On June 26, the world observed the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, also known as World Drug Day, centered around the theme 'The evidence is clear: invest in prevention.'

This year's theme underscores the importance of rehabilitation over criminalisation, emphasising that prevention is better than cure. Nepal urgently needs effective drug policies grounded in science, research, compassion and full respect for human rights. The issue of drug abuse profoundly impacts youth, families, society and the nation as a whole.

Nepal is beginning to take tentative steps towards addressing the drug crisis through reforms concerning marijuana, supported by a small portion of farmers as well. This move could benefit Nepal greatly, particularly given its appeal to tourists seeking both highland routes and recreational activities. Many leaders and activists support marijuana legalisation for medical purposes. However, this focus has overshadowed broader drug issues, especially those stemming from Nepal's porous borders facilitating smuggling of high-level drugs like cocaine through international routes.

Several European countries, including Canada and Australia, have successfully implemented marijuana legalisation policies, yielding positive outcomes in terms of regulation and economic benefits. Canada, for instance, permits cannabis cultivation with regional variations, while Australia legalised medicinal cannabis nationwide in 2016. Nepal may eventually explore similar paths, albeit with careful consideration of its unique social and cultural contexts.

In the legal realm, Nepali courts are grappling with increasing narcotics-related cases, with nearly 70 per cent of their weekly and daily lists involving such charges. Despite provisions in the Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act, 2033 (1976), to refer accused individuals to rehabilitation centres rather than prosecute them, less than 1 per cent of cases are actually referred, with judges inconsistently applying provisions (Section 14 (1) e, h) intended for drug dependents.

Lawyers cannot influence and challenge judges, but judges generally want to follow the law and, just as importantly, don't want their failure to do so memorialised in a transcript for appellate review.

Therefore, it is the defense lawyer's duty to explain the law.

Law enforcement officers and the Attorney General's office face significant challenges in distinguishing between individuals possessing illegal substances for personal use versus those intending to sell.

Often, the system opts for the easier path of sentencing based on possession quantity and charging under prohibition acts.

While there have been landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of Nepal recognising drug dependency as a condition rather than a crime, the prolonged judicial process can cause irreparable harm to the defendants.

For example, in 'DN 9792', the Supreme Court acquitted two defendants charged with drug sales, recognising their dependency. However, by the time of the judgment, the defendants had already served their time and been released, causing irreparable damage to these youths.

As Lord Chief Justice Hewart of English famously quoted, 'Justice should not only be done but seen to be done,' meaning that if an accused undergoes the hardships of the legal system until their innocence is recognised, they may never feel that justice has truly been served in their favour. Therefore, trial courts need to be courageous in making these decisions.

In another landmark case, 'DN 10957', the Supreme Court ruled that it is common for drug dependents to possess large quantities of drugs for personal use. Our competent Supreme Court has established several significant interpretations and jurisprudence.

Internationally, the community advocates a comprehensive approach to drug addiction, urging support for underutilised treatments addressing substances beyond marijuana. Nepal must take responsibility rather than merely organising workshops in luxurious resorts.

In the name of combating narcotics abuse, Nepal's Home Ministry has deployed special units, similar to Colombia's response to uncontrollable drug cartels. Unfortunately, many victims of these crackdowns are impoverished drug dependents who cannot afford the fines imposed by the law, leading to jail. How can these individuals be involved in drug smuggling solely for monetary gain?'

The UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contains provisions that could mandate the prohibition of drug possession for personal use, contingent upon adherence to earlier drug control conventions. This aspect is noted for its potential ambiguity and internal contradictions. The Senlis Council, a European think tank since 2002, advocates viewing drug addiction as a public health issue rather than purely criminal.

Looking ahead, Nepal must adopt a holistic approach to address its drug crisis comprehensively. Countries like Ecuador and Portugal have pioneered reforms that view drug addiction primarily as a public health issue rather than a criminal offense. In Portugal, citizens found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs (no more than a 10-day supply of the given substance) were sent to a panel made up of a psychologist, a social worker and a legal advisor, who would then devise an appropriate treatment plan. Jail would not be part of the arrangement.

Nepal's policymakers and legislators must commit to implementing robust policies with integrity and diligence. Judges, equipped with discretion and empathy, play a crucial role in navigating the intricate balance between addressing drug dependence and combating drug trafficking. The sanctions outlined in the Narcotics Act are essential if applied judiciously, ensuring alignment with the law's intent without exacerbating societal harm.

Karki is a lawyer based in Kathmandu