SUMMARY: In response to the article by Emma Bonino in favour of the abolition of prohibitionism on drugs, (text n. 1168), the Columbian Minister of Education Manuel Francisco Becerra adopts a negative position on the proposal of liberalization of drugs. The author assumes that it is the State's duty to protect the health of citizens, and that therefore the suicide of the individual should not be allowed, nor should the means to commit suicide be provided him. The theory of legalization is based, according to Becerra, on wrong assumptions, and eludes the problem instead of solving it.

("Cambio 16" 16 April 1990)

The drug issue goes beyond the shakespearian dilemma of legalizing or not legalizing. Neither the huge dimensions that the drug trade is assuming world-wide, nor the worrying number of drug consumers, nor the situation that some producing countries are going through, and particularly Columbia has been going through, can reduce such a vast problem to the over-simplified solution of legalization.

In a debate like this, it must be first decided what the State's reason for existence is, which according to me can only be that of protecting the interests of the majority against the claims of the minority. Even more so if the issue is one that heavily affects the majority. And nobody can question the fact that the drug problem affects all societies and that the majority must bear the consequences of the doings of a minority that has decided to slowly destroy itself.

The issue then is not to legalize or not to legalize drugs, the question is if the State is capable of controlling the habit of a small group that has chosen to commit suicide with drugs, whatever sort of drugs they may be. What many people assert is, more or less, that the people who have decided to commit suicide not only have the right to do so, but that the State should provide them the means to carry out this choice.

First of all, we must make a necessary premise: the State must protect the individual's health. Secondly, it must not be disregarded that the intoxication of a human being goes beyond society, and that it is not possible to talk about an individual right to commit suicide. On the other hand, the person using drugs, whether occasionally or regularly, at a certain point begins to lose cerebral neurons and the drugs that he buys in the streets of any city in the world contain an ever higher percentage of toxic elements. The problem that the State must face is therefore what attitude must be held on the question of an individual intoxication that slowly becomes a common intoxication.

Those who state that tobacco and alcohol too cause death, and that in spite of this their use and consumption is allowed claim that the same thing should be applied to drugs. These people prove that they are not aware of the fact that one thing is to consume for 20 years a product that in the long run has a 35% chance of causing lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver after a certain period of time, and another thing is to know that the effects of the poison that is bought in the streets are immediate.

To legalize the consumption and the distribution of a certain product implies to authorize publicity for it. The drug advertisers of our consumers society will proclaim the best cocaine, the purest heroin, and in a corner on the package, will warn that this product "can harm your health". But does anyone think that this way the consumption will be reduced? Has the consumption of cigarettes decreased because of this type of warning? Let's imagine that the experts of some advertisement chain, those that have convinced people to eat hamburgers and drink Coca-Cola all over the world (and to smoke Marlboro), appear in advertisements sniffing the most exciting cocaine, showing the most stimulating needle...

The promoters of legalization for drugs that state that prohibited things are attracting, have these people ever asked themselves why cyanide isn't freely sold in household product shops? They will answer that the things that poison are not drugs, but the final product that is sold in the streets, the product of the black market, an argumentation, this one, that in a way applies to cocaine. But what purpose would there be in legalizing only certain drugs (because I don't think that anyone could assert that heroin doesn't kill people) when prohibition on other drugs would once again give rise to another black market?

The people who ask themselves which juridical good is being protected with prohibitionism on drugs are truly trying to look for a reasonable solution but unfortunately they completely ignore the fact that drug problem is basically a health problem.

To these people one should reply, to keep to the point, that the juridical good that in this case the State must protect is the health of its citizens, even if this seems to be old-fashioned and un-attractive.

I once asked an advocate of legalization if that was the society he wanted for his children, and he answered: "I will explain to my children what is bad and what isn't bad, which drugs can be controlled and which ones are difficult to control, and I will them advise them not to take them". Great, I said, let's legalize it then, and let each father educate his children and explain to them how to deal with drugs.

That day I understood, more than ever, that he was admitting I was right. Because the difference between him and me consisted in the fact that I preferred the State to think about the education, the prevention and the control.

Those who, along with me, oppose the legalization of drugs, don't believe that the penal treatment of the issue can solve the problem, because they are convinced that the solution is obvious. It depends more from a social change that involves the transformation of young peoples' attitude concerning the situation they are living in. But the over-simplified mistake of protecting the individual freedom of acquiring the necessary means to commit suicide must not be made. Let's try to imagine for one moment what the future of the society would be if every time someone wanted to shoot himself the State provided him with a gun.

Another argument in favour of this over-simplified position is that the illegality of the thing makes it interesting, and that the only way to avoid it is to de-penalize it. In order not to argue on this position, I will simply ask one question: is there anyone who really believes that in order to stop the illegal traffic of arms or of works of art it is necessary to de-penalize that sort of offence?

They then say that because in other countries it is legalized, it should be legalized in all countries of the world. This argumentation isn't convincing. Is it ever possible that the tree of criminality doesn't allow us to see the forest of society afflicted by drug addiction? The problem is different in every country, and the only way to propose a universal liberalization of drugs is to destroy all cultures. An Iranian, a Dutch and an inhabitant of a Caribbean island are not the same thing, a generalization cannot be made. In Europe there is a certain amount of indulgence on the issue of drugs. And in Europe there are nudist beaches and gay demonstrations. But an Iranian doesn't see things that way, nor does a Central American, and therefore the problem must be faced without disregarding each person's cultural and cultural patrimony.

In conclusion, the easy alternative of the de-penalization of drugs does not solve the problem. It eludes it. And those who elude it are simply postponing it. I am convinced that if drugs will be de-penalized or legalized the number of consumers will increase, and in a very short time the solutions will be even more costly.