ABSTRACT: The questions offered to discussion to the participants at the International Anti-prohibitionism Forum.

("THE COST OF PROHIBITION ON DRUGS", Papers of the International

Anti-prohibitionism Forum, Brussels 28th september - 1st october 1988; Ed. Radical Party)

When, less than a year ago, we decided to found CO.R.A. (Radical Anti-Prohibitionist Co-ordination) we already had that long experience just referred to by Radical Party Secretary Sergio Stanzani (including Marco Pannella's proposals for legalising drugs and his act of civil disobedience in publicly smoking a joint, the offer of joints made to the administrative authorities in Rome by Counsellor Angiolo Bandinelli and the then Secretary of the Radical Party, Jean Fabre).

Those were attempts, if nothing else, to open the debate, both political and scientific, on the drug problem.

That long history also includes Giancarlo Arnao's painstakingly precise, even obstinate, efforts to inform, and incidentally, I should like to express special thanks to him, as it was his work which set the tone for today's meeting.

Meeting here today are individuals who have taken various roads; men of action in politics, professional people of action, who realise in this way, that colloquium, that dialogue, what is more often than not included in the essays in a redundant and not very concrete manner. I refer to the age-old debate on science and government, on the two cultures, on science and power, of which we are reminded in the presentation of Thomas Szasz, who I regret to say will not be able to be with us today.

We had the same experience when, as CO.R.A., we decided to convene this meeting with the question: What are the characteristics of the drug phenomena on the threshold of the 1990s?

In recent months, we have gone around posing that question and meeting with various colleagues, individuals and groups from Holland, England, the United States, from the "European Movement for the Normalization of Drug Policies" of Rotterdam, and the "Drug Policy Foundation" in Washington. And, incidentally, I should like pass on to you all regards from Arnold Trebach, the President of the Drug Policy Foundation, who was held up in Washington to attend a Congressional Hearing. He asked me to stress that "we are working together" and that our conclusions will be the theme for discussion at our next meeting in Washington. He also reminded me of something else which we had discussed in a previous meeting in London; the importance of extending beyond two shores of the Atlantic, by convoking a World Congress which would also include representatives of the Third World.

It is a possibility which, in my opinion, we should consider because, no matter how often we have heard it, we must continue to repeat it: It is not by chance that the drugs defined as "illegal" originate in the world's South.

Thus, considering Trebach's suggestion at this meeting would seem to me very opportune.

Today's meeting is the first part of an appointment, which will continue next October 20th, in Washington, to be taken up again, whenever we have come to some decision as to the initial operative phases of the campaign for the by now urgently needed reforms in drug policy.

What issues have been examined during this year's activities and meetings?

One in particular which appears to have considerable bearing on the drug problem : prohibition.

Actually, that term comes up often in the conversations of the man in the street, referring to moral order, justice and health; but, upon closer examination, it has more connections with the internalcive, technologically advanced, network of organised crime, producing, transporting and distributing its product.

Thus, the issue brought up in Georges Apap's presentation: "drugs are not prohibited because they are dangerous, they are dangerous because they are prohibited".

And Spanish philosopher Savater begins his ten socio-political themes on the ideological significance of the "persecution of drugs" with that same ambiguity, drawing the conclusion that "our culture, like any other, is familiar with, uses, and searches for, drugs. What decides which drugs are used, or how, are the education, anxieties and life ambitions of each individual. The State must do no more than inform, as thoroughly and as rationally as possible, as to each product, control its production and quality, and aid those seeking assistance or those damaged by that social liberty".

How is prohibition implemented?

"The characteristic common to the anti-drug policy of all countries which ratified the United Nations Conventions is the decision to massively entrust the police and the judiciary with the task of dealing with the problems caused by drugs". In this context, Dutch psychiatrist Sengers proposes - among other things - that scientific conferences be organised to discuss the validity of the parameters used by the World Health Organisation in its evaluations of drugs and substances and consequently the validity of the evaluations themselves.

Speaking on the processes of bureaucratisation and falsification in the scientific commissions of the various U.N. agencies - including the World Health Organisation - is Italian expert Arnao, who reveals to us how the series of key-words used to justify the norms of international control, e.g. "abuse", "non-medical use", "narcotic", "psychotropic substance", have never been given set, unambiguous definitions.

According to Italian sociologist Lamberti, a vast network of organised crime has grown up around, and because of, Prohibition, and it alone determines the market and the sale of drugs, causing the social disintegration illustrated by "street" ethnographer Roger Lewis, and the transformation of legal problems, as presented by Italian criminologist Savona.

Thus, the question, "What will the costs and benefits be of continued prohibition?" asked by Reuter, U.S. economist with the Rand Corporation, becomes more than just the subject of one presentation, it becomes the essential question to be answered by us here.

In conclusion, using the term "the war against drugs" - which has become a common expression in government discussion at every level - is out of line; it causes vagueness, the impression of easy victory, and searches out enemies. What is needed on the contrary, are stable institutions capable of putting into practice long-term programmes and actions.

However, the costs are not only economic ones, they are also legal ones, according to Ripolles, jurist at the University of Malaga; medical- and health-related, according to Belgian psychiatrist Roelandt; and rife with implications for international relations, as affirmed by General Viviani.

Marie A. Bertrand, criminologist with the University of Montreal and member of the Canadian Commission of the "Report on Prohibition", explicitly states (beginning with the title of her presentation) that prohibition is immoral, hypocritical, and illegitimate. She even explains which groups support prohibition: the various special police corps, physicians themselves, the pharmaceutical industry, and the alcohol and tobacco industries.

If all this is true and prohibition is immoral as well as being ineffective, then we must heed the appeal launched by Thomas Szasz for the "cessation of the longest war of this century: the war against drugs". Szasz concludes that this war "has already lasted longer than the First and Second World Wars and the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, and the end still is nowhere in sight. Given the fact that we are dealing with a war on human desire, it cannot be won in any significant way, in these terms".

"For economic reasons," writes Stevenson, of the Department of Economics of the University of Liverpool; "for police necessity", affirms Sanchez, Spanish police official; for instances of legal problems otherwise unresolvable, according to Carmena Castrillo, Spanish advocate.

What are the alternatives?

Bruce Alexander, psychopharmacologist with the University of Vancouver, suggests alternatives on the local level, where social controls are better developed; and Peter Cohen, Amsterdam psychosociologist, suggests a pragmatic approach.

Harvard psychiatrist Grinspoon makes the concrete suggestion of taxation, to cover the so-called "tariff of crime", in proportion to the potential damage of each drug, which would encourage the use of the less dangerous ones.

However, there is general agreement to the effect that prohibition must be studied, discussed, and eliminated. The proposals are for regulation, taxation and even prescription.

It might seem paradoxical to hear dyed-in-the-wool anti-prohibitionists speak of regulation, taxation and prescription, which were the characteristics of what is considered to be the first prohibitionist law, the Harrison Act of 1914.

Perhaps it is a paradox and deserving of our attention, because the alternatives will probably only be found by retracing and correcting the errors of prohibition of the past seventy years, beginning with the first block of the Harrison Law in 1919 by the U.S. Supreme Court, when it affirmed that heroin was not prescribed for medical purposes when it was administered to drug addicts.

And so, the meeting opens with a wide range of questions, to which I invite you, thanking you in advance, to provide the answers.