ITALY - He served in the Army General Staff and as Military Attache' with the Italian Embassies in Germany, Denmark and Holland. He served as Regiment Commander in the "Bersaglieri", and in the Motorised and Parachute Brigades. For four years he was Head of Italian counter-espionage. He has published seven books, which include a "History of the Italian Secret Service from Napoleon to the Present" and the "Manual of Counter-Espionage". He is member of the Radical Party's Federal Council.

ABSTRACT: The author acknowledges the complete failure of drug repression at inhibiting production, transport and consumption. In order to decrease consumption, action must be taken on drug demand rather than on the supply. Antiprohibitionism should contribute to the ending of drug related crime.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

My intention with these notes is to make evident, from the technical and operative point of view, the failure of the current policy of repression of the traffic of drugs, in the hope of contributing both towards the revision of national and international efforts in this area and the definition of a more effective alternative.

I use the term drugs here in the widest and most general sense, and by drug traffic I intend the entire range of activities, including production, transport and use. It is essential that this exposition be kept simple, logical and clear, if it is to be understood by all, as there is a good deal of prejudice and preconception as regards the subject. The drug problem is today the problem of every nation and every individual, at every level of society. In short, it concerns us all.

Its international implications thus take on prime importance, not only if a correct evaluation is to be made of its proportions, but also and above all if we are to find a solution. That solution will not, and cannot, be found on an exclusively national level.

It cannot be denied that this fact has long been recognised by most States, e.g. the first international treaty was signed in January of 1912 (the Hague Convention, later reconfirmed by the 1919 Peace Treaties); the first organ of international consultation on drug traffic was created by the Society of Nations in 1912, and the dozens of international treaties which paved the way for the Single Convention of 1961 (perfected in 1972), and the Vienna Convention of 1971.

In January of 1987, at the first U.N. International Conference on the use and abuse of drugs, the Narcotics Commission drew up a "comprehensive multi-disciplinary project" on future anti-drug actions to be taken, in anticipation of a new Convention .

International collaboration is mainly through OICS (the International Organisation for Drug Control), which is responsible for limiting the cultivation of crops from which drugs are obtained, limiting the production, trade and use of drugs to exclusively medical and scientific requirements, the prevention of their illegal trade, use and production, and providing regular consultation and special joint missions with the countries concerned.

OICS collaborates with other international organs, including:

- those of the World Health Organisation (WHO);

- the Narcotics Commission of the Economic and Social Council, which was responsible in 1946 for U.N. drug policy;

- the Narcotics Division of the U.N. Secretariat which handles, in particular, international relations and research;

- the Council for Customs Co-ordination;

- the Pompidou Group of the European Council;

- the drug groups of the EEC Commissions;

- the ECOSOC Narcotics Commission;

- the U.N. Fund for the fight against drug abuse (FNULAD), to which Italy contributes 65 billion;

- the organs of the international criminal police organisations (OPIC-INTERPOL), the CIA, and TREVI.

The common denominator of all these documents and international bodies has, for the past 75 years, been repression; in other words, the war against drugs.

Drugs are conceived of as an external enemy which threatens youth, the dearest and most precious sector of the population, for which the declaration of a repression/war is conceived of as just and noble. It is easy for governments to promote war; war is popular. Public opinion easily accepts that criteria, emotionally,without going any further into the question (which is a very grave error).

If we are to evaluate the drug problem properly, it might be useful to examine the three phases of that phenomenon; production, transport, and use.

PRODUCTION

This phase is controlled for the most part by large criminal organisations, which are in a position to do so independently, protecting their activities with private armies and fleets of ships and aircraft (e.g. Khun Sha in Burma).

And there are drug-producing countries (the governments of which might be termed "narcocratic"), such as Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Afghanistan, which have - at times even officially - listed drugs as a national economic resource and the mainstay of power, even though only one fifth of the money derived from the drug industry is actually retained by those countries. For example, in 1987, according to DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) data, only $20 billion out of a total retail return of $130 billion, were returned to the producer countries in Latin America.

But there are also countries (Peru, Mexico and Thailand) which become, and remain, drug producers because they have neither the social-political structures nor their military resources to apply repressive measures adequate for the vast and inaccessible nature of their territories, and others (Colombia, Bolivia, Burma and Thailand) in which the ruling class is represented, or controlled, by the large producer families.

Although international Conventions oblige the signing countries (but only those countries) to apply certain control policies, we know only too well that international treaties - although useful and necessary - often end up not only as mere token demonstrations of good will, but actually dissimulate bad intentions.

How then is it possible to prevent the production of drugs or - better still - limit that production to satisfying exclusively health and scientific requirements? And how could it be regulated? A special U.N. Fund was created to assist drug-producing countries (the number of which was estimated at 35 in 1987) to substitute their illegal crops with legal ones. That fund has, unfortunately, proven to be just one more example of a useless waste of public money, usually benefiting those administering it.

It is unrealistic to expect a peasant farmer to give up growing a crop which earns him more, and equally so to think that by elevating his social and cultural level, he would be induced to put aside economic interest for conscience's sake.

The Secretary of the U.N. himself has admitted the failure of the Fund, describing how peasant farmers, in Colombia for example, would accept the economic compensation and transform their drug crops, but then create others fifty kilometres away which earned them ten times more.

Imposing crop conversion by force, or the use of the military apparatus to destroy those crops, would also be unrealistic. Whenever military intervention has been used to destroy crops and landing strips, or to sequester hundreds of ships and aircraft, the result has usually been not only failure in achieving its aim, but an actual increase in both the production and the cost of drugs.

Resorting to armed intervention, as suggested by certain authoritative persons, in order to force one or more countries to stop producing drugs would be absolutely catastrophic, not only from the technical point of view, but in the context of the possible reactions of other States. The not entirely unfounded suspicion could also arise that the motives for such actions were not exclusively the repression of the drug trade. Also, there is the very legitimate objection to the violation of international sovereignty.

And then, what would the result be? After the intervention, organised crime would return to its original position of control in an area impossible to control, and subsequently beset by inevitable guerilla warfare between conflicting interest groups.

The material and moral cost of a similar war would be as vast as it would be pointless.

On the whole, repressive action has only resulted in an increase in production and the cost of drugs.

The solution will only be found by limiting drug production exclusively to satisfying health and scientific requirements, thus affecting the demand by rendering production of drugs unprofitable or less profitable than other production.

TRANSPORT

International organised crime commands a vast and complex industrial network, which enables it to control the drug product from the growing fields to the individual consumer. That system is extensive and its ramifications ever-expanding. Its efficiency increases daily, not only in avoiding repression, but also in reaching the consumers (estimated at 40 million world wide).

That industrial chain is also structured by levels (estimated at six), in such a way that each operator is only familiar with the operator at the level above him, thus limiting eventual damage to the system in the event of repression.

The dealers arrested in 1987 in Italy came from 81 different nations, while 545 Italian dealers were identified in 29 countries abroad.

This powerful criminal network is technically extremely efficient, availing itself of highly professional operators and unlimited, as well as unregulated, financial resources. As a result, drug trafficking occurs not only inside the single producer-countries (which were estimated at 35 in 1987), and accomplice countries (Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.), but also in international air space and in international waters, and on vehicles which, as we know, enjoy a large degree of extraterritorial status.

How is it possible to block all ships and aircraft, search them, ferret out their hiding places? How is it possible to inspect the millions of cargo items, ranging from small packages to large containers, sent regularly round the world?

In Italy alone, 65,000 ships enter its ports and 95,000 international and 12,000 national flights land in its airports, each year. And who knows how many millions of goods transport vehicles and private vehicles enter the country each year. Admiral Trost, Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, recently stated, and I quote, "The military and the police together could not stop illegal drug trafficking even if they did nothing else".

Another element to keep in mind is that the efficient organisation used for the transport of drugs is also utilised for other criminal activities, such as the illegal traffic of arms and capital, prostitution, etc., etc.

As regards transport in relation to production, it was ascertained (also in Italy) that those large international organisations resort to terrorism (832 serious acts world-wide in 1987) to distract the forces of order from the repression of drug trafficking.

In the United States, the annual cost of repression alone is 2,034 million dollars; in Italy it is 6,000 billion Lire.

Conclusion: The only way to succeed in stopping the production and transport of drugs is by reducing the demand.

CONSUMPTION

In the repression of consumption, each country appears to proceed with its own methods, despite the existence of international conventions. But, perhaps it is impossible to act otherwise, given the diversity of mentalities, customs, environments, etc., which must be dealt with.

Consumption is without question determined by demand, which includes needs determined in various ways, e.g. reaction to a state of depression caused by other unsolved problems (unemployment, personal difficulties), the search for different forms of satisfaction than the usual ones, banal reasons such as curiosity, imitation, trends, ignorance, and so on.

But more than anything else, consumption is determined by the offer. Organised crime's campaigns to promote the sale of drugs - which, for effectiveness, would compare favourably with the promotional campaigns of any commercial corporation - include: free samples; the offer of products the effectiveness of which is constantly being improved (light drugs, heroin, cocaine) and in ever increasing quantities (whiter "snow", "three for the price of one"); new and economically more accessible drugs (Crack); extended sales areas opened up by 'travelling salesmen'; new sales points (discotheques, pizza parlours, gambling establishments), and so on.

In the final phase (the last level), the drug addicts themselves are used as clients/promoters/junkies, which explains why 95% of the street dealers arrested are drug addicts.

In Italy, Law 685 (1975), which is obsolete and inadequate, considers "any use by any individual, under any circumstances" to be pathological.

A very revealing fact is that, in all countries, the increase of consumption is usually accompanied by an increase in microcrimes, that is the small, petty crimes committed in order to procure the money to buy drugs. These crimes taken singly are insignificant. However, together, they represent an extremely preoccupying social phenomenon, which is increasingly threatening to the private citizen. It has been established, for example, that in Naples in l987, there were 420,000 of these drug-related in microcrimes. In this context, it would be well to take into account the victim phenomenon; that is, considering the problem of the addict, while ignoring the problem of the addict's innocent victim - the individual problem neglected in favour of the wider social problem.

This attitude is perhaps determined by the horror provoked by the vision of the drug addict suffering from withdrawal symptoms, by the pity felt for his condition, and a certain amount of collective guilt for having failed to prevent a similar situation.

If a responsible adult decides to take drugs, society has

some obligation towards him. That obligation, however, certainly does not include the use of force to protect him from himself. His life is his, just as the life of the suicidal individual is his own. And, although some attempt must be made at dissuasion, it is impossible to keep watch over him night and day. If an individual is determined to kill himself, sooner or later he will succeed.

However, it is not our intention to go beyond the limits of

the technical-operative context.

And, independently of repressive solutions (Prohibition) or regulative ones (Anti-Prohibition), there remains the urgent need to influence the demand, as well as production and transport.

THE ITALIAN SITUATION

Before closing, I should like to discuss the Italian situation, a serious study of which, incidentally, has never been made.

The number of drug addicts in Italy has been estimated at 500,000, approximately 30,000 of whom are receiving treatment in 500 public institutes and 300 private facilities (for which no register exists), under the control and regulation of the Ministry of Public Health (Art. 1 of Law No. 685). These facilities are lacking in every sense. There is no co-ordination between them, and their distribution over the national territory is inadequate.

In 1987, there were almost 10,000 deaths attributed to drugs (as compared to 40 ten years before). The number of deaths in hospitals and private clinics resulting from collateral effects, however, is not known.

The media solemnly informs us on the occasion of each of these deaths of the total reached since the beginning of the year. (...died today...the number thus has risen to...the number of drug addicts...). In the same way, the deaths attributed to alcoholism should also be reported, however they are not. If they were, the reports would sound something like the following: "Today 241 persons died of the effects of alcoholism, bringing the total number of persons who have died of that disease up to 38,000". (In fact, 80,000 persons die each year in Italy from alcoholism; the official figures are around 20,000.)

The same could be said for tabagism, the effects of traffic, and so son.

In this way, and accompanied when possible with tragic photographs, the drug phenomenon is publicised emotionally, creating an artificial, hysterical tension which compromises any possibility of an objective evaluation of the problem. It is thus given priority over other, more serious problems, such as hunger in the world, biological and chemical warfare, and the ecological catastrophe. In 1987, of the criminals identified as the result of 12.000 police operations (36% more than in 1986), 23,000 were accused of the sale and traffic of drugs (23% more than in 1986). Of those, 19,000 were arrested and 13,000 actually detained. On the whole, a good eight out of ten crimes committed in Italy are drug-related, and 80% of prison inmates were convicted of drug-related offences. The total sales of drugs each year in Italy has reached 30,000 billion Lire (CENSIS data).

There are, at present, 20,000 men engaged in the three principal police organisations, 70,000 of whom are on duty at any given moment.

If it is true that eight out of every ten crimes committed are drug-related, and the total personnel employed to repress that crime at all times 50,000, how can it be conceivably possible to deal with anything else?

The judiciary is overloaded with drug-related crime, which is so extensive that it is all it can do to handle it within a decent period of time, much less concern itself with the others.

And what does the Italian government propose as a remedy to this situation? According to Law 685 (Art. 1), the Ministry of Health would appear to be responsible both nationally and internationally. The same law (in Article 7), however, authorises the Ministry of the Interior to carry out prevention and repression operations. Those two ministries are then joined by the Ministry for Special Affairs, which is at present drawing up a new law.

The Central Anti-Drug Service of the Ministry of the Interior is responsible for:

- co-ordination of the anti-drug sections of the State police, the Carabinieri and the Customs services and (when necessary or requested) those of the Armed Forces (Article 3, Law No. 685);

- co-operation with the Customs authorities;

- joint analysis of the international aspects of the problem with corresponding services in other countries, with the national offices of INTERPOL, and with its own offices in the Italian Embassies abroad, as extensions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A Programme of information, also in the interests of repression, is provided by the secret services, in part directly (the latest report, July 1988), and in part indirectly (given their institutional duties) by SISMI, SISDE, the Services of the three branches of the Armed Forces and the Military Police. Also involved in a direct way are the central office of general investigation (UCIGOS), the Information Service of the Carabinieri, and the Customs Information Service.

It will be obvious to anyone that any practical, concerted functioning of a similar caravan connected to the Magistrature is impossible.

According to unconfirmed, if unrefuted, data, the Italian government spends 6,000 billion Lire each year on the war against drugs.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-five years of international and national repression of the traffic of drugs (production, transport, and use) can be considered a total failure. The use, and abuse, of those substances have in fact increased. A look at the latest report, produced in 1987, by the International Organisation for Narcotics Control (OICS) will more than sufficient confirm that statement. That same report (Paragraph 5) states: "no significant progress will be made in stopping the illegal drug trade if the offer and demand are not reduced.

Equally a failure - always in the Italian context - is the balance presented in the 1987 Report by the Ministry of the Interior, to which we have already referred.

The relations between the various States concerned with this problem have also failed.

The international organs and the private corporations have constituted pressure and interest groups (including Spiritual interest), intent on maintaining the policy of prohibition and repression. Individuals and groups have used that policy to justify their existence, obtaining prestige, honours, public recognition, and often enough, public financing. Thus, we can assume that the traffic of drugs is in the hands of two different mafias: the Mafia and the Anti-Mafia mafia. National law and international conventions regulating the war against drugs, conducted in this way, cannot be won, as it has proven useless and, what is even more serious, unsuitable.

Even in the face of the historical failure of the repressive policy and the present tragic situation which has resulted, no other alternative has been forthcoming. Repression will continue, while organised crime becomes progressively more powerful.

In conclusion, we have seen that the optimal solution to the three areas of drug traffic lies in influencing the demand. This solution, although obviously not perfect, could be expressed in the following terms: Dissuade; Regulate; Legalise.

DISSUADE

Programmes to inform and educate conducted systematically and in a serious manner can stop the increase in the demand, by containing use and preventing abuse. Included in informing would also, necessarily, be the moderation of current advertising, which shamefully favours psychotropic substances such as alcohol and tobacco.

Informing does not mean prohibiting, and much less prohibiting by force. Informing also means informing correctly, as to any gradations from the light drugs (wine, tobacco, tranquillisers, soporifics, hashish, marijuana, and so on), up to heroin, etc.

The potential drug addict and normal citizen must be informed as to what the risks involved in taking drugs are, and he must be made to assume the responsibility for the consequences of that choice on themselves and others.

We must decide what it is we want - a society of individuals informed and knowledgeable as to what is good and what is harmful, what is advisable and what is not, or a nursery school where choices are imposed by force (if that is possible).

REGULATE

The care and rehabilitation of drug addicts or, better still, of those who wish to be cared for or rehabilitated, is the responsibility of the State towards that part of its citizens who must not be considered criminals or depraved, as some would have it. Depravity, the disposition towards what is harmful, acquiescence to what is reprehensible, the error or weakness inherent in man, are objective realities which we must take into account, just as we must respect (although not necessarily approve of) the choices of an individual. Care and rehabilitation must be the result of information and personal decision; it must not become obligation. On the other hand, how would it be possible to forcibly treat hundreds of thousands of individuals? Is it possible to treat someone who does not wish to be treated? Should systems similar to those of Hitler or Stalin be applied? Anyone demanding his individual right to choose to take drugs (as anyone choosing to indulge in alcohol or tobacco) will not escape suffering the

consequences, or prevent others suffering them.

LEGALISATION

The drug market today is a free market with a wide and unregulated offer, and as such cannot be repressed by force. Anyone wishing to begin will find no obstacles today to his doing so.

The demand of the drug addict - someone who is ill, or a brother to be aided - must be satisfied not by organised crime, but by a trusted physician, in every aspect (quantitatively and qualitatively), or the pharmacist, depending on the case. Respect therefore for the professional ethics of the physician.

We are certainly not suggesting that drugs be placed on sale in the same way as tobacco or alcohol; what we are suggesting is the adoption of a health programme, in the place of the repressive policy which has proved such a dismal failure.

Legalisation is neither liberalisation nor indiscriminate offer; it is the regulated satisfaction of a real demand. Legalisation is the regulation of a market which is currently tragically free. Legalisation is not the acceptance of the normality of drugs, any more than it is a judgement as to the morality of drugs.

The problem is by now obviously a common and an international one. However, the policy of dissuading, regulating and legalising, would make the following possible:

- the elimination of organised crime's involvement in the trade of drugs;

- the elimination of microcrime;

- the freeing of the Magistrature and the Police forces of the burden of drug-related crimes, permitting them to attend to criminals (including those who would offer drugs to children, who are today left reasonably free to do so).