TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Drug memo small but meaningful symbol
A recent memo circulated by the Supreme Court instructing all judges to send drug users to rehabilitation centers instead of prison is a positive step toward softening Indonesia's harsh prohibitionist approach to tackling substance abuse
Change Size
A recent memo circulated by the Supreme Court instructing all judges to send drug users to rehabilitation centers instead of prison is a positive step toward softening Indonesia's harsh prohibitionist approach to tackling substance abuse.
In a country where more than 2 million people use drugs on a regular basis and traffickers are sometimes punished with death, any move to scale back the "war on drugs" ideology against users, considering the magnitude of the problem, should be welcomed with open arms.
This circular does not present anything particularly new in the way of drug policy approach. In fact under previous laws, this provision already existed - it simply wasn't being implemented.
Former President Megawati issued a decree in 2002 which led to the formation of the National Narcotics Board (BNN) and the development of a national strategy toward the abuse, trafficking and eradication of illicit substances known as P4GN. Despite the existing laws and regulations specifically criminalizing the use of illegal drugs, the strategy clearly stated that "drug users should be referred to drug treatment and rehabilitation (by court order) rather than imprisonment".
That was in 2002. With a recent UN meeting on narcotics concluding that a shift away from criminalizing drug use was crucial for the future, perhaps the Chief Justice deemed it necessary to remind judges about this widely ignored law. The circular clarified the terms for whether an individual was eligible for rehabilitation based on whether they were a dealer or user, or had shown signs of relapsing back into addiction.
Despite a past unwillingness to bend on drug issues, the Supreme Court has shown it is open to change and progress in sending out this memo. It even goes as far as to offer judges' guidance on which facilities would be most appropriate for rehabilitation.
The problem is the bulk of government funding on illicit drugs is pumped into combating users and dealers with an iron fist, not investing it in health services. Consequently, there are very few government-run rehabilitation units and the majority are poorly serviced and offer little comfort for addicts weaning off drugs. The majority of methadone and buprenorfin replacement therapy clinics are run largely on foreign aid. If judges were to shift the onus from jailing drug addicts to treating them, a correlating increase in funding for the health sectors overseeing rehabilitation would also be necessary. While there may be some rehabilitation centers in Java, Sulawesi and Bali, there are scarce few in remote areas such as Papua and Maluku. Perhaps with extra funding, the government-run puskesmas (health centers) could fill the gap and offer programs for those battling their addictions.
Another point of concern is a stipulation within the memo for rehabilitation to be denied to any drug user before the court who has relapsed. Indonesia's Narcotics Law contains articles which do not recognize substance addictions as a "chronic relapsing brain disease", as the WHO defines them. One stint in rehab is not going to *cure' an individual who has been using heroin for 10 years, but does that mean they don't deserve the same treatment as a one-off user? With scientific evidence showing addicts are more likely to relapse during treatment than not, it seems a little unrealistic for judges to withdraw the opportunity from those most needing it. Law enforcement and the courts should work closer with the health bodies overseeing drug users to develop more humane and workable criteria for sentencing addicts.
Determining whether an individual is a drug user or drug dealer is a very precarious situation vulnerable to exploitation by law enforcers. To solve this, the Supreme Court ordered judges to examine the amount of drugs found in possession of the individual and make a judgment based on that. This idea of possession for *personal use' already exists in many countries and it is positive to see Indonesia adopting a similar approach after the failure of the attempted "war on drugs".
A recent nationwide study by the Indonesian Coalition for Drug Policy Reform (ICDPR) found that many drug users surveyed had been abused, extorted or threatened by police with an upgraded status from users to dealers if payment is not made. It is not made clear in the memo how users will receive treatment between their time of arrest and eventual trial, a process sometimes taking more than a year. Once again, solving this will rely on greater cooperation between law enforcement and health agencies.
The decriminalization of drug use and leniency toward users has rarely been considered a platform for tackling drug issues in this country, but this memo may spark dialogue among the necessary groups who can catalyze change in Indonesia's drug policy. Accepting the cold hard facts about the presence and individual harm of narcotics as the Supreme Court has done is definitely a good start.
The writer holds a Bachelor in Communications Journalism degree from the University of Technology, Sydney, and is currently a freelance journalist in Indonesia.
