Newsweek International: Drug User More Convincing Than

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999
Subject: Newsweek International: Drug User More Convincing Than

DrugSense FOCUS Alert Tuesday November 2, 1999

Newsweek International: Drug User More Convincing Than Prohibitionist

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert Tuesday November 2, 1999

Newsweek International offers an interesting overview of European drug
policy this week with an article and two perspectives from opposing
sides of the subject. Pino Arlacchi, executive director of the U.N.
0ffice for Drug Control, attempts to defend prohibition, while Mat
Southwell, Network Coordinator for the National Drug Users Network,
makes a compelling case for tolerance. Set side by side, it’s easy to
see who makes more sense. Both perspective pieces are below, while the
main article can be found at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1160/a10.html

International drug czar Arlacchi not only admits his hypocrisy and
ignorance, he revels in it: “Advocates of legalization often argue
that alcohol and tobacco cause more harm to society–higher death
rates, higher medical costs–than outlawed drugs. This is correct.
But so what? Research has shown that, out of the 100 million U.S.
alcohol consumers, 15 percent suffer long-term consequences. Heroin,
unlike tobacco and alcohol, causes long-term consequences–as
addiction–for almost all the people who use it.”

In contrast, Mat Southwell looks at the situation as a human, not a
bureaucrat protecting his job. He issues a call for drug users to
stand up for themselves, while honestly assessing the problem: “The
stigma associated with being a public drug user is so great that many
break cover only when compelled to do so, by health, social or legal
problems. When we are asked to speak, it is often to play out
scripted roles, as victims or villains, repenting of our past
indiscretions. Politicians and the media wish to portray us only as
hopeless, lost and in need of redemption.”

Please write to Newsweek International to expose the deception of
Arlacchi, or to congratulate the magazine for sharing the refreshing
viewpoint of Southwell.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the MAPTalk
list if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to
MGreer@mapinc.org Your letter will then be forwarded to the list with
so others can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: Newsweek International

Contact: Editors@newsweek.com

***************************************************************************

Pubdate: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
Source: Newsweek International
Copyright: 1999 Newsweek, Inc.
Contact: Editors@newsweek.com
Website: http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/int/
Author: Pino Arlacchi
Note: Arlacchi is executive director of the U.N. Office for Drug Control
and Crime Prevention.
Also: Newsweek publishes both a US and an International edition. The
contents of the two editions is not identical. We request that newshawks
be careful about identifying the source edition, as the contacts for each
is not the same.
Related: This article was published beside the “Europeans Just Say ‘Maybe'”
article at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1160/a10.html

THE CASE AGAINST LEGALIZATION

The U.N.’s Drug Czar On Supply And Demand

Legalization? the member states of the united nations vote “No.”
Making all controlled substances readily available is a risk society
clearly wants to avoid. Instead, as expressed in the three U.N.
conventions on controlling drugs, we should insist that our
governments pursue a balanced strategy on drugs, giving attention to
both supply and demand. This approach was soundly endorsed by the
U.N. General Assembly last year in its Special Session on drugs.
Still, the legalization debate continues. Let’s examine the arguments.

First, the medical argument. No one disagrees that many controlled
substances have legitimate and completely legal medical applications.
But there are various degrees of control, based on the degree of risk
involved. In an ideal world, the risk would be determined on
scientific grounds. In the real world, cultural and political factors
also matter. The U.N. conventions reflect that; they can be amended
in response to a consensus shift concerning the appropriate degree of
control over given substances.

Proponents of legalization cite the link between drugs and crime.
It’s true that short-term crime rates would fall if illegal drug
markets disappeared. But the big-time criminals would quickly regroup
and find other sources of profits–as they are already doing by
expanding into corruption, extortion and trafficking in human beings.
On the other hand, legalization would certainly increase the rate of
abuse. After the introduction of legal opium into China, more than
one quarter of the adult male population smoked it. These days, the
easy availability and cheap price of heroin–made from opium produced
mainly in neighboring Afghanistan–has given Pakistan one of the
world’s highest heroin-addiction rates. The same problem is occurring
in Iran, where there are now 1 million addicts–about the same number
as in Western Europe.

Advocates of legalization often argue that alcohol and tobacco cause
more harm to society–higher death rates, higher medical costs–than
outlawed drugs. This is correct. But so what? Research has shown
that, out of the 100 million U.S. alcohol consumers, 15 percent
suffer long-term consequences. Heroin, unlike tobacco and alcohol,
causes long-term consequences–as addiction–for almost all the people
who use it.

Until recently, most drug-control efforts concentrated on eliminating
the supply, by hitting the trafficking routes and the source of raw
materials. Today, policymakers unanimously believe that supply and
demand must be addressed. There are signs that this may be working.
In Europe, for example, heroin-use rates are static, and the average
age of addicts is steadily increasing. In the United States, there
has been a strong decrease of cocaine addiction. The next generation
may be getting the message.

Pubdate: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
Source: Newsweek International
Copyright: 1999 Newsweek, Inc.
Contact: Editors@newsweek.com
Website: http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/int/
Author: Mat Southwell
Note: Southwell is the Network Coordinator for the National Drug Users
Network and a founding member of the Dance Drugs Alliance. Also: This is
one of three articles from this issue of Newsweek
International that also included:
“Europeans Just Say ‘Maybe'” :
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1160/a10.html and “The Case Against
Legalization”:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1174/a05.html

HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE WORLD’S DRUG USERS

Fed Up With Being Stigmatized And Persecuted

It is understandable that drug use provokes fear and uncertainty. It
is absolutely right that we hold an informed and rational debate about
it. But the voices of drug users are rarely heard. Prohibition drives
us, the drug users, underground.

The stigma associated with being a public drug user is so great that
many break cover only when compelled to do so, by health, social or
legal problems. When we are asked to speak, it is often to play out
scripted roles, as victims or villains, repenting of our past
indiscretions. Politicians and the media wish to portray us only as
hopeless, lost and in need of redemption.

Frankly, we’ve had enough. There’s a small but growing movement of
users who are no longer willing to sit back and have our human rights
infringed and our culture denigrated. For many of us, drug use is a
dynamic and exciting social activity and forms a key part of our
culture. As such, drug use is clearly protected by the United Nations
Charter on Human Rights.

Some may argue that drug-related risks are self-inflicted. However,
we would not oppose the acute treatment and rehabilitation of those
injured while playing sports. Many sports in fact carry higher
statistical risks of death and injury than many forms of
drug-taking.

When a dance-drug user takes ecstasy, he’s statistically 700 times
less likely to die than a parachute jumper. This is despite the fact
that prohibition escalates and enhances the potential health and
social risks of drug use. Where drug users face difficulties, they
would be better managed in a climate free of judgment and punishment.

Mainstream culture borrows freely from drug culture. In fact, many
dance-drug takers feel that their culture has been repackaged by Tony
Blair as the “Cool Britannia” product. The vibrant, 24-hour cities
promoted by New Labour are the centers of dance-drugs culture. Yet
New Labour’s leaders instinctively scapegoat drug users.

Many dance-drug users languish in British prisons for up to five
years, for buying the equivalent of a round of drinks. In Chemical
Britannia, the drug culture creates significant wealth for both
illicit and legitimate businesses, while expecting the consumers to
live with a constant fear of exposure and discrimination.

The move toward routine use of drug screening by the government and
companies threatens our rights to drive and to be employed, despite
the fact that a period of intoxication may have taken place more than
a month prior to the test.

This singles us out for persecution. Of course, with rights come
responsibilities. As drug users, we must engage in a dialogue about
how to manage and effectively regulate drug-taking. However, the
refusal to recognize the cultural significance of drug-taking only
serves to reinforce and widen the gap between the chemical
generation–and those who smoked but never inhaled.

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

In his article of Nov. 1, “The Case Against Legalization”, Pino
Arlacchi, the executive director of the U.N. Office for Drug Control
and Crime Prevention, conceded that, “crime rates would fall if
illegal drug markets disappeared,” but countered, “big-time criminals
would quickly regroup and find other sources of profits.”

Am I to understand that the perpetual war on drugs is a make-work
project for unimaginative crooks? If this is the case, then the drug
war has been a resounding success. In addition to making big-time
criminals deliriously wealthy, it creates lucrative entry-level jobs
for unskilled youth and keeps police officers, lawyers, judges, prison
guards, coroners and Pino Arlacchi gainfully employed.

Matthew M. Elrod

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

Mark Greer Executive Director DrugSense MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.drugsense.org http://www.mapinc.org

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
editor@mapinc.org