The recent news about the raid of an unregistered drug rehabilitation centre in Dehiwala, which, as the media showed, lacked not only permission but also an adequately livable environment for service seekers, has received mixed responses from the public. While some think that the existence of private rehabilitation centres is crucial to support drug addicts and that their legal status is immaterial to provide such services, some are concerned about the standards, responsibility and safety related factors concerning unregistered rehabilitation centres.

In this context, to prevent unregistered, private rehabilitation centres from taking advantage of those in need of assistance, some also argue that the Government should maintain a monopoly in rehabilitation centres. However, Sri Lanka needs privately funded and run rehabilitation centres. The resources that the Government can allocate to continue rehabilitation efforts is limited, especially in the present economic situation, and even if it had adequate resources, in reality, Government run rehabilitation centres cannot reach every person that needs assistance. The private sector’s involvement is crucial to do what the Government is unable to do and to complement the Government’s efforts. Therefore, the solution is not banning privately run rehabilitation centres, but ensuring their quality and accountability, because the issue is not only a matter of illegal establishments, but also the existence of serious inadequacies in the country’s policy and legal frameworks concerning dealing with the drug problem through rehabilitation.

According to the National Dangerous Drugs Control Board (NDDCB), despite the fact that it operates as the main authority concerning dangerous drugs including drug related rehabilitation activities, it is not in a position to take any legal action against unregistered rehabilitation centres as it is not mandated to do so by the laws under which it has been established, and as it has powers only regarding rehabilitation centres registered under it. It is the Police that needs to take action in accordance with the Penal Code, according to the NDDCB. While the fact that the NDDCB is powerless when it comes to unregistered rehabilitation centres is surprising, this situation also raises concerns about this responsibility being solely of the Police. While the enforcement of the law is indeed the Police’s responsibility, in a context where such legal action depends on the legal registration of and standards maintained by rehabilitation centres which are mainly the NDDCB’s concern, why the NDDCB’s role is merely that of an observer or a supporter and not an active regulatory authority is a question that we need to ask.

Dealing with unregistered rehabilitation centres should is not only the job of the Police. The authorities, under whose purview privately run rehabilitation centres or medical health service providing institutions come, need to be active participants of this process. To achieve it, through the amendment of the relevant laws, it should be declared mandatory for privately run rehabilitation centres to register with either the NDDCB or the Private Health Services Regulatory Council, and these institutions should be empowered to play the role of a regulator and a monitor concerning privately run rehabilitation centres. As part of the ongoing legal reforms, other laws that could help achieve it also need to be amended. 

At the same time, the authorities need to identify the multifaceted and intricate nature of the efforts required to effectively deal with the drug issue. Instead of relying solely on the ongoing efforts, which focus on directing drug addicts to quit using drugs at once, which may also involve using force, the authorities need to identify the many aspects of dealing with drug addiction and get or improve the participation of the relevant stakeholders. They include, psychologists, spiritual figures and forensic pathologists in the initial stage of dealing with addiction, and vocational training authorities, counsellors and Probation officers in the latter stage of the process, especially when releasing rehabilitated persons back to the society.

At the same time, despite the fact that the drug issue has prevailed for decades, Sri Lanka is yet to achieve satisfactory progress in combating attitudinal issues, which, indirectly, worsen the drug issue and weakens the authorities’ responses to the drug issue including rehabilitation. Sri Lanka still looks at drug addicts as a segment of the society that does not deserve compassion or support, and ignores the many factors that compel a person to use and remain addicted to drugs. It was displayed in the case of the abovementioned Dehiwala rehabilitation centre. When photos of service seekers of that centre living in inferior living conditions were circulated on social media, many commented that they are drug addicts who have become a burden to others, and that therefore, they do not deserve quality living conditions. Not only drug addicts, even the plethora of challenges that their family members or close loved ones go through are conveniently ignored. Changing the society’s attitudes regarding both the parties is part of the solution that the country needs, because, this discrimination and stigma discourages drug addicts from seeking the help that they need and their family members from providing or directing the former for help. 

The challenges that lie before the relevant authorities and the stakeholders are complex, time consuming and require a significant amount of resources. However, even in this complexity, there are many steps, such as raising awareness the right way and initiating legal reforms, which could be taken with the already available resources.