Could removing criminal penalties help tackle the drug problem in Punjab, and the rest of India? A new report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy suggests that this is likely. The report, based on a study of government de-addiction centres and an analysis of cases tried under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 contends that India’s harsh treatment of drug addicts ends up entrenching the problem rather than solving it.
“Doctors I spoke to during the research said there is a massive stigma attached to being a drug addict,” explained Neha Singhal, who authored the report, Addict to Convict: The Working of the NDPS Act. “A drug addict is equated to being a criminal. Because they use drugs, by their very existence, they are criminals.”
The report calls on the government to remove criminal penalties for drug use and change how it deals with addicts – to treat them as patients rather than as criminals.
“To effectively tackle addiction, this stigma needs to be removed so that it does not hamper access to de-addiction services,” Singhal explained. “There is also the larger question of women addicts who are not coming forward to seek help because of the stigma attached to their gender and drug use.”
Singhal is not the first person to make this argument. Around the world, researchers on drug addiction have suggested this. And the authorities are beginning to pay heed, even in India. Just this month, Sikkim announced that it will decriminalise drug use. “We in Sikkim will not call those consuming drugs as criminals, but as patients,” Chief Minister Pawan Chamling told The Telegraph. “The government will provide them with treatment.”
In a 2015 study on drug policy in India, Tripti Tandon of the Lawyers Collective also called for drug use to be decriminalised. “Like many other countries in Asia, India too has adopted exceedingly harsh measures for drug control,” the study states. “Many facets of the NDPS Act such as the criminalisation of drug use, punishment for possession of drugs for personal use and the death penalty are more strict or severe than those provided by the UN drug control conventions.”
Why then is the Indian state largely reluctant to decriminalise the use of narcotics? “The government hesitates in decriminalising drugs because they feel it will send a wrong message to society,” Tandon said. “But this is something that they can get over. It is up to the people to conduct themselves the way they want. The government can help by running health and education campaigns. Bhang [a form of cannabis often consumed as a drink on Holi] isn’t criminalised, it is regulated by the government but we do not have a widespread bhang addiction problem.”
The strict policy against drug use often encourages police and courts to treat addicts harshly. While this approach may lead to more convictions, it does not achieve what the aim of the policy ought to be: deterring users, and others, from doing drugs.
According to Singhal’s report, the conviction rate under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is 60% higher than that under the Indian Penal Code. Of the around 17,000 prisoners in Punjab’s central jails, the report observes, 3,469 are being held under the Act. “Higher conviction rates do not necessarily mean success of the law,” Singhal argued. “Deterrence depends upon severity, surety, and swiftly punishing those found guilty under the Act. The NDPS Act has managed the first two of the three. Despite the heavy penalties, the addiction rates haven’t fallen. The legislation is successful on paper, but the core purpose of reducing drug trafficking has not been achieved.”
Scattergun approach
In July 1994, the Union health ministry formed an expert committee to specify the category of “small quantity” of drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and determine the length of incarceration carrying narcotics in such quantity should entail. The committee suggested decriminalising the consumption of drugs in small quantities. It also recommended that instead of punishing addicts, the law should provide for their compulsory treatment at de-addiction and rehabilitation facilities. But when the Act was amended in 2001, possessing a “small quantity” of drugs was not decriminalised, although the punishment for it was reduced.
Singhal’s report fears the overlapping interests of the various ministries overseeing the implementation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act might hamper India’s efforts to tackle its drug problem. The Act concerns four ministries – finance, home affairs, social justice and empowerment, and health and family welfare.
“There is a lot of overlap between the ministries regarding this,” Singhal said. “The social justice ministry handles the demand reduction while the health ministry takes care of de-addiction and rehabilitation programmes.”
Making just one ministry responsible for de-addiction, treatment and rehabilitation might help resolve this problem, more so if drug use is also decriminalised, Singhal added.
“The NDPS Act is a great example of how the government tries to apply deterrence to every Act that is related to social justice,” she said. “There is a lot of noise being made about the drug menace in Punjab and the conviction rates are on the rise. But if the government thinks that deterrence works, then why is the state still grappling with the problem of drugs?”
