Drug Watch
International
Position Statement
DRUG USER ACCOUNTABILITY
Drug
users, like any other member of society, must be held accountable for their
actions. Illicit drug use should bring swift and cost effective consequences
which will benefit the user and society at large. Every segment of society must
send the message that drug use and drug use behavior will not be tolerated. Drug
user accountability must be a cornerstone of national and international drug
policy.
Background:
The International Experience
In
Australia and New Zealand :
Social Policy Advisors to the Australian and New Zealand Governments have pushed
the Harm Reduction model exclusively. More
liberal laws exist in Australia than in New Zealand.
However, contrary to news media reports, most Australian states have not
decriminalized marijuana. The National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws (NORML) is very active in both countries. The focus of their thrust seems
to be the Universities. In July 1995 the students of Auckland University voted
against decriminalisation, which was quite a setback for NORML.
The editor of the student magazine, who described the student common room
as a drug "supermarket," is now in hiding. His life has been
threatened.
Both New Zealand and Australia have seen dramatic increases in methadone and
morphine maintenance programmes, free needles, condoms, with accent on behaviour
modification, ie: teaching children and adolescents how to use drugs safely,
"The Merseyside Model" and teaching alcoholics how to drink safely.
The good news is that the New Zealand Health Minister issued a proclamation
"Cannabis Causes Harm," which contradicts the present liberal
philosophies.
In
Canada: Illicit drug use began its climb
in Canada in the 1960's and reached its peak in the mid 1970's.
Initially the response was almost entirely enforcement oriented.
However, it was soon recognized that prevention efforts would have to be
increased. The most successful strategy consisted of three initiatives:
enforcement, prevention and treatment. Using this formula, a downward trend of
drug use among the student population was enjoyed until approximately 1992/1993,
when the trend began to climb. Analysis
of this shift revealed the topic of substance abuse had dropped off the
political agenda of all levels of government, and therefore few resources were
dedicated to it.
Presently, in Canada, there exists an organized campaign to re-direct resources
from strategies designed to eliminate inappropriate drug use to those strategies
directed at the symptoms of drug use. These strategies come under the umbrella
of "Harm Reduction" which is difficult to criticize given the converse
position is to increase harm. A closer look at this concept allows us to realize
there are two types of movements utilizing the term "Harm Reduction."
The first is a genuine compassion for the addicted person which employs harm
reduction strategies as part of a treatment program where the ultimate goal is
to rid the person of drug dependency. The second type of "harm
reduction" movement supports the liberalization of drug laws and
or/legalization of the drugs themselves. This concept accepts a level of and
actually promotes drug use.
In
England: The Government's position is
clearly against legalisation and for prevention, education and treatment.
Prime Minister John Major recently wrote, "Drugs are a menace to our
society. They can wreck the lives
of individuals and their families. They
are a frequent cause of crime. That
is why we have toughened laws against drugs and why we have given the police and
Customs the powers and the resources to enforce those laws effectively.
Those efforts are delivering results.
Strong enforcement action has gone hand in hand with measures to reduce
demand. Since 1990, the Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative has supported
over 1,000 projects to help local communities tackle the drugs problem.
Drug education is part of the National Curriculum.
Health authorities spend over 25 million pounds a year on treatment and
rehabilitation services for drug misusers."
Since the mid 1980s, the Government has pursued action to tackle drug misuse on
five main fronts -- international cooperation, enforcement, deterrence,
prevention and treatment. However, the numbers of young people experimenting
with drugs, notified addicts and drug offenders have increased in recent years.
The Government proposes to introduce a new strategy for the period 1995-98,
which while fully maintaining the emphasis on law enforcement and reducing
supply, recognises the need for stronger action on reducing the demand for
illegal drugs. The new strategy
will emphasize three areas: crime, young people, and public health. Vigorous law
enforcement and a new emphasis on education and prevention will be the focus.
The principal objective of treatment policies will be to assist drug misusers to
achieve and maintain a drug free state.
In
The Netherlands:
In 1973 the Dutch National Board of Drug Prevention formed in response to a
trend in Dutch governmental circles to trivialize the harm of Cannabis.
The policy of tolerance started officially with the amended Opium Law in
1976, mitigating the penal consequences of the possession of Cannabis products.
A policy of increasing tolerance was started. There followed an enormous
increase in the use of cannabis, especially among young people. From 1983 to
1992 cannabis use among pupils increased by 250%.
Coffeeshops, where Cannabis is sold openly, now number some 1500 to 2000.
The situation in the Netherlands reveals, that by a tolerated possession of
cannabis for private usage and the absence of judicial prosecution of their
sale, the number of abusers will grow steadily. Though the number of coffeeshops is still increasing and the
population is becoming more and more critical, the Dutch government keeps
telling the world that everybody should follow their beautiful example!
The "responsible use" of drugs does not exist.
Drugs destroy. And things that destroy must never be made legal.
If we allow drugs to be legalized, nothing will stem the progress of
evil.
In Sweden: Sweden has a restrictive drug
policy, but this has not always been the case. In the mid-1950s, the number of
drug abusers in Sweden was estimated at 100.
A few years into the 1960s, the figure ran into thousands. Police action alone could not stem the tide of drug abuse.
And a liberalisation of drug policy followed.
To limit the harmful effects of drugs to the user and to help reduce
crime, in 1965 drugs were legally prescribed to addicts and treatment was
offered. However, the addicts supplied their friends with free drugs and crime
increased. The project was curtailed in 1967.
In 1965, drug abuse developed into a major social problem, simultaneously with a
rapid growth of juvenile cannabis abuse. There followed a series of restrictive
drug policies and laws. During the
1970s drug policy was intensely debated, and a permissive drug policy was again
instituted. In the mid-1970s, the
advent of heroin among drug abusers resulted in a more restrictive drug policy.
From about 1980 onwards, drug use declined noticeably among young
persons, and continues its decline today.
Today, drug prevention measures have high priority within the police, the
customs service, the public prosecution service, the prison and probation
service, social services, schools and various leisure activities.
Experimental use of cannabis and other drugs is very low in Sweden, and for many
years drug use among young people has been very limited.
Our aim is a society in which drug abuse remains a socially unaccepted
form of behaviour, a society in which drug abuse remains a marginal phenomenon.
The essential prerequisite of a successful drug policy is for people of
all ages to dissociate themselves from drugs and drug abuse.
In
Switzerland:
Federal Law regulates the medical use of narcotic substances and prohibits all
production, trafficking, possession and consumption of drugs for non-medical
purposes. Opium, heroine,
hallucinogens and cannabis are explicitly banned for all purposes and may only
be used for scientific research. However,
the pro legalization lobby is attempting to circumvent the law through a
well-organized network and an intensive media strategy.
In
1985 needle exchange programs were initiated. In 1989, Needle Park opened in
Zurich, allowing addicts free rein in a specified location under official
surveillance. About 300 syringes
were distributed daily. By
September 1991 the number of syringes distributed in Needle Park had increased
to 12,000 to 15,000 per day. In
1992, squads of police were sent to close down the park. Dealers and addicts
simply moved about a mile away to Letten, a deserted train station, where more
than 1,000 addicts and dealers gathered daily and stupefied addicts lay slumped
on a carpet of blood-spattered syringes, cotton swabs and refuse, while others
bought and sold cocktails of drugs.
After a string of murders and violence, Zurich closed Letten Station in February
1995. The experiment in "harm
reduction" had grown into a grotesque sordid spectacle and public menace
that bore no resemblance to the clinical, carefully supervised venture promised
by those who led the campaign in its favor in 1988.
In 1987 a well-structured methadone program was liberalized. There were 300 methadone addicts in the Canton of Zurich
before 1987, and more than 2,000 in 1991, according to police.
In 1991, the Federal Government decided to intensify its commitment in this
field. The Swiss Government pursues
a four-pronged strategy to prevent the individually and socially damaging
effects of drug misuse:
—Criminal
prosecution of illicit production, trafficking, possession and consumption of
all legally defined substances.
—Financially
support to cantonal and private projects aimed at prevention.
—Support
to cantonal and private projects for a variety of treatment and reintegration
—Support
of "harm reduction" measures to enable the immediate survival of the
drug addicts and also to prevent the spreading of HIV, such as needle
distribution.
A National People's Referendum for a "Youth Without Drugs," has been
sponsored by Jugend ohne Drogen in support of abstinence oriented drug policy in
the Federal Constitution. In June, 1995 on the occasion of the United Nations
Day Against Drug Abuse and Trafficking (June 26th) a Resolution was addressed to
the Swiss Federal Government by VPM Verein Zur Forderung Der Psychologiscen
Menschenkenntnis calling for abstinence oriented and restrictive drug policy.
In
the United States
: Throughout the 1970's, marijuana was decriminalized in 11 states; drug addicts
were viewed as victims; and cocaine decriminalization was proposed.
The largest increase of youth using drugs in the history of the U.S.
followed this permissive attitude. Crime and drug-related social problems
threatened the health and well being of all citizens.
In the early 1980's the public and law enforcement applied pressure to hold drug
users accountable for their illegal drug use and their role in facilitating the
illegal drug trade. And drug use
was reduced by over 50%.
Drug legalization advocates initiated a sophisticated public relations campaign
aimed at weakening the public's aversion towards illegal drug use. Drug user
lobbyists and organizations and other drug apologists assailed user
accountability measures as infringement of one's "personal right" to
use drugs, exaggerated the cost of user accountability policies, and ignored the
benefit of 12.6 million fewer drug users.
In the early 1990s, the drug issue began to lose national focus, and thus
momentum. Once again, anti-drug
messages and social attitudes started to soften, the media and music began to
re-glamorize drug use, and drug use among school children began to climb (teen
marijuana use doubling over a three year span), after a 12-year decline.
Rationale:
Drug
use is not a victimless crime. Drug users place non-drug-users at risk and cause
considerable societal harm. Drug users harass and disrupt the public peace,
commit crimes under the influence of drugs, cause accidents, and create
unhealthy conditions. They destroy
families and take rights and freedom from law-abiding citizens.
Recreational drug users, as well as hard-core users, are the foundation of the
international drug cartel trade and the source of funds for drug kingpins and
terrorists. The drug trade exists solely because drug users keep it alive. Drug
users who are not yet addicted are perhaps the most culpable for their drug use.
Holding drug users accountable early in their drug use pattern can prevent abuse
and addiction problems. For those already addicted, swift and certain negative
consequences for drug use can modify drug use behavior and lead to recovery
through treatment or individual initiative.
Research
clearly indicates that social norms and user accountability laws are key factors
in preventing drug use and decreasing problem behavior.
In the justice system, user accountability need not rely on lengthy
prison incarceration, but on a broad continuum of responses such as community
service, asset forfeiture, tough mandatory fines, civil liabilities for all
damages, drug abstinence enforced through frequent drug testing of offenders
with immediate, progressive consequences, loss of federal and state benefits,
loss of driving and other license privileges, automobile impoundment, and
restitution payments.
In
the workplace, programs must protect employers and non-drug using employees.
Workplaces should communicate clear rules and consequences.
In the community, schools, and homes clear anti-drug norms and values
must be stated and applied. Tough,
but fair, user accountability sanctions should be enacted.
Drug
user accountability should be a cornerstone of drug strategy. Directing
policies, funding, and energies towards effectively reducing the demand for
drugs is true compassion for the drug user and is in the best interest of
society.
COPYRIGHT:
Permission is granted to reproduce this article,
provided credit is given to Drug Watch International.
References:
Drug User Accountability
International Experience
A Restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience,
Swedish National Institute of Public Health,
"Dutch Citizens Unify Against Drugs," EURAD
Newsletter, Vol 2 No 3 June 1995.
"Dutch Manifesto Against Drugs," European
Cities Against Drugs Newsletter, Volume I Nr
9
Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the
United States 1960-1994," FBI, Washington, D.C., 1994. Reported in Bureau of Justice Statisitics,
"Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1993," The
Gold, Mark, M.D., The Good News About Drugs and Alcohol:
Curbing, Treating, and Preventing Substance
Grice, Trevor Esq., National Director Life Education
Trust, Wellington, New Zealand,
August 1995.
Haller, Franziska M. PhD, M.A., VPM, Zurich, Switzerland,
1995.
Jaspers, William F., "Some Kids are Taught to Just
Say Yes," New American,
November 7, 1988.
Jenkins, Ben, Ex. Dir., Drug Awareness Strategies,
Ontario, Canada, September 1995.
Johnston, Lloyd D., et al, National Survey results on
Drug Use from Monitoring the Future Study,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institute on Drug Abuse, (NIDA)
National Drug Control Strategy, Office of National Drug
Control Strategy, Washington, D.C.,
Pearman, Jill, Life Education Inc., London, England,
August 1995.
Peterson, Robert E., "The Success of Tough Drug
Enforcement," PAE Report, Vestal, New York, 1995.
Peterson, Torgny, Ex. Dir., Hassela Nordic Network,
Hassela, Sweden, October 1995.
Roques, Wayne, DEA retired, Drug Prevention Specialist,
South Florida, August 1995.
"Statistics on the Netherlands," K.F. Gunning,
M.D., President Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, Rotterdam, Holland, February 20, 1995.
Stoker, Peter, Positive Prevention Plus, Berkshire,
England, October 1995.
"Swiss Drug Policy:
The Present Situation" Dr. Buchholz-Kaiser, Dr. Franziska Haller,
PRIDE,
"Tackling Drugs Together:" A consultation document on a strategy for England 1995- 98.
Presented to
"The Swiss Strategy Against Illicit Drug
Abuse" U. Ulrich-Vogtlin, Vice-director, Swiss Federal
Time to Focus on the User, U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, July 1989.
User Accountability, Office of National Drug Control
Policy, Bulletin No. 6, Washington, D.C., May 1992.
(International
User Accountability 1/96)
Return
to Drug Watch International Homepage
This page was last updated on May 16, 2001
Copyright © 2001 Drug Watch International. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
Please address all comments and questions to: Drug Watch International, P.O. Box
45218, Omaha, NE 68145-0218, USA