Walsh Charlotte
School of Law, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom.
Int J Drug Policy. 2016 Mar;29:80-7. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.025. Epub 2016 Jan 12.
This paper reimagines drug policy--specifically psychedelic drug policy--through the prism of human rights. Challenges to the incumbent prohibitionist paradigm that have been brought from this perspective to date--namely by calling for exemptions from criminalisation on therapeutic or religious grounds--are considered, before the assertion is made that there is a need to go beyond such reified constructs, calling for an end to psychedelic drug prohibitions on the basis of the more fundamental right to cognitive liberty. This central concept is explicated, asserted as being a crucial component of freedom of thought, as enshrined within Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is argued that the right to cognitive liberty is routinely breached by the existence of the system of drug prohibition in the United Kingdom (UK), as encoded within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA). On this basis, it is proposed that Article 9 could be wielded to challenge the prohibitive system in the courts. This legal argument is supported by a parallel and entwined argument grounded in the political philosophy of classical liberalism: namely, that the state should only deploy the criminal law where an individual's actions demonstrably run a high risk of causing harm to others. Beyond the courts, it is recommended that this liberal, rights-based approach also inform psychedelic drug policy activism, moving past the current predominant focus on harm reduction, towards a prioritization of benefit maximization. How this might translate in to a different regulatory model for psychedelic drugs, a third way, distinct from the traditional criminal and medical systems of control, is tentatively considered. However, given the dominant political climate in the UK--with its move away from rights and towards a more authoritarian drug policy--the possibility that it is only through underground movements that cognitive liberty will be assured in the foreseeable future is contemplated.
本文通过人权视角对毒品政策,尤其是迷幻药政策进行了重新构想。在断言有必要超越此类僵化结构,呼吁基于更基本的认知自由权终止迷幻药禁令之前,先审视了从这一角度对现行禁令主义范式提出的挑战,即呼吁基于治疗或宗教理由豁免刑事定罪。这一核心概念得到了阐释,被认定为《欧洲人权公约》(ECHR)第9条所规定的思想自由的关键组成部分。有人认为,英国1971年《滥用毒品法》(MDA)所规定的毒品禁令体系的存在,经常侵犯认知自由权。在此基础上,有人提议可利用第9条在法庭上挑战这一禁令体系。这一法律论点得到了基于古典自由主义政治哲学的平行且相互交织的论点的支持:即国家只有在个人行为明显极有可能对他人造成伤害时才可动用刑法。在法庭之外,建议这种基于自由主义和权利的方法也应为迷幻药政策行动主义提供指导,超越目前对减少伤害的主要关注,转向将利益最大化作为优先事项。本文初步探讨了这可能如何转化为一种不同于传统刑事和医疗管控体系的迷幻药监管模式,即第三条道路。然而,鉴于英国占主导地位的政治氛围——其正从权利导向转向更专制的毒品政策——有人思考在可预见的未来,是否只有通过地下运动才能确保认知自由。