- Details
- Category: Truth and Lies
"Drug Legalization"
TRUTH AND LIES #3
May 1995
The illegal or harmful use of psychoactive drugs is a major threat to all world communities and to future generations. Drug Watch International is a volunteer drug prevention network of experts from a wide range of professions whose mission is to help assure a healthier and safer world through drug prevention.
Lie: The illegal use of psychoactive drugs is a "victimless" crime.
Truth: Illegal drug use is not a victimless crime. Drug users commit crimes under the influence of drugs, cause car, plane and train crashes, cause industrial and numerous other accidents — creating unsafe and unhealthy conditions. Drug users destroy families and take rights and freedom from law-abiding citizens.
Lie: Drug legalization is not the same as decriminalization or "harm reduction."
Truth: A policy of decriminalization (or "harm reduction" as it is sometimes called) seeks to circumvent the law by protecting the "drug user." It is de facto legalization.
Lie: Drug use would not increase if drugs were legalized or decriminalized.
Truth: Between 1972 and 1979 eleven states decriminalized marijuana. By 1979 drug use tripled among adolescents, doubled among young adults, and quadrupled among older adults.
Lie: The lax drug laws of the Netherlands have not resulted in increased drug use.
Truth: Following a policy of tolerance of cannabis products, there was an enormous increase in the use of cannabis, especially among young people. From 1980 to 1992 cannabis use increased 248% for ages 10 through 15.
Lie: The English Government is considering a policy of decriminalization.
Truth: In October 1994, Prime Minister John Major 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 . . . The Government is firmly against legalisation or decriminalisation of any drug controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971." Drug laws have been toughened.
Lie: Sweden's restrictive drug policy has not been effective.
Truth: In the mid 1970's a restrictive drug policy was initiated. Drug use declined noticeably among young persons, and continues its decline today. Experimental use of cannabis and other drugs is very low in Sweden, and drug use among young people is very limited.
Lie: Australia and New Zealand have decriminalized the use of drugs.
Truth: Contrary to news media, most Australian states have not decriminalized marijuana. Although a pro drug group is very active in universities, in July 1995 the students of Auckland University voted against decriminalization. The New Zealand Health Minister recently issued a proclamation "Cannabis Causes Harm."
Lie: Drugs are legal in Switzerland, and this has caused no problems.
Truth: Federal law prohibits all production, trafficking, possession, and consumption of drugs for non-medical purposes. However, in 1985 needle exchange programs were initiated. In 1989, Needle Park opened in Zurich, allowing addicts free rein in a specified location. Stupefied addicts lay slumped on a carpet of blood-spattered syringes, cotton swabs and refuse. After a string of murders and violence, Zurich closed "Needle Park" and Letten Station, another addict haven.
Lie: The use of illegal drugs is a personal right.
Truth: No one has the "personal right" to endanger the health, safety, and well being of others. Public health and welfare far outweigh self-interest.
"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."
Dutch Citizens.
# # #
POSITION STATEMENT AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION AND DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS
The legalization or decriminalization of drugs would make harmful, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable. It would expand the use of drugs. It would remove the social stigma attached to illegal drug use and would send a message of tolerance for drug use, especially to youth.
BACKGROUND:
Drug legalization or decriminalization is opposed by a vast majority of Americans and people around the world. Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose it, as do many political leaders. However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the permissive use of illicit drugs, although small in number, are making headlines. They are influencing legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate in the United States and in other countries. Pro-drug lobby groups use a variety of strategies which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of "medicalization," "harm reduction," crime reduction, hemp/marijuana for the environment, free needle distribution to addicts, marijuana cigarettes as medicine, and controlled legalization through taxation.
RATIONALE:
Illicit drugs are illegal because of their intoxicating effect on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and potential for abuse. Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and non-users alike.
Legalization would decrease price and increase drug availability. Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use. Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction. As a public health measure, statistics show that Prohibition was a tremendous success.
Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of drugs. Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs, but to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services. Increased violent crime and increased numbers of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.
Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs nor the violence associated with the illegal drug trade. A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity at no cost.
Drug laws deter people from using drugs. Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs. Fear of the American legal system is a major concern of foreign drug lords. Drug laws have turned drug users to a drug-free lifestyle through mandatory treatment. Forty to fifty percent of patients are in treatment as a result of the criminal justice system.
A study of international drug policy and its effects on countries has shown that countries with lax drug law enforcement have had an increase in drug addiction and crime. Conversely, those with strong drug policies have reduced drug use and enjoy low crime rates.
The United States and many countries would be in violation of international treaty if they created a legal market in cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs. The U.S. is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances and has agreed with other members of the United Nations to control and penalize drug manufacturing, trafficking, and use. Recently 112 nations reaffirmed their commitment to strong drug laws.
- Details
- Category: Truth and Lies
"Drug User Accountability"
TRUTH AND LIES #4
September 1996
The illegal or harmful use of psychoactive drugs is a major threat to all world communities and to future generations. Drug Watch International is a volunteer drug prevention network of experts from a wide range of professions whose mission is to help assure a healthier and safer world through drug prevention.
Lie: A drug policy focusing on interdiction of large scale drug dealing and trafficking, but tolerating individual drug use, would be successful.
Truth: Violence caused by the sale of illegal drugs pales in comparison to the violence caused by drug users. The drug supply system exists solely to bring drugs to the user. Drug users are responsible for their actions and must be held accountable. Research indicates that drug control policies are most successful when they focus on all aspects of the problem: the supply side, the demand side and the environmental factors which encourage both.
Lie: Drug use is a "victimless" crime, and therefore, an individual has the right to use drugs.
Truth: Drug use is not a "victimless" crime. Drug users endanger the safety and well being of society. They commit crimes under the influence of drugs and are responsible for most crimes of violence. They cause automobile crashes, create unhealthy conditions, endanger work sites, produce drug-impaired babies and destroy families.
Lie: Society cannot arrest all drug users because our jails are already crammed with more violent criminals.
Truth: Research shows that social norms and user accountability laws are key factors in preventing drug use and decreasing problem behavior. Strong sanctions need not include jail in order to deter use. Example: In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which encouraged states to revoke driver's licenses of convicted drug users. In the U.S. 90% of those arrested for drug crimes do not go to prison. A person is more likely to receive a prison sentence for a federal gambling, tax law, regulatory, immigration, or public order offense than for simple possession of crack, heroin or other dangerous drugs.
Lie: Individual drug use is permitted in many European countries and has caused no problems.
Truth: Switzerland attempted to control drug use by allowing drugs to be used in two specified park areas. The problem grew into a grotesque public menace that endangered users and non-users alike. These "needle parks" closed because drug use exploded there, and large numbers of stupefied addicts created a war zone of crime, murders and violence. The Netherlands has tolerated individual drug use and has subsequently seen marijuana use among students increase by 250%. Contrary to drug culture propaganda, drug use is not legal or accepted in England. That government supports prevention, education, and treatment. It opposes legalization, and has actually toughened laws governing drug use.
Lie: Marijuana users can control their use. Softening penalties for marijuana possession will not increase use.
Truth: A 1994 Council on Drug Abuse Student Survey of students, ages 12 to 18, in 7 random schools in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, showed very disturbing results. Twenty-one percent of those surveyed "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the statement: "If the legal restrictions were removed, I would begin to use - or use more." Superintendent Denis Edmonds, officer in charge of the South Australian Drugs Task-force stated in a 1995 Reader's Digest article that trafficking offenses in South Australia have doubled since marijuana was decriminalized in 1987. Since 1992, a rehabilitation centre in Canberra, Australia, has recorded a 40 percent increase in problematic marijuana use. In Alaska, when marijuana was decriminalized, high school marijuana use was double that of the rest of the U.S.
# # #
POSITION STATEMENT: DRUG USER ACCOUNTABILITY
Drug users, like any other member of society, must be held accountable for their actions. Illicit drug use must bring swift and cost effective consequences that 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 U.S. Experience: Throughout the 1970's, United States drug policy exhibited tolerance for drug users and focused enforcement on heroin traffickers. 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., and perhaps in the world, followed this permissive attitude by government and society.
In 1979, approximately 24 million Americans had tried an illicit drug, and one in ten high school seniors was using marijuana every day of the week. Drug incarceration rates reached an all time low and crime and drug-related social problems threatened the health and well being of all citizens. In the early 1980's, non-drug users became acutely aware of the negative impact that drug use was having on their families and communities. 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 after a decade of lenient drug policy.
Zero tolerance of drug use led to a dramatic shift in attitudes and to major declines in drug use. In 1992, a child was half as likely to use illegal drugs as his or her counterpart from 15 years previous, and adults were even less likely to use. Social intolerance to drug use resulted in 12.6 million fewer Americans using drugs. Drug user accountability had been applied by law enforcement, schools, families, workplaces, and the media. 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.
- Details
- Category: Truth and Lies
"Harm Reduction"
TRUTH AND LIES #2
May 1995
The illegal or harmful use of psychoactive drugs is a major threat to all world communities and to future generations. Drug Watch International is a volunteer drug prevention network of experts from a wide range of professions whose mission is to help assure a healthier and safer world through drug prevention.
Lie: "Harm Reduction" is the "new" 90's solution to the global drug problem.
Truth: "Harm Reduction" is a rehash of the failed "responsible use" drug message of the 1960's and 1970's. Today's hard-core addicts are primarily a product of the permissive drug philosophy of that period. Youth drug use in the U.S. declined over 50% when public policy strongly supported prevention of drug use. In Sweden, "Harm Reduction" drug policies of the 1960's were terminated after a few years, following a drastic increase in the number of addicts. Drug abuse declined after greater emphasis was placed on legislation, enforcement and customs.
Lie: "Harm Reduction" as a drug policy is specific and has clear goals.
Truth: "Harm Reduction" is not clearly defined and has no clear goals. Everything from full legalization to teaching children how to smoke marijuana "responsibly" are embraced. A common theme is to make drug use acceptable, more convenient, and "safer."
Lie: Since psychotropic and addictive drugs will always be used, reducing drug related harm is more realistic than trying to prevent or ban drug use.
Truth: "Harm Reduction" abandons attempts to free current drug users and encourages future generations to try drugs. It asserts that drug use is natural and necessary. Rather than preventing harm and drug use, "Harm Reduction" feebly attempts to reduce the misery level for addicts. "Harm Reduction" forsakes a portion of the population, often the poor and minorities, to lifetime abuse of drugs.
Lie: "Harm Reduction" is a medically and scientifically proven public health approach to drugs that has been successful in nations that have used it.
Truth: "Harm Reduction" is a dangerous experiment with human life that has exacted a tragic toll in every area of the globe that it has been applied. The policy of "Harm Reduction" in Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are colossal failures that are being halted because of increased harm.
Lie: "Harm Reduction" is a more humane way to deal with addiction.
Truth: "Harm Reduction" enables drug addicts to continue their addiction and actually increases risk of harm to users and non-users. "Harm Reduction" can prolong drug use and increase frequency of use, inducing drug related health harm. "Harm Reduction" encourages hopelessness, with its basic premise that we must accept the enslavement of some of the population to drugs.
Lie: Drug related harm would decrease if drug laws and law enforcement were removed.
Truth: Drug laws and law enforcement reduce and prevent drug harm. Over 70% of students polled in the U.S. stated that fear of getting in trouble with the law constituted a major reason for not using drugs. Many addicts attribute seeking treatment and becoming drug-free to law enforcement and judicial pressure. Weakening or abolishing drug laws will bring about greater harm induction through increased use.
Lie: "Harm Reduction" has nothing to do with drug legalization.
Truth: The well organized and financed international drug legalization movement has made "Harm Reduction" one of it's chief strategies to liberalize drug policies and legalize drugs. International "Harm Reduction" conferences are sponsored and funded by the world's top drug legalization groups. One unsuspecting participant labeled this event "a legalizer's ball." For drug use advocates, the term "harm reduction" is a clever public relations ploy for "drug legalization."
# # #
POSITION STATEMENT ON "HARM REDUCTION
Prevention and the elimination of harm, not "Harm Reduction," have the best potential for effectively addressing the drug problem. "Harm Reduction" is a theory promoted by pro-drug advocates that holds that society must learn to accept levels of use of psychoactive or addictive drugs by adults and youth and teach them the "responsible use" of these drugs to reduce the harm. Drug Watch International opposes this theory of "harm reduction" and believes that no level of use of marijuana, cocaine, and other harmful and illicit substances is acceptable.
BACKGROUND:
The term "Harm Reduction" was "coined" in Great Britain by a group of individuals attempting to make the use of illicit drugs acceptable to society. The basic premise is that the personal use of illicit drugs should be legal, and can be made manageable and less harmful to the user. The goal of "Harm Reduction" according to proponents, is to decrease the negative consequences of drug use, rather than to decrease the prevalence of drug use. Abstinence, they say, may neither be a realistic nor desired goal. Some have utilized this theory as a method attempting to "reduce" the spread of hepatitis among IV drug users. The onset of HIV infection has given major impetus to this flawed concept. The "Harm Reduction" concept has been incorporated into some treatment programs which allow for continued drug use rather than working towards no drug use. It has also made inroads into health programs and school curricula in Great Britain, Australia, and Canada.
RATIONALE:
"Harm Reduction" interpretations range from the legalization of some drugs, to decriminalization, to the legalization of all drugs. The fallacy of "Harm Reduction" is that dangerous and addictive drugs can safely be used if "properly" managed by the user or regulated by government.
"Harm Reduction" has no place in drug prevention. "Harm Reduction" includes educational strategies used to teach "responsible use" of drugs and convey that drug use is tacitly, if not openly, acceptable regardless of the harmful effects of drugs.
The "responsible use" or "harm reduction" approach to drug use was attempted in the U.S. in the 1970's. The result was record levels of drug use by young people, many of whom became the middle-aged addicts of today.
"Harm Reduction" proponents falsely claim that education and prevention have failed. Prevention (no first drug use) programs, policies, and strategies have caused a positive change in public attitudes about illicit drugs and a significant decline in drug use, especially by youth. A social context in which drug use is not accepted is essential in decreasing drug use.
"Harm Reduction" ignores the proven physiological effects of drug use. "Harm Reduction" is counterproductive to individuals with addictive behavior. The most successful treatment programs are abstinence-based.
"Harm Reduction" policies in Europe resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of drug users in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and other countries. As a result, a number of European countries returned to a restrictive drug policy when it became clear that lenient drug laws had a negative effect on society.
"Harm Reduction" proponents consider that legalizing drugs would be the ultimate "harm reduction" for the drug user. For them, the right to the personal use of psychoactive and addictive drugs supersedes what is beneficial and healthy for the rest of society.
