It was two decades ago this summer that communist rule began to implode from Tallinn in the Baltic to Tirana in the Adriatic, ushering in free elections, market reforms and expanded civil liberties. Since then, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have come a long way. Many are now members of the EU. My homeland, Poland, has a steady economy and a thriving media.
Yet Poland, like many of the other new democracies in our region, remains stuck in the past when it comes to the humane treatment of drug users. Indeed, throughout the former Soviet bloc, there is a disturbing trend in using outdated, conservative and heavy-handed policies to address drug abuse.
For example, Gdansk — the birthplace of the Solidarity movement — does not have a single methadone treatment center. People must travel for three hours to get the medicine that is proven to control cravings and reduce the harms of drug use. They are the lucky ones. Only 5 percent of opiate users in Poland have access to methadone at all, compared with 40 percent in Germany.
Instead of focusing on treatment that works, the Polish government chooses to give priority to long-term rehabilitation centers located in the depths of the countryside that have little, if anything, to do with evidence-based medicine. Poland also chooses to treat possession of even the smallest quantities of drugs as criminal, as evidenced by the fact that 60 percent of people sentenced for drug possession in Poland are marijuana smokers.
Addressing drug use through criminalization and rehabilitation centers does nothing to curb demand, however, and usage rates have failed to decline. By driving users underground, criminalization contributes to a deepening public-health crisis.
This pattern persists across Central and Eastern Europe, where governments have also opted to imprison drug users. In Hungary, for example, the penal code calls for two years imprisonment for personal possession by a drug-dependent person. In neighboring Slovakia, the penalty for personal possession is, as in Poland, up to three years.
This approach is not only inhumane, but also economically untenable — leaders in these countries should be encouraged to redirect scarce law enforcement, court and prison resources toward more pressing causes. Simply put, governments can no longer afford to drain precious time and money that could be better spent elsewhere by locking up people for drug-related offenses.
If Poland and its neighbors are to chart a new way forward, at least three things must happen. First, these countries should look to the West for alternative and more humane drug policies. A report released recently by the UK’s Drug Policy Commission correctly calls for a “smarter” drug policy that focuses on addressing associated violence rather than simply making arrests.
Officials in Central and Eastern Europe should pay heed to recent comments by the UK’s Home Office, which said that “harm reduction underpins every element of our approach to tackling this complex issue.”
Portugal recently went a step further in voting to decriminalize recreational drugs, including heroin and cocaine — a move that has led to a significant decline in drug-related deaths and a fall in new HIV infections.
Second, lawmakers should listen to their constituents — a recent public awareness campaign by Gazeta Wyborcza, a leading Polish daily newspaper, collected more than 23,000 signatures in five days for a petition calling for changes to the current drug law. The changes, modeled after Germany’s progressive policies, would stop punishing people for possessing small amounts of drugs for their own use and bring about stricter penalties for dealers and more effective treatment for drug-dependent people.
In a step forward, a debate in the Polish parliament on the proposed drug law is set to start next month. Young people should not start their working lives with criminal records because of personal possession.
Finally, at the European level, EU policymakers can help by encouraging member states to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs. By freeing up resources devoted to enforcing policies against low-level users, countries can better tackle serious drug-supply issues and provide people with the effective treatment that they need and deserve.
Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch is the director of the Global Drug Policy Program at the Open Society Institute.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic