Wars on Drugs

Last December, the Dutch police commission led by Max Daniel ordered the closing of 43 of Amsterdam’s 223 establishments known locally as “coffee shops.” Yet it wasn’t coffee which prompted the action, but cannabis. With one of the most lenient drug policies in Europe, the Netherlands made a reputation for itself by ignoring the international ban against marijuana and allowing its quasi-legal sale in designated shops, attracting thousands of “drug-tourists” from around the world. The effort aimed at reducing the use of “harder” drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, as well as eliminating the legal consequences of cannabis-use, which is viewed by many countries in mainland Europe to be essentially benign. Benign, that is, until you include the growth of organized-crime rings centered around the export of Dutch-grown pot, a Billion-Euro market. At least twenty-five gang and mob related deaths have occurred in the Netherlands over the past three years, all of which are attributed to corrupt “grow-houses” who leak the addresses of cannabis growers to hired hit-men who assume control of the operation. The Dutch reaction is unique. Campaigns for Decriminalization of Marijuana are gaining momentum in countries like the UK, Australia, and the US. Last November, a Massachusetts referendum turned possession of up to an ounce of cannabis from a crime punishable with a hefty prison sentence into a misdemeanor with a small fine. It seems that the ‘War on Drugs’ philosophy is gaining disfavor among many who have seen the 40-year old policy wreak havoc on the lower-class and the African American community (13% of all drug users are Black, but constitute 67% of those in prison for drug charges). The US houses 25% of the world’s prison population, the vast majority of which is incarcerated for drug charges. Obviously, this has done little to curb the problem of drug addiction, which is on the rise. 48% of those in need of recovery are ignored, despite a $50 billion payroll for the Drug War. But what are the alternatives? Certainly state-mandated detox programs provide some relief, yet their effectiveness remains in question. Dr. Yih-Ing Hsen from UCLA found that even fifteen years of abstinence, there was at least a 25% rate of relapse among heroin addicts admitted to traditional rehabilitation programs. Another possibility, one in use in many cities including Baltimore, is Oral Methadone therapy, in which the addict is prescribed a synthetic opiate pill as a cleaner and safer alternative to shooting up heroin. Although somewhat successful in limiting the disease and violence an addict faces, the program is not without criticism. Some believe that replacing one addiction with another is merely a way to capitalize off of drug addicts, and doing so does little to ensure that they won’t still purchase their drug of choice off the streets. Many countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, the UK, Spain, and Canada have followed the Swiss model. In 1994, in order to stop the rising rate of drug-related crime, as well as the rate of AIDS infection from shared needles, Switzerland implemented a heroin-prescription program. The experimenters first took in 340 addicts in eight different cities and prescribed them 300 milligrams of heroin, morphine, or methadone three times a day. They also provided clean needles and “Fixerrdume,” or injection rooms situated away from public places and violent, gang-run “shooting galleries.” After a year, the program was deemed a promising success. The overall health of the addicts improved, and the rate of needle-related HIV infection diminished. Addicts learned to prevent unnecessary overdose and a black market of legal heroin never developed around the program. Overall, it shifted the view of drug-addiction from a legal problem with legal consequences, to a social-psychological problem with a solution in the realm of medicine and public health. During the experiment, Carlos Nordt, a sociologist at the University of Zurich, commented: "Personally, I don't think either a repressive or a liberal policy can do much to free a heroin user from addiction. We can only decide whether to increase the suffering of drug victims or alleviate the consequences of addiction – for users and society alike." Baltimore is considered the “Heroin Capital of the United States” by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Pure South American dope flows in through our port and is transported across all segments of the country. The DEA also estimates that there are at least 60,000 heroin addicts in Baltimore, nearly 10% of the overall population. The city budget can do little to curb this growing problem. As mayor, Martin O’Malley requested federal funding to triple the number of drug-enforcement officers, as well as $25 million to fund drug treatment facilities to take in as many addicts as possible. Yet the city’s drug problem is far from being curbed. Deaths by overdose tripled during the 1990s, climbing above the number of homicides in the city. This statistic does not include the deaths caused by crack-cocaine and other street drugs. Certainly federal and local officers are fighting a losing battle. The consequences wrought by harsh and ineffective policies on lower-class communities, including shattered families, homelessness, and, ironically, drug addiction, all point to a necessary re-evaluation of the way we look at drug problems. Perhaps it requires, as Switzerland discovered, a change in perspective: from a matter of crime and legal consequence to a matter of public health and public responsibility. Seth Greenbaum is a local High School activist and a member of the Indypendent Reader Editorial Group.