Canada GE: OPED: Many Casualties,
Few Victories, In War On Drugs


Newshawk: Dave Haans
Pubdate: Fri, 12 Jun 1998
Source: Toronto Star (Canada)
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Website: http://www.thestar.com/
Author: Richard Gwyn, "Home and Away"

MANY CASUALTIES, FEW VICTORIES, IN WAR ON DRUGS



THERE'S PROZAC FOR depression and Procepia for baldness and Lipitor to make you thin and Viagra to make you potent and an orgasm pill due out soon. There are all kinds of pills to tranquillize us, to put us to sleep, to remove our headaches. And of course there's The Pill which transformed the relationship between the sexes.

Drugs have become integral to our lifestyle, our pleasure, our very existence. So why are we waging a war against drugs?

More precisely, why, when so many of us are now dependent upon a pharmacopeia of mood-altering and physiology-altering drugs as no other generation has been or ever imagined might one day be possible - except for Aldous Huxley's prophetic 1932 novel Brave New World - are we waging an all-out war against certain drugs that some among us, quite a small minority, happen to depend upon?

These are the illicit drugs - crack, cocaine, heroin, hash, marijuana. Most of them, but not giggly old pot, do terrible things to those who smoke them or ingest them or inject them. But these individuals are as dependent upon them as so many of the rest of us are upon on Prozac and Procepia and Viagra and the rest.

So why are we waging wars against their drugs? At least as relevant, why are we waging this war when we so obviously are losing it?

The war was first declared by Richard Nixon, which ought to make everyone pause. It was escalated by Nancy Reagan, which ought to make everyone take a long timeout. But whether its original authors were well-intentioned or merely looking for some politically safe cause, the single certainty about the war they began, and that almost everyone has been pursuing since as if it were a holy crusade, is that it's going very, very, badly.

The most telling statistics are those from the U.S. where the war is being waged most fiercely. In 1980, total spending on drug control in the U.S. was $4 billion. Today, the figure is $32 billion, or eight times as much. Between 1980 and today, the number of people in American prisons on drug charges has increased from 50,000 to 400,000, also an eight-fold increase.

While the war has achieved few victories, it has created some victors. All the attempts to wipe out the drugs have given them an immense scarcity value. By one United Nations estimate, the drug industry generates revenues of some $400 billion ( U.S.), or close to one-tenth of global trade in all products. The result is massive money laundering and global criminal networks, as well as escalating crime by the addicts themselves.

This week, at a conference in New York, U.N. member-states reviewed the state of the campaign. On behalf of the U.S., Bill Clinton called for a program of total global elimination by the year 2008.

No, said most of the producer states ( such as Mexico). The U.S. provided the principal market for the product. Only if the U.S. provided funds for alternative agricultural development ( hard to do because growing the coca leaf is so profitable) would they agree to a U.N.-run global program.

More creative was the "No, but" reply. This came from a number of non-governmental organizations, led by the New York-based Lindesmith Centre that's funded by financier George Soros. In a full-page newspaper ad cosigned by an extraordinary number of luminaries from, on the right, economist Milton Friedman to, on the left, Body Shop's Anita Roddick, the Lindesmith Centre declared that "The war on drugs is doing more harm to our society than drug abuse itself."

The Lindesmith Centre proposed no specific alternatives. But two well-established ones exist. One is to decriminalize soft drugs like marijuana. In Holland, licensed cannabis houses offer customers the alternatives of smoking the weed or of eating it in the form of cakes. Spain, Italy and Germany have all decriminalized marijuana.

The other alternative, pioneered in Liverpool and in Amsterdam, is what's known as Harm Reduction. This involves, besides education programs, needle exchanges ( the use of unclean needles by addicts is a major cause of the spread of AIDS) and providing addicts with methadone which has many of the same properties as heroin and morphine. Here, this kind of program is advocated by the Toronto-based Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy.

No more than alcohol by Prohibition can the use of drugs be extinguished. Unless human nature itself can be extinguished. What can be done is to make the use of drugs cleaner and safer and cheaper and, therefore, less criminal.

Richard Gwyn usually writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. His Internet address is gwyn@inforamp.net -- Dave Haans Graduate Student, University of Toronto WWW: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~haans/

[ To Al's Info Menu | To End The War On Drugs ]

Updated 98/07/05 by webmaster@vote-al.org ----- Built, hosted, and maintained by kryo.com