TAKING LESSONS FROM THE SWISS

Most people who have not been there, and some who have, picture Switzerland
the way that Ernest Hemingway described it three-quarters of a century ago.

"Switzerland is a small, steep country, much more up and down than
sideways, and is all stuck over with large brown hotels built on the cuckoo
clock style of architecture," wrote Hemingway.

And the citizens of Switzerland are usually thought of as practical people,
more upright than broad-minded on issues of morality, politics and
lifestyle, a people not given to the ready embrace of cuckoo ideas. How
came it, then, that the staid people who dwell in that place of snowcapped
mountains, placid lakes and unimposing architecture went to the polls last
weekend and voted on the outlandish notion of legalizing "the consumption,
cultivation or possession of drugs, and their acquisition for personal use"?

Well, the Swiss sensibly rejected that cuckoo idea overwhelmingly. That was
predictable. Even the proponents of the constitutional amendment to
legalize drugs, those who collected the 100,000 signatures to put it on the
ballot, knew it wouldn't pass.

And many of them were relieved that it didn't because they really were not
wed firmly to the idea of taking prohibitions off the sale and distribution
of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

What they were really seeking was freedom to use such soft drugs as
marijuana, which is not a cuckoo idea by any means.

Neither, really, is total legalization of drugs on a conceptual level. It
is worth talking about, particularly in the context of pointing out how
current drug policy is failing.

But it will never happen. Certainly not in the United States. Contrary to
a lot of misinformation, it has not happened in the Netherlands. In fact,
the closest it has come to happening anywhere in the world has been in
Switzerland. And it was rejected there by 76 percent of the voters.

If it wouldn't fly in Switzerland, it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in
a Central Texas summer of becoming public policy in the good old U.S. of
A. After all, the practical, conservative Swiss already have demonstrated
that they are far more progressive on the subject of drugs than most
Americans.

That became abundantly clear last year when Swiss voters overwhelmingly
endorsed state distribution of heroin to hardened addicts. The Swiss
sensibly concluded that it would be more profitable to their society to
provide the addicts with what they need and allow them to be productive
citizens than to leave them no choice but to obtain their drugs from
criminals and commit crimes to pay for them.

Keep in mind that there is a considerable body of American public opinion
that even rejects methadone distribution to addicts.

Although full decriminalization of drugs in Switzerland, the United States
or any other country doesn't appear to be in the cards, discussion of the
notion needs to continue as a counterpoint to the failing policies of
pouring increasing millions into minimally productive interdiction efforts,
incarcerating thousands on minor drug offenses, and building more jails and
prisons to contain the offenders. Out of that clash of extremes can evolve
more understanding of the need to emphasize and fund treatment and to
de-emphasize punishment for relatively minor drug offenses.

Clearly, the successful initiatives in Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Oregon
and Nevada derived some of their driving force from the general discussion
of drug decriminalization.

The standard argument for decriminalization is that it would take the
profit out of drug trafficking and reduce the crime and violence associated
with it. That may or may not be true. The fact is that drug trafficking
is profitable because people in this country and around the world crave
drugs to fill a void in their lives, some existential need that is not
satisfied by their work, their personal relationships or their systems of
belief.

Decriminalization may take some of the crime out of drug use, but it would
likely be no more effective in reducing addiction than the repeal of
prohibition on curbing alcoholism.

Still, it's worth talking about because as real drug policy, it is no more
cuckoo than what now masquerades as the war on drugs.

Cecil Johnson is a Star-Telegram columnist and editorial writer. You can
email him at cecil@star-telegram.com or call him at (817) 390-7663.