Internationale politiske sværvægtere: Stop Krigen mod Narkotika

Onsdag, 01 jun 2011

En lang række prominente nuværende og tidligere verdensledere med FN’s tidligere generalsekretær Kofi Annan i spidsen opfordrer indtrængende til en ny politik og nye tilgange til den forfejlede Krig mod Narkotika.

I morgen, den 2. juni 2011, offentliggøres den til dato højest profilerede appel om endelig at stoppe den verdensomspændende Krig mod Narkotika. The Global Commissionon Drug Policy, der tæller en lang række prominente navne af tidligere præsidenter og blandt andre FN’s tidligere generalsekretær Kofi Annan, offentliggør sine anbefalinger der slår fast, at der er behov for et paradigmeskift i den forfejlede Krig mod Narkotika og lægger op til et markant skift i den herskende narkotikapolitik og opfordrer blandt andet til en afkriminalisering af illegale stoffer.

Det er første gang at en så prominent forsamling kræver grundlæggende og vidtrækkende ændringer i den måde verdenssamfundet håndterer illegale rusmidler på. Der anbefales et grundlæggende paradigmeskift fra en strafferetlig tilgang til at behandle spørgsmålet om rusmidler som et offentligt sundhedsanliggende.

Samtidig med offentliggørelsen af kommissionens rapport vil den internationale internetorganisation AVAAZ aflevere mere end en halv million underskrifter, der kræver en afslutning på den 50 år gamle War on Drugs. Underskrifterne vil fredag blive afleveret til FN’s generalsekretær Ban Ki-Moon og spørgsmålet om Krigen mod Narkotika vil allerede i næste uge blive et varmt emne på FN’s Generalforsamlings High Level Meeting on AIDS i New York.

Kommissionen består blandt andre af tidligere præsidenter fra Brasilien, Columbia, Mexico og Schweiz, den nuværende græske premierminister, George Papandreou, den tidligere norske udenrigsminister og FN flygtninge højkommissær Thorvald Stoltenberg, den tidligere amerikanske udenrigsminister under Ronald Reagan, George P. Shultz, den tidligere formand for USA’s Centralbank Paul Volcker, FN’s tidligere generalsekretær Kofi Annan, tidligere NATO generalsekretær Javier Solana m.fl.

 

Også i Danmark er det helt nødvendigt med en rationel og evidensbaseret tilgang til narkotikaspørgsmålet. Det er på høje tid at overveje om det er en god investering årligt at poste milliarder i politi, straffeapparat og fængsler på at straffe mennesker i håbet om, at de ikke skader sig selv.

Gadejuristen mener, at det ikke blot er spildte penge, men at kontrolindsatsen i sig selv er mere skadelig end de stoffer den forsøger at dæmme op for. Veldokumenterede kontrolskader er blandt andet farligere stoffer, øget risikoadfærd blandt de mest udsatte stofbrugere, barrierer for at søge hjælpeapparatet og helt ufattelige sundhedsmæssige og menneskelige konsekvenser, der afspejles i de høje danske tal for dødeligheden blandt stofbrugere. Et tal der igen er stigende.

Der findes samtidig intet grundlag for at tro at kriminaliseringen virker. I de 50 år krigen har været ført, har man fortsat optrappet krigen og sat flere stofbrugere i fængsel, mens stofferne kun er blevet billigere og lettere tilgængelige. I 50 år har man blot ordineret mere af en medicin der ikke virker, mens de skadelige bivirkninger stiger.

”En av de farligste former for bruk av narkotika er den politiske….” – Nils Christie, norsk professor og kriminolog

Se www.globalcommissionondrugs.org for kontaktoplysninger for pressen med mulighed for eksklusiv adgang til rapporten og kommissionens pressemeddelelse før offentliggørelsen i morgen samt yderligere om live-pressekonferencen i morgen på Global Commission on Drug Policy:

 

Live Press Conference and Teleconference

on Thursday, June 2 in New York City

For Immediate Release: May 30, 2011 Contact: Tony Newman (646)335-5384

What: Press Conference and Teleconference to release Global Commission report.

When: Thursday, June 2 at 11 am, EST

Where: The Waldorf Astoria Hotel, 301 Park Avenue, New York (Beekman Suite)

By Phone:
USA: 1-800-311-9404 (Password: Global Commission)
From Outside the USA: 1-334-323-7224 (Password: Global Commission)

An EMBARGOED copy of the report and press release will be made available starting on May 30. Contact Tony Newman (646-335-5384 or tnewman@drugpolicy.org) to request these materials.

The report and press release are EMBARGOED until 12:01 am GMT on June 2.

For yderligere oplysninger kan projektmedarbejder i Gadejuristen Emil Kiørboe, dir: 21 66 77 67 eller projektleder Nanna W. Gotfredsen, dir: 26 79 19 69 kontaktes.

 

 

Ophavsretten tilhører Gadejuristen. Læs mere om brug af materiale publiceret på gadejuristen.dk
Hosted by Surftown | Powered by Drupal by Nullsmith.dk | Layout by Den Anden Natur

180 Grader.dk

Den globale narkotikapolitik er en fiasko

29/05 2011.

af Niels Westy Munch-Holbek

I den kommende uge offentliggøres den indtil dato højest profilerede appel for at gøre op med den nuværende internationale narkotikapolitik – populært betegnet som ”The War on Drugs”. Det sker, når ”Global Commision on Drugs Policy” offentliggør sine anbefalinger den 2. juni. Heri vil der lægges op til en global afkriminalisering af brugen af illegale rusmidler og til at FN-konventioner, der hindrer enkeltlande i at legalisere en eller flere i dag illegale rusmidler ændres.

Istedet for at se på brug og misbrug af rusmidler som et kriminelt problem, skal det behandles som et sundhedsproblem. Det er blevet foreslået før. Allerede i 1936 skrev den tidligere politichef i Berkeley, forfatter og universitetsprofessor og senere præsident for det internationale politiforbund, August Volmer, at
Narkomani, ligesom prostitution og alkoholisme er ikke problemer der kan løses via kriminalisering
og understregede, at misbrugsproblemer aldrig kunne løses af politiet. Eftertiden har kun bekræftet dette.

Bag opfordringen står en lang række prominente internationale profiler, Bl.a. FNs tidligere generelsekretær Kofi Annan, Brasiliens tidligere præsident, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Tidligere præsident og indenrigsminister i Schweiz, Ruth Dreifuss. Nobelpristageren i litteratur i 2010, Mario Vargas Llosa. Grækenlands nuværende premierminister, George Papandreou. Tidligere udenrigsminister under Ronald Reagan, George P. Shultz og FN’s flygtningehøjkommissær Thorvald Stoltenberg.

En række af de involverede har tidligere advokeret – ikke kun for afkriminalisering – men for en egentlig legalisering af handel med (i dag) illegale rusmidler. Næppe fordi de anbefaler brug af rusmidler. Muligvis heller ikke fordi de mener at det er en fundamental frihedsrettighed at inhalere, sniffe, spise eller skyde sig med hvad man måtte lyste. En sådan principiel overvejelse er kun af betydning for borgerligt-liberale mennesker.

Men uanset hvilke besværligheder eller kvababbelse man ellers måtte have overfor at tillade mennesker at kaste sig ud i aktiviteter der i yderste konsekvens, om end ikke nødvendigvis, kan koste dem livet, taler fakta for sig selv. Kampen mod narkotika kan ikke og har aldrig kunne vindes. Selv forestillingen om, at man med et forbud i det mindste at holde forbruget nede er der intet sagligt belæg for.

Som Milton Fridman bl.a. skrev i sin korte, men profetiske artikel i Newsweek i 1972, kort efter præsident Richard Nixon, havde erklæret ”The War on Drugs”;

The harm to us from the addiction of others arises almost wholly from the fact that drugs are illegal. A recent commitee of the American Bar Association estimated that addicts commit one-third to one-half of all street crime in the U.S. Legalize drugs, and street crime would drop dramatically. Moreover, addicts and pushers are not the only ones corrupted. Immense sums are at stake. It is inevitable that some relatively low-paid police and other government officials and some high-paid ones as well will succumb to the temptation to pick up easy money.Forestillingen, som den blandt andet kom til udtryk i FNs målsætning om at skabe en “Drug Free World” i 1998 var og er ikke kun dybt naiv, men er i sidste ende både farlig og kontraproduktiv.

Det er ikke kun stofmisbrugerne der betaler for den håbløse narkotikapolitik, i form af elendige levevilkår og for tidlig død. Ej heller ”uskyldige” og lovlydige borgere, i kraft af indbrud, øget utryghed og mangel på basal service fra politiet, fordi de bruger deres tid på ”offerløs kriminalitet” (som i kraft af forbuddet – ikke rusmidlerne – ender med at øge både berigelses- og voldskriminalitet). I sidste ende er det hele samfund der betaler i form af øget korruption, undergravning af basale menneskerettigheder, mindre frihed og ringere velstand og velfærd.

Ikke mindst korruptionen og sammenblandingen af økonomiske, politiske og kriminelle interesser er yderst destruktiv, samtidig med at det er stort set umuligt at gøre noget ved det. Vi ved i dag at Kosovos premierminister formentlig er leder af en mafia-lignende organisation der smugler våben, narkotika og menneskeorganer gennem Europa. Vi ved også, at Nicaraguas præsident Daniel Ortega i vid udstrækning finansierede sin valgkamp med narkopenge og penge fra Venezuelas præsident Hugo Chavez. Vi ved også at narkopenges indflydelse i Venzuela, der i dag antages at stå for over halvdelen af udskibningen af kokain til Europa, er kraftigt stigende. Samtidig er både politikere og militærfolk, bl.a. den af Hugo chavez udnævnte general, Henry Rangel Silva, direkte indvolveret i den praktiske narkotikasmugling. Og der er ikke tale om enkeltstående tilfælde.

Sidste år, fremlagde Spaniens særlige anklager for korruption og organiseret kriminalitet, Jose Grinda, stærke indicier for at bl.a. russiske, hviderussiske og ukrainske myndigheder, politikere og oligarker på højt plan samarbejder med østeuropæiske mafiaorganisationer. For Ruslands vedkommende menes det, at mafia, regering og sikkerhedstjenesteer samarbejder om operationer og snigmord, der for “beskidte for regering og sikerhedstjeneste.

Man kan med rette kunne indvende, at kriminelle organisationer der er indvolveret i handlen med illegale rusmidler også er involveret i mange andre former for kriminalitet. Men her er det afgørende, at der ikke findes andre former for kriminalitet der oppebærer en profit, der bare kommer i nærheden af de summer, som illegale rusmidler indbringer. F.eks. stiger værdien af kokain fra bonde til gadehandel med over 1000 %. Det er der ganske enkelt ingen andre forretningsområder – illegale som legale, der kan hamle op med.

Men måske er der endelig en vægtig modbevægelse i gang. Wall Street Journal, Finansiel Times og the Economist har i årtier argumenteret for en ændring af narkotikapolitikken. Og nok er de fleste i Global Commision on Drugs Policy ex’er med deres karrierer bag sag, men heldigvis er der også højtprofilerede politikere og statsledere indvolveret, der er på linje med Colombias nuværende præsident, Manuel Santos, der tidligere på året udtrykte sin støtte til en egentlig legalisering.

Som Milton Friedman konstaterede i en tale i 1992, 30 år efter han skrev sin berømte artikel i Newsweek;In 1972, almost twenty years ago, President Nixon started a war on drugs-the first intensive effort to enforce the prohibition of drugs since the original Harrison Act. In preparation for this talk today, I re-read the column that I published in Newsweek criticizing his action. Very few words in that column would have to be changed for it to be publishable today. The problem then was primarily heroin and the chief source of the heroin was Marseilles. Today, the problem is cocaine from Latin America. Aside from that, nothing would have to be changed.
Here it is almost twenty years later. What were then predictions are now observable results. As I predicted in that column, on the basis primarily of our experience with Prohibition, drug prohibition has not reduced the number of addicts appreciably if at all and has promoted crime and corruption.
Why is it that the only observable effect on policy of the conversion of predictions into results has been that the government digs itself deeper and deeper into a bigger and bigger hole and spends more and more of your and my money doing harm? Why is it? That’s both the most discouraging feature of our experience and also the most intriguing intellectual puzzle. In our private lives, if we try something and it goes awry, we don’t just continue and do it on a bigger and bigger scale. We may for a while, but sooner or later we stop and change. Why does not the same thing happen in governments policy?
Det samme kan man sige i dag, næsten 20 år efter Friedman holdt sin tale, der meget passende bar titlen ”The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise”.

Socialistisk politik er som bekendt kendetegnet ved at selv om den ikke virker er magthaverne parate til at bruge flere af borgernes penge på det. Synd at også vores nominelt borgerlige regering endnu ikke har indset at også den danske narkopolitik “blot” er spild af penge og menneskeliv. Men forhåbentlig vil appellen for en vidensbaseret, rationel og human narkopolitik på et tidspunkt – hellere før end siden – trænge igennem til regering og folketing herhjemme.

Høringsuttalelse om narkotika

KROM viser til Helse- og omsorgsdepartementets høringsbrev av 05.10.2010, hvor det
bes om innspill på departementets Rapport om narkotika.

KROM foreslår en total avkriminalisering av bruk, erverv og besittelse til eget bruk og en generell nedkriminalisering av narkotikalovbrudd.

Innledning
I 2009 satte regjeringen ned et utvalg som skulle vurdere en forbedring av hjelpetilbudene til tunge injiserende rusavhengige samt igangsetting av et prøveprosjekt med heroinassistert behandling. Stoltenbergutvalgets medlemmer har imidlertid i innstillingen valgt å ta for seg hele rusfeltet, hvilket etter vårt skjønn må forstås som et uttrykk for en tverrpolitisk erkjennelse om at rådende narkotikapolitikk er feilslått. KROM ønsker derfor utvalgets innstilling velkommen, og mener at tiden er overmoden for en narkotikapolitisk reform.

Et kjapt overblikk viser at etter fire tiårs kamp mot narkotika har gruppen mennesker som sliter med tungt misbruk økt; tunge misbrukere har blitt mer marginalisert; til tross for et godt etablert skadereduksjonstilbud er misbrukernes fysiske og psykiske helsetilstand særdeles dårlig; og man finner i gruppen en opphoping av levekårsproblemer. Sist men ikke minst har Norge i en årrekke toppet den europeiske overdosedødsfallsstatistikken.

Opp mot 60 prosent av alle innsatte i norske fengsler har stoffproblemer. Samtidig viser undersøkelser at det er en sterk sammenheng mellom rusmiddelbruk, opphopning av levekårsproblemer og muligheten for å bli gjenganger i norske fengsler.(1)

Også på andre områder antyder økning i antall beslag at forbudslinjen ikke fungerer etter intensjonene. I 1976 ble det etterforsket 1133 lovbrudd og siktet 702 personer, i 2005 var tallene på henholdsvis 39 634 lovbrudd og 9707 personer. Det er i den forbindelsen også verdt å nevne at det i 2009 ble gjort til sammen 11 766 beslag av cannabis hvilket utgjorde 2588 kg, mens henholdsvis heroin og amfetamin utgjorde 1432 beslag (130 kg) og 5786 beslag (197 kg). (2) Tallene forteller oss ikke om hvor mange som er tatt for besittelse, salg eller grovere narkotikalovbrudd, men at de største beslagene er relatert til cannabis og ikke amfetamin og heroin som regnes som farligere substanser, illustrerer behovet for å drøfte effekten av forbudslinjen.

Samtidig viser undersøkelser at bruken av stoff blant festbrukere følger kulturelle trender som kan synes å operere uavhengig av politi- og tollvesenets arbeid.(3) Dette underbygges av at til tross for svært ulik reguleringspraksis i europeiske land (4) – som strekker seg fra administrative tiltak til strafferettslig sanksjoner, har det tilsynelatende ikke hatt nevneverdig utslag for rekruttering til illegalt stoffbruk. For eksempel hevder både svenske og portugisiske myndigheter at deres respektive narkotikapolitikk har bidratt til nedgang i antallet i rekrutteringen av unge cannabisbrukere.

KROM ønsker som sagt derfor Stoltenbergutvalgets innstilling velkommen. Av hensyn til vår kompetanse har vi i hovedsak valgt å uttale oss om punktene som vedrører kontroll og straff, forslag 3 og 4: Reaksjonsformer ved bruk og besittelse av narkotika; forslag 6: Øremerk midler til forsterket innsats mot profesjonelle selgere og gateomsetning av narkotika; forslag 15: Sikre oppfølging av narkotikaavhengige under og etter fengselsopphold; forslag 16: Harmoniser regelverket for tvang, og utarbeid nasjonale retningslinjer råd eller retningslinjer for tjenesten; forslag 21: Baser behandlingen på tillit fremfor kontroll; forslag 22: Åpne for et tidsbegrenset forsøksprosjekt der behandling med heroin inkluderes i LAR.

Ad forslag 3 og 4
- KROM foreslår en total avkriminalisering av bruk, erverv og besittelse til eget bruk og en generell nedkriminalisering av narkotikalovbrudd.

Under kapitlet Reaksjonsformer ved bruk og besittelse av narkotika forslår Stoltenbergutvalget etablering av alternativer til strafferettslig reaksjonsformer og registrering i strafferegister, i form av tverrfaglige nemnder som skal vurdere tiltak for personer som pågripes for bruk og besittelse av narkotika. Forslaget bygger på både den portugisiske reguleringsmodellen, og vårt eget hjemlig samarbeidstiltak mellom politi og kommune for å forebygge barne- og ungdomskriminalitet.

Leder for utvalget, Thorvald Stoltenberg, har selv ved en rekke anledninger uttalt at utvalget av taktiske hensyn valgte ikke å foreslå total avkriminalisering av bruk og besittelse til eget bruk, jf. den portugisiske modellen. Frykten for at det ville være et for kontroversielt tema, og at en debatt om avkriminalisering eller ikke ville skygge for de andre av utvalgets forslag, oppgis altså som hovedgrunn for at utvalget er hva man kan kalle tilbakeholden i synet på regulering av narkotika. Samtidig illustrerer det problemstillingens dilemma i norsk narkotikadebatt: Forbudslinjen har blitt et spørsmål om moral der opprettholdelse av status quo har status som den mest moralske aktverdige posisjonen.

Det er i dag, ikke bare på nasjonalt men også internasjonalt nivå, en erkjennelse om at forbudslinjen i narkotikapolitikken er ineffektiv og har bidratt til å generere mange av de problemer vi i dag knytter til stoffbruk: HIV og andre blodsmittesykdommer, kriminalitet, svart økonomi, vold, fengsling og død. Stoltenbergutvalgets forslag er en erkjennelse av at stoffbruk må håndteres som et helsemessig og sosialt problem, ikke et strafferettslig anliggende. Som utvalget peker på må formålet med regulering være å hindre problemfylt stoffbruk og rusavhengighet. I Norge har ledende jurister, forskere og andre fagprofesjoner pekt på det samme og talt for at bruk, erverv og besittelse til eget bruk må ut av straffeloven. Regjeringens medlemmer har på sin side sendt særdeles uklare signaler som spenner fra justisminister Knut Storbergets utspill om behov for avkriminalisering, til at det skal etableres ”annerledes” strafferettslig reaksjoner uten avkriminalisering. At det anses som kontroversielt å kreve avkriminalisering er imidlertid ikke et godt nok grunnlag for at problemstillingen ikke bør eller skal debatteres. Kravet om en kunnskapsbasert politikk må også gjelde narkotikapolitikken.

KROM støtter derfor Stoltenbergutvalgets innstilling om at det er behov for alternativer til strafferettslig kontroll og sanksjoner. Det er imidlertid etter vårt skjønn ikke nok og ”nedtone” justissektorens rolle til fordel for helsesektoren. Bruk, erverv og besittelse av stoff til eget bruk, må avkriminaliseres. Som vi har vært inne på ovenfor generer forbudslinjen mange av de skader og problemer som er relatert til stoffbruk. Det er også en betydelig fare for at forbudslinjen dominerer og frembringer unødige og kontraproduktive kontrolltiltak som vi har sett skje innenfor tiltak som er definert som skadereduksjonstilbud. At politiet skal ha myndighet til å avgjøre både om og hvilke saker som skal gå til tverrfaglige nemnder fragmenterer den enkeltes rettsvern og rettssikkerhet. Det er derfor en fare for at vi med et slikt system uansett gode intensjoner, vil ende opp med de samme problemstillingene som førte til opphevelsen av løsgjengerloven og plassering av datidens offentlige rusbrukere – drankerne – på Opstad tvangsarbeidsleir.

Ved å avkriminalisere bruk av narkotika og erverv og besittelse til eget bruk kan vi unngå at den enkelte utvikler eller forblir i avhengighetsproblematikken. Det vil senke terskelen for å søke hjelp før problemet har blitt for stort, og bidra til mer adekvat hjelp ved at kontroll av rusbruk ikke får en dominerende posisjon som den har i dag. Sist men ikke minst flytter det oppmerksomheten fra substansen som inntas til problemfylt bruk av stoffet.

KROM mener derfor at forslaget fra Straffelovkommisjonens flertall må gjenreises.(5) Det vil si en opphevelse av legemiddellovens § 24 første ledd, og at straffeloven 1902 § 162 første ledd som omfatter bruk, erverv og besittelse av narkotika til eget bruk oppheves. Når det gjelder øvrige narkotikalovbrudd må skadefølgeprinsippet legges til grunn, det vil si at både effekten og omkostningene av høye strafferammer må vurderes og begrunnes med faglig orientert kunnskap og ikke som Justis- og politidepartementet har gjort: Ønsket om at straffeloven skal signalisere samfunnsholdninger. (6)

Ad forslag 6
Stoltenbergutvalgets innstilling foreslår øremerkede midler til en forsterket innsats mot profesjonelle selgere og gateomsetning av narkotika. Utgangspunktet for forslaget er den åpne stoffscenen, og utvalget skiller mellom selgere som selger for å finansiere egen avhengighet og profesjonell selgere og selgere som selger som et ledd i organisert kriminalitet.

KROMs forslag om å avkriminalisere bruk, erverv og besittelse til eget bruk gjør seg derfor særdeles gjeldende når det kommer til den åpne stoffscenen, hvor dagens situasjon ikke kan ses uavhengig av rådende narkotikapolitikk. Det er vanskelig å se for seg at ren profittbasert salg utgjør en stor andel av den åpne stoffscenen. Tvert i mot er det grunn til å anta at selgere av stoff på disse arenaene utgjør siste ledd i kjeder av innførsel og salg, og befolkes av allerede marginaliserte mennesker. Det er derfor vanskelig å se hvordan man i praksis mener at man skal skille mellom verdige trengende og syndige kriminelle.

Forslaget innebærer i tillegg etter KROMs skjønn status quo, og vil bidra til å reprodusere dagens uholdbare politikk, der slitne stoffbrukere alternerer mellom rollen som utslått narkoman, ordensproblem og kriminell. Ved å avkriminalisere bruk, erverv og besittelse til eget bruk mange av de problemene som er knyttet til den åpne stoffscenen reduseres. Mye av stoffinntaket i det offentlige rom handler om å få i seg dopet før politiet tar det, og ved å utvide sprøyteromstilbudet (jf forslag 5), vil allmennheten slippe å være uønsket vitne til injisering, brukte sprøyter og andre forhold man finner skadelig eller sjenerende.

Avkriminalisering vil også bidra til å redusere markedets mulighet for svarte økonomi. I dag ser vi at narkotikasalg har blitt en vesentlig kilde til inntekt blant uønskede asylsøkere og migranter som er på vandring rundt i Europa.

En annen side er at byrommet må være tilgjengelig for alle, også stoffbrukere. Løsningen må være å etablere strategier og tiltak som kan bidra til å redusere uønsket atferd knyttet til stoffbruk, og ikke å bekjempe brukerne.

Ad forslag 15
Stoltenbergutvalget innstilling ønsker å sikre oppfølging av narkotikaavhengige under og etter fengselsopphold.

KROM finner det skuffende at ikke utvalget har gått dypere inn i rusproblematikken i fengsel. Opp mot 60 prosent av fangebefolkningen har rusproblemer, store deler soner dommer knyttet til eget rusmisbruk, enten det er vinningsforbrytelser eller salg, bruk, erverv og/eller besittelse av illegale substanser. Fengslet er etter KROMs skjønn uegnet både som ”tilbud” til slitne stoffbrukere og behandlingssted. Majoriteten soner korte dommer hvilket begrenser tilgangen til hjelperessurser, og det er en betydelig fare for at etablering av tiltak i fengsel, som for eksempel rusmestringsprogram, betyr et gode for de ressurssterke og ikke de mest trengende. Sist men ikke minst opplever de fleste fangene rammene rundt soning som kontraproduktiv for et godt rehabiliteringsarbeid.

Den åpenbare rusproblematikken som har etablert seg i norske fengsler underbygger behovet for en narkotikapolitisk reform: Få rusmisbrukerne ut av straffeapparatet. Det samme gjør myndighetenes håndtering av rusproblematikken i fengsel.

For omtrent samtidig som utvalgets innstilling ble publisert gikk Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet imot etablering av skadereduksjonstiltak i form av tilgang til sterilt brukerutstyr i norske fengsler. At det ble argumentert for at det hadde vært få som har blitt smittet med HIV under soning (ingen andre blodsmitteinfeksjoner ble nevnt), er graverende. Når det i tillegg hevdes at tilgang til sterile sprøyter vil bidra til å underkjenne fengslets rehabiliteringsarbeid, illustrerer det en besynderlig arroganse og manglende kunnskap om at fanger har krav på et fullverdig helsetilbud, inkludert tiltak for å forebygge helseskader.

KROM mener derfor at tunge rusavhengige må tilbys behandling gjennom § 12 soning, og at rusavhengige må ha tilgang til sterilt brukerutstyr under soning.

Ad forslag 16
Stoltenbergutvalget innstilling foreslår å harmonisere regelverket for tvang og utarbeid nasjonale råd eller retningslinjer for tjenesten.

KROM er kritisk til bruk av tvang overfor rusmisbrukere, og vi har heller ikke tro på å harmonisere et regelverk som retter seg mot svært ulike grupper innenfor barnevern, psykiatri og stoffmisbruk. Kommende rusmelding bør gjennomgå og behandle kritikken som har blitt rettet mot tvangsbruk av rusmisbrukere, av Rokkansenteret ved Universitetet i Bergen.(7)

Ad forslag 21
Stoltenbergutvalget innstilling foreslår at behandlingen baseres på tillit ikke kontroll og at bruken av urinprøver reduseres.

Rapporten viser til at et grovt anslag tilsier at det brukes mellom 200 og 250 millioner på urinprøver i LAR, samtidig sies det at nytteeffekten av kontrollen ikke lar seg dokumentere.

Urinkontroll har vært knyttet til nulltoleranse for stoffbruk og er ikke et nødvendig middel for å behandle stoffavhengige. Bruken av urinkontroll både i straffeapparatet og i hjelpetiltakene illustrerer behovet for å avkriminalisere brukerne av stoff. KROM støtter forslaget og vi har i en årrekke talt for at denne formen for kontrolltiltak er kontraproduktiv, ydmykende og integritetskrenkende, det krenker den enkeltes person- og rettsvern, og en generell screening av fanger og stoffavhengige i behandling må derfor opphøre.

Ad forslag 22
Et flertall av utvalgets medlemmer (fem mot fire) foreslår at det bør åpnes for et tidsbegrenset forsøksprosjekt der heroinbehandling inkluderes i LAR.

KROM støtter forslaget om at åpnes for at heroin skal være tilgjengelig som substitusjonsmedisin. Internasjonal kunnskap taler for at det er behov for ulike typer substitusjonsmedisiner. Medikament- og opiatavhengige bør i likhet med befolkningen for øvrig ha tilgang til den medisinen som gagner den enkeltes behov best.

Kunnskapsbasert ruspolitikk
Som det går fram av KROMs høringsuttalelse er det grunnleggende nødvendig å foreta et paradigmeskifte i norsk narkotikapolitikk: Forbudslinjen må erstattes av en politisk tilnærming der stoffbruk håndteres som et sosialt og helsemessig problem. Og vi må drøfte hvilke alternativer reguleringsformer som kan erstatte den strafferettslige. Det betyr ikke at vi tror at alle problemer lar seg løse med en avkriminalisering, men å tviholde på forbudslinjen og parallelt etablere stadig flere tiltak for å bøte på konsekvensene av den, har store omkostninger for samfunnet, den enkelte stoffavhengige og dens familie og nære omgivelser.

Dagens narkotikapolitikk har også konsekvenser for den allmenne forståelsen av rusproblematikken, det er et problem som gjør seg gjeldende i Stoltenbergutvalgets innstilling så vel som i etablering av tiltak: Ideen om at stoffmisbruk er ensbetydende med opiatavhengighet. På Sprøyterommet i Oslo er det bare tillat å injisere heroin, ikke amfetamin, metamfetamin eller andre substanser. Det gis ikke tilbud om legemiddelassistert rehabilitering til andre enn opiatavhengige. Utover endring i beslag er det begrenset kunnskap og kompetanse om nye rustrender og ruskulturer i miljøer utenfor de mest utslåtte stoffbrukerne. På den andre siden bidrar dagens narkotikapolitikk med stadig tilrettelegging av tiltak for å bøte på en feilslått politisk tilnærming til å sementere rusomsorgen som særomsorg. Fremtidig ruspolitikk bør derfor ha en kunnskapsmessig og ikke moralsk forankring, og formålet med politikken må være å hindre problemfylt bruk og avhengighet.

1 Levekår blant innsatte, Friestad & Skog Hansen 2004
2 Se Sirus RusStat.no
3 Se bl.a. Bergensklinikkenes Føre Var-rapport 2010
4 www.rus.no: Odd Hordvin; Avkriminalisering av narkotika – hvor liberalt er Europa?
5 Se NOU 2002: 4 Ny straffelov Straffelovkommisjonens delutredning VII
6 Se Ot.prp. nr. 90 (2003-2004) Om lov om straff (straffeloven)
7 Lundeberg/Mjåland/Nilssen/Søvig/Ravneberg: Tvang overfor rusmiddelavhengige, Rokkansenteret 2010

FN’s menneskerets rapportør Anand Grover anbefaler i sin nye årsrapport afkriminalisering og statsregulering af narkotiske stoffer

Den årlige tematiske rapport fra FN’s særlige rapportør om retten til sundhed.

Tilføjet den 26 oktober 2010

Anand Grover, fra Indien, FN’s særlige rapportør om ethvert menneskes ret til den højest opnåelige standard for fysisk og psykisk sundhed, hvis mandat er udstedt af FN’s Menneskerettighedsråd.

Hr. Grover’s årlige tematiske rapport beskriver den række af krænkelser af menneskerettighederne, der har resulteret i internationale kontrol med narkotika indsats, og opfordrer regeringerne til at:

· Sikre, at alle skadebegrænsende foranstaltninger (som specificeret af UNAIDS) og narkotikamisbrug og afhængigheds behandlingstilbud, især opioid substitutionsbehandling, er tilgængelige for folk, der bruger narkotika, navnlig blandt fængslet befolkninger.
· Afkriminalisere eller ikke-straffe besiddelse og brug af narkotika.
· Ophæve eller væsentligt reformere lovgivning og politikker der hæmmer levering af vigtige sundhedstjenester til stofbrugere, og gennemgå de retshåndhævende initiativer omkring bekæmpelse af narkotika for at sikre overholdelsen af forpligtelser på menneskerettighedsområdet.
· Ændre love og politikker, samt at øge adgangen til kontrollerede livsvigtige mediciner.
Til FN narkotikakontrolagenturer, anbefaler hr. Grover etablering af en alternativ medicin regelsæt baseret på en model som rammekonventionen om tobakskontrol.

Rapporten er den tydeligste erklæring til dato fra i FN-systemet om de skader, som narkotikapolitikkerne har forårsaget, og som peger på behovet for en radikal kursændring i narkotikapolitikken.

PDF-download: – Ret til højeste standard for health.pdf

Copyright © 2010 by the Cato Institute.

White Paper

September 27, 2010.

The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition

by Katherine Waldock and Jeffrey A. Miron
Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Professor Miron earned his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chaired the economics department
at Boston University prior to joining the Harvard faculty. Katherine Waldock is a doctoral candidate at the
Stern School of Business at New York University.

 

---

State and federal governments in the United States face massive looming fiscal deficits. One
policy change that can reduce deficits is ending the drug war. Legalization means reduced expenditure
on enforcement and an increase in tax revenue from legalized sales.
This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government
expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and
local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government.
Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6
billion from legalization of other drugs.
The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually,
assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0
billion from legalization of other drugs.

Pdf. file: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf

USA kan være klar til at droppe krigen mod narko

Skrevet af: Rory Carrol, Poul Harris

Oprettet 08/08/2010.

Latinamerika presser på for at få USA til tage et opgør med den forfejlede krig mod narko, og internt argumenterer nu også Tea Party-bevægelsen på højrefløjen for legalisering.

Finanskrisen har givet argumentet nyt liv

Kilde:http://www.information.dk/241113

VIL DU VIL SLIPPE FOR BØDER?
SÅ LÆS HER . . .

Folketinget har vedtaget en ny lov som betyder, at bøderne for besiddelse af stoffer nu
er blevet meget højere. Her nogle eksempler:

	Mængde	1. gang	2. gang	3. gang eller mere
Hash	Op til 9,9 gram	2.000 kr.	3.000 kr	4.000 kr.
Heroin/kokain	Op til 0,9 gram	3.000 kr.	4.500 kr.	6.000 kr.
Piller (fx stesolid, Metadon, ketogan)	op til 49 stk.	3.000 kr.	4.500 kr.	6.000 kr.

MEN bliver man taget med en mindre mængde stof, som man har været stærkt afhængig
af gennem år, kan man slippe for en bøde og i stedet få en advarsel. En ”mindre
mængde stof” betyder indtil 0,2 gram heroin eller kokain, 10 gram hash, 10 stk. lægemiddeltabletter
(fx Stesolid, Metadon eller Ketogan) eller indtil 5 stk. morfintabletter.
For at slippe med en advarsel, skal man dog også være modtager af kontanthjælp eller
pension. Har man arbejde eller er man på dagpenge, kan man ikke nøjes med en advarsel.
Så får man en bøde, uanset hvor længe man har brugt stoffet.
Opfylder du betingelserne for at slippe for en bøde, så sig til politiet, at du:

er afhængig af stoffet og har været det gennem år
er på kontanthjælp eller førtidspension
ikke har mulighed for at betale en bøde

VIGTIGT !
Selv om man opfylder betingelserne for at kunne nøjes med at få en advarsel, kan det
dog blive svært at slippe for bøden, hvis man fx har en vægt på sig, har flere af de
pakker, som politiet kalder ”salgs-pakker” (som dog ligeså godt kunne hedde ”købspakker”),
små stykker papir til at lave pakker af, pølsemands-poser, eller hvis man har
et større pengebeløb på sig.

Der er kommet følgendende supplerende oplysninger:

For at slippe med en advarsel skal man være ”stærkt stofafhængig”, på overførselsindkomst (kontanthjælp eller pension) og derudoverbesidde maksimalt op til:

10,0 gram hash

50,0 gram marihuana

100,0 gram hampeplanter

0,2 gram heroin, kokain, morfinbase

1,0 gram råopium

0,5 gram amfetamin

1,0 gram canabiol/hasholie

10 stk. lægemiddeltabletter

5 stk. morfinpiller

1 – 2 stk. ecstasytabletter

Visse af disse lofter er dog – som vi også har anført overfor justitsministeren og Retsudvalget – sat alt for lavt set fra den praktiske virkelighed.

Vil man vide endnu mere, kan man læse dels forarbejderne til den ændrede lovgivning (www.ft.dk, Arkiv, Folketingsåret 2006-2007, L 201A), dels Rigsadvokatens meddelelse om sanktionspåstande i narkotikasager, som kan findes her: http://www.rigsadvokaten.dk/Default.aspx?id=63&recordid63=983.

Venligst udlånt af: Gadejuristen, Gasværksvej 15D, 3., København V, tlf. 33 31 00 75

National Times Australien

24. september 2009.

Juryen må se på forbuddet mod heroinbehandling.

Kronik af Alex Wodak M.d.

I oktober 1987, mens jeg rejste i udlandet for at lære om hiv og stiknarkomaner, brugte jeg en aften i et ”Shooting Gallery” i Brooklyn, New York City. I observerede i timevis, mens fire latinamerikanske mænd og kvinder injicerede ”speedballs” som er heroin blandet med kokain. Det var en livsændrende oplevelse. Vi var i kælderen i en forfalden, forladt kasernebygning. Der var ingen elektricitet. Udslidte biler var stablet op på sten med knuste ruder. Dette var storbyernes elendighed helt utænkelig i Australien.
At bære rundt på sprøjteudstyr i gaderne var alt for risikabelt, især for minoriteter. At leje et ”Shooting Gallery” for et par timer reducerede risikoen for at blive generet af politiet. Kanyler og sprøjter blev leveret, men gevinsten var at de allerede var blevet brugt af mange andre mennesker. Jeg betragtede de fire injiceres med ringe hensyntagen til hygiejne. Tænkte på tilsvarende situationer i Australien, jeg spekulerede på, hvorfor disse amerikanske brugere havde så lidt bekymring for deres fremtid. Så indså jeg, at en ordentlig uddannelse, en ordentlig bolig eller et rimeligt stykke arbejde ville have været umuligt drømme. Håb om et bedre liv for deres børn eller børnebørn? Glem det. Derimod ville svingdøren i fængsel, være en alt for velkendte virkelighed. Det var da jeg først blev interesseret i ulighed og ulovlig brug af narkotika. Ulighed har været et gennemgående tema i ulovlige stoffer. Australiens første love om narkotika i slutningen af det 19. århundrede forbød rygning af opium i South Australia, Victoria og NSW. De eneste opiumsrygere derefter var de kinesiske minearbejder i Guldfeltet. Amerikanske missionærer i det 19. århundrede blev vidner til den forfærdelige ulykke som følge af den britiske tvangsopium til kineserne. Kina forsøgte at stoppe den daværende mere magtfulde englændere, men tabte begge opiumskrige. De erfaringer, hjalp omgående USA til at indkalde den internationale Opium Kommissionen i Shanghai i 1909, lægger op til globalt narko forbud. Tres år senere erklærede USA’s præsident Richard Nixon krig mod narkotika. Nixon’s rådgiver John Ehrlichman sagde: ”Se, vi forstod at vi ikke kunne gøre det ulovligt at være ung eller sort i USA, men vi kunne kriminalisere deres fælles glæde. Vi forstod, at narkotika ikke var det sundhedsproblem, som vi gjorde det ud for at være, men det var et alt for perfekt emne for Nixons Hvide Hus, til at vi kunne modstå det.” Den effektive politiske strategi viste sig at være en politisk katastrofe. Mens politikere i mange lande konkurrerede om at have den hårdeste politik, steg narkotika produktionen ligesom forbruget og dødsfald forøgedes, sygdom, kriminalitet og korruption steg ligeledes støt. De seks dødsfald på grund af overdosis i Australien i 1964 steg til mere end 1100 i 1999. Flere videnskabelige undersøgelser pegede på, at ordination af heroin til de hårdest afhængige af heroin, de intravenøse stofbrugere, som ikke havde nydt godt af alle andre typer af behandlinger og straffe, indebar reelle fordele for den enkelte og samfundet.
I 1997 konkluderede en stor schweizisk undersøgelse, at for denne minoritet af fastlåste heroinbrugere, som aldrig havde nydt godt af gentagne episoder med forskellige behandlinger eller fængsel, ved at give dem heroin som en del af deres behandling, fandtes der er enorme fordele, med få bivirkninger. Deres fysiske og psykiske sundhed forbedres betydeligt. Forbruget af gadenarkotika falder. Kriminalitet, målt på tre forskellige måder, falder betydeligt. Behandlingen var meget dyrere end standard metadonbehandling, men for hver eneste schweiziske franc programmet koster, der var gevinst på to schweiziske franc.
Strenge videnskabelige undersøgelser blev derefter også lavet i Holland, Spanien, Tyskland og Canada. Alle viste lignende resultater og alle blev offentliggjort i anerkendte tidsskrifter. I denne måned blev resultaterne af en britisk undersøgelse frigivet. Også her svarede resultaterne til de tidligere undersøgelser. I alle var heroin selvadministreret under streng overvågning. Rigelig høj kvalitet, af psykologisk og social støtte blev givet. Efter et årti med heroin-understøttet behandling i Schweiz, bliver behandlingen stadig kun givet til 5 procent af dem, der søger hjælp.
Dette lille mindretal af de stærkt afhængige stofbrugere er så vigtigt, fordi de tegner sig for en uforholdsmæssig stor andel af den narkotikarelaterede kriminalitet. I en national folkeafstemning sidste år i Schweiz, støttede 68 pct at fastholde heroin-understøttet behandling, som en sidste udvej. Hollænderne giver nu også behandling. Tidligere på året, stemte 63 procent af medlemmerne af det tyske parlament, for at give heroin-støttet behandling. Alle større politiske partier i Danmark støttede for nylig heroinbehandling. Australske forskere undersøgte i 1990′erne heroin-støttet behandling i mere end fem år. I juli 1997, stemte sundhed og politi ministre seks mod tre for at støtte en retssag, men premierminister John Howard blokerede processen og hævdede, at det ville ”sende det forkerte signal”. Tolv år senere, ligger budskabet fra den videnskabelige dokumentation klar: Hvis vi ønsker at hjælpe stofmisbrugere, deres familier og lokalsamfund, så bør ordination af heroin være en del af den pakke, som vi leverer. Men vi skal også forsøge at mindske omfanget af ulighed i vores samfund. Der er stigende tegn på, at mere ulige samfund har dårligere folkesundheds resultater, med højere forbrug af ulovlig narkotika, psykiske sygdomme, fedme og kriminalitet. På et tidspunkt, hvor vores skattesystem er under revision, er debatten om at reducere ulighed i Australien nødvendig. Vi bør give heroinbehandling nu til det lille mindretal med meget alvorlige problemer, som ikke har nydt godt af gentagne episoder med andre behandlinger.

Alex Wodak er direktør for Rusmiddelforskning Service på St. Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney.

Oversat fra engelsk af Jørgen Kjær

ABC News – Media Awareness Project

War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves

Show hosted by John Stossel

Note: This documentary is on line as audio files at
http://highwire.stanford.edu/~straffin/dp/
and a video file at
http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/news_ABCnewsJ.html

Note: Prepared by Burrelle’s Information Services, which takes sole
responsibility for accuracy of transcription.
Cited: Judge James Gray http://www.judgejimgray.com/ Sanho Tree
http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/drugpolicy.htm

Thanks: To everybody who helped make this documentary possible, is
spreading the word about it; and also to DRCNet http://www.drcnet.org
NORML http://www.norml.org and others for their follow-up alerts to
this

WAR ON DRUGS, A WAR ON OURSELVES

ANNOUNCER This is an ABC News Special. The world is going to pot.
Country by country, drug laws are going up in smoke.

ANNOUNCER In Amsterdam, we found a new Dutch treat: coffee shops with
marijuana on the menu. RED Chocolate bon-bons. We have them in all three
kinds of chocolate.

ANNOUNCER And a church basement where addicts have their prayers
answered.

JOHN STOSSEL, ABC NEWS Feel good? (Man nods)

JOHN STOSSEL Feel great?

ANNOUNCER But in America, police smash down doors, filling prisons with
thousands of drug offenders.

GIRL I just say my mom’s living in New York. I don’t like to tell them
where she is.

ANNOUNCER Now this police chief says it’s a losing battle.

CHIEF JERRY OLIVER, DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT It’s insanity to keep
doing the same thing over and over again. ANNOUNCER Should America be leading the war on drugs or following Europe’s new tolerance?

JUR VERBEEKS When we interfere, then the problem is more bigger.

ANNOUNCER The president says we have to spend billions to fight drugs
because…

PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH Drug use threatens everything. Everything.

ANNOUNCER But this judge says it’s time to make drugs legal.

JUDGE JAMES GRAY, SUPERIOR COURT, CALIFORNIA So, let’s make it available
to adults–brown packaging, no glamour.

JOHN STOSSEL It means government as drug dealer.

ANNOUNCER So much time and money spent, is it hurting the drug trade or
Americans? Tonight, War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves.

ANNOUNCER Here is John Stossel.

JOHN STOSSEL, ABC NEWS Have you used illegal drugs? The government says
a third of you have, and about 5 percent of you use them regularly. It’s
probably more, because how many people answer honestly when the
governmentasks? So what do we do about this? America’s approach has been to go to war.

1ST OFFSCREEN VOICE What’s the time?

GROUP OF POLICE OFFICERS (In unison) It’s show time!

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Police departments fight the war every day.

1ST POLICE OFFICER Put your hands up.

2ND POLICE OFFICER Turn the car off!

3RD POLICE OFFICER Police! Lay on the floor.

4TH POLICE OFFICER Lay down. Lay down.

5TH POLICE OFFICER Police! Search warrant!

PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH When we fight against drugs, we fight for the
soulsof our fellow Americans.

6TH POLICE OFFICER Get down. Get down.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) There’s pressure on police to do more.

CHIEF JERRY OLIVER, DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Pressure from the
politicians or pressure from the community to do something about it.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Jerry Oliver is Detroit’s police chief.

JERRY OLIVER It puts policing in the position of being involved in
tactics that are desperate.

7TH POLICE OFFICER Police!

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) What does he mean by desperate?

JERRY OLIVER Since the transactions are normally between a willing buyer
and a willing seller, it causes the police to snoop. (In police car) Out
of state tag, 9-5… (To reporter) …to sneak, to stoop and to snare
individuals sometimes in ways which, even though I’m in the business and
I know that it is legal, it’s questionable. (In police car) It’s clear
downthere. You can send those decoys in.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) He may say it’s questionable, but on this day his
officers are out on the street pretending to be dealers. Dozens of
people drive up and ask to buy drugs. Then the cops radio ahead.

JERRY OLIVER Fourteen, she’s out now. You can come make your move.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) They tell uniformed officers, ‘Arrest the customer.’

1ST WOMAN What’s the problem?

8TH POLICE OFFICER You know what you did there, right?

1ST WOMAN Nothing. I was attempting to buy some marijuana.

8TH POLICE OFFICER That’s all you had to say, ma’am.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Fifty police officers were involved in this sting,
although most of those arrested were trying to buy less than $25 worth
of pot. Even when they make a big seizure, the head of narcotics isn’t
convinced that they’re making progress.

1ST MAN Last year we had probably our largest cocaine seizure in
history.
However, it hasn’t seemed to have an impact on drying up the amount of
drugs are that actually coming into the city.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) “Hasn’t had an impact.” That’s the story all over
America. In the past 10 years arrests have gone up nearly 50 percent,
But the number of users and the supply of drugs has stayed about the same.

9TH POLICE OFFICER Here you go.

10TH POLICE OFFICER Got it? Got some more?

JOHN STOSSEL Are we making progress?

ASA HUTCHINSON, DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR Absolutely.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Asa Hutchinson, President Bush’s choice to run the
DEA–the Drug Enforcement Administration–travels the world telling
People we’re winning the drug war.

ASA HUTCHINSON Overall drug use in the United States has been reduced by
50 percent over the last 20 years.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But was that because of government’s policies, or was
it just people wising up after the binges of the ’70s. (OC) Drug use is
down.It’s not down lately. The last 10 years, it hasn’t dropped.

ASA HUTCHINSON The–we have flat-lined. I believe we lost our focus to a
certain extent.

JOHN STOSSEL It is hard to see how we lost focus because you’re spending
more.

ASA HUTCHINSON I don’t believe that we had the same type of energy
devoted to it as we have in certain times in the past.

11TH POLICE OFFICER Open up!

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) It’s not clear how you’d measure energy, but federal
spending on the drug war has kept going up. It’s up 50 percent over the
past 10 years. And President Bush wants still more.

GEORGE W BUSH …to reduce illegal drug use in America.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And that’s just the Washington money. Cities and
states spend still more.

JERRY OLIVER Up to three-quarters of our budget can somehow be traced
back to fighting this war on drugs.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Three-quarters of the budget, yet the drugs are
available as ever.

12TH POLICE OFFICER Didn’t I just ask you if you had some heroin on you?

2ND MAN That was–that–I–I didn’t even have this in my pocket, man.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Since the arrests fail to stop the sellers, a newer
tactic is to have authorities go after buyers.

13TH POLICE OFFICER Have a good day.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Here in Detroit, they’re confiscating cars.

JERRY OLIVER This vehicle now belongs to city of Detroit’s Narcotic
Bureau.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) This officer’s car–now chasing down a drug buyer–was
confiscated on a previous raid. They’ve taken so many cars, the police
lot looks like a dealership.

3RD MAN Can I take my truck home or no?

2ND OFFSCREEN VOICE No.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) It costs people $900 to get their car back.

JERRY OLIVER We’re taking cars, we’re taking property, we’re taking
houses.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Taking them and selling them. They bust up the
furniturejust to get rid of it. They don’t even save the TV sets. Too much
trouble, say the police. We just want to clear out the house and sell it.

2ND WOMAN Wonderful, wonderful. They should take it.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Most of the neighbors are thrilled.

2ND WOMAN Good, take the house. Take the one next to it. Take the
furniture and take the owners to court.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But when government confiscates houses or cars and
sellsthem, it keeps the money. The drug war gives officials an incentive to take more. Is this what we want, all the seizures, all the arrests?

JERRY OLIVER We will never arrest our way out of this problem. All you
haveto do is go to almost any corner in any city, it will tell you that.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Oliver was once a big believer in the drug war. Not
anymore.

JERRY OLIVER If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend
more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers. That’s what we really should be geared up to do. Clearly we’re losing the war on drugs in this country. (To suspect) You told me you wasn’t going to–you was going to stop selling dope. (To reporter) It’s insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again.

JOHN STOSSEL “Insanity?” It’s an odd statement from a police chief, but
we hear the same frustration from others. In 1998 we visited this
neighborhoodin the Bronx, a neighborhood struggling with drugs and crime. Four yearsand 15,000 narcotics arrests later, the drug dealers are still
everywhere.The kids know where they are.

4TH MAN Every single block, find over there, over there, down there.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And the violence is constant. Every week they hear
gunshots.

3RD WOMAN I fear for my child. I mean, every morning she walks to
school.
What–what am I supposed to do, buy her a bulletproof vest? I mean, this
is really serious.

4TH WOMAN Gunshots going off, 9:30, 10:30, 11:30. I’m scared.

JOHN STOSSEL The government says we’re winning the war on drugs.

4TH WOMAN Well, not on Briggs Avenue and 196th Street, they’re not.

JOHN STOSSEL Overall, crime is down in America and in the South Bronx,
too.
But drug use, the drug supply? Plentiful. If we’re waging a war, it is
hardto see how we’re winning.

ANNOUNCER Next, “Reefer Madness.” (Clip shown from “Reefer Madness”)

ANNOUNCER The movie, the myth and the truth, when we return. (Commercial
break)

ANNOUNCER War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves, continues. Once again, John
Stossel.

JOHN STOSSEL We know the terrible things drugs can do. We’ve seen the
despair, the sunken face of the junky. No wonder those in government say
we’ve got to stop that, we have to fight drugs. (Clip shown from drug
commercial)

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) The government-subsidized ads are a vivid reminder of
what drugs can do to people and their families. (Clip shown from drug
commercial)

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Polls show most Americans agree, drug use should be
illegal. (Clip shown from drug commercial)

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Or as former drug czar Bill Bennett put it…

BILL BENNETT This is a deadly and poisonous activity, it should be
Against the law. People should be in prison for long periods of time for doing
it. It’s a–it’s a matter of right and wrong.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But when right and wrong conflict with supply and
demand, nasty things happen. Government declaring drugs illegal doesn’t mean
people can’t get them. It just means they get them on the black market where
they pay much more for them.

FATHER JOSEPH KANE The only reason that coke is worth that much money is
that it’s illegal. Pure cocaine is three times the cost of gold. Now, if
that’s the case, how are you going to stop people from selling cocaine?

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Father Joseph Kane is a priest in that Bronx
Neighborhood we saw earlier.

JOSEPH KANE Peace, my brother. God bless you.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) He’s come to believe that while drug abuse is bad,
drug prohibition is worse because the black market does horrible things to
his community.

JOSEPH KANE There’s so much money in it. I mean, it’s staggering.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) The war on drugs designed to help Americans has had
three unintended consequences. First, it sucks children into the underworld.
Second it corrupts cops. And third, it creates crime. Let’s take them in
order.

JUDGE JAMES GRAY, SUPERIOR COURT, CALIFORNIA We are recruiting children
in the Bronx, in–in barrios, all over the nation because of drug money.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Judge James Gray is a superior court judge in Orange
County, California, who spent years locking drug dealers up. But now
he’s concluded it’s pointless, because drug prohibition makes the drugs so
absurdly valuable.

JAMES GRAY The money to be made from the sale of the illegal drugs is a
bigger problem than the drugs themselves.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Judge Gray drove with us through Father Kane’s
neighborhood.

JAMES GRAY Why should a kid in this neighborhood work in this corner
grocery when he can make five times the amount of money in an afternoon
selling drugs?

JOHN STOSSEL Is that right? Is the money that good?

GROUP OF MEN It is.

5TH MAN That’s how it started out. I saw every–I saw all the things
that the drug money would get other people.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) These young men, now ex-cons, say they were sucked
into the drug trade by their local role models: the dealers. (OC) They were
the cool people in the neighborhood?

5TH MAN Yeah, you could say–that people looked up to.

6TH MAN You see somebody, you know, they got a fancy car and they got
nice jewelry and all the girls are after them, you know? And you just get
that, you know, that mentality that that’s–that’s the right thing to do.

JOSEPH KANE What guy would look for a job if you can make $300 an night?
I mean, it’s almost un-American to say, ‘I can make this much money, but
I’m not going to do it.’

JAMES GRAY It’s economics 1-A. The drug money is corrupting our
children.
It is corrupting ow law enforcement officers.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Corrupt cops, that’s the second unintended consequence
of drug prohibition. Cops like these are seduced by drug money. They have
been for years.

3RD OFFSCREEN VOICE While you were in uniform and on duty, did you
commit thefts?

7TH MAN Yeah.

3RD OFFSCREEN VOICE What would you steal?

7TH MAN Money and drugs. JOHN STOSSEL (VO) “Money and drugs.” The
temptation is so huge.

DRUG DEALER (From hidden camera) One hundred, 200, three, four, five,
six…

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Here, the man on the right, a San Antonio cop, waits
to
be paid after delivering what he was told was 20 pounds of cocaine. His
take is $3,000.

DRUG DEALER (From hidden camera) Three thousand.

14TH POLICE OFFICER (From hidden camera) Goddamn.

DRUG DEALER (From hidden camera) All right, man. That’s yours.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) He eagerly scoops up the money.

JERRY OLIVER With all of the money, with all of the cash, it’s easy,
then, to purchase police officers, to purchase prosecutors, to purchase
judges.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) This drug dealer used to make $20,000 a weekend with
the help of the police. (OC) So the cops know and just…

8TH MAN Of course. How else can you exist? It’s not like it’s a big
covert operation. It’s out in the open. The cops are just another gang.

JOHN STOSSEL Most of the time when you dealt you had some cops on your
payroll?

8TH MAN Of course.

JOHN STOSSEL The third and probably worst unintended consequence is the
drug crime. Films like “Reefer Madness” have told us people take drugs,
just go crazy (sic). (Clip shown from “Reefer Madness”)

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But think about it. In reality, do people go crazy,
get violent because they’re high on drugs? Rarely.

JOSEPH KANE First of all, violence comes from the fact that it’s
illegal.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) The violence happens because dealers arm themselves
and have shoot-outs over turf.

REPORTER (From unidentified news program) An innocent bystander is hit
during a shoot-out.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And the violence happens because addicts steal to pay
the high prices for drugs. Nicotine is about as addictive as cocaine or
heroin.
But no one’s knocking over 7-11s to get Marlboros or Budweiser.

JOSEPH KANE Most people are not afraid of the legal “pushers.” They’re
not afraid of the supermarkets selling alcohol. I don’t see them shooting
each other. But if you make the substance illegal, they will use violence
because there’s no other way of handling the problem.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) That’s what happened in the 1920s when government made
alcohol illegal.

FILM ANNOUNCER (From unidentified film) For 13 years the idiocy
continued.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) It was alcohol prohibition that gave rise to criminals
like Al Capone.

FILM ANNOUNCER (From unidentified film) Gangsterism was the national
sequel, and battles for exclusive territories erupted with a violence
unparalleled in the history of law enforcement.

JOSEPH KANE The people who were against alcohol were sincere, I suspect.
But they didn’t see the implications. We know the implications in the
Year 2002. We know that prohibition doesn’t work for alcohol. Why would it
work for anything else?

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) The profits from today’s drug prohibition now funds
terrorism. The State Department says that’s how bin Laden got some of
his problems.

JAMES GRAY It’s the money that’s really causing the problems here. The
drugs are dangerous, without question. But the drug money is turn a
disease into a plague.

ANNOUNCER Next, America’s ferocious effort to cut the drug connection at
its source.

JOHN STOSSEL How much do you stop?

ASA HUTCHINSON What we’re doing is increasing the risk to the
traffickers.

JOHN STOSSEL Is this a way of saying that we don’t stop much?

ANNOUNCER When John Stossel continues. (Commercial break)

ANNOUNCER War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves, continues. Once again, John
Stossel.

JOHN STOSSEL The drug war, say critics, is not just a war on our own
people, it’s a war on other people, mostly poor people who live in
countries that produce our drugs. (VO) The United States spends billions
trying to keep drugs out of America. But no matter how much we spend or
how many special police units are trained and equipped, or how many drug
shipments police disrupt or intercept. It’s had little impact on the
amount of drugs found on America’s streets. They keep coming. This videotape
was made by an American drug buyer as he received a home delivery.

4TH OFFSCREEN VOICE (From video) Taking it on home to Grandma. It was a
perfect drop. Put it right in the middle of the strip.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) So where do most of these drugs come from? (OC) Here
in Colombia, South America. This is a coca plant. It grows everywhere here.
It’s like a weed. The opium poppies are growing over there. (VO)
Colombia produces most of America’s heroin and most of its cocaine.
The coca plantsare are cultivated by farmers like these men who carve out fields in the remote jungle. Every four months or so, they strip the plants of their leaves and use a weed whacker to shred them. Then they squeeze the juice
out of the leaves which this farmer refined into coca powder. It took
him about a third of a year to produce a pound of it. What will he get for
that?

9TH MAN (Through translator) It’s worth approximately $2,200.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) They don’t know exactly how much they’ll get until
they go by horseback or walk–sometimes for days in the jungle–until they
get to remote marketplaces like this one. Growing coca and selling cocaine
is illegal in Colombia, but here drug traffickers openly bid for the
farmers’ products. Rebel soldiers who control this area keep watch as the
bartering begins. Weight and purity are checked. This bag of powder, once made into cocaine, will be worth about a quarter of a million dollars on the streets of America. Now, these people know that some Americans may abuse their product. They know it’s against the law. (OC) So why are you still growing coca?

10TH MAN (Through translator) For me and any other peasant in the
region, it’s impossible to substitute what we make growing coca.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) America spent millions trying to persuade these
farmers to grow anything else, but because of drug prohibition coca and poppies are so profitable, they’ve kept growing them. (OC) But the Clinton administration had a plan. It was called Plan Colombia. They’d persuade coca farmers to stop growing coca, to grow bananas and sugar cane
instead.

How? Well, they’d use a carrot and a stick. The carrot would be that
they’d pay them something, give them some farm instruments. The stick would be,
if they didn’t stop growing coca, we’d spray their fields. (VO) And we are, spraying them with herbicide that kills the coca and many other plants, too. The peasants have come to hate the planes.

11TH MAN (Through translator) First of all, it was the helicopters. Then
it was the airplanes. Everything around us was wet. Two days after that,
the leaves started to fall off the plants.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) That convinced them to begin ripping up their coca
plants, and hope the planes won’t spray again.

KAREN HARBRED (ph) They know that–that–that–that the stick is there
and we are the carrot.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) US Aid official Karen Harbred says the carrot’s all
the money America gives Colombia in hopes farmers will grow something
besides coca.

KAREN HARBRED We can certainly try to help them return to a legal
activity.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But will they? Whenever a farmer does this, it just
makes coca more valuable to those who do grow it.

SANHO TREE, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES It’s the problem of–of
prohibition economics. When you try to constrict supply, then that
drives up the prices and the profits. And that lures more poor farmers into this economy.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Sanho Tree works for a Washington group that opposes
the drug war.

SANHO TREE So we’re talking about farmers who really have nothing left
to lose. This is not a moral failing on their part. They’re–they’re really up against the wall. And growing coca means the difference between being poor or starvation. And they’re not going to watch their children starve.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Even if they did obey the Americans and grew bananas
or pineapples, how would they sell them? The road we took into the coca
fields was one of the jungle’s best. Most of the area is accessible only by mule or foot. The farmers can carry coca paste this way, but it’s not practical to carry the bananas and pineapples we want them to grow.

12TH MAN (Through translator) Coca is the only thing that provides what
we need to support our families.

RAND BEERS So we will spray them again until they understand.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Rand Beers, undersecretary of state, says America is
not going to sit back and let farmers grow coca, no matter how poor they
are.

RAND BEERS An illegal activity is an illegal activity. And one doesn’t
get a special pass for being poor. They have to recognize that every effort to grow coca will be challenged by the government. Every work effort, every dollar, every pound of sweat that goes in to growing that coca may be lost.

JOHN STOSSEL Even if the spraying isn’t killing all the coca, it at
least reduces the amount that flows to America.

SANHO TREE Actually…

JOHN STOSSEL Isn’t that good?

SANHO TREE Actually, it doesn’t. It–the more money we have put into
this program, the more we spray, the more coca there is. What we’ve been
doing with our drug war is–is like squeezing a balloon. If you squeeze end, it pops out the other.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And the Bush administration now admits that after the
spraying the amount of coca under cultivation increased–increased by 25
percent last year says the CIA.

SANHO TREE Then these people just go further into the Amazon, they cut
down more rain forest and they plant more coca. And meanwhile, we’re chasing them with our spray planes.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) In addition, America pays for helicopters, guns and
and military advisors, and encourages Colombia to wage war on those little
jungle factories where people convert coca plants into coca paste. The
police destroy the paste and the chemicals, and then they they poor
gasoline on everything…

COLOMBIAN POLICE OFFICER (Foreign language spoken)

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) …and toss a grenade in to burn the shack down. They
shoot their guns to scare off any traffickers who may be watching. Then
they make a hasty retreat in case the traffickers shoot back. Did this
make a difference? Not really. Because for every factory destroyed, there are many more in the jungle.

ASA HUTCHINSON We have not had the measure of success in the eradication
program in Colombia that we need or that we want to have.

JOHN STOSSEL How much do you stop?

ASA HUTCHINSON Well, I know what we’re doing is increasing the risk to
the traffickers.

JOHN STOSSEL Is this a way of saying that we don’t stop much?

ASA HUTCHINSON No, I think we–I think we stop a substantial amount.

JOHN STOSSEL Ten percent?

ASA HUTCHINSON I mean, whether you look at it as 10 percent, 20 percent
or 30 percent, there is some teen-ager out there that will not be able to
afford the drug, and it results in saving somebody’s life on the streets
of the United States.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And the spraying, the dumping of herbicide on acres of
Colombia? Since he admits this hasn’t worked, why keep doing it. (OC)
You’re squeezing the balloon. You say you’ve succeeded in Bolivia, but
that just moved it to Colombia. Now you’re spraying Colombia, it’ll move back to Bolivia.

ASA HUTCHINSON And the answer to that is we have to put pressure
everywhere if we’re going to have success. We’ve got to fight this battle
everywhere.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And we will continue to hunt down traffickers.

ANNOUNCER (From “World News Tonight”) This is “World News Tonight” with
Peter Jennings.

PETER JENNINGS, ABC NEWS (From “World News Tonight”) Good evening. The
king is dead. Pablo Escobar, the Colombian drug king.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Authorities were excited when Pablo Escobar was
killed.

PETER JENNINGS (From “World News Tonight”) …gunned down today by
Colombian police.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) People said it would stop the supply of drugs. But it
didn’t, because the Cali cartel stepped in. Then they were arrested.

2ND REPORTER (From unidentified news program) The arrests are a mortal
blow to the drug cartels.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But they weren’t a mortal blow because others
Immediately took their place.

ASA HUTCHINSON Yes, others came in, more independent operators, to take
The place because there are substantial profits in the cocaine business.

JOHN STOSSEL In addition, the vast profits created by drug prohibition
Are beginning to tear this country apart. Law is breaking down. You think we
have drug crime in America? Here there are 10 murders a day. And now, of
all the countries in the world, the one where you’re most likely to be
kidnapped is Colombia. (VO) Political leaders are especially at risk.
(Clip shown of shooting at political gathering)

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Here, a presidential candidate is gunned down by drug
traffickers at political rally. And there have already been 15 attempts
on the life of Colombia’s next president–here surrounded by his
bodyguards.
He decided to leave the country. He’s staying in Europe until his
inauguration next month. Colombia today is besieged by warring
factions–heavily-armed warring factions. This group, the FARCs, the
biggest. They’ve been fighting the government for years, and now they
videotape their battles. That’s what this is. And now the fight, which
was once about politics, is mostly about drugs because the money’s so huge.
The United States has declared the FARC a narco terrorist group. But our
spraying, our war on drugs, is winning the FARC new friends.

SANHO TREE We’re providing optimal conditions for these armed groups
to—to recruit. Once their farms get destroyed, they have nowhere else to turn.
So they’re associating the United States with death and destruction. And
This is not a way to win hearts and minds.

JOHN STOSSEL We’ll come back to America in a moment.

ANNOUNCER Next…

5TH WOMAN I’m an attorney. I pay my taxes. I live a good, clean life,
and if I feel like smoking a joint when I feel like it, that’s by my
business.

ANNOUNCER When we come back. (Commercial break)

ANNOUNCER War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves with John Stossel, continues
after this from our ABC stations. (Commercial break)

ANNOUNCER War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves, continues. Once again, John
Stossel.

JOHN STOSSEL People do abuse drugs. So, what do we do about it?
Government talks about treatment, but for the most part, our policy has been, `Lock them up.’ And we do arrest 4,000 people a day for selling or using
drugs.

13TH MAN I was just sitting there. I didn’t even touch anything.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Most of these people will be booked and released, but
every year thousands of Americans are jailed just for using drugs. And
jails are filled with people who sold drugs. Like these girls’ mom.

1ST GIRL I want to be able to say, `Mom I need help with this problem in
my homework. Mom, can you help me get–can you help me get my bath
started?’ I just want to have my mom there.

JOHN STOSSEL What did your mom do?

2ND GIRL She sold drugs.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) She’s serving eight years to life.

1ST GIRL At my graduation, everybody was asking, like, `Where’s your
mom?’

JOHN STOSSEL What do you tell them?

1ST GIRL I just say my mom’s living in New York. I don’t like to tell
them where she is.

JOHN STOSSEL Compared to other countries, America does lock lots of
People up. More than a million are arrested on drug charges every year. And now
about half a million are behind bars–just for drugs, not for doing
anything violent.

MANUEL What I did was harm to myself. I’ve never done harm to anybody in
My life.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Manuel’s is in jail for using drugs.(OC) Well, at
Least this will protect you from hurting yourself more. It’ll teach you a
lesson.

MANUEL Jails are crowded with drugs. I mean, you get them as–just as
Easy as you do here as you do on the outside (sic).

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) These others are in for dealing.

14TH MAN I was jut doing it to support my habit.

JOHN STOSSEL By locking you up, at least we got rid of a dealer in your
neighborhood.

15TH MAN I’m just one person. There’s a thousand more who are going to
follow my–in my footsteps and take my place.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) In many neighborhoods, when a dealer is locked up,
it’s not a deterrent. It’s a job opening.

JOSEPH KANE These drugs are so profitable that you take Tony off the
street, Tony’s kid brother is selling the drugs the next day. Now, you
put Tony away, then you get the kid brother and then you get the cousin, and
then you get–why would they stop doing that?

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) They don’t stop doing it. So some people say, why have
this war?

6TH WOMAN (Protesting) Stop the drug war! Sixty years and we haven’t
won!
It’s time to quit!

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) They say they should be able to do what they want with
their own bodies.

GROUP OF PROTESTORS (Chanting) It’s my body. It’s my choice.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) They say they ought to have the right to choose their
intoxicants.

16TH MAN Do you know nobody has ever died from smoking a joint anywhere
in history?

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) This man lit up right in front of the cops.

16TH MAN It’s not–it’s not…

JOHN STOSSEL You’re willing to go to jail?

16TH MAN It’s not about the marijuana. It’s about the freedom. I have
the right to make up my mind without interference from the government.

5TH WOMAN There is no risk to the population when a person sits in their
living room at the end of a long day’s work and lights up a joint.

JOHN STOSSEL But it make us stupid. It makes you lazy.

5TH WOMAN Well–well–I don’t think I’m stupid, I don’t think I’m lazy.
And I’m a responsible adult. I’m an attorney, I pay my taxes. I live a good,
clean life, and if I feel like smoking a joint when I feel like it,
that’s my business.

JOSEPH KANE We’re making people criminals by calling it an illegal
substance. You have a narcotic agent, literally, with a very dangerous
substance in his hand called alcohol–(mimics drinking)–and another
dangerous substance–(mimics smoking)–and tell you, `Say no to drugs.’
And that’s a–I mean, we don’t even see the hypocrisy of that.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) At this rally, there were lots of police. They
Arrested anyone they saw with marijuana. In this age of terrorism, I have to
Wonder why were they here, so many of them? (OC) Do you ever wish you were out
chasing terrorists?

15TH POLICE OFFICER I’d rather be here than chasing terrorists, you
know, definitely.

JOHN STOSSEL Is this sort of a waste of your valuable time? I mean, are
these people a threat?

16TH POLICE OFFICER No, not at all. They’re just–something they want to
do. I mean, they’re not really a threat to us or a threat to–to each
other.

JOHN STOSSEL Why is it illegal then?

16TH POLICE OFFICER I’m not the one that makes the laws. I just enforce
them. Why is it illegal? I don’t know. I have no idea.

JOHN STOSSEL All right.

17TH POLICE OFFICER Because it gets you high.

JOHN STOSSEL Is the drug war a war we should be fighting? Is there a
Better idea?

ANNOUNCER Europe’s new anti-drug slogan: Just say yes. Legal drugs.

17TH MAN It’s normal.

ANNOUNCER When John Stossel returns. (Commercial break)

ANNOUNCER War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves, continues.

JOHN STOSSEL There’s no question that drugs often do terrible things to
people. Lives have been wrecked. But the drug war wrecks lives, too,
costs billions, creates crime. Is there another way? Much of Europe now says
yes.
(VO) What would happen if we legalize drugs? (OC) Well, here in Holland,
in Amsterdam, it’s already happened. Using marijuana is legal here. What’s
that done? (VO) Holland now has dozens of `coffee shops’ they call them
where marijuana is officially tolerated.

18TH MAN Did you try that grass yesterday?

19TH MAN Yes, I did, as a matter of fact.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Red’s a regular user. She smokes several joints a day.
(OC) Every day?

RED Every day.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Red’s now a manager at this coffee shop which offers a
menu of marijuana choices from joints to chocolates.

RED Chocolate bonbons. We have them in all three kinds of chocolate made
with weed butter added to it.

18TH MAN How much would you like?

20TH MAN Just a gram.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) The police do regulate the marijuana sales. Shops may
sell no more than about five joints’ worth per person, and they’re not
allowed to sell to miners. And no hard drugs are allowed, just hash and
marijuana.

19TH MAN That’s good weed.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) So what’s the result? Is everyone getting stoned? No.
In America today 38 percent of adolescents have smoked pot. But here in
Holland, it’s only 20 percent.

JAMES GRAY They’ve taken the glamour out of it. In fact, the minister of
health of Holland has said, `We’ve succeeded in making pot boring.’

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Maybe that’s why half the people we talked to in these
coffee shops turned out to be American. (OC) You don’t feel bad breaking
your country’s laws?

21ST MAN No, I don’t. No, I don’t.

JOHN STOSSEL Why?

21ST MAN Because I don’t see anything wrong with it.

RED The whole point about it is that it’s a fun drug. It makes you feel
really nice. It doesn’t make you violent. It makes you relaxed. It makes
you giggly.

JOHN STOSSEL So if it’s such a good thing, why is it illegal in most of
The world?

RED You tell me.

GEORGE W BUSH Drug use threatens everything. Everything.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) In America, there’s little interest in legalizing any
drug.

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON I am adamantly opposed.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Officials talk about fighting a stronger war.

SENATOR TRENT LOTT, REPUBLICAN, MISSISSIPPI We call it a drug war, and
Yet it was not war.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Once President Clinton’s surgeon general dared suggest
legalization might reduce crime.

DR JOYCELYN ELDERS (From file footage) I don’t know all the
Ramifications of this, and I do feel we need to do some studies. (To reporter) Heaven knows I never had so much rain fall on me about what I considered a
Fairly simple, innocuous statement.

22ND MAN The best way for Dr. Elders to promote the public health needs
of this country is to resign.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Not even discussing legalization has roughly been US
policy for 30 years. As Los Angeles’ former police chief put it…

WILLIE WILLIAMS It’s simply wrong and it should not be even discussed
Here in America.

JOHN STOSSEL You’re not even supposed to talk about it?

JOYCELYN ELDERS Well, I guess you aren’t. Nobody talks about it. And of
course, how can you ever fix anything if you can’t even talk about it?

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And most official talk about Holland’s law condemns
it.`It’s a failure,’ said the last drug czar. `An unmitigated disaster.’
(OC)
Is it really? That’s not what we heard here in Amsterdam. This isn’t
Even controversial anymore?

17TH MAN It’s normal.

JON FOSTER, GREY AREA COFFEE SHOP Dutch clients will pick up a small
Amount of cannabis, the same way they would pick up a bottle of wine in the
store.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Rotterdam Police Superintendent Jur Verbeeks says kids
are going to try marijuana, legal or not. (OC) If you close down the
coffee shops, they wouldn’t be able to get it. JUR VERBEEKS Where will the
young people go, tell me, please?

JOHN STOSSEL Maybe they’ll give up marijuana?

JUR VERBEEKS Oh they are curious. And when there are no coffee shops,
They will go to the illegal houses and then the dealer says, `OK, you want to
have marijuana. Good, but we have cocaine as well. And we he heroin for
you.’

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) That was a reason for the Dutch experiment with
marijuana, to separate soft drugs from the more dangerous hard drugs.
But in Holland, some people are experimenting with how to deal with hard
Drugs, too. Check out what’s going on inside this church. In the basement
they’re buying heroin and injecting it right in the church. The police know
about
this, but don’t stop it. (OC) So already you feel it?

23RD MAN Yeah.

JOHN STOSSEL Feel good? (Man nods)

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) This is happening in Hans Fisher’s church.

HANS FISHER It does not mean that I agree the use of dangerous drugs.

JOHN STOSSEL You’re a drug dealer. You’re allowing people to deal in
Your church.

HANS FISHER I am not a drug dealer. I am not involved in the dealing of
drugs.

JOHN STOSSEL You’re inviting them into the house of the Lord. You’re
the–you’re the landlord who lets it go on.

HANS FISHER The church is for sick and poor people. In my opinion, drug
addicts are sick. We have responsibility for them.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) What Fisher’s doing is illegal in Holland. Using hard
drugs isn’t forbidden, but selling is. Fisher only allows addicted
people who follow certain rules to use drugs at the church, and police look the
other way.

JUR VERBEEKS When we interfere, then the problem is more bigger.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Inside the church, addicts buy drugs from a few
Dealers that Fisher selects. They buy through this window which replicates the
illegal buy they’re used to. It also prevents greedy addicts from
grabbing too much. Then, three times a day, they’re allowed to use the smoking
room or the injection room.

23RD MAN You have headache, you take medicines for your headache. I take
medicines. This, for me, a medicine.

JOHN WALTERS Most societies, if they’ve tolerated this, have tolerated
It because it affects a part of the population that they don’t care about
Or manage not to care about.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) America’s drug czar, John Walters, says these user
Rooms are a terrible idea.

JOHN WALTERS We want to make people well. We don’t want–we don’t want
To settle for institutions that just allow people to be addicted more
safely.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) This doesn’t look like a good life, but at least
Instead of being street criminals searching for a fix, it allows addicts to hold jobs and support families. This woman says one shot of heroin and she
Can go to work. (OC) So, you can do your job stoned?

7TH WOMAN No, no, no, no, no. If I am stoned they send me at home.

JOHN STOSSEL But you come here, you get high.

7TH WOMAN No. Listen, I take only–I have my use under control. Before I
had this job, I maybe take eight times a day or 10 times a day, I take a
shoot. But now I only once take a shoot a day. So it’s only….

JOHN STOSSEL Just–just because this place is making…

7TH WOMAN It’s only to make me feel normal.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) What the Dutch are doing makes sense to Judge Gray.

JAMES GRAY They’re addressing it as managers. We address it as
moralizers.
We address it as a character issue, and if you fail that test, we put
You in prison. They are removing the criminal element. They have a lower
Drug problem. They have a lower crime problem. They have fewer people in
prison.

JOHN STOSSEL What started here in Holland has now spread. Today, police
Now in most of Europe ignore marijuana use. In Spain, Italy and Luxemburg
they’ve decriminalized most drug use, and in Portugal recently, all
drugs use. (VO) That’s not to say that all the experiments succeed.
Switzerland once tried what became known as Needle Park, a place where anyone could use any drug.

8TH WOMAN It was just junky park. There were, like, 500, 2,000 people
every day there who would just, like, use drugs or deal drugs.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) It attracted crime because it became a magnet for
Junkies from all over Europe. And in Amsterdam, ABC’s hidden camera shows
legalizing marijuana shops doesn’t stop people from selling illegal
drugs.

24TH MAN (From hidden camera) I have heroin, I have cocaine, I have
ecstasy.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Critics say Holland has become an island of drug use.

25TH MAN (From hidden camera) Ecstasy, coke.

26TH MAN (From hidden camera) 25TH MAN One hundred per gram.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But while this does happen, the use of drugs in
Holland and all Europe is still lower by far than in the US, and European
Countries are proposing even more liberalization. American politicians have shown little interest in that.

ASA HUTCHINSON We in America should have a different approach. We should
discourage drug use and we should try to enforce our laws.

JOHN STOSSEL But we’ve been trying that now for 30 years and we still
have addicts.

ASA HUTCHINSON We’ve been trying it for 30 years and we’ve had an
extraordinary amount of success. And yes, we still have addicts. Which
means, it’s a very difficult problem that we’re trying to achieve.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) He showed us a headline from a British newspaper.
This, he says, demonstrates that liberalization hasn’t worked.

ASA HUTCHINSON “Drugs fuel crime rise.”

JOHN STOSSEL But the crime part is caused by prohibition. This article
Is about heroin crime, and heroin is still illegal there. If it were legal
people wouldn’t be committing crime to pay for it.

ASA HUTCHINSON Well, let’s talk about that. After prohibition ended, did
the criminal element, did organized crime go out? No, organized crime
continued. JOHN STOSSEL But it diminished.

ASA HUTCHINSON It shifted. They moved to other elements of crime. You do
not win in these efforts by giving in.

JOHN STOSSEL “Giving in.” By that he means legalizing. Some thoughts
About that when we return. (Commercial break)

ANNOUNCER War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves, continues. Once again, John
Stossel.

JOHN STOSSEL How many wars can America fight? Now that we’re at war
Against terrorism, can we also afford to fight a drug war against millions of
Our own people? Is it wise to fight on two fronts?

5TH OFFSCREEN VOICE (From video) (Unintelligible)…platoon, 3:00.
You’re on the other hill.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) The last time America engaged in a war of this length
Was Vietnam. And then, too, government put a positive spin on success of the
war.

FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON B JOHNSON (From file footage) Now, America wins
The wars that she undertakes, make no mistake about it.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) We’ve heard the same kind of optimism about the drug
war.

FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN (From file footage) And we’re beginning
To win the crusade for a drug-free America.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) But today more people have doubts.

JAMES GRAY It’s the legitimate function of government to protect us from
each other. But where government goes astray is where we try to protect
us from ourselves. It makes as much sense to me to put this actor, Robert
Downey Jr., in jail for his drug abuse as it would have Betty Ford in
Jail for her alcohol abuse. It’s really no different. Hold people accountable
for what they do, but not for what they put into their bodies.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Why not sell drugs the way we do alcohol, he says, but
maybe with more restrictions.

JAMES GRAY Make it available to adults. Brown packaging, no glamour,
Take the–the illegal money out of it. And then furnish it, holding people
accountable for what they do. These drugs are too dangerous not to
control.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Legal drugs. That’s a frightening thought. Maybe more
people would try them. Judge Gray says even if they did, that would do
less harm than the war we’ve been fighting for the past 30 years.

JAMES GRAY What we’re doing now has failed. In fact, it’s hopeless. This
Is a failed system that we simply must change.

JOHN STOSSEL Drugs do hurt people. But isn’t the drug war worse? That’s
Our broadcast for tonight. I’m John Stossel. Good night.

ANNOUNCER For more information on War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves, go
To www.abcnews.com
__

Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.
—
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake

Sundhedsstyrelsen udsender national handlingsplan til forebyggelse af hepatitis C blandt stofmisbrugere
Sundhedsstyrelsen har sendt sin nationale handlingsplan til forebyggelse af hepatitis C blandt stofmisbrugere til alle danske kommuner. Sundhedsstyrelsen anbefaler, at indsatsen øges ved, at kommunerne iværksætter følgende to nye lokale initiativer:

1) Kommunen skal sikre en systematisk gennemførelse af de tiltag, som allerede bør indgå i den lægelige stof-misbrugsbehandling og forebyggende indsats mod narkotikamisbrug – eksempelvis af en særlig, lokalt udpeget tovholder. Det drejer sig om

oplysning og rådgivning om forebyggelse af blodbåren smitte til stofmisbrugere, hvad enten de findes smittede eller ej
screening for hepatitis A, B og C samt HIV
vaccination mod hepatitis A og B
henvisning til behandling.
2) Kommunen bør sikre, at der for hvert af de behand-lingssteder, som kommunen benytter, hvert år udarbejdes en status for implementering af handlingsplanen, så indsatsen inden for både forebyggelse, undersøgelse og behandling kan vurderes.

Kronisk leverbetændelse (hepatitis) forårsaget af hepatitis C virus er særdeles udbredt blandt danske stofmis-brugere. Smitte sker via blod på grund af dårlig hygiejne i forbindelse med genbrug af injektionsudstyr. Kronisk infektion kan over en årrække medføre udvikling af skrumpelever og leverkræft.

Kommunerne vil blive kompenseret med 5,6 mio. kr. årligt fra 2007 og fremefter som følge af planen.

Hepatitis Foreningen Dato: 24.09.2007