Op-Ed | Drug Policy Lacking Truth

Today, Group 5 of the National Conference on Judicial Reform will discuss drug policy: some committee members advocate treating mere drug users as patients, shifting from punishment to treatment and assistance, while soft drugs (such as marijuana) should be legalized. Others advocate for drug courts, maintaining existing punitive measures, and there is no shortage of voices in society calling for heavier punishments. In Taiwan, a segment of public opinion has always favored harsh penalties for drug offenses, and the government has repeatedly declared its determination to build a drug-free society. The issue that must be faced seriously here is: after walking the path of heavy penalties for drugs for so long, what has been the effect?

Criminal policy requires the investment of policy resources, so the evaluation of criminal policy effectiveness is crucial. After all, under conditions of limited resources, giving to one side crowds out the other. Effectiveness evaluation can be divided into two major categories: one is the evaluation of organizational outputs, measuring an organization's "performance," where measurement indicators should be highly correlated with the desired outcomes. The other is the evaluation of outcome impacts, measuring the "social benefits" generated by organizational outputs. What this "social benefit" refers to is determined by the policy objectives set at the beginning. For example, if the goal of drug policy is a "drug-free society," the key indicator might be a reduction in the number of drug users or preventing users from using drugs again.

When setting policy objectives, other consequences must also be honestly considered. In this regard, the goal of a "drug-free society" is highly deceptive—we might imagine reasonably controlling the drug-using population to a certain number, but speaking of a "drug-free society" is unrealistic. Furthermore, the resulting side effects should also be considered together. For instance, arrests may force drug users into hiding, making it even harder for the government to grasp the reality of the drug market and making it difficult to adopt other practices that reduce the physical harm of drugs, such as providing clean needles so that users do not contract diseases through shared needles.

Unfortunately, the objective of Taiwan's current drug policy is precisely the self-deceptive "drug-free society." Even worse, the government pours massive resources into drug prevention without rigorously evaluating the actual benefits. Government reports always write about how hard a certain unit tried and how many things it did, or how much drugs law enforcement agencies seized, but the connection between these actions and outcomes has not been rigorously established. Under the slogan of "building a drug-free society," to what extent current practices have actually reduced the number of drug users and prevented re-offending lacks empirical evidence.

From the perspective of sound criminal policy, I expect the National Conference on Judicial Reform to pragmatically and rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of the drug policies implemented for so long, and to determine what reasonable policy objectives should be. Based on these objectives, what performance indicators should the government adopt in its actions? Moreover, if we are to move toward decriminalization or drug courts, there must also be pilot programs and impact evaluations. I hope our nation's policies will no longer advance blindly based on feelings rather than truth.

※ This article was originally published in the Apple Daily Forum on 20170420