In favor of drug liberalization

In this article, I would like to revisit the main points I made during the debate organized by Le Regard Libre on drug policy, on May 12. This article also provides an opportunity to pay a heartfelt and respectful tribute to Olivier Guéniat, chief of the Neuchâtel Judicial Police. His passing is undoubtedly an incalculable loss for his loved ones, his family, and his colleagues. For me, as a native of Neuchâtel, it is also a tremendous loss of knowledge, given how vast and widely recognized his expertise was. Continuing his fight—for young people, for greater pragmatism, and for tangible results on the ground—will be our greatest tribute to him. He will certainly be missed.

To clarify my point, here are the definitions needed to fully understand my argument:

• The decriminalization is the abolition of criminal penalties for certain acts, although fines may still apply.

• The legalization Drug legalization can be defined as the legal recognition of the freedoms to use, produce, and trade in psychotropic substances that were previously illegal. It differs from decriminalization, which refers to a relaxation of criminal penalties that may go as far as their outright elimination. Decriminalization signals a process of reducing enforcement, but it remains rooted in a prohibitionist framework. Legalization, on the other hand, requires the repeal of the prohibition.

Against use, but in favor of legalization

During this debate, I was able to reiterate my personal opposition to any use of narcotics. That said, for reasons of effectiveness in particular—which I will return to—my basic premise is that all drugs must be decriminalized and legalized. This position is entirely compatible with my aversion to drug use. By stopping the spending of money (currently two-thirds of the budget allocated to drug-related issues) on enforcement that does not work—or works only minimally—and by creating new revenue streams (such as VAT or a special tax, like the one on tobacco, for example), the legalization of these products would allow us to better support people who are addicted.

By focusing on support services, but also by strengthening preventive measures, it is possible to better manage this issue. This utilitarian approach is often criticized for being profit-driven. It is, of course, possible to reject any notion of profit-making at the expense of others« choices regarding addictive products, but consistency would require, in that case, stopping the sale of alcohol, cigarettes, and other similar products. What about sugar, coffee, and other »drugs” that have become widely available?

Furthermore, trivializing the offense completely undermines the credibility of the judicial system. The allure of the forbidden drives a significant portion of young people to experiment with breaking the law. This trend erodes the legitimacy of state authority. It is ironic that this argument is not taken up by the advocates of a strictly repressive approach, or even of prohibition. In this sense, authorizing the sale of CBD (cannabis with a low THC content) is a magnificent Trojan horse. By blurring the line between what is permitted and what is prohibited, it prepares the public for full legalization. It puts police officers in a difficult position. The decision made by the Federal Council is a highly political one.

Freedom and responsibility

Decriminalization and legalization are also justified by the fact that it is unacceptable, out of paternalism, to arbitrarily decide what is or is not good for citizens. The aim here is to put an end to the stigma caused by prohibition. This new freedom granted to citizens, however, requires a comprehensive overhaul of the Swiss system. I cannot conceive of granting freedoms without also imposing responsibilities.

It is therefore essential to eliminate the requirement to purchase health insurance and to allow everyone to choose whether or not to share their risks; that is, after all, the very purpose of insurance—to share risks with someone who engages in «risky» behavior. I would like to clarify here, to avoid any harmful accusations of ulterior motives, that it would only be possible to screen for «risky behaviors» and not for risks in general. For a liberal like myself, refusing to make someone pay for being born with defective genes is a given. Genetic chance should not be blamed; risky behavior, however, should be.

Whether drug distribution is subsequently handled by the government, as in Uruguay, or left to the free market, as in some U.S. states, is a purely political question. Both approaches have their benefits. The former could serve as a temporary step to avoid causing too much upheaval.

The product being sold is of higher quality than what is currently available on the black market. It helps generate a portion of sales locally, which creates jobs that were previously left to a black market that breeds crime and corruption. Furthermore, as mentioned above, it helps raise funds to support and provide care for those who can be helped.

The various examples tested elsewhere should inspire us without fostering the illusion of a perfect solution that could put an end to consumption overnight. Improvements are possible. They are within our reach. Let’s seize this opportunity.

You have just read an article from our print edition (Le Regard Libre No. 28).