By Moa Jamir
During the last two years, the ‘War on Drugs’ has become familiar, with the State Government and its various machineries exhibiting marked efforts to combat the menace of substance abuse in Nagaland. Such efforts have raised hopes for a concrete and well-coordinated approach to tackle the challenge holistically.
However, as a recent report from The Morung Express averred, the question remains—was the ‘War on Drugs’ declaration backed by an actionable strategy, or was it merely a symbolic gesture?
Key stakeholders consulted in the report, however, suggest a strategy predominantly focused on supply reduction—seizing drugs, cracking down on traffickers, and enforcing the law.
While these measures are an essential part of the overall approach, they do little to address the growing demand for drugs or the underlying factors driving substance abuse. Without a balanced strategy that includes demand reduction, rehabilitation, and reintegration, Nagaland’s battle against drug abuse is unlikely to yield meaningful results.
For instance, experts point to the absence of a concrete plan for awareness programmes, treatment facilities, detoxification camps, or budgetary allocation. The amendment of the Nagaland State Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Policy, crucial to the overall strategy, is also reported to be in cold storage. Besides, a lack of financial support for existing rehabilitation centres and institutional support has been noted. One stakeholder also highlighted the dearth of exclusive rehabilitation facilities for women and minors, leaving many vulnerable individuals without proper care.
Such ground realities, it was noted, are driving families to seek unscientific methods, such as prayer centres, which are mostly unregulated and raise ethical concerns.
A robust response to substance abuse requires not just punitive measures but a strong demand-reduction strategy. Prevention, early intervention, treatment, and rehabilitation must form the core of any long-term plan. However, in Nagaland, these elements remain largely neglected.
Globally, agencies like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) advocate for a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, early intervention, and accessible treatment. Countries that have successfully tackled substance abuse have prioritised life skills education, community-based programmes, and family-focused interventions.
However, in Nagaland, these strategies remain largely missing or in the background. As noted by another expert, a lack of accurate data further hampers progress, and without an in-depth understanding of drug usage patterns—occasional users, dependent users, and those needing rehabilitation—policymakers cannot craft targeted interventions.
The government’s reliance on one-size-fits-all national schemes, without taking ground realities and the region’s specific needs into account, could further weaken the fight against drug abuse.
The state government must translate political will into actionable policies. A ‘War on Drugs’ cannot be won through enforcement alone; it would require dedicated funding, strategic planning, and inter-departmental collaboration.
This can be affected with a comprehensive demand reduction strategy along with supply reduction. The ‘War on Drugs’ must not become an empty slogan used for political mileage. It requires long-term investment in prevention, rehabilitation, and reintegration, not just short-term enforcement measures. The government must take proactive steps to ensure that substance abuse is not merely criminalised but systematically reduced through a balanced approach. Until then, the state's efforts will remain incomplete, and the cycle of drug abuse will continue—unchallenged and unchanged.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
