Rosa del Olmo, Professor of Sociology and Criminology at the Universidad Central de Venezuela

"A world war must be declared against drug trafficking. This is no mere euphemism nor a way to stress planning (...) When we speak of declaring war we mean exactly that (...) The State must have all the means and resources to wage this war (...) We would undoubtedly be making a big mistake if we were to think that this is a war only for the State or the government (...) Venezuelan society must organize to fight this war (...) This is an all out battle for the dignity and the salvation of the Venezuelan nation (...) We must make sure that all citizens as well as criminals are fully aware (...) that this war is for real and that I am the leader of this war which the country is waging to save Venezuela."

Carlos Andrés Pérez, Caracas, 21 June 1991.

The statement of Carlos Andrés Pérez symbolizes the hot period of the all-out war against drugs stepped up by the Reagan administration. This is not a recent war, however; what has changed is the strategy. It began in 1914 with the enactment of the Harrison Narcotics Act in the United States, which for the first time criminalized, at federal level, drugs made from foreign plants, and gave rise to the subsequent introduction of parallel legislation in the rest of the world. Later, it was organized around the law which prohibited the use of Marijuana, the Marijuana Tax Act.

The current war against drugs has been waged for 24 years. President Nixon launched the new strategy with the famous Operation Intercept against Marijuana from Mexico, back in September 1969. Since then, every President of the United States down to the present administration has prosecuted this war, involving in one way or the other, presidents from other countries because since 1969, it has been commonly assumed that the main strategy to reduce the use of drugs in the United States is to eliminate the supply at the source of production abroad. But it was President Reagan who declared war against drugs in October 1982 as an urgent objective of national security.

"It is worth pointing out" that although the budget allocated to fight drugs in the United States increased from $ 1,200 million in 1981 to $ 10,000 million in 1990 (Wisotksy, 1991, p. 2), the war has not been won, "notwithstanding" the plan of President George Bush to involve the armed forces directly in various countries in order to attain a society "free from drugs."

In view of this situation, it is necessary to assess the war against drugs as well as to examine the contents of alternative approaches currently debated by a series of political and academic actors in various scenarios. Secondly, and in relation to the previous point, it is most important to focus special attention and study on the debate in the field of criminal law, as various legal experts are proposing specific amendments to the laws which regulate the phenomenon.

Lastly, one must establish what might be the alternatives for the Andean region, which today has become the chief battleground of the war against drugs.

There is no doubt that at a time of apparent desperation caused by the spread of drug abuse throughout the world, along with the transnational consolidation of businesses dealing in cocaine and its derivatives on our continent, there is a general consensus to seek a resolution to the problem. All those taking part in the debate, despite their diverging views, defend society and want to check the serious damage being inflicted by drug abuse. The stumbling block is how to go about it. In other words, the dilemma is whether to prohibit or to manage drugs.

Some Preliminary Clarifications

Before delving further into the problem, some light should be shed on certain points. I do not go along with those who talk about "drugs" as a generic term. There are many drugs and each differs from the others and there is more than one way of consuming them. In addition, the background of each is very different. In my view, a drug is any substance that alters the consciousness. Consequently, I do not go along with the legal distinction of licit or legal drugs, such as coffee, chocolate, tobacco, Valium, etc., and illicite or illegal drugs, such as marihuana, cocaine, heroine, etc. All of them, from coffee to heroine, are psychoactive substances. Their consumption is nothing new and has been a universal phenomenon in many parts of the world throughout history. Each society has had, and continues to have, its psychoactive substance(s) and a set of codes and rituals that regulate its consumption and give it its own significance. As a result, one can speak not only of the negative effects of drugs, bu

t also their positive effects. Their use, which is not the same as abuse, can contribute to happiness, ease pain, cure disease, enhance creativity and meditation, etc. Abuse and dependence are very complex phenomena that have to do with the dose, the quality of the substance, how it is ingested, and the problem of the consumer and his social context. But it also has to do with the fact that trade in these substances has become a very profitable business.

All psychoactive substances have, for a host of reasons quite beyond the health-related ones, been outlawed at one time or place in the history of humankind. No one has ever managed to eliminate their use. In some cases the substance in question has been controlled and was then no longer considered a drug as such from the legal viewpoint. But I would like to focus here on an analysis of the current debate on what to do about illicit drugs.

In attempting to summarize the complex nuances and shades of the debate taking place in different quarters, with the participation of a range of individuals, one perceives two broad schools of thought: prohibition and antiprohibition.

However, one must not forget that this is an age-old debate. When the fashionable drug was marihuana, there were dissenting views on what to do about its increased consumption, which were expressed in varying places and occasions. In 1963, the British medical review, The Lancet (1963), pointed out that it was worthwhile considering that the problem of marihuana would end when it was taken off the dangerous drugs list, where it was placed in 1951, and giving it the same social "status" as alcohol, i.e. by legalizing its importation and consumption. Apart from the appealing outcome of reducing the number of offenses and allowing the use of a pleasure-giving substance, the authorities could also increase their revenue by taxing it instead of imposing fines. The Lancet went on to say that another benefit would be a reduction in the current tension between races and generations (p. 989).

At the start of the 1970s a number of books and government committee reports assessed the situation in the developed countries. Later on, in Colombia and Brazil, some very engaging debates were held.

The prevailing view was that the consumption of marihuana was worrisome. Today, although marihuana and heroine have not been excluded, attention is being focused on cocaine and its economic, political and social consequences, which are qualified as "intolerant".

What is different in today's debate is that for the first time, since the prohibition of alcohol in 1933, it is taking place in several countries simultaneously and includes some highly diversified groups and individuals that come together in scientific circles and meet regularly in congresses and conferences. In addition, the issue is being publicized internationally in reviews and newspapers, demonstrating that the debate is taking on greater legitimacy.

The prestigious organization Diálogo Interamericano brings together important personalities from the United States, Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean with the aim of assessing issues affecting the Western Hemisphere. In its 1986 Report, Diálogo Interamericano underscored the need to further the debate in keeping with the idea that "it might be useful to evaluate policies that distinguish between the harm caused by the consumption of drugs per se and the harm that results from prohibiting them. Addiction to drugs is a tragedy. But their prohibition increases the harm caused to addicts and to the societies on the [American] continent. If selective legalization could undermine the enormous profits resulting from drug trafficking, then corruption and vice would also be reduced. We are aware that the risks involved in making dangerous drugs freely available and we are not ready to promote that. Society must proceed very cautiously when considering legalized consumption of drugs, but all the means avai

lable of confronting the problem should be studied."

George Schultz, former US Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, voiced his views in an informal conversation at Stanford University in 1989. He stated that the conceptual basis of the US government's drugs programme is mistaken and therefore cannot work and will end by creating a market in which the price is far higher than the cost.

One thing is certain - the movements being created and developed at world level to discuss the issue are gaining greater legitimacy and are recruiting new members every day. At the same time, major newspapers and magazines, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time and Harper's Magazine in the United States, El País and Cambio 16 in Spain and The Economist and The Financial Times in the UK, are devoting lengthy articles to the issue. Also in Latin America, El Espectador and El Tiempo of Bogota, the Jornal do Brazil of Rio de Janeiro and El Comercio of Quito are actively pursuing the debate.

The Philosophical Discourse

Just as there are two major ideas on what to do about illicit drugs (prohibition and antiprohibition), there are also two major philosophical schools of thought - idealism and realism - both of which are found in the two major ideas, although in an uneven fashion.

From this view, the issue is seen as a moral problem between, on the one hand, good and evil, and, on the other, a tangible phenomenon that is confronted by policies whose costs and benefits must be analyzed.

The moral premise used to argue for prohibition is that drugs are bad and dangerous for the individual and society. Therefore, the police must keep the citizens away from drugs for the good of society and doctors must prevent the consumption of drugs for the sake of the individual's health. Consequently, the authorities must intervene, through criminal law, because that in principle is the correct action to take. One extreme example of this posture is that held by William Bennett, President Bush's so-called drug czar. Mr Bennett stated that he continued to defend tooth and nail the laws passed by his country to fight drugs and continued to defend his attempts to strengthen those laws because he believed that the consumption of drugs was bad (Bennett, 1989; letter to Milton Friedman).

The moral premise of antiprohibitionism revolves around a libertarian position that maintains that the state must keep out of personal decisions provided no harm is done to others. As a result, prohibition is morally wrong because it would place the state in a role of the protective father, neglecting the fact that amongst all the human rights the right to freedom is given precedence over the right to health. Another extreme example of this posture is that taken by the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who maintains that the right to freedom of thought finds its correlation, from the individual rights viewpoint, in the freedom to do what one wants with one's body and not what the state might decide (Szasz, 1987, p. 3). He himself stated that if we consider the freedom of expression and worship as basic rights, then we should also consider the freedom to administer medication to oneself as a basic right (Szasz, 1989).

It is difficult to refute the idealistic view, which supports prohibition, because it does not pursue the objective of knowledge and phenomena occurring independently from the conscience. Its validity is based on personal convictions and not scientific truth.

The realistic view has been a greater source of controversy because the proponents and opponents of prohibition claim they can prove the validity of their view by scientific method including specific theoretical premises, aims and hypotheses. But, once again, their content is very different; it is the antiprohibitionists who support the realistic philosophy.

From this viewpoint, the prohibitionists assert that a change in policy would be more costly than beneficial, while the antiprohibitionists claim that it would bring more benefits than costs. The fundamental difference between the two, and the difficulty in engaging in a dialogue, lies in the fact that the arguments put forward by the prohibitionists describe what could happen in the future, while the antiprohibitionists base their arguments on what is happening with current policies today.

The Schools of Thought

There are two broad schools of thought that respond to the question, What to do about illicit drugs? A debate has developed simultaneously in several fields, to which new groups are contributing their innovative responses.

1. Prohibition

The official debate and policies being pursued are dominated by the prohibition school of thought. Today's governments are waging an all out war against drugs, for which they have devised increasingly uncompromising international policies. One recent example is the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, approved in Vienna in 1988.

Details are not required here on the arguments of those who defend the war on drugs because one hears about them every day in the media. In general, their point of departure is that drugs are bad and they must be done away with. National security is under threat by drug consumption and the health, economic, political and social consequences of drugs must be combatted. The delinquents that deal in drugs must be thwarted because they corrupt youth and hold destabilizing power over democratic institutions. Drug abuse is seen in terms of a scourge, an epidemic and a threat. Drugs consumers suffer from an illness that, because of dependence, prevents them from taking responsible decisions. Since drug abuse is a threat to consumers and for others, the state must intervene. The drug crisis is a crisis of authority. Crack is the most dangerous drug. A crusade must be undertaken against drug trafficking because the problem has worsened. War, which must lead to total victory, is a moral imperative for the fu

ture of the country and the lives of our children.

The foundation of this school of thought is, in the first place, the classification and definition of psychoactive substances, and a distinction between licit drugs and illicit (or illegal) drugs. The war, they say, must be waged against the latter. Secondly, the production of drugs, or their supply, is a priority target because if drugs were not available they could not be consumed. Drug crops must be eradicated and prohibition measures must be introduced at borders to prevent the entry of illicit drugs and traffickers. Thirdly, consumption, or demand, must be attacked, through urine testing, detection of possession, elimination of leave and compulsory treatment programmes that require continuous attendance as a prerequisite for release on bail and maintenance of employment, etc.

The proponents of prohibition as devised by the United States government tend to disdain any alternative that might be put forward and express mistrust of the realistic view on drug policy. For the prohibitionists, who hold power and pursue an idealistic philosophy, what is at stake is morality, and defeat would be a moral defeat. Arguments of that type leave no room for scientific discussion.

When they are called upon to explain their views, prohibitionists only point to the costs involved in a change of policy, for example:

a) a change in policy would lead to cheaper and more freely available drugs; many who dared not try drugs because they were illegal would do so, which would increase the number of addicts as well as accidents and crime;

b) it could lead to the sale of synthetic drugs or derivatives, such as crack, whose effects are not understood well;

c) more young people would take drugs and there would be more absenteeism at school;

d) new drugs would emerge with unimaginable consequences;

e) health costs would rise owing to drug abuse;

f) if legal restrictions were lifted, drug abuse could become socially acceptable;

g) that would be giving in to organized crime;

h) a state that receives money from vice is immoral;

i) the legalization of drugs would be a collective moral defeat;

j) the current policy has failed but the answer is to make it tougher still.

It is precisely this last point that has fuelled the debate. Everyone, both prohibitionists and antiprohibitionists, agree that the war on drugs has failed. Drugs have proliferated in the world market, there is a greater variety of drugs available and they are increasingly potent and addictive. Their abundance has pushed the price down and made them easier to consume; levels of violence and drug-related criminality have increased; official and individual corruption have risen, etc. (El Tiempo, September 17, 1989)

2. Antiprohibition

There is a wide and complex range of possible alternatives offered to the escalation of the war on drugs, although they have been put forward together only since 1987. At the start, only isolated individuals and small groups spoke out at national level. Today they meet at international conferences.

While I have decided to classify the debate into two large categories, those active in this area are in fact highly disparate as are their policies to resolve the problem peacefully. The active antiprohibitionists include conservative politicians, members of the police, mayors, judges and other civil servants, as well as doctors, psychologists, journalists, economists, philosophers, criminologists, professors of penal law and academics.

Those arguing against prohibition endorse policies ranging from various types of decriminalization and depenalization to legalization and libertarians who defend total permissiveness. It is a very complex and contradictory debate with many shades of meaning within each position, and even includes the manipulation of statistics. For example, legalization does not mean the same thing to everybody. Some consider it synonymous to decriminalization, while others equate it to depenalization. Some confuse depenalization with decriminalization, etc.

Many contributions to the debate revolve around calling into question, from different vantage points, the current war on drugs. Others focus on more specific problems, such as AIDS. But, as views and opinions mature and develop, concrete proposals emerge to give effect to alternative social policies.

However, everyone agrees on the following points: It is impossible to eliminate drugs and they will always be around. Acceptance of that fact is fundamental if one is to pursue realistic policies. Secondly, abuse of the law can be more dangerous than the abuse of drugs and can have much more harmful side effects on society. Thirdly, the distinction between licit and illicit drugs, in terms of damage to health, is an arbitrary one and doesn't correspond to reality. There are illicit drugs that are not dangerous and there are licit drugs that are dangerous.

In addition, despite the range of proposals, there is a consensus concerning the costs of the current war on drugs compared with the benefits that might come from a change in policy. The starting point for an assessment of drug policies is the separation between the primary problems stemming from the abuse of certain drugs and the secondary problems revolving around prohibition. That view was investigated some years ago by the Dutch criminologist Louk Hulsman.

Along this line of thinking, the primary problems are those relating to drugs, irrespective of the policies pursued, and concern the damage to heath caused by the abuse of any psychoactive substance, whether licit or illicit. The secondary problems, on the other hand, concern the introduction of a specific policy and the idea that if a different policy were pursued, those problems would not exist. These secondary problems only concern illicit drugs and manifest themselves in the consumer, the environment, the judicial system, relations between countries, etc. (Hulsman/Ransbeek, 1983, p. 272). One example linked to the consumer is the risk of death by poisoning himself because, since he is consuming an illegal substance, there is no quality control.

Evaluating these differences enables the antiprohibitionists to affirm that while there are immense costs associated with drug abuse, most of them arise from the current policy and not the direct effects of drug consumption. They also point out that they cannot promise to resolve or eliminate the drug problem.

The antiprohibitionists underscore the following costs in the current war on drugs:

a) government expenditure has tripled in curbing drug abuse, to the detriment of social spending;

b) a number of connections have emerged between drugs and criminality and organized crime is consolidating its activities;

c) the drug dealers, being outlaws, have resorted to uncontrollable violence;

d) millions of consumers are stigmatized and are open to the risk of penal convictions. They are required to enter into relations with traffickers in order to buy their drugs, the origins of which are unknown, which in turn increases the number of deaths due to overdose or poisoning. The incidence of AIDS also increases.

e) consumption is spread via consumers who are forced to become small-scale dealers in order to earn the money to pay for their consumption.

f) the police depend on covert operations, electronic espionage, informers and resort to dubious witnesses, all of which undermine credibility.

g) the judicial system has become clogged with cases and laws that exceed available resources.

h) corruption has increased amongst civil servants who enforce the law and the economic and political power of traffickers has been stepped up.

i) stereotypes that perpetuate the racial and class prejudices of the judiciary are legitimized.

j) civil rights are undermined in the name of law and order.

k) North-South relations are distorted.

As stated above, the antiprohibitionists base their arguments on an assessment of current policies, which has led them to devise a diagnosis. They have observed that the programme pursued so far by the US government has not succeeded. That view has been expressed by the American specialist Kevin B. Zeese in the following way:

1. The plan to eradicate crops has failed. Other crops have been planted and peasants have entered into alliances with insurgent groups. At the same time, new markets and more powerful drug barons have emerged with the result that the consumption of stronger and more dangerous drugs is encouraged.

2. Interdiction at the borders has not met with success. On the contrary, it has forced traffickers to find new routes. And consumers have started using other, often more harmful, drugs.

3. Persecution of the consumer has not diminished consumption and has infringed on the civil rights of those who do not consume.

4. Jail sentences do not have the desired effect and have only congested the courts and prisons.

In this debate there is implicit agreement that any policy would be better than the current war on drugs, although antiprohibitionists acknowledge that there might be an increase in consumption, at least at the start, if their ideas were pursued. However, other types of controls would be introduced if that were to happen. In the antiprohibitionist camp there are varying views on an alternative drug policy. Consequently, it would be difficult to come up with an overall list of benefits arising from that policy. There is a great deal of confusion put about by the proponents of the war on drugs. The various options put forward by the antiprohibitionist camp are described below.

* Decriminalization

First of all, there are two types of decriminalization: de jure decriminalization, where the law is not changed but is simply not enforced, and de facto decriminalization, where the law is not changed but the law is enforced less severely.

There are concrete examples of this concerning marihuana. There was a case in Alaska, which followed a 1975 Supreme Court ruling, in which it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to prosecute a citizen for growing or possessing marihuana because that violated his right to privacy, which is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Another example is Amsterdam, where soft drugs, mainly marihuana, continue to be illegal but the authorities treat them as if they were legal.

The decriminalization argument is designed to decongest the courts and to help a large number of consumers, but does not include quality control of the substances nor does it have an impact on other side effects of the current drug policy.

* Depenalization

Depenalization implies a change in the law, although penal law would continue to regulate certain types of drug-related behaviour. Several proposals are on offer, for example, depenalization of consumption and acts leading to consumption, or depenalization of consumption and non-profit traffic between adults. Other alternatives are being put forward in the legal-criminal debate.

The option of depenalization could resolve some side effects of the current policy, but only within a scope limited to the individual.

* Legalization

Several strategies are advanced under this heading. On the one hand there is legalization of soft drugs, in particular marihuana, which implies legal sales through regulated outlets, and which would remove it from the distribution circuit of other illicit drugs.

This argument has developed around two proposals for the legalization of all drugs and the repeal of drug-related penal laws. The first proposal is legalization regulated by the state; the second is competitive legalization without state intervention, regulated by market forces.

While arguments in favour of prohibition are based on medical-legal elements, proposals for legalization are mainly based on economic reasoning.

It would be worthwhile to look closer at these two proposals for legalization.

a) Regulated legalization would entail the government supplying psychotropic substances, regulating sales and production and making available educational and therapeutic programmes.

The American political pundit Ethan A. Nadelmann states that the logic of legalization depends on two suppositions: first, that most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as it is thought and, second, that the riskiest types of consumption are not so attractive to people, because of their danger. This belief has led him to analyze at length the costs of prohibition and the benefits of regulated legalization. Following are the benefits listed by Mr Nadelmann in his alternative programme:

* The government could generate billions of dollars via a sales tax and could regulate production and distribution. Part of that money could be used to fund effective prevention and treatment programmes.

* The government would have the opportunity to shape and channel consumption in the direction of safer psychoactive substances and consumption methods.

* The health and quality of life of many consumers would be improved because the government would regulate the purity of drugs available on the market. In addition, consumers could make informed choices about the drugs they buy and the risk of accidents by poisoning or overdose would be reduced.

* The cost of drugs would come down when organized criminals were prevented from drug speculation for the purposes of generating illicit revenue, which would be checked.

* The quality of urban life would be improved.

* The incidence of homicide and robbery would decrease.

* More residents of the inner city ghettos would refrain from criminal careers and would seek legitimate occupations.

* The judiciary would deal with fighting the inevitable criminality.

* The hypocritical and dangerous message that alcohol and tobacco are safer than many illicit drugs would be rectified.

* Throughout the world, those responsible for shaping external policy could take on more objective goals and foreign governments would recover the authority that they had lost to the traffickers.

Others, like Mr Zeese, have devised a plan in which each drug would be regulated differently and would include price controls through various taxes in keeping with the risk of the drug in question. Under the plan, there would be limits on the basis of age, quality control, control over advertising, market controls, time restrictions and controls on where consumption could take place, in addition to rules for insurance companies stipulating that health risks would be taken on by the consumer. In that way, consumption would be discouraged. In addition, immediate treatment programmes would be available to those seeking treatment, etc.

Evidently, regulated legalization does not obviate the need for control over drugs; quite to the contrary, greater control than that provided by the judiciary and medical sector would be introduced, but the nature of the control would be different because the methods and individuals who do the controlling would change.

b) Competitive legalization has a number of laissez-faire supporters, for example, Milton Friedman, who has been backing it since the start of the 1970s.

One of its most prominent supporters today is the British economist Richard Stevenson, who backs the idea that the legitimate markets are capable of regulating drugs in a socially acceptable fashion, as they do with other types of commodities. In a free market, drug trade would not be bound by any particular rules and drugs would be freely marketed. The restriction of some but not others would be wrong because criminals would simply become active in the production and distribution of the illicit ones.

Mr Stevenson claims that in a free market expensive drugs would come down in price and their quality would improve. Responsible behaviour, so as to minimize the undesirable consequences of consumption, would be up to the consumer and the producers.

In describing how the system would work, Mr Stevenson points out that drugs would be sold in retail outlets, such as in supermarkets, pharmacies, or specialized shops. The profit motive would help to determine the market. A number of products and brand names of varying strength would be offered and the consumer would choose amongst them, similar to what he does today when buying alcoholic beverages.

The legal business would be competitive in its production and any attempt by Latin Americans or Asians to form cartels or international associations to monopolize the market would fail in the face of competition amongst the producers of natural and synthetic drugs located in the consumer countries.

In the area of processing and distribution of drugs, new businesses may be formed by companies already active in the tobacco or pharmaceutical industry. The profit motive would lead them to reduce to a minimum the harm that drugs could cause and they would market carefully labelled products of the best quality, in addition to placing their own restriction on availability. Safety considerations would dominate their entire marketing strategy, including the design of new products, and an optimum tax would be levied to help fund education and treatment programmes. One effect of competitive legalization, according to Mr Stevenson, is that new drugs would be developed that offer the properties sought by the user, but in a safer form.

Competition and efficiency in production and distribution of drugs would push the market prices down, in relation to other goods. Since demand is not elastic, legalization would increase the amount of money consumers could spend on food and housing.

The free market would tend to bring in greater balance via an adjustment mechanism and competition would determine the optimum scale of operations and the best marketing methods. Consumers would also go through a learning process. Some would learn to abstain and others would consume. Mr Stevenson maintains that markets have the capacity to resolve problems that cannot be anticipated.

In short, the aim of legalization is to create a legal, legitimate market that would be off limits to illegal traders, who would gradually withdraw. At the same time, the consumer would be protected from possible secondary risks.

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

Excepts of Prohibir or Domesticar, Politicas de drogas en America latina, Editorial Nueva Sociedad, Caracas, 1992.