T

he newly inaugurated National Narcotics Agency (BNN) chief Comr. Gen. Budi Waseso continues to make controversy. Soon after his inauguration, Budi said that he would review all laws related to drugs. He even said that he would send all drug users to prison, instead of making them undergo rehabilitation programs as mandated by the current law on narcotics.

Budi also claimed that fighting drugs should include reviewing related laws, since imperfect regulations were an obstacle for BNN in performing its duties.  Budi announced that  he would propose a revision to Law No. 35/2009 on Narcotics, especially Article 54, which states that social and medical rehabilitation must be provided to drug addicts and victims of drug abuse.

Activists, researchers and politicians swiftly criticized Budi'€™s controversial statements. The independent Commission for Missing Person and Victims of Violence (Kontras) for example, warned that Budi would implement policies based on his chances of continuing to make headlines.   

Lawmaker Bambang Soesatyo said that the revision of the Narcotics Law as proposed by Budi, that would put users behind bars rather than rehabilitating them, could create more new drug dealers.

Budi'€™s stance toward the issue of drugs is typical among numerous high ranking officers in Indonesia. Why are those officers so obsessed with the punitive '€œwar on drugs'€ approach to narcotics law enforcement, including imprisoning or even giving the death sentence to drug dealers? Why is it so hard to persuade people (including the highly educated)  and decision makers about the need to deal with drug issues using the available research?

The answer may relate to the tendency of a tough, punitive and militaristic drug policy to look more heroic and macho than a rational or evidence-based approach.

The tendency to act and look heroic and macho is appealing, but also hinders  people'€™s capacity to think deeply and to look at evidence more carefully.

In addition, the '€œwar on drugs'€ allows people to simplify the complex nature of drug dealing and drug use. This allows people to think that tough laws alone are a magic bullet or panacea that can deal with all drug-related problems once and forever. This simplistic view is of course a myth built on  unrealistic optimism.

Rigorous research in the form of published articles in peer review academic journals in several disciplines such as criminology and public health demonstrate that the '€œwar on drugs'€ approach is not working.

This widespread simplistic way of thinking about drug issues is a challenge for researchers to find ways to better communicate their evidence-based methods.

It will take a long time to convince the wider public and decision makers about the shortcomings of the '€œwar on drugs'€ and the benefits of a rational approach to drug issues.

There are ways to overcome these facile tendencies such as by more effective communication or providing real-life stories about  the complex nature of drug use and dependence. These include explaining the different levels of drug use such as experimental use, regular use but not yet addicted and problematic drug use, those  dependent on drugs who suffer from the
various consequences of their drug consumption.

We should explain better that transition from experimental use to problematic use is not linear but frequently more complex.

 Moreover, we should provide more '€œgood stories'€ about the success of people who were addicted to drugs but managed to reduce or quit their dependence through various supports, such as medical and social rehabilitation. Of course we should tell the story of the complex nature of managing drug dependence and the frequent relapse experience by those who try to quit.

We hope these detailed and nuanced descriptions may gradually transform people'€™s perspective on drug issues from one that is linear, simplistic and black and white, to something more complex.

A change that we hope will facilitate the understanding that drug use is a complex phenomenon that requires concerted efforts to mitigate.  

This includes, but is not limited to, supply reduction programs through law enforcement (that requires a clean legal system and legal process), demand reduction programs through continuous and creative educational programs to teach people (particularly young people) about different types and risks of drugs and prevention efforts.

These efforts should also include harm reduction programs for those already dependent on drugs or consume drugs regularly. These kinds of comprehensive and smart programs are more beneficial than the heroic and macho, but simplistic '€œwar on drug'€s approach.