Europe Could Teach America Much About Drug Policy

By Ethan A. Nadelmann

NEW YORK --- Both at home and abroad, the U.S. government has

attempted to silence critics of its official drug policy.

It has tried to suppress scientific studies that reached

politically inconvenient conclusions, and to block resolutions

supporting the principles of harm reduction.

In May 1994 the State Department forced the last-minute cancellation

of a World Bank conference on drug trafficking to which critics of

U.S. drug policy had been invited. That December the U.S. delegation

to an international meeting of the UN Drug Control Program refused to

sign any statement incorporating the phrase "harm reduction."

In early 1995 the State Department successfully pressured the World

Health Organization to scuttle the release of a report it had

commissioned from a panel that included many of the world's leading

experts on cocaine. The report included the scientifically

incontrovertible observations that traditional use of coca leaf in

the Andes causes little harm to users and that most consumers of

cocaine use the drug in moderation with few detrimental effects.

Hundreds of congressional hearings have addressed multitudinous

aspects of the drug problem, but few have inquired into the

effectiveness of various European harm-reduction policies.

In Europe, informed, public debate about drug policy is increasingly

common in government, even at the EU level. In June 1995 the European

Parliament issued a report acknowledging that "there will always be a

demand for drugs in our societies" and that "the policies followed so

far have not been able to prevent the illegal drug trade from

flourishing."

The European Union called for serious consideration of the

Frankfurt Resolution, a statement of harm-reduction principles

supported by a transnational coalition of 31 cities and regions.

In October 1996 Emma Bonino, the European commissioner in charge of

consumer policy and health protection, advocated decriminalizing soft

drugs and initiating a broad prescription program for hard drugs.

Last February the monarch of Liechtenstein, Prince Hans-Adam II,

spoke out in favor of controlled drug legalization. Even Raymond

Kendall, secretary-general of Interpol, was quoted in London's

Guardian newspaper in 1994 as saying:

"The prosecution of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens every

year is both hypocritical and an affront to individual, civil and

human rights.... Drug use should no longer be a criminal offense. I am

totally against legalization but in favor of decriminalization for the

user."

One can, of course, exaggerate the differences between attitudes in the

United States and those in Europe and Australia. Many European leaders

still echo President Jacques Chirac's punitive, U.S.-style anti-drug

pronouncements in France.

Conversely, support for harm-reduction approaches is growing in the

United States, notably and vocally among public-health professionals

but also, more discreetly, among urban politicians and police

officials.

But Europe and Australia are generally ahead of the IJnited States in

their willingness to discuss openly and experiment pragmatically with

alternative policies that might reduce the harm to both addicts and

society.

Public-health officials in many European cities work closely with

police, politicians, private physicians and others to coordinate

efforts. Community policing treats drug dealers and users as

elements of the community that need not be expelled but which can be

made less troublesome. Such efforts, including crackdowns on open

drug scenes in Zurich, Bern and Frankfurt, are devised and

implemented in tandem with initiatives to address health and housing

problems.

In the United States, in contrast, politicians presented with new

approaches do not ask "Will they work?" but only, "Are they tough

enough?" Many U.S. legislators are reluctant to support

drug-treatment programs that are not punitive, coercive and

prison-based, and many criminal justice officials still view prison as

a quick and easy solution for drug problems.

The lessons from Europe and Australia are compelling. Drug-control

policies should focus on reducing drug-related crime, disease and

death, not the number of casual drug users. Stopping th spread of HIV

by and among drug users by making sterile syringes and methadone

readily available must be the first priority.

American politicians need to explore, not ignore or automatically

condemn, promising policy options such as cannabis decriminalization,

heroin prescription and the integration of harm-reduction principles

into community policing strategies. Central governments must back, or

at least not hinder, the efforts of municipal officials and citizens to

devise pragmatic approaches to local drug problems.

All that remains is mustering the political courage.

The writer is director of the Lindesmith Center, a drug policy research

institute funded by George Soros, and the author of "Cops Across

Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement."

This article, adapted from a longer version in Foreign Affairs

magazine, was distributed by the New York Times Syndicate.