UNCOMPROMISING CLIMATE IN DRUGS DEBATE

Stockholm -TT- Anyone who criticize todays heavy handed narcotics policy
is immediatly branded as a drug liberal.

But there is a difference between advocating a milder narcotics policy and
saying it is OK to sell cocaine in supermarkets contends one of the Swedes
who recently signed a call for a new narcotics policy.

"Margot Wallstrom [director of the Swedish Social Department] must explain
what she means by a 'liberal attitude to drugs' if I am to say wether or
not it is applicable in my case."

So says Henrik Tham, Professor of Criminology at Stockholm University, in
answer to the Social Ministers demand in a debate article in Sundays Dagens
Nyheter for the Swedes who backed the call for a new drug policy to step
forward and explain themself.

Henrik Tham is one of the twelve Swedes who, in connection with the UN
summit on drugs at the begining of June, signed a call for a new and milder
drugs policy.

The call was published in a full page advertisement in the New York Times.
A total of 650 influential persons signed the petition for a new drugs
policy.

Amongst them were financier George Soros and the former Secretary General
of the UN, Péres de Cuéllar, along with many judges, attorneys and social
scientists.

Immediatly Branded

In her debate article, Social Minister Margot Wallstrom asked if those who
espouse a more liberal drug policy consider that there are less problems in
countries which have a more leniant attitude. Henrik Tham answers by
referring to the doubling of murder and manslaughter rates among young
people in the USA during the 1980's and asserts that it would be more to
the point to discuss if this is a result of drugs or of wars over drug
markets.

Henrik Tham contends that in the debate climate in Sweden today, anyone who
even suggests there should be a less hardline approach is immediatly
branded as a drug liberal.

"There is a scale that goes from wanting to decriminalise drug use to
allowing supermarkets to sell cocaine. These are two very different issues."

Corruption and the Abuse of Power

Personally Henrik Tham refers to the milder drug policy of the 1970's when
he explains why he signed the proclamation.

"The policy we had then was quite adequate for holding back abuse. Although
the total number of abusers increased, this was because those who started
in the big drug epidemic of the 1960's were still around."

"On the other hand it is indisputable that the number of new drug addicts
decreased during the 70's, in contrast to today when the laws are much
harder."

Henrik Tham also contends that a tough drug policy spawns corruption and
the abuse of power in developing countries, while at the same time it can
legitimise dubious policies in the industrialized countries.

"The most obvious example is the US raid on Panama and the kidnapping of
General Noriega. He was certainly a bandit - but the US handling of the
affair was also doubious from a legal point of view."

That is why, according to Henrik Tham, it is not a coincidence that the
Peruvian Péres de Cuéllar and three South American presidents were among
those who signed the proclamation.

The zero tolerance drug policy in the US has caused the price of drugs to
escalate, and as a result made exports extremely profitable for the
developing countries - which in turn increases the risks for corrupt
government institutions.