PROPAGANDA & THE WAR ON DRUGS

This is a report about the use of propaganda and the War on Drugs, or as it
is known in Australia, Tough on Drugs. It is not about the pros and cons of
drug legalisation, or the solutions to the drug problem, but deals with the
ways in which propaganda is used by our governments to manipulate public
opinion and fashion acceptance. It is about creating terror, and fear to
produce coercion and a compliant, apathetic population.

"The drug problem" has raised its ugly head again here in Australia, where
it received top billing at the recent premiers conference. Drugs in society
is a very complex and controversial subject. Diverse views exist as to
what constitutes a drug and what should or should not be done about the
issue, real or perceived.

The Prime Minister has made drugs, and the need to be tough on them, his
personal crusade, reinvigorating the campaign against hard drugs with a
three pronged attack - supply reduction involving new powers and more
funding to law enforcement agencies, education and treatment. Of the $300
million allocated to "Tough on Drugs", more than half of it, over
$160million, goes to the long arm of law enforcement, the rest to education
and the smallest portion to treatment.

The "Tough on Drugs" strategy being cranked up here in Australia, is an
expropriation of the American "War on Drugs", that has been waged by
successive US administrations from Nixon to Clinton. "Tough on Drugs" (a
phrase also borrowed from the American vernacular) and the "War on Drugs"
provide an eye opening example of the ways in which propaganda is utelised
by democratic governments. The first casualty of war is the truth, and
after all, this is a War on Drugs.

A LESSON IN PROPAGANDA ANALYSIS

Imagine putting a sign on your gate post that says "warning extreme danger
ahead". Everyone that came to your driveway would imagine what the
'extreme danger' was - a vicious dog, a farmer with a shotgun, a rockslide,
an electric fence - because the warning is obscure and implies some kind of
hazard, people would imagine what the danger might be based on their own
fears, insecurities and experiences. An extreme danger may not even exist,
yet we would all imagine one.

Vague and emotive words conjure up different meanings to different people.
Words like "democracy", "peace", "right", "drug", "health", 'violence'
"love", "crime", "medicine", "science" - mean different things to each
individual as they can be used in different ways. Propagandists take
advantage of the fact that there are some words, which are common and
emotive to most people.

Just like the sign on the gate post, everyone has their own idea of what a
drug is and what the effects of drugs are. We all have our own beliefs
about violence, crime and so on. Our views on these subjects are often
shaped by the media: "a crime plague", "violence on the rise", "drug deaths
surge"; or by what we see at the movies, or even from an unpleasant
personal experience. The result is that whenever propagandists talk of
'drugs', for example, everyone immediately conjures up their own personal
idea of what a drug is and the consequences of using drugs. This way,
propagandists can reach the hearts and minds of us all.

A recent illustration comes via a media release titled "Public Concerned
About Illicit Drugs", from the office of Dr Michael Wooldridge, of the
Health and Family Services portfolio. The opening paragraph says:

"The most consistently mentioned drug issues causing problems for the
community are excessive alcohol consumption followed by tobacco use, needle
sharing and the use of heroin - however, most see heroin and marijuana
mainly comprising the "drug problem"." (inverted commas used in original)

This media release goes part of the way towards exposing the way that
propaganda and disinformation can influence our opinions. While excessive
alcohol and tobacco account for the biggest slice of the drug problem in
Australia, the drugs that are commonly identified as constituting the "drug
problem" are heroin and marijuana. The assumption that illicit drugs
constitute the drug problem is reinforced by the title of the media release.

This leads us to a discussion of the frequently quoted drug statistics and
well known 'facts' about drugs. Statistics can be equally as vague as
words, and unreferenced statistics are the most misleading of all. "Facts",
on the other hand can be nothing more than the reinforcement of incorrect
public perceptions - such as the perception that the "drug problem" is
constituted by illicit drugs. Experts, leaders and people in authority
repeat such perceptions, giving them credibility. If its repeated often
enough, we'll eventually believe it.

Take this opening paragraph from John Howard's recent statement, published
in The Australian under the heading "Hard drugs demand a tough response". (2)

"Like many Australians, I am concerned about the impact of illicit drugs on
our community. Far too many of our vibrant and creative young people are
dying as a consequence of using drugs, and many more are failing to achieve
their potential. The impact on families, friends and the broader community
is devastating", Mr. Howard said.

Your average reader would think to themselves "Gee, we must have a really
bad problem with illicit drugs," or "it must be really bad for the PM to
comment about it". If we analyse John Howard's' opening paragraph, we find
it is vague. What is "far too many"? Exactly what "impacts of illicit
drugs on our community" is he talking about? How many died as a consequence
of using illicit drugs?" How many are estimated to be "failing to achieve
their potential"?

The statement also appeals to our emotions - many of us have children or
know young adults who are "vibrant and creative". Nobody likes to think
that "young people are dying", or that they are "failing to achieve their
potential". And , just like the sign on the gate post, we all imagine (or
even know from first hand experience) how drugs are "devastating" our
communities. Mr Howard has effectively reached the hearts and minds of us
all.

THE STATISTICS ON DRUG ABUSE IN AUSTRALIA

To turn now to an examination of the facts about drug abuse in Australia.

- - Tobacco is the primary cause of premature and preventable death in
Australia. 18 580 people died from tobacco related causes in 1996 - 1997.

- - Alcohol is the second most common cause of death and hospitalisation in
Australia. 3656 died from alcohol related causes in 1996 - 1997. In the
same year, a total of 96 111 hospital attendances were attributed to alcohol.

- - 739 people died in Australia due to illicit drug use in 1996 - 1997.

These figures are extracted from the federal governments own publication
"National Drug Strategic Framework 1998 - 99 to 2002 - 03. Sub titled,
"Building Partnerships, A strategy to reduce the harm caused by drugs in
our community." It was published by the Ministerial Council on Drug
Strategy in November 1998.

THE COSTS TO THE COMMUNITY

"The cost, both economic and social, of government-sanctioned illicit drug
use seems to me to be too high a price to pay", according to John Howard in
"Hard drugs demand a tough response"

What is the high price that we pay? What are the economic and social costs?
Here is a another example of vague and emotive language. It is not only
hard drugs that are affecting the economy. "It is estimated that each
year, 80 000 people are hospitalised due to the effects of pharmaceutical
drugs." This is another statistic quoted in the National Drug Strategic
Framework. Pharmaceutical drugs rank almost as highly as alcohol (with
96111 admissions) when it comes to hospital admissions.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's publication, Australia's
Health 1998 (3) estimated that $4.0 billion of the total health system
costs for diseases and injury of the $31.4 billion in 1993-94 could be
attributed to the cost of pharmaceuticals, and that 75 per cent of
prescriptions dispensed through community pharmacies qualify for benefits
under the Commonwealth Government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

An examination of the facts shows that legal drugs, particularly
prescription drugs have enormous social and economic costs to our society,
and yet the focus of the current "Tough on Drugs" campaign is illicit drugs
and the need "to protect our kids!" from them (4). But if its mission is
to "protect our kids", why not go after cigarettes and alcohol, which are
the real killers and the most used 'gateway' drugs of all? Why is the
government is fighting a war on illicit drugs, a problem which is PERCEIVED
by the public to be the main drug problem in Australia? At best, the answer
is that they are responding to public opinion, which has been shaped
largely by the previous illicit drug propaganda campaigns. At worst,
something far more sinister is at work.

The Howard government has committed more than $160 million of the Tough on
Drugs money (more than half of it) for enhanced drug control strategies
including the creation of special police strike teams across Australia, and
more support for Customs and police to target drug dealers. Lets now look
at the way in which law enforcement is used to combat the illicit drug
trade, and the effectiveness of law enforcement to deal with the illicit
drug problem which "devastates our communities."

A total of 85 046 offenders were processed for drug related offences in
Australia from 1996 - 1997.

The total offenders by drug type according to the ABS (5) are: Cannabis 69
136 Cocaine 460 Heroin 7140 Amphetamine 3907 Hallucinogens 609 Steroids 71
Other drugs 3723

These figures show that by far, the bulk of the money spent and resources
allocated by law enforcement agencies is being used to get "tough on
marijuana", arguably the least 'dangerous' of all illicit drugs. Several
Australian states have legalised the possession and growing of small
quantities of marijuana for personal use.

There is much evidence to suggest that pouring money into 'street level'
law enforcement strategies is ineffective when it comes to the 'drug
problem'. Even the recent well-publicised drug hauls appear to have had
have had no impact on the availability and prices of illicit drugs, as the
campaign against illicit drugs has had to be stepped up.

One of Australia's most authoritative sources of information on drugs, the
Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI), publishes the yearly
report "The Australian Illicit Drug Report. The ABCI is comprised of
Australia's police chiefs. One recent Australian Illicit Drug Report,
repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of strategies used to control drugs
such as cannabis, heroin and amphetamines. The report discusses the police
dilemma of dealing with drugs at street level. On one hand, there is the
public expectation that they will uphold the law and proceed against drug
offenders; on the other hand it is widely recognised that street level
policing can actually lead to harm both to drug users and society. Time
and time again, the report found, policing has had little effect on drug
supplies or prices, in part because demand for drugs is constant or growing
(6).

Proponents of drug law reform argue that economic and social costs arise as
a result of making drugs illegal in the first place. This is a conclusion
reached by the 1989 Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime
Authority (7), which listed the social costs of prohibition as including
direct costs of law enforcement, drug-related crime, the involvement of
professional criminals and organised crime, corruption in law enforcement
bodies, health costs, the stigmatisation of drug users, the erosion of
civil liberties in the name of the war against drugs and the benefits
foregone by the community because illicit drugs like heroin and cannabis
are not available for medical use.

DRUG USE IN PRISONS

Illicit drugs are a problem within Australia's prison system, arguably one
of the most controlled and monitored environments. Some offenders enter
prison with an existing drug habit. Others acquire a habit during their
incarceration because of the availability of drugs in jail and the boredom
and stresses of prison life.

Despite surveillance and law enforcement measures inside our jails, it is
estimated that over half the prison population in Australia -- at any one
time are intravenous drug users (8). The prison example shows that
regardless of how much people are controlled and monitored, and regardless
of the extent of law enforcement resources, the use of illicit drugs will
continue to occur.

VIOLENCE

All crime has a 'cost' to society and there is none so unpleasant as
violent crime. A common theme in the propaganda war against drugs is that
illicit drugs are related to an increase in street level crime. "Crime", is
another one of those emotive and vague words, a favorite of 20th Century
propagandists.

Propagandists have succeeded in linking "crime' and 'violence' to the use
of illicit drugs. With the effect that people not only fear 'drugs', but
the crime and violence associated with it. While crime itself is indeed,
on the increase, so too is the fear of crime, and violent crimes.

The crime control industry, as it is called by criminologists, is a
'growth' industry. Witness the rising popularity of residential enclaves,
the so called fortress suburbs (10), complete with ever-present security
guards and prison style perimeter fencing; the popularity of Neighborhood
Watch schemes, security doors and windows, intruder alarms and the growth
in demand for personal security devices. And at a national level, while
ever there is fear of crime, law enforcement budgets, and crime control
legislation continue to grow.

Although violent crime is often linked with the use of illicit drugs, it is
generally accepted by criminologists that few illicit drugs cause drug
users to behave violently. The government sponsored National Committee on
Violence has commented: 'The association which is observed between alcohol
and violent behavior is rarely seen in the case of the most commonly abused
illicit drugs'. One class of drugs that is generally regarded as an
exception to this observation is amphetamines.(9)

THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE DRUG TRADE

Exact figures on the economic costs of crime resulting from the illicit
drug trade are unknown, and will probably never be known. When we hear
about crime associated with illicit drugs, we often think of street crime,
or drug pushers. We very rarely hear about white collar crime,
specifically money laundering, associated with profits from the drug trade.

Each year, AUSTRAC, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre,
a federal government agency, makes estimates of the extent of money
laundering in and throughout Australia. This is done by appraising of the
total proceeds of crime and comparing them against figures for the known
proceeds of crime.

In its most recent assessment, of 9th July 1998, (11) AUSTRAC comments "It
would be expected, of course, that total proceeds is a considerably greater
figure than known proceeds, since we are (painfully?) aware that, even now
we are less than a hundred per cent successful in tracing criminal
proceeds." (brackets used in original)

AUSTRAC estimates an annual amount ranging between $20 million and $40
million are known to be, or at least are strongly suspected of being the
proceeds of crime, and that a considerable proportion of it has been, or is
in the process of being laundered.

Further data on this subject, made available by the Australian Bureau of
Criminal Intelligence, in their 1994 "Australian Illicit Drug Report",
suggests a 1994 figure of around $20 million restrained or confiscated as
proceeds of crime, for drug offences alone!

Here is AUSTRACs list of Restrained and Forfeited Known/Suspected Proceeds
of Drug Crime 1994

STATE TOTAL $MILLION

NSW 1.528

Vic 3.032

Qld 1.275

SA 4.127

WA 1.6

Tas 0.026

NT 0

A.C.T/Commonwealth 9.036

These figures show that the majority of money from drugs is laundered in
the ACT. In fact, twice as much money is laundered in the ACT as in any
other state. Who are the people that live, work and frequent the ACT?

According to AUSTRAC, "the interesting point here is that, if the estimates
of total money laundering presented in the previous section are accurate,
then only around one percent is currently being recouped through the
criminal justice system."

INTOLERANT FANATICISM AND ZERO TOLERANCE

"Zero tolerance in terms of law enforcement is also an issue I am
interested in, particularly if it can be shown to be effective in helping
reduce the flow of drugs into Australia and in reducing crime", according
to the Prime Minister in "Hard drugs demand a tough response."

Today zero tolerance on drugs, tomorrow on free speech or freedom of
movement? Is it possible that zero tolerance is another step towards
totalitarian state?

Lets take a look at zero tolerance, and what it really means. Zero
tolerance is a play on words by the propagandists. Zero tolerance means no
tolerance, or intolerance. And in our open, democratic and freedom loving
society, we all know that intolerance means being prejudiced, bigoted and
dictatorial. One of the great 20th Century advocates of a zero tolerance
policy was Adolph Hitler, who had a policy of zero tolerance towards Jews.

One of the aims of "Tough on Drugs" is to adopt a goal of zero tolerance on
illicit drugs in schools, and the recent expulsion of students from an
exclusive private girls school sets an example, or precedent for other
societal institutions to 'experiment' with the policy.

Zero Tolerance was popularised by the US state of New York, which declared
the policy in response to the 'drug problem'. New York's zero tolerance
policy has been exceptionally successful, crime has fallen to the level of
30 years ago. The New York experiment has become a model for other US
states and many countries throughout the world. The argument for zero
tolerance is about to be stepped up in Australia; but again, we are only
hearing one side of the story. Before we blithely accept what is good for
us, we need to fully understand - not only the many benefits this strategy
will provide to the people - but also the benefits it will provide to our
political masters.

All societies which have tried to make the citizen good by compulsion have
come to grief, and the grief has almost invariably been that of the
citizens, not the leaders. This appears to be the case with New York's
zero tolerance policy. Having cracked down on crime and reduced the
problem to an all time low, police are now in a situation where they are
issuing summonses for trivial offences such as riding bicycles without bells.

"When zero tolerance tactics were introduced, crime was at an all-time
high. Now that crime is way down, an adjustment is required. If we don't
strike a balance between aggressive enforcement and common sense, it
becomes a blueprint for a police State and tyranny, " according to James
Savage, the leader of the New York's policemen's union". (12)

Savage is in a position to know the facts. And the facts are that people
in New York are beginning to despise men and women in uniform. Police
officers are being pressured to pursue aggressive tactics, but the union
wants a go slow for issuing summonses for trivial offences.

What will happen in New York if the pressure is kept up for police to crack
down on non existent crime? If crime is virtually eliminated, one solution
would be to think up new crimes, which police could be used to enforce.
Perhaps new crimes in areas where, traditionally law enforcement has not
been required? Once given powers, a government is not likely to rescind
them, indeed, it is likely that the powers of the police state will be
extended to other parts of New Yorkers lives.

The policy of zero tolerance only applies to the population being
controlled, not to the controllers. Corruption and violence within New
York's law enforcement ranks is still alive and well. Two recent examples
serve to graphically illustrate this point: a Haitian immigrant was
sodomised by police officers with a lavatory plunger while in custody in
Brooklyn and an unarmed West African was killed in a hail of 41 bullets, by
four members of the Street Crime Unit.

Even New York's Police Commissioner has been called to account for
accepting a free plane trip to the Oscars ceremony; for using police
officers as security at his daughter's wedding; and for getting detectives
to interrogate a driver who crashed into his wife's car.

[continued in Part 2 at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n712.a01.html ]