Arnold S. Trebach

March 17, 1992

Like The Post, I too have long been skeptical of the Swiss experiment in Platzspitz, also known as "Needle Park." However, it was wrong for The Post to take the recent closing of the park as evidence that all drug policy reforrn proposals - in particular, clean needle exchange and legalization - are equally ill-conceived (editorial, Feb. 29).

Needle Park evolved as a compromise between addicts who congregated at Platzspitz and local officials. The Swiss attempted to "ghettoize" the drug problem in Zurich by isolating drug users at a location away from the main parts of the city. Within the confines of the park, a drug free for all flourished. Outside Needle Park, possession, sale and use of drugs were still illegal.

This localized decriminalization plan served the city's interest in reducing the number of drug dealers and users on the streets. It also made it possible to focus addict outreach programs in one central locale. But many aspects of the plan were not managed effectively. For instance, the plan did not deal with how addicts would get their drugs or who could come into the park. The result: Drug users and dealers of all ages and nationalities were free to join the chaos at Platzspitz.

Things could have been done differently to stem the major problems before they happened. Switching drug strategies to any form of discrimination or legalizing should not mean having no laws or restrictions. Indifference to age limits for

entry to Needle Park was clearly one of the worst mistakes made by the Swiss. Failure to ensure that park users were residents of Zurich also created huge problems.

Planners could have removed the financial incentive for drug dealers to frequent the park in search of customers. The Swiss might have employed a system simi]ar to the one I have seen

work in Liverpool, England, where clean needles are given out to all, and some doctors provide medicinal drugs to their addict patients. This strategy curtails the spread of AIDS through needle sharing, eliminates the drug dealer from the equation and ensures that a minimum number of nonaddicts will begin using drugs.

But these criticisms of Needle Park are secondary to its major flaw. Because of the Swiss desire to isolate drug users from the rest of society, planners opted to allow public drug use in the park. While there are advantages to bringing the drug problem above ground in order to deal with it, the Swiss went too far. The spectacle of strung out addicts Iying on benches and on the grass oblivious to the world public place.

Still, to construe this scene as an example of what drug legalization or even needle exchange programs would bring to the United States is disingenuous at best and maliciously deceptive at worst. No responsible advocate of drug policy reform I know-and I know many such people worldwide-supports allowing the public use of drugs as part of the transition to a new policy. Indeed, many of the proposed legalization and decriminalization plans I have seen call for harsh sanctions against those who use drugs in public or work or drive while intoxicated. Most plans would discourage the rise of "drug pubs" similar to alcohol bars.

While reformers would not emulate most aspects of the Swiss experiment, we would not choose to make denial of the realities of drug use, addiction and AIDS a national policy either. Outreach programs such as sterile needle exchanges, which played a role at Needle Park, bring addicts into contact with health care workers and help prevent the spread of AIDS. They should be part of our drug policy.

The Bush administration refuses to consider needle exchange programs because it fears creating an American Needle Park. Administration officials need only look at the needle exchange programs in New Haven; Tacoma, Wash.; San Francisco and other U.S. cities to see that such programs can be run effectively without increasing drug use and without allowing public use. In addition to the Liverpool program, I have also seen firsthand the successful needle exchange programs in Amsterdam. In contradiction to The Post editorial, Dutch policy never duplicated the Needle Park scene by allowing public drug use. In fact their needle exchanges are operated out of nondescript buildings.

Unlike those who would like to use the closing of Needle Park to rebuke proposals for conscientious drug policy change, I believe we can learn from the mistakes of the Swiss. We can hardly feel vindicated by their failure, as deaths from drug trade homicides and AIDS are at much higher levels in the United States. We need to find ways to respond to these problems. The lesson of Platzspitz is simply that frustration with total prohibition can breed bad models of drug policy reform.

The addicts of Zurich are still there. Arnerican addicts are wandering our streets. They all need our help, and we need to find ways to bring them in. As long as we continue defining them as despised outlaws, they will keep living outside the law. One thing is certain: As the Swiss are again faced with the prospect of drug dealers and addicts wandering the streets of their cities, they will not be looking to the United States for guidance on what to do about the problem.

The writer is a professor of criminal justice at American University and president of the Drug Policy Foundation, an independent think tank on drug policy alternatives.