Laws About Drug Use in Switzerland Change
Switzerland held a referendum on Sunday, November 30th (note that they hold their elections on Sunday, a day more people are available to go to the polls) that produced some surprising and, perhaps to some, inconsistent results. Swiss voters chose to allow heroin addicts to receive heroin, with clean needles, of course, from the government via prescription. As this article describes the situation, this involves only 1,300 individuals because citizens allowed to receive the drug must have been addicted for over a decade and failed at rehabilitation.
On the other hand, the voters rejected a plan to legalize marijuana. The initiative would have allowed citizens to grow and use Switzerland’s most used drug for their own purposes.
According to this BBC article, 68% of voters voted in favor of the heroin plan. Sixty-three percent rejected the proposed law on cannabis use. Though the proposal failed, Swiss police usually ignore the use of small amounts of the drug. One disappointed Swiss voter noted that people have died from abusing alcohol and heroin, both now legal, but none had ever died from smoking pot.
This article from the NZZ, the Neu-Zürcher-Zeitung from Zürich, explains the vote and the so-called Vier-Säule-Strategie that shapes Switzerland’s basic approach to drug usage. This “Four-Pillar-Strategie” includes as basic tenets “Prävention, Repression, Therapie und Schadensminderung.” (The first three are cognates; the last one translates into something like “minimization of damage.) This is still quite a restrictive policy compared to others found in Europe.
(photo from Deutsche Welle online)
December 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I was shocked when I read this blog. It is amazing to me that a drug as powerful and lethal as heroin would ever be legalized. It was even more surprising to read that the legalization of heroin had passed, but not the legalization of marijuana. Like the disappointed Swiss voter had said, people die from heroin and alcohol abuse often, but you don’t hear of people dying from marijuana.
If I were a Swiss voter, I would be thinking that heroin addicts could increase from the legalization of the drug, and patients in rehab may not be as motivated or concerned about getting clean. They know that the drug is legal for them if they fail and there’s not as much pressure to work on fixing their situation. It’s obviously good that the government put restrictions on who can receive the heroin and how, but I would think there are better ways to handle a drug problem than legalizing it, even with restrictions.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
This article was quite surprising to me. I knew drug use was not as serious of a crime in Europe as it was here, but the legalization of heroin seems like a huge step. The problem I foresee with this law is that it will be difficult to prove who has been addicted for ten years and who has not.
I was also surprised that this passed before the legalization of marijuana, because it seems to be a much less dangerous drug. I am fairly sure that marijuana is legal in Amsterdam, or atleast overlooked by most police.
However, while i think it’s sad that it comes down to prescriptions for heroin, I think that it’s good that addicts are being regulated and being given clean needles.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 am
This was a really neat article/blog to read. From an American standpoint, legalizing heroine seems outrageous. However, after I looked at the article and read about the “Four-Pillar-Strategie”, the legalization makes sense. By legalizing heroine, the Swiss are attempting to minimize the effects of the drug. As the article states, in the past, there was a lot of crime surrounding the drug. On the other hand, by not legalizing marijuana, the Swiss are again following the Four-Pillars by attempting to prevent drug use. I’m sure everyone learned in school that if you start smoking pot, it leads to harder drugs. The Swiss may feel the same. Even so, perhaps the Swiss are trying to prevent drug use by keeping it illegal in an attempt to keep use down. With the legalization of heroine, the user had to meet fairly strict requirements whereas the legalization of marijuana would affect everyone. Overall, from the Swiss point of view, I can see why they voted the way they did.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I had to re-read this blog to make sure it wasn’t a joke.
I never thought I would see the day when heroin would be legalized. I understand their point of view, but I also understand the one voter who “noted that people have died from abusing alcohol and heroin, both now legal, but none had ever died from smoking pot.” It seems strange to me that the Swiss would allow such a powerful drug to be legal. If their plan is to hopefully reduce the death rate from drugs, I don’t think this is the right solution.
Legalizing marijuana, however, I can see being beneficiary. Marijuana has been proven to help medically.
It will be interesting to see how Switzerland is changed by the new law, and it will be interesting to see what new laws arise as a result.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
I guess it makes sense to legalize the use of heroin in Switzerland for the purpose of regulating users. At least that way they can monitor their use of the drug. There are the obvious problems (how would they know who had been using for 10 years; no motivation to get clean). I wonder what kind of laws are in place for people who are new users of heroin? I suppose it would be stricter to prevent people from getting to the point of being addicted for over ten years. And marijuana is a gateway drug, so I can see why they voted to make it illegal.
I can see the reasoning of the voters, though. I once debated in class for legalizing prostitution, but only because it would mean that all prostitutes would have to be registered and it would be safer for all involved, etc. But I also think that this is not the solution to the problem of addiction to heroin, just like legalizing prostitution would not be the solution to prostitution.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Well, I find this approach very interesting in drug use control. Since there are currently 1,300 individuals that qualify for this program of heroin distribution, does that mean that once they no longer exist the program will no longer be necessary or will there be new eligible addicts? I guess this program does sound pretty effective in concentrating heroin use in a controlled environment so that there is less drug-related crime. Also, I think it is necessary to note that just because the government is instating this program does not mean they are legalizing heroin completely.
As far as not legalizing growth of marijuana for personal use, it does not seem too contradictory to the vote of instating a government program for heroin. Both votes seem to say that the citizens don’t want widespread use of drugs in their country. However, if police are already turning a blind eye to “moderate” marijuana use, then it does not seem that the vote matched the attitudes of the citizens to the issue of marijuana use.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I think this is definitely an interesting take on regulating drug use. While the US has gone pretty hardcore and long ago announed a “War on Drugs” I personally never hear about Europe having as much of a problem or at least not being as loud about its problems. Someone asked about what would happen when the 1300 people are no longer in the program. I do not think the program would end there at all because I think new people would get added all the time. I think this may be good and bad. First, as new people are added that means that they are off the streets and are at least getting clean drugs. While that seems like an oxymoron, drugs on streets can be laced with anything and addicts aren’t going to care. Second, since these people aren’t on the streets anymore, then crime and violence could go down, as someone else pointed out. Third, it can be negative in that people will have no incentive to succeed in rehab if they know they can get good clean drugs somewhere else. Since the people in the program have to be hardcore addicts for 10 years that could cause a lot of people to continue drug use until they are too addicted to go back or even worse they may die before 10 years has passed. Finally, while crime and violence MAY decrease on the streets, the fact that a bunch of clean heroin is locked up in a facility somewhere means that facility is open to crime all the time and will have to be strongly regulated and constantly monitored. While I can understand the positive aspects of this program, I think the negative consequences outweigh the benefits and I do not agree with implementing this program.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I was absolutely shocked at the inconsistencies (or so it seemed to me) of the two votes. I can understand the heroin addiction law passing and, although it is very sad, I feel as though the addicts are not at fault, and deserve this help (which will help them “function in society,” according to http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081201/eu_switzerland_heroin_vote.html?.v=1&.pf=insurance). Also, that while the government is providing this service to those who suffer from addiction, I believe that there should be some sort of action to find the source and prevent the influx of the drug, to stop/minimize future addiction
After being shocked that the marijuana law did not pass, I thought about possible reasons that it could have been so. I believe that the heroin law passed because it would help people struggling with serious issues, while the marijuana law would not directly help anyone. However, I thought that, were marijuana legalized, there could be regulation of quality and, were individual Swiss citizens allowed to grow it, a decrease in costs (related to transportation, dealers increasing prices, etc.) and it could be taxed for the benefit of all.
This really confused me, so I looked up some more information, and found this passage, which was consistent with my theory as to the passing and defeat of the two laws:
“Olivier Borer, 35, a musician from the northern town of Solothurn, said he welcomed the outcome in part because state action was required to help heroin addicts, but he said legalizing marijuana was a bad idea.
‘I think it’s very important to help these people, but not to facilitate the using of drugs,’ Borer said. ‘You can just see in the Netherlands how it’s going. People just go there to smoke.’”
(source: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081201/eu_switzerland_heroin_vote.html?.v=1&.pf=insurance)
December 5th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I find this approach to drug use extremely interesting. Before I read the reasoning for not legalizing marijuana I was confused by their decision. I personally am for the legalization of it in the U.S. for many reason (for example it is less dangerous and addictive than alcohol and the already high usage, but that’s an argument for a different day). Especially with the juxtaposition of the legalization of heroin I was perplexed. However, I believe it makes sense that they do not legalize marijuana so that Switzerland does not just become a country for drug trafficking. I wonder what their feelings about medicinal marijuana are. I’d assume that by making heroin legal for addicts, which is sometimes considered a medical condition, they would support legal marijuana for cancer patients, etc. The thing that had the most effect on me, however, was just the fact that the Swiss have the right to vote on such an issue. It makes me feel ashamed of our “democratic” government. Someone the other day was talking about how we “choose the choosers”. In a democracy, we are supposed to be the choosers most of the time, not an elected official. I respect Switzerland’s government for the rights and trust they are giving their people. Bravo.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:52 am
This is a very interesting and shocking topic. I am not familiar with drug use in Europe but it is very interesting to me that Heroin would be passed over Marijuana. Marijuana certainly less dangerous than Heroin and while it is understandable that this way the government can help regulate the Heroin given to users, wouldn’t it make more sense to help Heroin addicts kick the habit and not encourage it? The government can only regulate Heroin use to a certain extent and people will still be looking out for more if they want it. This really just demonstrates what kind of problem Switzerland must have with Heroin use since “safer,” and of course I use this term loosely, drugs like Marijuana are apparently lesser used illegal drugs in Switzerland and not as many people feel the need to make it legal.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
It is very intriguing that Swiss voters would be against the legal usage of marijuana while voting for a drug much more severe like heroin. I understand it is very important for those who are addicted to a substance to receive clean and healthy needles, but the contradiction between the two percentages is very unexpected. I feel that if such a poll was made to the United States, the percentages would be the exact opposite. The DW article had said that the patients who are receiving heroin in the hospitals are doing so under supervision and that it is accompanied by therapy but, the use of marijuana would not have been monitored in a hospital. This issue is important to note. Many may have voted against the legalization of marijuana because it is not necessarily strictly controlled/administered by hospitals. Control is a big issue when it comes to these issues and may have had a large impact on the Swiss polls.