Background to Drugs and Society

Dilemmas confronting advocates of legalisation & decriminalisation.

Introduction: EURAD

EURAD - Europe Against Drugs - is a grass roots movement comprised of European parent, youth and other concerned citizens' organisations co-operating in the prevention of drug abuse. EURAD Foundation is not religiously or politically affiliated and addresses social and political issues only when they concern drugs. EURAD works closely with scientists and experts in the field of drug abuse.

EURAD Aims:

• to promote humane restrictive drug policies of prevention and early intervention against drug abuse in order to prevent further damage to individuals and society.
  
• to prevent any form of legalisation of drugs recognising the 1961 UN Single Convention (amended in 1972) and the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances as basic platforms for current and future drug control.
  
• to improve European cooperation in support of families with drug problems.
  
• to promote the education of parents, youth and other concerned citizens about all matters concerning drug abuse through accurate, relevant and up-to-date information and research findings.

EURAD advocates a preventive demand restrictive strategy.

Drugs & Society

EURAD was founded to counteract the increasing illegal drugs market. Today Europe already has a gigantic problem which was created by the legal drugs. Illegal drugs constitute an additional problem which have the potential to make the drug abuse situation almost impossible to deal with.

Since alcohol and tobacco, for example, are both legal and established in our societies and both production and their distribution are subject to the control of society, measures taken against addiction and injuries can and must employ different strategies that those which apply to illegal drugs.

The simple fact that we already have a number of drugs is no argument for the legalisation of additional drugs with, in many cases, even more destructive qualities.

A Moral Question and a Democratic Question

There are naturally humanitarian and socially well-founded reasons for EURAD' s standpoint on the question of illegal drugs. The standpoint is also moral in that it emanates from the firm conviction that drugs constitute a serious threat to national health, to a society under law, to social solidarity and, in the long-term, to a healthy democracy.

International Work - Where to put Pressure

At the United Nations International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking (ICDAIT) in Vienna in June 1987, universal support was given to the established principle that all non-medical drug use must be prohibited.

The 1961 Un Single Convention (amended in 1972) and the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances serve as basic platforms for current and future drug control. The United Nations and all its members strive to ensure that the use of drugs (controlled substances) be strictly limited to medical and scientific purposes.

Our joint international efforts to gain control of the world's mutual drugs problem must naturally be further developed. But the most important contribution to this work should be the individual ability and desire of each country to forcefully combat its domestic drugs trade which, in turn, is part of the prerequisite for the international trade. Domestic policies cannot be formulated in isolation and there should be no conflict between the international and national perspectives concerning measures to be taken. However, it is necessary to determine where the heaviest pressure should be applied. In addiction there must be improvements in the utilisation and distribution of historic information and experiences gained during successful struggles against the drugs trade in various countries. In the confrontation between theories and practice, a fruitful scientific development can arise and become of decisive importance to individual nations.

European Work - Influence & Co-operation

At present it is very important to oppose legalisation/decriminalisation. However, all eventual victories which force the legalisation and anti-prohibition movement into retreat will be temporary as long as the individual countries do not change the focus of their drugs policy. As long as everything is permitted to remain as it is and the root of the drugs market (the user) is untouched, the market will continue its activity and it will only be a question of time before fresh calls for legalisation arise.

EURAD therefore wishes to promote cooperation which will bring about an emphasis on demand restrictive drug policies within the countries of Europe.

EURAD fully supports the recommendations of the "European Parliament Committee of Inquiry into the Drugs Problem in the Member States of the Community, September 1986: Rapporteur - Sir Jack Stewart Clark," wherein it is stated:

24. Whatever measures are taken against the production of drugs and the illegal cultivation of source crops, they will remain ineffective as long as demand in the consumer countries is not eradicated or substantially reduced. On the demand side, strenuous efforts therefore need to be taken to reduce consumption by a comprehensive series of measures to be taken in the fields of preventive education, rehabilitation and training. At all levels of action, a flexible approach is needed to take account of the wide availability of different drugs and polydrug use and the widely differing reasons which lead to drug use and abuse. This results in a constantly changing pattern of drug taking. There is no typical addict and no set drugs of addiction: there is therefore no one simple solution, but rather a variety of solutions which may be subject to rapid change according to the country and the various individual and collective cultures concerned.

EURAD recommends that EURAD DRUG POLICY - DEMAND RESTRICTIVE - THE THIRD WAY - be considered as a model for community action in European countries.

Europe constitutes a major target for drug trafficking. No European country can ignore the power of the combined political and economic forces of the 12 countries in the European Community. Legalisation and directives emanate from the EC and here we quote from paragraphs 18 - 20 in above-mentioned report:

18. The European parliament itself can use its considerable political influence by increasing the awareness of those it represents and encouraging national authorities, on their behalf, to work more closely together in reducing drug abuse.

19. We are critical of the fact that drugs problems have so far not been addresses adequately at either national or European Level. A radical change in drugs policy is essential and should be brought about as quickly as possible.

20. New strategies in tackling the problem of drugs can be worked out and implemented by the Commission of the European Communities and the EEC Council of Ministers.

National work - Shortcomings of existing policies and strategies.

In order to attain permanent and real success in the struggle against drug abuse, the national measures must be placed in the foreground and emphasis placed on demand restrictive strategies. This means that the struggle against drugs must primarily be of a domestic nature focussing on the user. Attention should naturally be paid to the historic and cultural nature of the different countries.

The prevailing standpoint on combating drugs in the western world has largely been based on the belief that the drugs market can be successfully combated only by more or less unilateral attacks on gangs and syndicates i.e. the suppliers. But the drugs gangs which are broken up today are quickly replaced by newer and often better-organised gangs as long as the demand exists and the trade is profitable. Excessive reliance on the mafia and gang oriented strategy and the type of control strategy it represents can be questioned from many points of view.

The strategy automatically causes, among other things, the minimisation of the decisive importance of consumption and demand. In practice this means that while the police concentrate on arrest of as many of the top figures in the drugs field as possible, drug abuse spreads and demand increases with the trivialisation of the role of the drug user.

Sooner or later the strategy also leads to the demand for advanced detection techniques with Police working methods which can directly endanger important legal principles such as the individual's security under the law. It may also lead to a demand for enormous resources.

Mobilisation of ever increasing resources is not sufficient. The decisive factor for success is the orientation on the whole problem and practical utilisation of existing resources. The constantly escalating "war" which is the result of this tragedy cannot achieve permanent success, no matter how great the resources which are supplied.

A strongly contributing reason for the vicious circle of constantly increasing warfare is, primarily, the ignorance of and the liberal attitude toward individual abuse. If one claims to have a 'humane attitude', and does not want to 'over react to a hash pipe', and does not want to 'hunt addicts', the result can be that which least desired: inhumanity, excessive reaction and hunting down of addicts. The consequences of a liberal attitude toward drug abuse and a unilateral attack on the large gangs within the drugs trade give rise to an addiction situation which is so extensive and difficult to manage that legalisation appears to be the only 'way out' since in practice drugs have already become established in the society.

The paradoxical situation is that a one-sided war against drug gangsters and a permissive view of drugs usage are actually two extremes of the same standpoint: an underestimation of the dynamics of a demanding market.

The market of drugs is complicated by the facts that many drugs cause tolerance (increased dosage necessary to get highs) and addiction (inability to cease drug-taking). This means that drug addicts are extremely faithful buyers.

The legalising viewpoint opens the door to greater demand and one-sided repression against top-traffickers tries to stop supply. The basic flaw of both strategies is that they ignore the market's (consumption's) own dynamic development in their thinking.

Rehabilitation / Care / Treatment / Therapy - Limitations

Every country which calls itself civilised must devote reasonable resources to people with drug problems. However, the solution of the drugs problem is not to be found primarily in an enormous investment in care and treatment, but rather a completely new strategy. This new strategy obligates community authorities to intervene at an EARLY stage of drug abuse and teaches parents and community workers to recognise the signs of early drug abuse and not to trivialise the drug use. This strategy takes into account the fact that experience proves that addicts seek treatment first after a long period of drug use, during which they have established a dependence on the drug and their social problems have overwhelmed them. In many cases they have have also spread their drug abuse to their close friends and partners during the early stages of their drug abuse. Treatment therefore has the disadvantage of being introduces too late to affect the spread of the drug to any great extent. Further, the individual has often accumulated severe social, economic, psychological and medical problems which make rehabilitation a long, difficult process with uncertain results - and which is also very expensive.

Market Phenomenon

Preliminary Growth Phase

In its principle structure the drugs problem is a market and must be combated on this basis. During its introductory growth phase, the market needs the power of attractive and appealing ideologies to make itself more sophisticated. With safety it can be stated that the apostles for legalisation in the early 1960s created various ideological motives to justify their drug abuse themselves and the rest of the world. The drugs market acted openly and extrovertly and appealed not only to the so-called rebels and radicals but also to honest progressive people, when it pointed out serious social flaws. It then continued to relate legalisation efforts to peace, freedom, love, truth and personality development. The 1960s drug users wanted to enjoy the drugs without being arrested. There was room for this kind of ideology ("cannabis expands consciousness", etc) partly because there was too little knowledge amongst the general public both in Europe and the United States. Also established standards and values were being questioned. In addiction, assistance was given from the mass media and the music culture.

Established Market Phase

An established drugs market, on the other hand, has no need of ideology. It remains in force because it ensures the supply of a popular intoxication medium, creates dependence, and, thus extremely loyal consumers who in turn advertise and spread the use of drugs among their circle of acquaintances.

The market reacts in different ways depending on the nature and degree of social resistance. The policy pursued by the western world up to the present has not been able to stop the spread of drug abuse. A disastrous consequence of this failure is that abuse has gradually gained an increasing strong foothold with a privileged group of well- educated and socially well-adjusted individuals. In a social climate which is restrictive toward drugs, this group finds it best to refrain from attracting attention. When the market has expanded and/or social resistance is reduced, development proceeds to a new phase.

Latter Market Phase

This latter market phase is characterised by concern and alarm with a renewed demand for legalisation under somewhat altered conditions and motivated by arguments different from those in the preliminary growth phase. Broad and well-established groups cannot see any other alternative and also begin to insist upon their right to enjoy the newly discovered intoxicating substances without risking arrest. The rights of the individual versus the rights of society as a whole come into question. Legalisers argue to convert standards violations into new standards;

A more detailed description of the situation would also include the fact that everyone who begins to advocate legalisation at this point is not necessarily a drug consumer himself. The situation makes a number of alliances attractive, for instance between:

A. Those who cannot envisage any other situation;

B. Those who are representatives of generally liberal standpoints and who are in principle opposed to all forms of interference by the authorities;

C. Those who are addicts themselves and are interested in easy access to cheap drugs;

D. Those who are acquainted with a drug consumer who has not reached the final stages of addiction;

E. Those who entertain a desire to be able to "try" the drug a least, and who would do so if it were not forbidden and socially acceptable (in other words, the latent and enormous market which is every drug dealer's dream)

F. Those who are called the "1968 generation", i.e. persons who were young at the end of the 1960s and who experienced all that "1968" came to represent. Then cannabis was weak and the spirit was strong. Now cannabis is strong and the spirit of rebellion has deteriorated in most people. These "68ers" have now acquired positions in society corresponding to their increasing age and incomes. They remember cannabis as something "harmless", do not think that it was dangerous then and do not believe that cannabis is anything to be worried about now either. Even if these people no longer smoke cannabis themselves, they still retain their basically liberal attitude toward the drug;

G. Those who for social and emotional reasons cannot accept that their children and relatives could be criminalised and therefore refuse to accept a policy which places the individual addict in focus and makes the addict responsible for his behaviour.

Arguments against Legalisation

Arguments can be presented on many levels, i.e. the individual level, the group/family level, the community level, the national level and the international level. All of these levels are important and together they encompass the entire spectrum of negative effects which legalisation would have in its wakes.

Individual

For the individual, drugs cause a large number of injuries of medical, social, mental, economic and psychological types. The injuries vary, depending on the type of drug but also on such factors as the intensity of abuse, size of dose, sex, age, the person's own disposition, whether different drugs are combined, etc.

From experience we know that social rejection as a consequences of drug abuse work in many cases more rapidly than alcohol abuse. A mixed abuse of alcohol, narcotics and prescribed pharmaceuticals accelerates the development of injuries.

It is sometimes said that alcohol causes more damage that drugs do. It is correct that alcohol is responsible for a large number of deaths and enormous social rejection which is greater than that caused by drugs. But if the now restricted drugs were legalised the way alcohol is, they would quickly overtake alcohol in harm production. Injuries would arise which would be many times greater that those existing today, not least in combination WITH alcohol. The logical consequence, AND THE MOST RADICAL, would be to proceed in the opposite direction and take serious action to reduce the consumption of legal drugs, not least alcohol!

It can be ascertained that drug abuse at the individuals level tends to reinforce already existing personality distortions and to hamper the individual's possibility of maturing and growing through complex and demanding relations with the world around him. In addition, drugs have the ability to disturb and spoil an entirely normal course of development in a teenager, for example. In this way the drug creates its own psycho-social injury pattern. Parallel with this destructive career, a drug dependence is established which has its own dynamic force and is relatively isolated from the causes which once led to experimentation with drugs. In other words, drugs limit the individual's desire to make constructive choices and reduce the ability to achieve normal satisfaction of needs. This leads to a social handicap entailing constant collisions on all levels with the rest of the world. These collisions reinforce the addict's sense of deviation, which in turn reinforces relationship to drugs and the sub-culture where they are to be found.

Primary group/family

The stresses and suffering of the people who live in close emotional contact to an addict are an often neglected chapter. The counsellor/social worker often lacks understanding of the processes which drug abuse initiates in the entire family. The anxiety and negative feelings and the irrational behaviour pattern which are a normal consequence of addition of addiction in the family are all too often considered to be the cause of the addiction and the parents are characterised as poor parents and examples. Those who are to work with families living under this type of stress must to a significantly greater degree learn to distinguish between the original family problems AND the difficulties which slowly and unnoticeably develop under the pressure of a family member's drug abuse career. As a rule, the suffering of the family is greater that that of the addict since, in addition to their sorrow, helplessness, anger and anxiety they must also share the addict's difficulties. The researcher Valliant maintains: "Except for life in a concentration camp, there are few extended human conditions under which one is exposed to such sadism as that which a relative of a alcoholic must endure". From whom can the suffering relatives obtain help if society renounces all controlling intentions against the addiction group, i.e. toward the people who cannot, or do not want to solve their drug consumption problem?

Parent self-help groups and family and youth support groups are recognised in EURAD as a powerful tool in putting pressure on governments to examine their drug policies in the light of the expertise that these can offer. Legalising drugs would undermine all previous education and attitudes, thus putting the family unit into disarray.

Community and National

On the higher social level, a widespread intoxication culture is a threat to the political and financial development of a society. The abuse of intoxicating drugs causes reduced interest in politics, which erodes the democratic process. In itself abuse also gives rise to enormous humanitarian and economic costs for treatment, criminal institutions, drainage of brain power and production losses - in addition to the immeasurable value represented by the loss of a human life or the creation of a mentally handicapped individual.

A welfare society is eroded by drugs - legal and illegal. The spread of addiction results in increasing numbers of problems and thereby difficulty in living a worthwhile life.

DILEMMAS CONFRONTING ADVOCATES OF LEGALISATION

Who wants what?

On the other hand, it may be more difficult to argue against the advocates of legalisation as a whole, since they are not a unified group and entertain in their group a number of different proposals.

They argue for legalisation but then immediately start setting up restrictions and have different views on, for example:

• WHICH drugs should be legalised?
  Are ALL drugs to be sold free? Only cannabis, opium, morphine, heroin and cocaine? What about crack? Should also synthetic drugs like amphetamines, PCP, LSD, ICE, CRANK, MDMA, just to mention a few, be freely available? Should also prescribed drugs like Valium be sold free?
  
  
• WHO is to be responsible for the quality and strength of the drugs?
  If weak cannabis is sold, no one will buy it. A black market of strong cannabis will be set up across the street. On the other hand, who will take the responsibility for selling extremely potent drugs?
  
  
• Are there going to be any age restrictions?
  Will it be OK for 5 year olds to buy heroin? If not, how will we keep youngsters away from something that is easy for adults to get a hold of?
  
  
• How are drug-prices to be set?
  If too expensive - a black market is set up! On the other hand - if too cheap - an unwanted rise in consumption. Are drug to be taxed? If yes, are those taxes supposed to cover societys costs of health care a.s.o? In that case, the prices will be have to be set very high and then we're back to creating room for a black market with cheap drugs.
  
  
• Are drugs to be sold by anyone or in special state drugstores?
  Will there be room for private profit making in drug trade? If yes, how to avoid the now illegal drug cartels overnight becoming international monopoly enterprises with all steps from growing, transportation a.s.o. already in function? If no, does anyone think that the same cartels suddenly will give up their lucrative source of income?
  
  
• Should only consumption and not trafficking and dealing be legal?
  It is illogical to keep trade forbidden in something that is legal to consume. On the other hand, if trafficking and dealing are allowed...
  
  
• Should certain groups with sensitive professions be governed by special restrictions?
  Some of the most commonly consumed drugs stay in the body for a long period. That means that people with professions. concerning public safety like airline pilots, nuclear plantguards, surgeons, a.s.o can be affected during a long time and should therefore be restricted form using drugs.
  
  
• Are there to be ANY kind of restrictions at all?
  Any restriction increases the risk of a black market. But on the other hand, who wants ALL drugs to be let totally free?

The above examples indicate the virtual impossibility of setting the limits which some types of legalisation would require.

Dilemma No 1

Dilemma No 2

Advocates of legalisation often cite the injuries resulting form the consumption of alcohol. Experience in this field has indicated that access (availability) in itself is of decisive importance for the scope of consumption and, consequently, the extent of the damage. The repeal of Prohibition in the United States lowered drinking prices dramatically and increased supplies. Not surprisingly, alcoholism rates scored. The drug problem would expand also after legalisation. Experience shows that if access to alcohol increases (through low prices and ample supply) then injuries, treatment requirement, absence from work, etc also increase.

Increased availability will result in increased usage of the new illegal drugs which in turn will entail an increase in addiction. Abuse normally first arises within small and exclusive circles. At a later stage it forces itself out among socially instable groups with a high tendency to deviating behaviour. In the subsequent phase drugs tend to make a break through among curious and initiative-prone young people in general and, finally, to gain a foothold among socially well - functioning adults. Today the latter category probably already constitutes the economic backbone of the drugs market. A growing number among these consumers will develop an addiction since addiction results from the consumption of drugs.

Dilemma No 3

On top of this, many drugs also create increased tolerance, i.e. the doses have to be increased and/or taken at a higher frequency to produce a "high". Addiction and tolerance ensure that drug abuse becomes very expensive even if drugs seem to have low prices. Faithful consumers who perpetually come back - the ultimate market!

Dilemma No 4

Dilemma No 5

Legalisation would increase the income - generating market in Europe overnight and convert the present illegal smuggle routes into acknowledged sources of income for more or less totalitarian military regimes and/or private armies. These people are, of course, those who own the cultivation areas and whose distribution system is complete and functioning. The effect would be that addicts in the western world help dictators to strengthen their fortunes and power positions. They could increasingly pacify their own people since increased drugs sales would also have an effect on their own country.

Those in power would gain enormous resources in order to establish control and oppression apparatus to hold large groups of people under control and thereby ensure the permanency of the oppression which is already obvious today.

A political aspect of drug abuse also has an equivalent in Europe. As a conscious human being, one understands that there are strong political and economic interests involved in keeping people fast in their severe and obvious addiction as a substitute for the helplessness and loss of purpose which is obvious within large groups. Drugs have a compensatory role which prevents people from doing something about their life situation in a constructive manner.

Drugs are a reliable ally to oppression on all levels.

Dilemma No 6

One sometimes hears that it is too expensive to wage war on drugs, that it costs more than it is worth and that it may even cause greater problems than it solves.

There is a great deal to be said in reply to this. Firstly, the police, customs and legal systems cost large sums today - which perhaps could be somewhat reduced if drugs were legalised. But drugs affect behaviour and change personalities which create violence and crime! Legalisation would constitute a large drugs market which in turn would generate crimes, including the problem with road, air and sea traffic safety. So the legal systems would be busy with that kind of problem. And even if society could "save" some money on the legal system, soaring amounts would have to be spent on information, treatment, production losses, etc after legalisation.
Secondly, the present measures need not be as highly expensive as they are. Costs are more a matter of the direction of the measures taken, of what is done. Thirdly, it is actually true that it is the drugs themselves and not the laws which cause the greatest damage. On the other hand, widespread drug abuse, emanating from a legalised market, can lead to desperate measures like the adoption of far-going legislation which is clearly dangerous for democracy.

Dilemma No 7

The classical liberal doctrine that one's personal freedom must never encroach on the freedom of another will also be violated in many ways - all from destroyed families and the effects on unborn children to crimes of violence and the fact that society's ability to provide care and treatment will be exhausted.

Dilemma No 8

Conclusion

Our responsibility to our children and for our future means that we must not open the door to drugs with legalisation and decriminalisation. The fact that alcohol and tobacco became established in the western world can always be blamed on the fact that we did not know how dangerous they were - and still are. Now we know the negative effects of drugs on the individual, the family and society. We cannot deny that responsibility.

What is Decriminilisation and Legalisation of drugs?

The term decriminalisation means to bring the drug problem out of the scope of penal (criminal) law. Law enforcement will no longer be provided for the export, import, manufacture, distribution, sale, publicity, possession and use of drugs that are up till now controlled within the scope of international conventions.

The consequence of decriminalisation of drugs is that society has no law or lever to use to direct drug addicts towards help and treatment; neither does society have the means to suppress trafficking.

Hand in hand with decriminalisation of drugs lies legalisation. In the case of legalisation, a form of more or less free distribution of drugs is to be organised. In the case of decriminalisation (with drugs out of the penal law) the Government will have to regulate the distribution and make rules for such. But regulations by Government will fail as users need more and more.

The consequence of legalisation would be that society would be subjected to an increased pressure for the drugs market.

Are decriminalisation and legalisation the same thing in the end?

Yes, it is complete capitulation. Users, the root and motive force of the drugs market, will be more or less free to use and possess drugs, and traffickers will feel it worth the risks to extend the traffic to MORE people. Success is warranted due to the addictive character of the drugs.

EURAD advocates a preventive demand - restrictive strategy where the main emphasis is put on ordinary people (parents, teachers, church, youth leaders, a.s.o.). They must learn how to prevent and how to detect drug abuse at an early stage and in cooperation stop it. If this can be done while the problem is small, then the measures can be small too and no police state is created.