Family and Social Solidarity Minister Dolores Cristina has just launched a National Drugs Policy that, apart from spelling out the serious drug situation in Malta, proposes preventive measures to combat the vice.

I have read through the report and the aims are doubtless commendable. The policy streamlines the practices to be adopted by various bodies involved in providing drug-related services. It also aims to improve the quality and increase the provision of services and provide a more coordinated mechanism to reduce the supply and demand of drugs. Among the action contemplated, the policy aims at developing the coordination of social integration services to prevent potential victims falling into drug abuse and help rehabilitated users avoid relapsing. Taking a leaf from Labour Party policies, it wants to see the setting up of a Drugs Court that streamlines drug cases and analyses the current legal provisions to ensure that the Law covers new types of drugs and trends.

The drugs debate has always been controversial, if not outright acrimonious. In the past, the main political parties have accused each other of being too soft on the war against drugs, with decisions taken on presidential pardons leaving behind them political repercussions and political victims as well as two justice ministers from both sides of the House ending up carrying the can.

For years the war against drug trafficking was fought by governments fearful of the opposition parties.

Politically the social perspective of the drugs debate was virtually hijacked by the security aspect of drug trafficking, as it became politically expedient for political parties to transmit to the electorate the feeling that they were in control of drug traffickers and barons. This came, of course, at the expense of the victims or users on whom there was, at the time, little focus.

On the other hand, the Cristina report could have been more far-reaching. In my opinion, the social perspective of the problem cannot be removed from the interior aspect. Calling itself a “National Policy” on drugs, I would have preferred a bi-ministerial approach by the Family and Interior Ministries conjointly and with the involvement of the Opposition as well. It would have been a glorious opportunity to dispel the ghosts of the past, when petty political squabbles ruled the day. And it could have sent a signal that future radical reforms to our justice system, so badly needed, would be pushed forward with little hindrance.

In the past, legislation passed with the approval of both sides of the House stressed the zero tolerance perspective of the war on drug barony. Amendments were subsequently tailored to circumvent any possible loopholes through which traffickers might escape punishment which was, needless to say, extremely severe. A full blown case of drug trafficking, importation, production or cultivation could be punishable with life imprisonment.

However, in its endeavour to ensure that the law prevailed on drug barons, Parliament did not notice that the laws it was passing did not, in certain circumstances, distinguish properly between the trafficker, to whom the main thrust of the legislation was directed, and the user. Only a year ago there was no difference between a person passing a joint to his friend and a baron importing large quantities of marijuana for distribution in the local market. They were both traffickers, and although there was a great disparity between them in the length of time they spend behind bars, for the former no other punishment but imprisonment was possible. Lately legislation spurred by a bi-partisan approach has seen that injustice removed for ever.

I have written and spoken out in Parliament that, notwithstanding recent improvements in the drug laws, there is much more to be done. Dr Tonio Borg knows how I feel about the current situation and we have discussed matters with reciprocal trust on the possibility that our laws be revisited to provide more humane alternatives to imprisonment in specific areas of concern. My views were also communicated to a general conference of the Labour party earlier on this year, whereat I spoke without fear on the need to change the law about convicted abusers who had fallen into the trap of trafficking in order to feed their vice.

There is a great divide between them and the barons who profit over the miseries of their victims. This is just one example. There are other areas that need an overhaul.

The preventive aspect so rightly stressed in Minister Cristina’s report must be complimented by braver steps towards rehabilitative justice.

Dr Gavin Gulia is the opposition main spokesman on Home Affairs