 Why EURAD
opposes legalisation and decriminalisation of illegal drugs
Brief claims and replies
A EURAD Think Tank Production
partially funded by the European Commission
EURAD - Europe Against Drugs - is a grass roots
movement composed of European parent, youth and other concerned
citizens' organizations 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, recognizing 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 co-operation 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
What is decriminalisation 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 to 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, nor 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 increased pressure from 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 guaranteed due to the ADDICTIVE
CHARACTER of the drugs.
Who wants what?
It is not difficult to argue against legalisation since it is
accompanied by a large number of negative effects on the individual,
the family and society.
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 freely? 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 freely?
- 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 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 drugs to be taxed? If yes, are those
taxes supposed to cover society's costs of health care and so on? In that
case, the prices will 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 and so on, already
in being?
If no, does anyone think that the same cartels will suddenly 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 plant guards, surgeons, etc. can be affected for a long time
and should therefore be restricted from 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.
Brief claims and replies on legalisation
CLAIM:
The reason that people get into trouble is that drugs are illegal.
Legalise drugs and people will not land in prison!
REPLY:
Drugs are not harmful because they are illegal. They are illegal
for the very fact that they are harmful. Drugs distort the power
and capacity of the brain and drive man to irrational behaviour and
irresponsible actions. Prison sentences would still have to be given
for the many crimes that would be committed under the influence of
drugs.
CLAIM:
Some illegal drugs are not more dangerous than those
which already exist, for example alcohol and tobacco.
REPLY:
It is true that alcohol and tobacco give rise to a number
of injurious effects, among them premature death. And
because these well-known injurious effects are so big,
we should be wary of introducing new substances of abuse
on top of what we already have. This especially since
the knowledge of the (side)effects of some of these drugs
is limited. We should rather treat alcohol and tobacco
more strictly than the other way round!
CLAIM:
Most of those who consume alcohol do not develop addiction. Neither
would this happen with the new drugs.
REPLY:
Some 5-1O% of those who consume alcohol become addicts. In the
case of cocaine, even conservative observers claim that 20-35%
become addicts. This means that medical care and treatment capacity
would have to be greatly increased. Few, if any, countries can
afford such a great expansion of treatment facilities. Some experts
claim that the percentage of those who become addicted is even
higher. Some of them claim that almost 70% of cocaine users become
addicted. According to these latter assessments, the number of
cocaine addicts would be ten times as great as it is at present
if legalisation was made total.
In addition, it may be stated that the consumption patterns for alcohol and for
illegal drugs differ greatly. An overwhelming majority of those who drink alcohol
are seldom intoxicated.
In the case of illegal drugs, intoxication is the sole purpose of consumption.
Intoxication constitutes the foundation for the development of addiction, namely
that consumption is repeated in order to re-experience the pleasurable intoxicating
effect.
CLAIM:
Only certain groups, not all young people, would try these drugs if they were
legalised.
REPLY:
Accessibility and the drug habits of society as a whole are decisive
for whether young people begin to use drugs. Many young people try drugs
just because they are easily accessible and because their friends use
them. Legalising drugs would change public attitudes, resulting in an
upsurge in use, primarily among youngsters who have not yet developed
stable standards and value-systems.
CLAIM:
It is our concern if we want to legalise drugs in our country.
REPLY:
By signing international agreements, primarily the UN Single Convention
1961, most countries have pledged to co-operate against the drug traffic.
If one country violates this agreement, international collaboration is
seriously threatened and the country magnetises experimenters and users
of drugs. The population of the legalising country soon adopts the viewpoint
that drugs cannot be especially dangerous since they are on open sale.
This has happened in The Netherlands with the 'de facto' legalisation
of cannabis products.
CLAIM:
Crimes committed by drug users would decrease after legalisation since
those who commit such crimes would not have to steal for such large amounts
to finance their addiction.
REPLY:
The price of drugs after legalisation is not easy to predict. It is in
the interest of the drug dealers to keep the price on the market high
in order to maximise their profits, and it is in the interest of the
country to tax the drugs in order to collect money to build treatment
facilities for the future victims. Even if the market price IS very low,
when someone has developed an addiction and multiplied their consumption,
THEN it becomes expensive regardless. The claim above also presumes that
crimes by drug-users only have a financial background. It is the actual
DRUG EFFECTS and their power to intoxicate and blunt emotional life that
in many cases produces crimes and violence. 73% of all murders of children
in New York during 1987 were committed by drug users. Road safety is
another field which would be seriously affected.
CLAIM:
It is the individual's private concern if he wants to use drugs.
REPLY:
In a civilised society where people live close together it is
not a private matter. The rights of society and the risks to
society must always be taken into consideration. Using drugs
affects the family, colleagues (safety at work), etc. in one
way or another. Production losses and premature deaths also lead
to a reduction in society's resources which could otherwise have
been utilized to build up a welfare state. Society suffers from
a drainage of brain power in the long run. An increase in traffic
accidents is also an example of the effects on a third person,
as is the fact that unborn children should have the right to
avoid the injurious effects of different drugs during their embryo
period. Some drug users are so changed as to commit acts of aggression
and violence, and even murder.
CLAIM:
The government could collect large amounts by taxing drugs.
REPLY:
Alcohol consumption has taught us that this is a poor business
for society. The cost of medical care, etc. greatly exceeds the
income. If taxes were high enough to cover the actual costs,
the price of the drugs would be so excessive that a black market
with cheaper prices would be created.
CLAIM:
It is useless to conduct a 'war' against the drug trade. Stop
wasting resources since the development is unavoidable.
REPLY:
It is correct that to a great extent the 'war' has been incorrectly
conducted. It is never possible to crush the drug market by trying
to eradicate or incapacitate its top members, or even by working
against the producers. Production units can in most cases be
replaced at a low cost. It is the demand in our own country
which is completely decisive for the development of the drugs
market.
Local actions in each country will be decisive in determining whether developments
move toward improvement or deterioration. Major profits are not made abroad but
in the addict's own country, on the streets where drugs are bought and sold.
The addict is the only irreplaceable category among the many links in the drugs
trade, since it is the consumer who, in the final analysis, is responsible for
both the demand and the spread of drugs.
CLAIM:
It is not possible to deter addicts from something which is in itself
a social problem by punishing them.
REPLY:
The cause and root of the problem is the interaction between drugs and
the individual user. Drug users do not necessarily have a social problem
before they begin their drugs consumption. If they do have other problems,
it is all the more important that they do not add addiction to those
problems with easily available drugs. The use of drugs creates social
problems. It is also a social problem because of the resulting anti-social
behaviour and health hazards.
The claim that drug abuse cannot be eradicated by punishment implies that it
can be eradicated by treatment. Instead, however, emphasis on treatment functions
as a conserving and promoting factor and perpetuates the drugs market. There
are two reasons for this:
- First, many addicts function as distributors of drugs, especially in the early
stages of their drug-abuse career, when they experience the pleasurable effects
of the drug and have not yet seen any bad side effects. The reason drug abusers
spread their habit is that they want to let their friends share what they think
is positive. Later in the career, when all the negative effects predominate,
the tendency to spread the drug-taking drops radically.
- Second, the largest group of drug addicts do not express a serious wish for
treatment until late in their drug-abuse career, either after their abuse has
led to serious effects, or under the pressure of demands by the rest of society
(relatives, authorities). Therefore, waiting for an addict to 'hit the bottom'
and be motivated for treatment often means leaving him to self-destruction.
CLAIM:
If you legalise the drug market, you will stop its further expansion
by control.
REPLY:
If you want to stop further expansion of the drug market, new recruitment
to drug-taking must cease. The majority of people are law abiding and
legalisation would take away the deterrent effect. Also society must
assume active responsibility for existing addicts to stop further expansion.
Treatment has a humane value for the individual, his relatives and society,
but has in most cases little or no effect on the spreading of drugs since
that took place long before the addict came into treatment. Even 100%
effective treatment programmes could not stop the spreading, and often
the results of treatment are much lower than that. In order to ensure
both a humane and effective operation, the nature of the control policy
and its operations must be kept continuously under intensive and democratic
discussion. In all probability we will then arrive at the conclusion
that a combination of closely co-ordinated social, educational and police
work can increase both the preventive effect and the efficacy of various
treatments offered on all levels.
CLAIM:
'War' against drugs builds up a police state which is more dangerous
than the drug problem.
REPLY:
Yes, IF we put the main emphasis on actions against traffickers.
Then you need the heavy artillery and the numerous laws with
great authority for the police.
EURAD does not want a police-state any more than it wants a 'drug-state' which
in turn can create blind reaction among ordinary people. People who are fed up
with a bad drug situation take the law into their own hands and might arm themselves
or start riots. The latter has already happened in The Netherlands and is dangerous
to any democracy.
EURAD advocates a preventive demand-restrictive strategy where the main emphasis
is put on ordinary people (parents, teachers, church, youth leaders, etc.). They
must learn how to prevent and how to detect drug abuse at an early stage and
in co-operation stop it. If this can he done while the problem is small, then
the measures can be small too and no police-state is created.
[Our grateful thanks to Mrs. A Bergström for translating and to Jolly-Tekst
for typesetting.]
|
