THE QUALITY OF THE DRUGS-DEBATE IS ABOMINABLE

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION from Dutch by Jan van der Tas

It is about time that in the drug policy debate some valid reasoning should
come to the fore, instead of the lazy knockdown 'arguments' that now seem
to predominate. This is the opinion of Peter Cohen, Freek Polak and Jan G.
van der Tas.

The distressing quality-level of the argumentation about drug policies in
the Netherlands was illustrated clearly in a recent TV debate between the
attorney-general (and top public prosecutor) of the Netherlands, De
Wijkerslooth de Weerdesteyn, and the well-liked anchorman of one of
Holland's most sophisticated TV talkshows, Paul Witteman. They discussed
the proposal made by an experienced retiring judge Gisolf to take drugs out
of the domain of criminal law altogether.

The four-star prosecutor-general gave three reasons why he thought such
a proposal was irrealistic:

1) we are bound hand and feet by the UN drug treaties
2) after legalisation drug criminals would move to other criminal activities
3) we do not know the full consequences of legalisation

The always alert debater Witteman could not think of anything to say to
that, thus probably leaving his viewers with the impression that convincing
arguments had been put on the table, while in reality only the laziest of
well-known drivel had been produced.

The primary reason why Judge Gisolf put forward the idea of taking drugs
out of the criminal law, was no doubt the paralysing influence the endless
flow of 'drugs-cases' is seen to have on law enforcement and the
administration of justice. But that motive -- pressing though it may be --
is by no means the only valid argument for seriously reconsidering our
present day drug policies. The 'public nuisance' that many people,
especially in the less-privileged strata and neighbourhoods of society,
associate with drugs, is at best re-distributed by present policies. But
this -- sometimes serious -- inconvenience is a sequel of drug prohibition
more than of drug use itself. In the Netherlands, less than a few monts
after the present center-right government came into power, new
parliamentary elections are set for January 2003; the U.N. drug policies
are up for evaluation in april of that year; and in the debate on 'values
and standards' that the present 'interim' government has urgently called
for, the issue of drug policy can certainly not be forgotten.

Formally speaking it is true that the Netherlands, just as most other
signatory countries, are bound hand and feet by the U.N. drug treaties. but
it is not impossible to amend or even to renounce bad treaties, conventions
that block a logical and sensible development of drug policies and on top
of that cause enormous damage worldwide. The first step needed is to
distance oneself from the idea that one worldwide system for regulating
drug markets is needed at all, and that the only imaginable regime is that
of total prohibition, imposed globally and in a uniform fashion. And the
next thing: a top-level official of the Netherlands legal system, while
talking about an alternative to American drug prohibition, that is so
evidently failing and bound to fail, should not invoke 'international
aspects' as an excuse to stop thinking beyond the Dutch borders.

The Netherlands have a voice in, and share responsibility for
policy-development -- or worse: non-development -- in the framework of the
European Union and the United Nations. This issue therefore calls for the
special attention of parliament, the media and public opinion at large.

Hearing a top-lawyer use the argument: "Legalisation would only drive drug
criminals on to other criminal activities" is almost unbelievable! As if
the fact that criminals might move on to other activities, could provide a
legal ground for criminalizing their present field of trade. As if drugs
prohibition is indeed intended as the employment scheme for criminals, that
some analysts say it is. After the abolition of alcohol-prohibition in the
US in 1933 about one third of the then active bootleggers went out of
business, one third went into legal business and one third continued in the
same or other criminal pursuits. However you interpret these figures, they
do seem to point to a significant reduction of the underground economy!

It is true that, although some sensible 'guesstimates' can be made, the
full consequences of 'legalization' can not be predicted with scientific
precision . But we do know the dramatic consequences of present day drugs
prohibition in considerable detail. Just compare drug use data of say the
Netherlands and the USA. Fiercer repression, they show, does not lead to
less drug use, but it does create many more prison cells. Maybe repressive
drug policies -- at enormous social cost -- may lead to some reduction of
recreational and controlled use, but it significantly increases both the
extent and the gravity of 'problematic' drugs use. And one conclusion can
not be ignored: the so-called 'war on drugs' -- which in reality boils down
to leaving the markets in the hands of international crime -- serves as the
very motor of illegal drugstrade and makes both 'recreational' and
'problematic' use of drugs more dangerous for all concerned.

In an open and well-informed debate not much will remain of De
Wijkerslooth's three 'arguments'. And the same goes for many other points
of criticism levelled at the concept of legalisation, i.e. state regulation
of the various drug markets. In the past few years, in the Netherlands as
elsewhere, repeatedly drug policy decisions have been taken, not based on a
well-reasoned policy choice, but more often as ad hoc reactions to
exaggerated and ill-founded criticism 'from abroad'. And of course, if one
refuses to think through one's own policies to their logical conclusions in
order to pacify opponents 'from abroad', one ends up with a concoction of
more and more contradictory measures, and a policy that is more and more
difficult to explain. Thus F.I., had a clear choice been made for the
repeal of drug prohibition in the long run and for trying, with the help of
like-minded countries, to initiate a thorough evaluation and up-dating of
the UN drug conventions in the short run, the whole political circus that
developed over the last few months in the Netherlands with regard to the
ever growing numbers of drug courriers from the Carribean -- many of them
carrying 'bolitas' of ******* inside their bodies -- who ended up totally
blocking the Dutch law enforcement system, could easily have been avoided.

The present Netherlands' minister of justice Donner, has in the mean time
decided he had to stop locking these people up, thus reversing a policy
that parliament had imposed on his predecessor. But in his motivation for
such a sensible decision one looks in vain for any indication that he sees
the link with the typical Dutch approach to drugs, which is based on
pragmatism, human rights and common sense. Nor has the subject of drug
policy so far been mooted in the context of the public debate on 'values
and standards' that the center-right government of which he is a member
likes to promote. But in drug policy a number of important 'values' are at
stake: not only public health and safety, but also the protection and
education of youngsters, responsibilty of citizens for themselves and for
others and -- last but not least -- the 'standards' by which the
performance of a good government must be measured.

And in so far as any public debate already takes place, one sees arguments
of different value and order getting constantly mixed up. Some are from the
realm of ethics, some are practical, medical, social or from the field of
law enforcement. Thus, in the by now obsolete Netherlands' 'Opium Law' of
1976 the prohibition of drugs is motivated by the idea that the public
health risks of particular drugs are unacceptable. In the mean time we have
become aware that the negative consequences of risky patterns of use can be
kept under control more effectively by legal regulation of supply, than by
prohibition. On top of that we now know that for most users the health
risks of controlled use are not unacceptable at all.

In some countries, and for some people in Holland also, considerations of a
moral order seem to prevail: drugs have to be fought because they can lead
(young) people towards unworthy and even criminal behaviour and spoil or
even endanger their lives. Unfortunately such developments can be shown to
be the consequence more of the 'war on drugs' than of drug use itself.

Those who favour legalisation (i.e. government regulation of drug markets)
also invoke moral values to underpin their position: individual
self-determination and autonomy, respect for, or at least tolerance of,
behaviour that one may not approve of, but that does not cause harm to
others or society. They point at the gigantic 'collateral damage' caused by
the American 'war on drugs': like destruction of political structures in
production- and transit-countries, corruption of the legal system, rapid
growth of prison populations and criminal distribution networks, violence
and corruption -- just like in the days of alcohol prohibition.

Minister of justice Donner recently stated in parliament that for him drugs
are in the first place an evil for society. But, he seemed to admit that
this thesis can be subject to debate. It seems indeed high time for the
Netherlands to conduct this debate in the open, particularly also in the
run up to the january 2003 parliamentary elections.


Pubdate: 29 oktober 2002
Author: Frederick Polak, Jan van der Tas, Peter Cohen
Address: Postbus 8987 3009 TH R'dam
Contact: nrc@nrc.nl
Fax: 010-4066967 / 020-6254936
Website: www.nrc.nl