| PERSPECTIVES ON DRUG POLICY |
| . |
For the past 35 years, US drug policy has been a balance of supply reduction (law enforcement) and demand reduction (treatment, prevention and research). The vociferous opponents of this strong combination call for the removal of the law enforcement side of this strategy, claiming that the nation's policy choice is either law enforcement or treatment. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the combination of both that brings success. Many people who receive drug abuse treatment in the US today do so because law enforcement requires them to be in treatment. Cutting out the long arm of the law would, in one blow, significantly reduce the number of individuals in drug treatment. What is needed for the future is not a choice between law enforcement or treatment, but rather new polices that unite law enforcement and treatment to work together more effectively over long periods of time. Supply reduction is an effective tool for demand reduction because when drugs cost more and are more difficult to obtain there are fewer drug users and less demand for illegal drugs. Demand reduction is also an effective tool in supply reduction because when the number of drug users falls, drug supply falls correspondingly as the market for illegal drugs shrinks. Linking these complementary approaches maximizes the impact of the national strategy on illegal drug use by attacking the drug economy from both sides. While this one-two punch has worked well in the past, the best hope for future reductions lies in improved and more cost-effective demand reduction. If the demand for illegal drugs remains high, then the money spent by would-be drug users would sustain a large supply of illegal drugs no matter how effective the supply reduction becomes. The search for what can be called real demand reduction is the heart of tomorrow's drug prevention policy. The Parents' Movement: The significant fall in illegal drug use in the US between 1979 and 1992 can be traced to many factors. A key factor was the impact of a national coalition started in the 1970s known as the Parents' Movement. During the 1980s Nancy Regan embraced the message of the Parents' Movement with her "Just Say No" campaign. During the Administration of President George H.W. Bush, this anti-drug leadership was strongly supported. While this effective effort to de-normalize illegal drug use has often been seen as politically partisan, it was never a partisan movement. The manifesto of the Parents' Movement was written by Marsha Manatt, the sister of the then-National Chairman of the Democratic Party. The Parents' Movement received White House support when President Jimmy Carter's second Drug Czar, Lee Dogoloff, took up the cause. General Barry McCaffrey, President Bill Clinton's White House Drug Czar, also was a strong supporter of the Parents' Movement, as well as were many other Democrats. IBH encourages today's parents to look back and learn from the success of the Parents' Movement that was so effective in the 1970s and 1980s. Reinvigorating the Parents' Movement for the twenty-first century would provide organization, energy and education that is essential to success against drug abuse. The Movement suffered neglect after 1992, leaving a marked void in leadership for drug abuse prevention. Without the organized efforts of committed parents, illegal drug use rates again rose sharply. Once mocked by some experts and officials, the Parents' Movement remains an inspiring testimony to the power of a relatively small, focused and dedicated group of people. Their experience demonstrates that "ordinary" parents are an extraordinary resource in preventing and treating drug abuse.
However, in a bizarre and purposefully deceptive twist of rhetoric, the term Harm Reduction has been hijacked in the drug policy world by a heterogeneous group of advocates who think that the only harm worth talking about in drug abuse policy is the "harm" caused by anti-drug efforts such as the arrest and imprisonment of the distributors of illegal drugs. Advocates of Harm Reduction seek to reduce the pain that restrictive drug policies cause to individuals who choose to use illegal drugs. Proponents of Harm Reduction do not want to reduce drug use. Instead they offer seemingly reasonable modifications to current drug policy that are designed to reduce the harm to users of illegal drugs. Harm Reduction proposals range from legalizing drugs (so sellers would not face legal "harm"), to teaching heroin users how to treat overdoses, to providing clean needles to intravenous drug users. The problem with these proposals is that they normalize illegal drug use and inevitably lead to more use of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstasy which, just as inevitably, lead to more drug-caused harm. Real, successful harm reduction is not achieved by making illegal drug use easier, cheaper or safer; it is achieved by rejecting illegal drug use and calling it unwise, unhealthy and unacceptable. It is easy to identify modern Harm Reduction initiatives because they all permit, if not encourage, the use of the drugs that are now illegal. Today's Harm Reduction movement is the reincarnation of the discredited Responsible Drug Use movement of the 1970s that resulted in the greatest use of illegal drugs in our nation's history. For the past decade, Harm Reduction programs have been lavishly funded by organizations and widely supported by many people who are well-meaning but often poorly informed.
 IMedical Marijuana: A Flanking Strategy From Legalization Proponents
The idea of using marijuana in the treatment of illness, such as AIDS or multiple sclerosis, is not new. Much of the allure of this concept comes from marijuana's historic use as a folk medicine. But in the twenty-first century, medical practice requires that medicines meet a variety of well-established standards to establish that they are safe and effective before they are approved for sick patients. This system includes the requirement that medicines be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Smoked marijuana fails to meet these commonly accepted standards for many reasons. IBH supports the study of the therapeutic use of the specific chemicals in marijuana that are delivered just as are all other medicines, in purified forms, in controlled doses, for specific disorders, and by nontoxic routes of administration.
 In recent years, the number of ballot initiatives on medical marijuana has increased substantially. Currently, 14 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation permitting medical marijuana. The Administration of President Barack Obama does not support state ballots to approve medicines and has stated that the FDA should study and approve medicines as safe for use. Medical Marijuana Resources:
Barack Obama on Medical Marijuana
Because the Harm Reduction proponents of drug policy "reform" know that outright legalization is both dangerous and politically unacceptable, they use a bait and switch argument implying that relaxing the laws prohibiting the use of illegal drugs will result in a decline in the market for illegal drugs. Unless these "reforms" make all illegal drugs available to any willing buyer there will be a large and destructive illegal market in these addictive substances. In fact, by reducing the legal and other pressures that reject illegal drug use, these "reforms" all will increase the use of illegal drugs and with this increase will come the harms caused by it. Marijuana Legalization Resources:
Why Marijuana Legalization Would Compromise Public Health and Public Safety - ONDCP Director R. Gil Kerlikowske
International efforts to reduce illegal drug use are succeeding in containing the global threat posed by drug use and drug trafficking. These efforts have evolved over the past century to include a balance of supply reduction and demand reduction. The future of drug policy builds on this foundation, using new ideas to make tomorrow's drug abuse prevention strategies even better than today's.
The goal of this balanced strategy is abstinence from illegal drug use. Only abstinence will curtail the social and economic costs associated with drug use. Illegal drug use causes negative outcomes such as accidents, school failures, developmental problems, mental illness and crime. Many crimes result from the intoxication produced by illegal drug use, such as child abuse, robbery, murder and rape. There are some who argue that the balanced strategy is not working and that abstinence is a hopeless goal. These critics want to contain or eliminate the role of law enforcement. In the name of compassion and realism they call for the international community to be practical and to help illegal drug users by ensuring safer injection sites, purer drugs, and easier and safer drug availability. This point of view is known as Harm Reduction, because it seeks to reduce some of the harms from drug use without reducing illegal drug use itself. However Harm Reduction increases social acceptance of illegal drug use and encourages drug use by making illegal drug use easier, cheaper, and safer. It is the unwitting road back to an earlier era of more open drug markets that created massive worldwide drug problems. Why has drug abuse become a growing global problem in recent decades? Drugs of abuse produce a powerful brain reward that promotes repeated use of these substances despite the harm they cause to individuals, families, communities and nations. The widespread availability of illegal drugs by potent routes of administration by large populations, especially young people, is a direct result of modern globalization's fast, easy supply routes accompanied by rapid changes in the social, economic, cultural and religious structures that previously monitored and contained unacceptable behavior. Sweden, a country with a history of being a compassionate welfare state, has adopted a powerful and thoroughly modern vision of a drug-free society. During an intravenous amphetamine epidemic that rapidly swept the country in the 1960s, Sweden initially authorized the distribution through medical channels, of amphetamines and opiates. The objective of this policy was to reduce the crime associated with drug use, as well as hopefully to wean addicts from their severe drug habits. However, amphetamine and opiate use increased directly as a direct result of this program. The Swedish government then reversed itself and adopted restrictive drug policies and the intravenous drug abuse epidemic abated. Today a drug-free society is a stated goal in Sweden and elsewhere in the world. Drug education programs start early and regularly appear throughout the school curriculum. They do not teach "moderate" or "responsible" use of illegal drugs. They teach abstinence from illegal drug use. Urine and blood tests are regularly used to detect those suspected of drug use in settings such as in the workplace, on the highways and in schools. The criminal law is widely used to discourage drug use and to promote treatment and recovery as well as to reinforce prevention messages. IBH encourages collaboration between nations to promote a balanced global drug strategy that encompasses law enforcement, prevention and treatment to contain both the supply of illegal drugs and the demand for them.
|
These facts speak to the measurable, yet incomplete, success of the US effort to combat illegal drug use:
One of the most significant factors in the decision by youth to use or not to use drugs is their perception of the harm that could come from using drugs. The perceived risk of using marijuana -- the gateway illegal drug -- is a pivotal factor. This graph shows the relationship of the perception of harm to the prevalence of marijuana use.
Those who advocate for the normalization or legalization of marijuana claim that it is harmless. They discount the growing body of research that indicates that serious mental and physical damage is caused by the use of marijuana. The current federal government interagency campaign cautions about the dangers of smoking marijuana, especially for young people, whose still developing brains are particularly vulnerable to its effects. This information is vital to the country's efforts to reduce illegal drug use.
The rate of marijuana use among high school seniors (a bell-weather indicator) fell 61% between 1978 and 1992. The use of drugs other than marijuana fell 71% during that time. Since this time, the use of both has begun to gradually increase.
Demand reduction efforts reduce the demand for illegal drugs using prevention, treatment, and research. Supply reduction makes drugs scarcer, more expensive, and less socially tolerated.
IBH supports the concept of harm reduction when the term means reducing the use of the illegal drugs that cause harm including mental illness and physical disease as well as death, crime, decreases in productivity and family suffering.
Advocates of drug legalization believe that making high-quality drugs cheaply and widely available will eliminate the underworld's illegal drug market, regulate quality and price, and decrease law enforcement demands. They predict that governments will spend less money on law enforcement, benefit from a new source of tax revenue and that drug-related crime will fall if drugs from marijuana to heroin become routinely accessible, more or less as are alcohol and tobacco.
Drug supply and drug use are global problems. The effect of drug use knows no geographic, cultural or economic boundaries and neither does the devastation caused by drug use. In response, a balanced drug strategy of demand reduction and supply reduction has been adopted by the international community with leadership from the United Nations
| . |