be criminal. Drug users should receive legal protection from penalties associated with drug acquisition without exceptions while health and supportive services must expand to protect drug consumers from dangerous situations. The distribution of drug policy effects between communities needs specific evaluation to achieve social equity goals. The reform movement targets these unequal situations through legislation that delivers equal treatment under the law for everybody irrespective of personal background.

Societies must critically examine existing drug policies because a thorough review of drug control requires reform strategies that expose drug-related foundation problems. Policymakers who base their work upon evidence alongside health considerations alongside equal rights and human rights protection principles will create drug policies that reduce societal and individual harm throughout communities.

References

[1] National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics (NCDAS), ‘Drug Use Among Youth: Facts & Statistics’ (2025) <https://drugabusestatistics.org/teen-drug-use/?utm> (accessed 2 February 2025)

[2] Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (2009) 1 Naked Law.

[3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Thailand’s “War on Drugs”‘ (12 March 2008) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailands-war-drugs> (accessed February 2025)

[4] Human Rights Watch, ‘Philippines: ‘Drug War’ Killings Rise During Pandemic’ (January 2021) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/13/philippines-drug-war-killings-rise-during-pandemic> (accessed February 2025.)

[5] CNN, ‘Saudi Arabia Executes 81 Men in One Day, the Biggest Mass Execution in Decades’ (Reuters, March 2022) <https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/12/middleeast/saudi-arabia-mass-execution-terrorism-intl/index.html> (accessed February 2025.)

[6] National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics (NCDAS), ‘Drug Abuse Statistics’ (2025) <https://drugabusestatistics.org/> (accessed February 2025.)

[7] Melissa Hamilton, ‘Extreme Prison Sentences: Legal and Normative Consequences’ (2016) 38 Cardozo Law Review 59.

[8] Faryzuhud Bayu, ‘Capital Punishment for Drug Abuse Crime: Legal Limitations and Requirements’ (2021) 7(4) Law Research Review Quarterly 433-444.

[9] Supra 4.

[10] American Addiction Centers, ‘Alcohol and Drug Abuse Statistics (Facts About Addiction)’ (31 December 2024) <https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-statistics-demographics?utm> (accessed March 2025)

[11] Brian D Earp, Jonathan Lewis, Carl L Hart, and Bioethicists and Allied Professionals for Drug Policy Reform, ‘Racial Justice Requires Ending the War on Drugs’ (2021) 21(4) The American Journal of Bioethics 4-19.

[12] Supra 10.

[13] Robin M Murray, Harriet Quigley, Diego Quattrone, Amir Englund, and Marta Di Forti, ‘Traditional Marijuana, High‐Potency Cannabis and Synthetic Cannabinoids: Increasing Risk for Psychosis’ (2016) 15(3) World Psychiatry 195-204.

[14] Fair Fight Initiative, ‘Mandatory Minimum Sentence Statistics’ <https://www.fairfightinitiative.org/mandatory-minimum-sentence-statistics/> (accessed March 2025)

[15] Brian Mann, ‘How Portugal Eased Its Opioid Epidemic, While U.S. Drug Deaths Skyrocketed’ (National Public Radio, 24 February 2024) <https://www.npr.org/2024/02/24/1230188789/portugal-drug-overdose-opioid-treatment?utm> (accessed March 2025)

[16] Alison Siegler, ‘End Mandatory Minimums’ (Brennan Center for Justice, 18 October 2021) <https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/end-mandatory-minimums> (accessed March 2025)

[17] Harmelin v Michigan [1991] 501 US 957.

[18] Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 25 USC 2401 et seq.

[19] Robinson v California [1962] 370 US 660.

[20] National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, ‘Race and the War on Drugs’ (29 November 2022) <https://www.nacdl.org/Content/Race-and-the-War-on-Drugs> (accessed March 2025)

[21] The Brussels Times, ”Alertness Required’: Cannabis Sold in Dutch Coffee Shops Found to Have Contaminants’ (26 January 2025) <https://www.brusselstimes.com/1409451/alertness-required-cannabis-sold-in-dutch-coffee-shops-found-to-have-contaminants> (accessed March 2025)

[22] Supra 18.

[23] Global Commission on Drug Policy, War on Drugs: Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy (Global Commission on Drug Policy 2011).

[24] Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Drug Policies Will Be More Effective with a Human Rights Approach, Türk Says’ (22 November 2023) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2023/11/drug-policies-will-be-more-effective-human-rights-approach-turk-says> (accessed March 2025)

[25] Amnesty International, ‘Drug Policy Reform’ <https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/drug-policy-reform/> (accessed March 2025)

[26] International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy (March 2019) <https://www.humanrights-drugpolicy.org/site/assets/files/1640/hrdp_guidelines_2020_english.pdf> (accessed March 2025)

[27] Drug Policy Alliance, ‘No More Drug War’ <https://drugpolicy.org/> (accessed March 2025).