The Vienna and Prague Declarations: On the Reformation and Rethinking of Drug Policies - Essay Example

Running VIENNA AND PRAGUE DECLARATIONS The Vienna and Prague Declarations: On the Reformation and Rethinking of Drug Policies Both the Vienna and the Prague Declarations deal with the need to reform the policies regarding the treatment of drug users and the change in the implementation of such policies. While the Vienna Declaration has two items less than the Prague Declaration, both have stated the need to reform of actions against drugs scientifically as well as by social and moral terms. There is not much evidence to support prevention or suppression of the availability of drugs by law enforcement, hence the presentation of the two declarations as alternatives in the fight against drugs. Both the Vienna Declaration and the Prague Declaration tackle the need for reforms with regards to drug policies around the world. The Vienna Declaration leans more towards the prevention and therapy for individuals that contracted AIDS through drug use (e.g. infected needles, etc.). On the other hand, the Prague Declaration leans more on the management of more effective drug policies in general. I agree with first point made by the Vienna Declaration, which is about the transparent reviewing of effectiveness of the current drug policies. Many implemented drug policies were, and are currently just being adapted due to the fact that the regulation of prohibited drugs at the population level more or less is not influenced by science, but rather by factors other than evidence from research (Anderson, 2011). For the second point, I also agree with the implementation and evaluation of a science-based public health approach tailor-fitted to individuals/communities. There is no such thing as one single policy that could cater to all the needs of the community, since the number of drug users fluctuate not in the course of months, but years (Caulkins, 2007). The decriminalization of drug-users and them receiving treatment just like individuals with diseases is the third point of the Vienna Declaration, which has an idea very similar to the third item in the Prague Declaration. Drug users respond to better treatment when given the option of receiving a recovery-oriented form of rehabilitation, which builds the strength and resilience of the individuals to take responsibilities for their sustained health, wellness, and recovery from alcohol and drug problems (Lee et al., 2010). For the fourth item, I also agree on the endorsement and implementation of HIV interventions not only with regards to the usage of drug, but in the population in general. Since the spread of HIV via usage of infected and unsterile needles account for more than 80% of documented cases, education is still a key factor in the prevention of the spread of HIV as well as the reduction of drug use (WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS, 2009). Lastly, I strongly agree with the last statement about the involvement of the affected community and its members in the development, monitoring, and implementation of services and policies regarding drug use. Even if there is a strong policy against drug abuse, if the community is not sensitive enough to take care of its citizens, then eventually some people will stumble upon drugs, and before long the problem of drug abuse will make itself known. A comprehensive approach in preventing alcohol abuse in colleges, for example, brings about change at the institutional and community levels, in addition to public policy level. The many aspects of this environment are shaped by prevention advocates, campus officials, government officials and others. Called environmental management, this is supported by scientific research for its effectiveness in bringing lasting and positive changes in the college level (Lee et al., 2010). For the first item in the Prague Declaration, it more or less resembles the second bulleted point of the Vienna Declaration, which is about tailor-fitting the policies based on what the community needs. By adapting the policy to a community’s requirements, it will bring people together, unlike when generalized policies are utilized, which divides special groups and pits them against each other (Caulkins, 2007). I also agree with the second item in the Prague Declaration, which is about accepting the fact that some drugs may not be eradicated, since they have been used by the human civilization for thousands of years. Rather, the management as well as the reduction of non-medical consumption of drugs would be a more realistic approach in diminishing the harms related to drug trafficking and abuse. Advancing of the alcohol and drug treatment policies were in the spirit of compromise (Lee et al., 2010). The third item is about the respect for the human rights of ill people, particularly those of drug addicts, which is also the same as the third item in the Vienna Declaration. Since they are also humans, there should be a decriminalization of drug users and instead should be given treatment deemed proper and appropriate. Another is that by incarcerating the said individuals during treatment, they become isolated and they could become “incapacitated” by it (Magura, 2007). I also agree with the fourth item in the declaration, wherein public health and public safety concerns are seen as one or equal entities. There should be a dynamic approach with regards to the suppression of drugs and alcohol. Instead of just seeing it as a crime, it should be seen not just a hazard or a disease that affects an individual but the whole community as well. With this, there should be a public policy that supports public opinion, because their safety is at stake (Gunaratnam, 2005). For the fifth item, evidence-based decisions regarding drug policies are implemented and may not be applicable at all times. Like the first point of the Vienna Declaration, I agree with this statement. Models for the effect of drugs may not all be the same at times, since there may be other factors that could affect the spread of drugs in a certain area, like rumors and reactions of individuals that take drugs (Anderson, 2011). The evaluation and monitoring of interventions is very important, since this would foretell what actions should be undertaken, and which policies should be junked. I agree with this item because there should be the utilization of health information technology and national standards for clinical and quality outcomes, with the suggestion of different approaches and client-directed recovery plans (Lee, 2010) (Spillane, 2004). Lastly, the item about the transparency of drug policies being made and implemented in both the national and the community level is also very relevant. This is very much like the first point in the Vienna Declaration, which is about the accessibility of policies for everyone to evaluate. Also, since the public pays for the facilities, and they most probably live near such, they should not only get to know about the conditions regarding drug policies but also to be informed on how they can help to strengthen a community’s solidity against the infiltration of drugs (Gunaratnam, 2005). Based on the following points mentioned in the two declarations, I would sign both of them in hopes that the policies aiming towards the suppression of drugs and drug trafficking would provide an assurance of safety in the years to come. Not discounting the scientific evidence for the rehabilitation and prohibition of certain drugs, since there are also other factors that could affect how drugs could spread, how rehab facilities could provide help, or not, as well as the country and the community’s action towards the execution of drug policies, there should be flexibility with regards to the adaptation and use of drug-related policies. Also, the said communities should have their own say with regards to the implementations, since they would be the first ones to gain the initial effects. For this, there should be an emphasis on the long-term, low-intensity and recovery maintenance services instead of seeing drug users as criminals that are “unconquerable”, and that the public should be protected from them (Magura, 2007). In a case study in Australia for example, although the people in certain communities were OK with the idea of establishing a supervised injecting facility in their place, but due to many misleading facts as well as numerous groups and politicians that had differing moral and political beliefs, the establishment of trial facilities and centers were not facilitated and no trials regarding the effectiveness were done. If there was unity and transparency with regards to setting up such facilities, the efficacy of it might have been evaluated without any bias (Gunaratnam, 2005). If the Vienna Declaration was implemented in my country, the changes might take a longer time to be felt. There is a slow response of people with regards to the treatment and rehabilitation of drug users by a more scientific and humane approach, and treating them as criminals would require less money from the state and the people. The recommended changes would need a considerable amount of money, and many taxpayers may not feel the need to implement changes, especially if they themselves have no experiences having one of their loved ones being snatched away by drugs, or worse, being killed. Also, the legislative bodies may have mixed reactions with regards to the reform of drug-related policies because each has their own ideas as well as their biases and other intentions. Also, establishing rehab facilities can be quite costly, and there are also other problems that the state must attend to, like education, healthcare as well as employment, among others. Should there be an initiative for policy reform, it would be a very slow and tedious process. In conclusion, based on the above evidences and studies mentioned, I will sign either the Vienna or Prague Declarations for a future of an even better handling and management of substance abuse and trafficking as well as implementation of more effective ways of treating drug users and ending their demise. References Anderson, P. (2011). Addictions and European Policy: Has the “European project” stifled science-led policy? Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 117-118. Caulkins, J.P. (2007). The need for dynamic drug policy. Addiction, 102,4-7. Gunaratnam, P. (2005). Drug Policy in Australia: The supervised injecting facilities debate. Australia: The Australian National University. Lee, P.R., Lee, D.R.,& Lee, P. (2010). 2010: U.S. Drug and alcohol policy, looking back and moving forward. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 42, 99-114 Magura, S. (2007). Drug prohibition and the treatment system: perfect together. Substance Use and Misuse, 42, 495-501. The Prague Declaration (On the principles of effective local drug policies), in http://www.praguedeclaration.com/. 2010 The Vienna Declaration, in http://www.viennadeclaration.com/the-declaration/#identifier_30_16. 2010 Spillane, J.F. (2004). Debating the controlled substances act. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76, 17-29. WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS (2009). Technical Guide for countries to set targets for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care for injection drug users. Retrieved September 16, 2011 from http://www.unodc.org/documents/hiv-aids/idu_target_setting_guide.pdf Read More