Hear Them Out, and Help Cure Addiction

Editorial:
The Recovering Users Network, an organisation of recovering drug addicts, as their name suggests, wants the Sikkim Ant-Drugs Act of 2006 amended to make it more humane in its handling of addicts who are victims of their dependence. There are some aspects to the Act and its enforcement, which, RUN is convinced, are causing substantial damage to efforts to reach out to those in the habit and counsel them to recovery. While peddling might be a criminal offence, addiction is a disease, and one does not march off the sick to lock-ups and jail. Admittedly, rehabilitation is also not as simple as forcing someone into a rehab and the complicated situations which make drug addicts out of the youth requires more nuanced and compassionate handling, not the black and white of law which demands that the addicts change or get cut off.
The Recovering Users Network obviously knows what it is talking about because its members have gone down that spiral themselves. They also obviously know that there is hope, and is the society at large can find any concern for its youth, it will listen to this, and other similar groups. There no denying that the people who have linked up with RUN were at one time the proverbial black-sheeps of their respective homes and localities. And yet, today, they are arguably the only network of young people delivering genuine social service, working among addicts and trying to convince a largely disinterested society to work with them. If they are an example of the concern and involvement which can be kindled among youth who have otherwise been cast away because of their chemical dependence, then Sikkim would do well to hang on to every advice groups like RUN and other organisations working among the addicts have to say.
About the clauses of the SAD Act which the recovering users have issues with, one must bear in mind that laws, because they work within clear confines of ‘right’ and ‘criminal’ should never have been brought into play when dealing with addicts. And yet, one had to be worked in because even as addiction infected more and more young, the people around them remained unmoved, preferring to ignore the spread and opting to throw the occasional blame on everything and everyone else. So the SAD Act was brought in. Laws are enforced by policemen and this force, unfortunately, has never been groomed to deal with citizens and victims and ends up approaching every assignment as an enforcer and resorting to stern action by habit when what addiction requires is a more subtle approach. Maybe it was for this reason that soon after the Act was notified, a Sikkim Anti Drugs Authority was instituted to carry through the provisions of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act and coordinate with the many agencies that will need to collaborate if substance abuse is to be combated with any effectiveness. That was in the year 2008 and one was perhaps being too optimistic when one expected the Act and the Authority to tackle addiction when, it appears, its focus was on peddling. While ‘drug busts’ have thankfully led to convictions even when consignments caught were of prescription drugs [not attracting severe legal action until SADA came along], in the three years that have passed since, one has not heard of the Act having delivered on its social calling to help the addicts. In the years that have passed, the differentiation between an addict and a peddler have also been blurred, defeating one of the original intents of this Act. So when organisations like RUN appeal for re-evaluation, their demand should be heeded. It is clear that the social commitment required to tackle addiction is wanting, even the Sikkim Anti-Drugs Authority, a high-powered 11-member unit headed by the Chief Secretary, does not appear to have done anything. Perhaps it could begin by inviting recovering users for consultation to prepare a recommendation on how SADA can be refashioned to deliver some genuine social good even as it fights the crime of peddling.