Security trumps drug control: How securitization explains drug policy paradoxes in Thailand and Vietnam

Abstract

This paper investigates the paradoxes inherent in Thai and Vietnamese drug policies. The two countries have much in common. Both are ultra-prohibitionist states which employ repressive policies to contain drug markets. Their policies have, however, diverged in two key areas: opium suppression and harm reduction. Thailand implemented an effective intervention to suppress opium farming centred upon alternative development, whereas Vietnam suppressed opium production through coercive negotiation with nominal alternative development. Vietnam has embraced elements of harm reduction, whereas Thailand has been slow to implement harm reduction policies. This paper hypothesises that these two differences are largely a product of their perceived relationship to security.The two cases demonstrate how once an issue is securitized the ultra-prohibitionist rules of the game can be broken to allow for more humane and pragmatic policies.

Unintended harm: A qualitative study of “harm” upon people who inject drugs in Bangkok, Thailand

“…Drug policies and legal systems create particular kinds of problems, for example labeling their use as addiction (Lancaster et al, 2015;Seear and Fraser, 2014). The War on Drugs in Thailand was announced in 2003 and was rooted in a social dynamic similar to war inasmuch as guns were used against the people who use drugs (Roberts et al, 2004;Tyndall, 2011;Windle, 2016). The feeling of insecurity created by recognition of widespread drug use is aggravated by media, police, and community leaders: anti-drug campaign posters calling for a drug-free environment are displayed throughout local communities.…”

A critical exploration of professional perceptions of harm reduction policy and practice in Vietnam

“…As discussed previously, Windle (2016) clarifies that addiction treatment is commonly perceived to reduce the threats that people who use drugs can pose to the wider community.…”

“…Further, the media often reports that 06 centres reduce harms by helping people who use drugs to stay alive, have better health, and to reduce crime for society (The National Committee on AIDS Drugs and Prostitution Prevention and Control, 2011). Similarly, the prevalent police culture considers forced detoxification or detention as the only method to reduce the harms and threats that drug use and people who use drugs pose to society (Windle, 2016). Many police officers claim that providing needles and syringes to people who use drugs is 'showing the path to deer to run away' -in other words, that such provisions foster drug use (Khuat et al, 2012, p. 6).…”