Emma Bonino, President of Radical Party, Member of the Italian Parliament.

There are plenty of excellent reasons to doubt that prohibition is the best strategy to fight the damage of drug-taking. First of all, a number of illegal substances such as hashish and marijuana are relatively harmless, and cause neither addiction nor relevant physical damage. On the other hand they have several therapeutic effects. Secondly, it is the regime of illegality and the consequent lack of controls on the quality and hygiene of the products, more than the substances themselves, that brings the most devastating damage, as in the case of heroin and crack. Thirdly, prohibition thwarts or prevents any harm-reduction strategy that include accurate information for the consumers, so as to discourage the abuse of the substance and the consequent addition.

The supporters of prohibition normally challenge these arguments on the ground that legalization would translate into a boost of drug consumption. However, granting that this were true, the question is whether the surge would be contained enough to offset the obvious benefits to be had in terms of crime reduction (both petty and large-scale) and reduction of the direct damage suffered by the drug-taking population. It is beyond question, for instance, that alcohol consumption dramatically increased in the United States when the prohibitionist regime was lifted. Yet no one would ever dream of reintroducing that regime, and the general tendency is to focus on a reduction of the social and individual damage through a series of limitations on sale and advertisement, higher taxation, awareness-raising campaigns, etc. I will insist no further on this point except to point out, once again, that the only way to verify the hypotheses on the consequence of a legalization of drugs - both pessimistic and optimistic - is

precisely to go ahead with experimenting legalization itself. Many "fundamentalist" prohibitionists tend to forget that legalization is a reversible measure, and that it could be repealed if it proved to have catastrophic effects. I really cannot see the reason for so much hesitation in carrying out a sensible experimentation.

One far more unquestionable fact is that the current prohibitionist regime implies heavy costs for both consumer and producer countries.

In the former, the prohibition on the trade and consumption of narcotics accounts for a large part of the resources of the police, the customs and the judicial system. Penal proceedings for drug crimes have a cost, and when they lead to a sentence of imprisonment, we need to add a direct individual cost for detention and an indirect collective cost on the overall efficiency of the prison system - almost invariably burdened, in Northern countries, by problems of over-population. The number of operators and the budgetary resources which police and customs must allot to drug enforcement is also considerable. Lastly, there are the costs of the international agencies that deal with the phenomenon: the budget of the United Nations International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) alone amounts to $70 million yearly.

It has been calculated that in the United States imprisoning a person for five years costs about $450,000. Two thirds of all inmates in the U.S. federal prisons and one third of the state prisons are there on drug charges.

In spite of the fact that all of the costs of prohibition in consumers countries can be calculated - as proven by the above examples - no one ever bothered to add them up, so that there are no data that show how much a given country spends to apply the prohibitionist regime. This is precisely what we of the Radical Antiprohibitionist Coordination are trying to do, but the results are not ready yet. It is odd that there are no data of this kind, all the more since there is instead a great number of estimates on the presumed turnover of drug crime. A much touted figure places that turnover at $500 billion, which, if true, would mean that in the 245 countries of the OECD (the industrial countries), consumers spend their money on drugs more than on cars, combustible or energy. And since this is patently absurd, there follows that these are grossly exaggerated figures.

The situation nonetheless goes entirely to the advantage of the national and international drug enforcement agencies. Citizens are kept ignorant of what is known - the cost of prohibiting drugs - and are instead made to believe things that cannot be calculated, i.e. the turnover of drug traffickers, and fed unrealistic and inflated data. As the military know only too well, overestimating the enemy's forces is the best way to fence off any criticism in the case of a defeat. I believe there are very few doubts about the fact that the public's prevailing perception of the struggle against drugs is one of failure.

However, the cost of prohibition is much heavier for the countries of the South, considering their economies and the huge social problems affecting them. If prohibition were repealed, huge profits would be taken away from the criminals and terrorists that threaten the security and democratic rights of the citizens (not unlike in my own country, Italy). Profits that are now in the hands of the drug traffickers would be taxed and thus contribute to the collective well-being and to improving the standard of living of the population. Moreover, in a global regime of legalization, coca leaf in particular could be used for therapeutical and nutritional purposes (such as coca tea, which the government of Bolivia is quite wisely trying to turn into an export product). The overall amount of revenue would hardly drop - raw materials now account for less than 10% of the retail price of narcotics - whereas it could rise especially if the refining activities were gradually taken over by the producer countries (as for oil

). In contrast to Northern countries, it is hard to imagine that legalization would boost a consumption which prohibition has never affected and which has a totally different cultural origin.

Few issues unite North and South as much as this one does. For once, this is not a zero-sum game, where one part wins and the other loses. With the prohibitionist regime, North and South have much to lose, and could have much to gain if it were repealed. It is certainly worth trying.

For all these reasons, the transnational radical party had decided to organize a global campaign to repeal the three international conventions (of 1961, 1971 and 1988) that outlaw the production and trade of so-called narcotics. I will pay no attention to those who say that this is a losing battle: they are the same ones that predicted our failure in Italy when we campaigned for divorce, abortion and the depenalization of drug-taking. We won all of these battles: a few months ago we also obtained a referendum. I wish to recall that the Bolivian House of Representatives asked last April to amend those articles of the international conventions that penalize coca leaf, requesting the elimination of the term COCA from the list of narcotics.

The battle for the legalization of drugs and for the abrogation of the prohibitionist regime is a transnational battle more than any other. To continue it adequately, we need a transnational and cross-party political instrument capable of mobilizing the public opinion and its elected representatives - parliamentarians -across all frontiers, both geographic and ideological. This instrument is the transnational radical party, the only party in the world to have renounced its national identity to embrace the transnational dimension.

Precisely because I am convinced that it is both unique and necessary, I am asking you to join the radical party at once, regardless of political affiliation or nationality. The only condition is to agree on one or more of our campaigns: this one on the abrogation of prohibition or the one for the abolition of the death penalty by 2000, or the other ones approved during out last congress.

It is my long-standing belief that no problem can be solved within the borders of a single nation: the same resolution must be discussed on the same day in many parliaments of the world, and the same demonstration must be held in many squares. In Europe we are slowly achieving this. But Europe is small continent compared to others - beginning with yours. your own.

----------------------------------------------------

Address delivered at Congress for the Normalization of Laws against drug-related crime, Buenos Aires, 2-4 August 1993