(c) The Australian

November 27, 2010.

• By Stephen Lunn, Social affairs writer

An energetic case has been put for the country to regulate and tax the production of cannabis

A GLOBAL leader on innovative drugs policy in the 1980s, Australia has been stuck in a conservative rut since, at great cost to drug users and the broader community, a high-profile US drugs policy expert warns.

And in 2010, when Australia should be contemplating the regulation and taxation of cannabis and getting safe pharmaceutical heroin in the hands of addicts, it continues to prohibit drug use to demonstrably little effect, says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance.

Nadelmann says countries that boldly declare “zero tolerance” or “a war on drugs” are deluding themselves that they can prevail over the global drug trade. Illicit drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever, he says.

“You really led the world when it came to implementing sensible harm-reduction policies that reduced the spread of HIV among injecting drug users,” he tells Inquirer.

“You kept your rates of HIV among injecting drug users to less than 2 per cent, whereas in America we let it explode to 40 or 50 per cent. If America had implemented the harm reduction policies in the 80s and 90s that Australia did, we’d have quarter of a million people alive today as a result.”

Nadelmann says drug policy reform in Australia then became “bogged down in politics” as European countries moved away from failing prohibitionist approaches.

His clarion call is to regulate and tax cannabis production, sale and use rather than ban it with the threat of criminal sanction.

The 2007 National Drug Strategy Household survey found more than 1.5 million Australians used cannabis in the previous year, and more than 600,000 in the previous week, evidence that prohibition is not making it more difficult to source drugs.

Nadelmann says most cannabis users aren’t addicts, or even regular imbibers, but admits the drug has adverse health consequences, with links to mental illness and schizophrenia, and poor educational outcomes for young users. The social costs of illicit drug use in Australia, including crime, health outcomes, lost productivity and road accidents, was put at $6.4 billion annually by economists David Collins and Helen Lapsley in 2008. Which is why government funds would be better spent on treatment programs for those with drug problems rather than law enforcement, he says.

The most recent data published by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence shows nearly 64,000 drug consumer arrests were made in 2007-08, and estimates of annual law enforcement costs run at between $1.3bn and $2bn.

“Marijuana arrests are the majority of all drug arrests in this country,” Nadelmann says. “It still gives people criminal records. You seem to have run out of steam when it comes to new ideas about changing this around.

“Regulating and taxing cannabis is not risk free but it’s a better approach than prohibition.”

Nadelmann visited Canberra during the week and met MPs including Malcolm Turnbull, Mal Washer and Rob Oakeshott. He says there’s an “emerging coalition” of politicians who are privately or overtly open to his case.

But one not for the turning is Bronwyn Bishop, who chaired a 2007 parliamentary inquiry into the effect of illicit drug use on families. Bishop says the public “just [doesn't] want illicit drugs legalised”. “The argument of the harm-minimisation lobby is stupid,” she says. “They say the war on drugs is failing, so it should be legalised. Would we do this with other crimes that harm people?

“The Australian public [is] smart enough to know that the more drugs are available, the more available they will be to their kids.”

She questions the way harm-minimisation proponents downplay the health effects of drugs such as cannabis.

“It’s a very damaging drug and it’s a known precursor to using other drugs,” she says.

“The public wants illicit drugs to stay that way and it’s only a few who seem to be agitating for this change that doesn’t have public support.”

Perth addiction specialist George O’Neil, who is trialling a naltrexone-implant to stop heroin addiction, is similarly unimpressed with the harm-minimisation message. “It’s disgraceful propaganda. There’s not a single mother in Australia [who] will swallow the story that’s being sold,” he says. “If an 18-year-old is using cannabis, mothers don’t want him to be given easy access to cannabis so he won’t have to commit crimes to get it. They want him not to use it.”

Undeterred, Nadelmann cites with approval the approach to drug use taken in Portugal as one that would be appropriate for his home country and Australia.

In 2001 Portugal decriminalised the possession of up to a 10-day supply of all types of illicit drugs. Those found in possession are referred to a regional committee that decides whether the person needs treatment. If no treatment is required, the possessor can be sanctioned with driving restrictions, bans from entertainment areas or fines.

Nadelmann also argues the case for more heroin injecting facilities and access for addicts to safe drugs. He says there is no medical argument that can be mounted against his case for regulation over prohibition, and the only objections are political.

By Evan Wood

People on both sides of the marijuana legalization debate have strong feelings about Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative that promises to regulate, control and tax cannabis. But science and empirical research have been given short shrift in the discussion. That’s unfortunate, because the U.S. government has actually funded excellent research on the subject, and it suggests that several widely held assumptions about cannabis legalization actually may be inaccurate. When the total body of knowledge is considered, it’s hard to conclude that we should stick with the current system.

One important question is whether laws criminalizing marijuana have effectively reduced supply and use. It would appear from available data that they have not. Despite billions spent on anti-cannabis law enforcement and a 30% increase in the number of arrests in California since 2005, marijuana remains the most frequently used illegal drug. Nationally, an estimated $10 billion is spent each year enforcing marijuana laws, yet an ongoing study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse has concluded that over the last 30 years, the drug has remained “almost universally available to American 12th-graders,” with 80% to 90% saying the drug is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain.

On the health side of the equation, scientific consensus is that while cannabis may pose some health risks, they are less serious than those posed by alcohol and tobacco. The approach taken to regulating these other harmful substances, however, hasn’t been to criminalize them but to regulate their distribution, to impose taxes on their purchase and to educate the public about their risks. These measures have been shown to be effective, as in the case of cigarette consumption, which has dropped dramatically.

On the other hand, cannabis prohibition has not achieved its stated objectives. As detailed in a report published last week by my organization, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, research funded by the U.S. government clearly demonstrates that even as federal funding for anti-drug efforts has increased by more than an inflation-adjusted 600% over the last several decades, marijuana’s potency has increased by 145% since 1990, and its price has declined 58%.

In this context, supporting Proposition 19 seems like a reasonable position, and recent polls have suggested that almost half of decided voters support the ballot initiative. However, there has emerged a strong assumption in the debate that, though legalization will save police time and raise tax revenue, this will come at the cost of increasing rates of cannabis use.

This notion is based on a widely cited Rand Corp. report, which used a theoretical model to conclude that rates of cannabis use will increase if cannabis is legalized. Though the authors of this report cautioned readers that there were “many limitations to our estimate’s precision and completeness” and that “uncertainties are so large that altering just a few key assumptions or parameter values can dramatically change the results,” few seem to have read past the headline that legalization is likely to increase cannabis use.

This may be the case, but it’s not a certainty. In the Netherlands, where marijuana has been sold in licensed “coffee shops” since the 1970s, about 20% of the adult population has used the drug at some time in their lives. In the United States, where it is largely illegal, 42% of the adult population has used marijuana.

Neither Rand’s theoretical model nor other commentaries have considered the potential benefits of the broad range of regulatory tools that could be utilized if the marijuana market were legal. The state could then license vendors, impose purchasing and sales restrictions and require warning labels. Although these methods have been scientifically proven effective in reducing tobacco and alcohol use internationally, it is noteworthy that successful government lobbying by the tobacco and alcohol industries has slowly eroded many of these regulatory mechanisms in the United States.

A bill has been introduced in the California Legislature to create a uniform statewide regulatory system under the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control if Proposition 19 passes. Such a system would allow, finally, for an evidence-based discussion of how to optimize cannabis regulatory regimes so that the benefits of regulation (including such things as tax revenue and reduced drug market violence) can be maximized while rates of cannabis use and related harms can be minimized.

Up to now, the fact that cannabis is illegal has meant that the unregulated market has been largely controlled by organized-crime groups, and the trade has sparked considerable violence, both in the United States and in Mexico. Given the widespread availability and use of cannabis despite aggressive criminal justice measures, there is no doubt that a saner system can be created if marijuana is strictly regulated rather than left in the hands of organized crime.

Evan Wood, a physician and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, is the founder of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy.

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Oct. 28, 2010.
WHO, Phnom Penh: The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and his wife, Ban Soon-taek, visited Cambodia’s first methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) clinic earlier today in central Phnom Penh as part of a two-day visit to the Kingdom.

During his brief visit, the UN Secretary General unveiled a plaque to commemorate his visit and learned of the objectives of the methadone programme and its achievements since dosing began on July 1, 2010.

The UNSG and his wife met with six methadone patients who represent the wide range of socio-economic backgrounds of the current 61 clients enrolled in the programme.

Each of the six patients received their respective doses of methadone from the UN Secretary General, and his wife, who had requested the opportunity to assist.

Following the signing of the MMT Clinic visitor’s book, the UN Secretary General was presented with a silver plate depicting the famous temples of Angkor Wat by the Clinic Director, Dr. Chhit Sophal, and a representative of the methadone patients to thank him for his interest in the programme.

In this speech to the audience and crowd who can come to see the UNSG make this special visit, Ban Ki-moon noted that the methadone programme, “is providing an important service, not just to people struggling to conquer addiction, but to the broader community.”

The UN Secretary General continued, “I commend the Government of Cambodia for launching this pilot programme. Evidence shows that such initiatives are more effective than incarceration in addressing the social problems caused by addiction.”

The combined and ongoing efforts of several UN agencies in Cambodia was emphasised by Ban Ki-moon, in particular with respect to the new, innovative approaches to drug treatment in the Kingdom through the community-based drug treatment programme initiated by UNODC with the support of WHO and UNAIDS, that has been formally adopted by the entire UN Country Team in Cambodia.

The UNSG praised Cambodia for its successes in its response to HIV/AIDS whilst noting the challenges still ahead: “I would like to congratulate the Government of Cambodia on receiving the MDG Award [for] its work on HIV/AIDS. The UN System will continue to assist the Government to maintain its achievements and to focus on developing a continuum of prevention, care and treatment for HIV/AIDS for populations most at-risk – including entertainment workers, men who have sex with men, and drug users.”

At the conclusion of his remarks, the UN Secretary General commented, “I look forward to continued partnership between the Government and the United Nations system to deliver evidence-based approaches to drug-related problems.”

Summary compiled by Graham Shaw, Technical Officer: HIV/AIDS, Drug Dependence and Harm Reduction, WHO, Cambodia.

Article not available in English. Switch language on the top of the site, if you want to read the Danish article.

Date: 12 October 2010

IHRA has released a new briefing written in partnership with Human Rights Watch and Penal Reform International entitled ‘The Death Penalty for Drug Offences and International Support for Drug Enforcement’. The purpose of this briefing is to highlight the dangers associated with funding drug control activities in countries with capital drug laws as detailed in IHRA’s report Complicity or Abolition? The Death Penalty and International Support for Drug Enforcement.

The death penalty for drug-related crimes is a violation of international human rights law according to UN human rights monitors and treaty bodies. Such laws are also at odds with the goals of abolitionist countries that oppose the death penalty for all crimes. Yet many of these abolitionist countries provide financial assistance to counter-narcotics projects in countries where drug offences are punishable with death, putting them at risk of contributing to the practice.

This briefing provides recommendations to donor-countries to avoid such unintended consequences.

To view this briefing please click here.

© 2010 International Harm Reduction Association.

Source: RiaNovosti
27.9.2010.

By Diana Markosian

On a dimly lit street in north Moscow, two drunk men kill time outside a local pharmacy as they wait for the arrival of clean syringes so they can shoot up.
“I need three,” one of the men says to an outreach worker as he opens his backpack and pulls out a bag of clean syringes.
Two workers from the non-governmental Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health and Social Justice make runs like this six times a week, distributing clean needles outside local pharmacies to Moscow’s heroin addicts.
“Every time I see them, I remember myself,” says Maxim Malyshev, 33, who is HIV-positive and injected heroin into his body for 15 years.
“When I am out on these runs, I try to talk to these guys as much as possible,” he goes on. “No one else talks to them; I know, I used to be one of them.”
Drug addiction was virtually unheard of, publically at least, until the collapse of the Soviet Union, when borders opened up and narcotics flooded in.
The number of drug addicts in modern-day Russia is estimated to be 500,000, according to government statistics. However, the Federal Drug Control Service believes the actual figure to be at least five times higher.
“I started six years ago,” says Maria, now 27, as she probes the surface of her skin with a needle.
“I don’t really know why,” she continues, as we sit in the chaotic apartment she shares with her boyfriend. “But now I can’t stop.”
Across the table, her boyfriend, who refuses to reveal his name, his arms and hands covered in the intricate coded markings of prison tattoos, prepares his fix carefully, his eyes narrowed in concentration.
Injecting drugs is the major cause of the spread of HIV in Russia. A report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) estimates that 30,000 people a year are dying from drugs, more than the total number of soldiers killed in the almost decade-long Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan.
The Russian government estimates that as of 2009 more than 530,000 people out of a population of about 142 million are living with HIV. But the actual number is estimated to be double that amount, according to the global UNAIDS organization.
“The official figure is a passive way of controlling the epidemic,” says Dr. Lev Zohrabyan, UNAIDS regional adviser for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
“The Russian government does not agree with the estimated number of HIV infected people generated by UNAIDS,” he says. “That is why we cannot rely on these estimates, and must work with the numbers that are officially registered.”
With the global community focused on HIV/AIDS in Africa, Russia isn’t an obvious front line in the fight against HIV. But across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, experts say drug use is driving the world’s fastest-growing HIV epidemic.
“The growth of AIDS has gone beyond being a medical problem,” Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zhukov said at a recent meeting in Moscow “It has become an issue of the strategic social and economic security of the country.”
After being virtually silent on the issue for many years, the Russian government recently announced a major HIV/AIDS initiative including a dramatic increase in funding. The country is expected to invest more than $430 million in global healthcare before 2012, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said at 60th session of the European regional committee of the World Health Organization.
But not everyone is convinced of its commitment to dealing with the problem’s root causes.
“The problem is that all the investment is done for the sake of Russia’s political image,” says Anya Sarang, president of the Andrey Rylkov Foundation. “We are not a poor country, we are in the G8, we are civilized, but no investment is being put into HIV prevention within the country’s most vulnerable groups.”
She also noted that Russia refuses to adopt “internationally proven” means of treating opiate addiction such as methadone, a heroin substitute.
Russia believes that the West’s policy of supplying methadone to addicts simply exacerbates the problem and does little to prevent the causes of drug addiction. It similarly disapproves of needle exchange programs, claiming that they are a tacit approval of the low level crime that funds users’ habits.
Over the years, NGOs – largely funded by international donors like the Global Fund to Fight Aids – have plugged enormous gaps that the Russian government has failed to fill. They have poured in more than $365 million to prevent and treat HIV.
But a five-year grant provided by the Global Fund to Russian Health Care Foundation expired at the end of August last year and more than 40 prevention programs, most of them aimed at drug users, have expired. The Global Fund has not approved new funding, claiming Russia is no longer eligible for HIV and AIDS funding.
“Of course, the Global Fund has its own criteria for allocating grants,” says Zohrabyan of UNAIDS.
“Russia is also becoming more of a donor country rather than a recipient country. But, does the Russian government allocate enough money for HIV prevention? No.”
The problem of a lack of funding for HIV prevention and the absence of the political will is echoed by experts in the field.
“The problem is stigma,” says Mikhail Volik, regional director of Aids Foundation East -West, a Dutch non-governmental organization, which works to treat and prevent HIV. “They don’t want to acknowledge that the problem exists, but this is the first step to dealing with the epidemic.”
By: Diana Markosian

Injecting drugs is the major cause of the spread of HIV in Russia. The Russian government estimates that as of 2009 more than 530,000 people are living with HIV. But the actual number is estimated to be double that amount.© RIA Novosti. Diana Markosian

Injecting drugs is the major cause of the spread of HIV in Russia. The Russian government estimates that as of 2009 more than 530,000 people are living with HIV. But the actual number is estimated to be double that amount. © RIA Novosti. Diana Markosian

Source: The Lancet

Date: July 2010.

Author: Chris Beyrer, Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, Adeeba Kamarulzaman, Michel Kazatchkine, Michel Sidibe, Steffanie A Strathdee

The published work on HIV in people who use drugs shows that the global burden of HIV infection in this group can be reduced. Concerted action by governments, multilateral organizations, health systems, and individuals could lead to enormous benefits for families, communities, and societies.

The authors of this paper review the evidence and identify synergies between biomedical science, public health, and human rights. Cost-effective interventions, including needle and syringe exchange programs, opioid substitution therapy, and expanded access to HIV treatment and care are supported on public health and human rights grounds; however, only around 10 percent of people who use drugs worldwide are being reached, and far too many are imprisoned for minor off ences or detained without trial.

To change this situation will take commitment, advocacy, and political courage to advance the action agenda. Failure to do so will exacerbate the spread of HIV infection, undermine treatment programs, and continue to expand prison populations with patients in need of care.

The article is available below in English and Japanese. Chinese, Farsi, French, Polish, Russian, and Spanish versions will also be added.

Relevant drug policy publications are almost nonexistent in languages other than English. With the help of leading experts, the Open Society Foundations Global Drug Policy Program is publishing key documents in translation.

Download .pdf file

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/drugpolicy/articles_publications/publications/time-to-act-20100907/time-to-act-English-20100907.pdf

Wall Street Journal (US)

20 Jul 2010

Author: Susana Ferreira

PORTO, Portugal-This country’s move to decriminalize illicit
substances-Europe’s most liberal drug legislation-turns 10 years old
this month amid new scrutiny and plaudits.

Portugal’s decriminalization regime has caught the eye of regulators
in Europe and beyond since it was implemented in 2001. Proponents
credit the program for stanching one of Europe’s worst drug epidemics.
Critics associate it with higher crime and murder rates. Approaching a
decade in force, it is providing a real-world model of one way to
address an issue that is a social and economic drag on countries world-wide.

Norway’s government formed a committee to look at better strategies
for dealing with drug abuse and sent two delegates to Portugal in
early May. Danish politicians have also talked of moving toward full
decriminalization. In March, Danish parliamentarian Mette Frederiksen
of the opposition Social Democrats praised the Portuguese model.

“For us, this is about the addicts leading a more dignified life,” she
told Danish daily Berlingske. “We want to lower the death rates, the
secondary symptoms and the criminality, so we look keenly to Portugal.”

Decriminalization has been criticized by United Nations bodies. In its
2009 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board
expressed “concern” over approaches that decriminalize drugs or
introduce alternative treatments. “The movement poses a threat to the
coherence and effectiveness of the international drug-control system
and sends the wrong message to the general public,” the board wrote.

In July 2000, Portugal moved beyond previous liberalization regimes in
places like the Netherlands by passing a law that transformed drug
possession from a matter for the courts to one of public and community
health. Trafficking remained a criminal offense but the government did
away with arrests, courts and jail time for people carrying a personal
supply of anything from marijuana to cocaine to heroin. It established
a commission to encourage casual users to quit and backed 78 treatment
centers where addicts could seek help.

In 2008, the last year for which figures are available, more than
40,000 people used the rehab centers and other treatment programs,
according to the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, a branch of
Portugal’s Ministry of Health. The ministry says it spends about •50
million ($64.5 million) a year on the treatment programs, with •20
million more provided through a charity funded by Portugal’s national
lotteries.

Before decriminalization, Portugal was home to an estimated 100,000
problem heroin users, or 1% of the country’s population, says Joao
Goulao, director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction. By
2008, chronic users for all substances had dropped to about 55,000, he
says. The rate of HIV and hepatitis infection among drug users-common
health issues associated with needle-sharing-has also fallen since the
law’s 2001 rollout.

Portuguese and European Union officials are loath to give publicly
funded treatment centers sole credit. They say the drop in problematic
drug users could also be attributed to heroin’s declining popularity
in Portugal and the rising popularity of cocaine and synthetic drugs
among young people.

At the same time, Portugal’s drug-mortality rate, among Europe’s
lowest, has risen. Mr. Goulao says this is due in part to improved
methods of collecting statistics, but the number of drug-related
fatalities can also be traced to mortality among those who became
addicted to heroin during the country’s 1980s and 1990s epidemic.

Violent crime, too, has risen since the law’s passage. According to a
2009 report by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, Portugal’s drug-use
and murder rates rose in the years after decriminalization. The
general rise in drug use was in keeping with European trends, but the
U.N. noted with some alarm that cocaine use doubled and cocaine
seizures jumped sevenfold from 2001 to 2006.

Murders rose 40% in the period. The report tentatively links that with
drug trafficking, but points out overall murder rates in Portugal remain low.

Pedro do Carmo, deputy national director of Portugal’s judiciary
police, says he doesn’t see link the rise in violent crime with
decriminalization. Instead, he praises the program for reducing the
fear and stigma attached with drug use. “Now, when we pick up an
addict, we’re not picking up a criminal,” he says. “They are more like
victims.”

The Portuguese began considering drug decriminalization following a
leap in heroin addiction decades ago in the country, a major entry
point for drug trafficking from Latin America and North Africa.

The then-ruling Socialist Party government of Prime Minister Antonio
Guterres launched a political debate to discuss how to resolve the
problem. Members of the right-wing People’s Party decried any
tolerance for drug use, saying it would invite drug tourism.

Mr. Guterres’s government pushed through a full decriminalization law.
A subsequent center-right coalition led by Jose Manuel Barroso, now
president of the European Commission, didn’t repeal it.

The legislation was the first in a series of liberal policy shifts in
this predominantly Roman Catholic country. In May, President Anibal
Cavaco Silva ratified a law allowing same-sex marriage, making it the
sixth European country to do so. In 2007, Portugal went from having
among the toughest restrictions on abortion to among the most liberal.

Portugal’s focus on close-knit community and protecting the family may
be at the heart of many of these reforms, say some observers. In a
1999 report that paved the way for new drug legislation, current
Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates implored that “drugs are not a
problem for other people, for other families, for other people’s children.”

Portugal’s rehab clinics, called Centros de Atendimento de
Toxicodependentes, are central to the strategy. In the lively northern
port city of Porto, dozens of patients pop in daily to the Cedofeita
rehab center to pick up free doses of methadone. Others have scheduled
therapy or family counseling sessions, also free.

“The more they can be integrated in their families and their jobs, the
better their chances of success,” says Jose Gonzalez, a psychiatrist
at Cedofeita. Mr. Gonzalez says that about half of his 1,500 patients
are in substitution treatment, 500 of which take methadone daily. He
says there is no defined model or timeline for treatment.

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, a
Lisbon-based European Union agency, says methadone or other
substance-substitution programs are generally viewed as successful but
has observed that some Portuguese are beginning to question long-term
methadone therapy.

“Now that the epidemic is under control for the most part, people
start asking questions,” says Dagmar Hedrich, a senior scientific
analyst with the EMCDDA. “The question now is what is going to happen
next? There is a part of the population who do not have the
possibility of leaving the treatment.”

FOXNews.com

Published June 16, 2010

By John Stossel

I’m confused. When I walk around busy midtown Manhattan, I often smell marijuana. Despite the crowds, some people smoke weed in public.
Usually the police leave them alone, and yet other times they act like a military force engaged in urban combat. This February, cops stormed a Columbia, Mo. home, killed the family dog and terrorized a 7-year-old boy — for what? A tiny quantity of marijuana.
Two years ago, in Prince George’s County, Md., cops raided Cheye Calvo’s home — all because a box of marijuana was randomly shipped to his wife as part of a smuggling operation. Only later did the police learn that Calvo was innocent — and the mayor of that town.
“When this first happened, I assumed it was just a terrible, terrible mistake,” Calvo said. “But the more I looked into it, the more I realized (it was) business as usual that brought the police through our front door. This is just what they do. We just don’t hear about it. The only reason people heard about my story is that I happened to be a clean-cut white mayor.” Radley Balko of Reason magazine says more than a hundred police SWAT raids are conducted every day. Does the use of illicit drugs really justify the militarization of the police, the violent disregard for our civil liberties and the overpopulation of our prisons? It seems hard to believe. I understand that people on drugs can do terrible harm — wreck lives and hurt people. But that’s true for alcohol, too. But alcohol prohibition didn’t work. It created Al Capone and organized crime. Now drug prohibition funds nasty Mexican gangs and the Taliban. Is it worth it? I don’t think so, and I’ll discuss this issue tomorrow night on my Fox Business show. Everything can be abused, but that doesn’t mean government can stop it, or should try to stop it. Government goes astray when it tries to protect us from ourselves. Many people fear that if drugs were legal, there would be much more use and abuse. That’s possible, but there is little evidence to support that assumption. In the Netherlands, marijuana has been legal for years. Yet the Dutch are actually less likely to smoke than Americans. Thirty-eight percent of American adolescents have smoked pot, while only 20 percent of Dutch teens have. One Dutch official told me that “we’ve succeeded in making pot boring.”By contrast, what good has the drug war done? It’s been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. Since then, government has spent billions and officials keep announcing their “successes.” They are always holding press conferences showing off big drug busts. So it’s not like authorities aren’t trying. We’ve locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America’s human-rights record because our prisons are “packed with inmates. Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do! Need more proof? Fox News runs stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs that smuggle drugs into Arizona. Few stop to think that legalization would end the violence. There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don’t smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime. The drug trade moved to Mexico partly because our government funded narcotics police in Colombia and sprayed the growing fields with herbicides. We announced it was a success! We cut way back on the Colombian drug trade.
But so what? All we did was squeeze the balloon. The drug trade moved across the border to Peru, and now it’s moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. –Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States.
That’s what I call progress. It the kind of progress we don’t need. Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote: “(O)nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, (w)hy not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious than that done by narcotic drugs.” Right on, Ludwig!
John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/

Article not available in English. Switch language on the top of the site, if you want to read the Danish article.