War on drugs: Normative viewpoints – The Herald

illegal drugs

Sharon Hofisi Legal Letters In asking whether or not drug trafficking can be curbed the world over, we must also come to grips with the questions as to what kind of drugs are being trafficked? Where are they trafficked to? Why is there a proliferation of drugs in both the less developed and more developed countries?

Unless we decide on the above questions, we cannot execute a good analysis. If it is a war without strategy, that is one thing. If it is a global war, steeped in behaviour change and transformative models that is quite a milestone.

The normative framework at a global level was established by Resolution 42/112 of December 7 1987, when the General Assembly decided to observe June 26 as the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking as an expression of its determination to strengthen action and cooperation to achieve the goal of an international society free of drug abuse.

Further, it has to be stated at the very outset that the study on the need to combat drug trafficking or abuse holds great fascination for users and activists. For Zimbabwe, most people are aware of the existence of a basic domestic structure of laws on dangerous drugs, but use drugs for reasons that are medically, traditionally, religiously and personally explained.

It is little wonder, then, that the normative framework laid out by the United Nations, must attract an intense interest and concern of a great variety of people in Zimbabwe. Although the legal framework, as informed by the Dangerous Drugs Act, has not been aligned with the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013, Zimbabwe can take a big leaf from the UNs normative framework.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime describes drug trafficking as (i) a global illicit trade involving the (ii) cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of substances which are subject to (iii) drug prohibition laws.

It also indicates that the organisation is continuously monitoring and researching global illicit drug markets in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their dynamics. What is clear from the above is this: Dealing with drug problems involves two general approaches.

First of all, there is the definitional approach. This approach makes the problem trade related. The countries of the world are guilty of being involved in illicit drug trade. There are those who cultivate or have drug traffickers who cultivate prohibited drugs.

Embedded in this is the need to deal with the myth and realities attached to certain drugs. In an abstract on his work, Hemp and Marijuana David West observed the following myth and realities relating to cannabis. He describes cannabis as the only plant genus that contains the unique class of molecular compounds called cannabinoids. Many cannabinoids have been identified, but two preponderate:

While THC is the psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, CBD is an anti-psychoactive ingredient. One type of cannabis is high in the psychoactive cannabinoid, THC, and low in the anti-psychoactive cannabinoid, CBD. This type is popularly known as marijuana. Another type is high in CBD and low in THC. Variants of this type are called industrial hemp.

Two myths and realities that he brought to the fore are also interesting. The first myth relates to whether the United States law has always treated hemp and marijuana the same. The reality, historically answered, is that federal drug laws clearly show that at one time the US government understood and accepted the distinction between hemp and marijuana.

The other myth is that smoking industrial hemp gets a person high. The reality is that the THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only marijuana; it could be called anti-marijuana.

When we talk about the prohibition of mbanje in Zimbabwe, we may locate it under human rights theories that seek to deliberate on rights or to locate religion as part of the givens from the deities. In some circles, mbanje is also known as Nigerian grass or dhobho in street lingo.

Belief abounds as to its use: religious beliefs such as working as a medium of communication with the Deity and traditional practices such as scaring away spooks, and healing mental ailments. Added to this are constitutional freedoms such as religious freedom.

Those who are adherents of religions that have hemp or marijuana as part of their religious arsenal, and believe the prohibition of such drugs is unconstitutional, may have to institute test cases in light of the national laws which prohibit drugs.

Apart from the Constitution, Zimbabwe has a Dangerous Drugs Act, as is also the case with countries such as Jamaica and Mauritius. The Act prohibits the use or misuse of certain drugs, places restrictions on imports and exports of drugs such as prepared opium and Indian hemp.

The Zimbabwean framework deals with the importation, exportation, production, possession, sale, distribution and use of dangerous drug and fits well into the UN framework alluded to above.

The Global Drug Policy Observatory provides us with some vital information to supplement the UN normative framework. It describes Zimbabwe as still witnessing an increase in problematic drug use among its domestic population along with the related public health issues that accompany certain types drug use.

The substances that are most commonly used in Zimbabwe include alcohol, cannabis, heroin, glue and cough mixtures such as Histalix and Bron Clear (Bronco). The later unotomwa, with the mouth agape, because believably, all the teeth will disappear immediately. Imagine the health effects!

Cannabis (mbanje) remains the most popular illicit drug mainly because it is grown locally or smuggled in from neighbouring countries like Malawi and Mozambique. In some societies along the Zambezi Valley, mbanje is grown and consumed in large quantities as a way of life.

Zimbabwe is also a conduit for the trafficking of drugs on their way to other countries in the region such as South Africa. Local Zimbabweans are often used to transport these drugs and rather than being paid in cash, they are usually paid in drugs which then enter the local market. When you become a transit country, you are immediately also a consumption country.

The debilitating effects of glue cannot be ignored, unokurungwa fungwa. In a research by Rudatsikiri et al (2009), cited in the Observatory, the use of cannabis and glue amongst school pupils (largely aged between 13 and 15) in Harare, it was found that overall 9,1 percent of pupils had used the drugs (13,4 percent of males and 4,9 percent of females). Add this to other effects such as unsafe sexual behavior, increased risks of STIs including HIV/AIDS.

To end this problem, Zimbabwe has to have an effective engagement strategy with countries that manufacture the drugs that are consumed in Zimbabwe or sold to South Africa. Zimbabwe is also supposed to craft drug polices that deal with drugs like musombodhiya or nipa (also known as kachasu).

Musombodhiya is descriptive of street language that is used to refer to an illicit alcohol brew composed of diluted ethanol or methanol. The drug (because it contains high alcohol content) is alleged to contain 95 percent alcohol, is consumed in very small quantities and gives the consumer hours of drunkenness.

This still leaves the unanswered question as to whether or not the consumers are aware of the impacts of alcohol. Apart from having no blood in their alcohol, the consumers often a time stick, describing a situation where they will not be able to move their body parts.

This brings us to the second aspect in dealing with the drug problem, effective institutional responses. Musombodhiya comes from ethanol which is reportedly smuggled from ethanol plants and is then diluted with water, sold for about US$1 for the 100ml or US$7 for the 750ml bottle.

Add musobhodhiya to Bronco, kachasu, chikwakubidiri (one-day brewed beer) and the need for effective institutional responses becomes apparent. The family head, village or community leader, the Zimbabwe Republic Police and civil society organisations (CSOs) such as Civil Liberties and Drug Network come into play.

These institutions have different strategies in that the ZRP, for instance, has to control crimes related to drugs; the community has to help cultivate a sense of responsible citizenry and CSOs assist in reforming drug survivors. They are alike, however, in having a strong emphasis upon the need to curb the use of drugs.

Sentencing policies in our criminal courts must also take cognisance of international trends. It must not end with retributive punishment. The offender must be the focal point. Sentencing guidelines are needed in this regard. Those guidelines must give due regard to the Constitution, particularly religious freedom.

The Dangerous Drugs Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act must also be urgently aligned with the Constitution. While the laws contain certainly good sentencing guidelines, there is no indication of the approaches to constitutional freedoms.

It is the Constitution which must form the basis of sentencing, but the Constitution nonetheless used in the sense that it is the supreme law whose content is provided by subsidiary laws such as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Against these indications of the problematic nature of drugs, there is need to have an integrated approach to the regulation of the distribution and sale of drugs. This approach must involve the ordinary citizen, health regulatory bodies, pharmacies and ministries such as Home Affairs, Health and Justice, and Information.

More to the point is the endeavour of those citizens who are willing to share their lived realities on social platforms on how they benefited from the CSOs, health institutions, or lenient sentences that were imposed on them by the courts as well as the correctional approaches that they received when they were incarcerated.

The argumentation in this endeavour is that these approaches lead us to deal with the issues to drug trafficking in a holistic manner. Those who misuse or use dangerous drugs are also empowered to speak out without fear of being prosecuted.

This in no way indicates the need to condone the use or misuse of such drugs. It is much the same fallacy as to say the youths are the ones who consume the lions share of drugs because they engage in high risk behaviour. The same obtains where one religious movement is identified as the leading consumer of drugs such as marijuana. There is no logical or legal basis for assertions of this kind when the only basis are court cases where those who are accused of possessing dangerous drugs yell their story.

An examination of some criminal cases will also show that there was no evidentiary sufficiency but many factors led to the conviction of the accused person. He was unrepresented, failed to proffer some exceptional circumstances relating to the possession or the plausibility of his defence was not properly weighed together with the evidence. There is also absence in distinguishing Indian hemp from other types of mbanje.

Those who brew illicit beer in their backyards are usually spared the wrath of the law. Again the fact that their brews are unspoken does not mean that there was no illicit beer that was brewed but the perpetrators were neither arrested nor prosecuted.

It takes, from the foregoing, something more than the definition of dangerous drugs to enable a nation to effectively deal with drug trafficking. The UN approaches have to be legitimately applied. In other words, while there is a general legal framework on drugs, it is not a normative which might lead to an integrated approach to solving drug-related issues.

Excerpt from:

War on drugs: Normative viewpoints - The Herald