THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH

Both at home and abroad, the U.S. government has attempted to block
resolutions supporting harm reduction, suppress scientific studies that
reached politically inconvenient conclusions, and silence critics of
official drug policy.

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 U.N. 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. Why?
Because 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 European harm-reduction
policies described above.

When former Secretary of State George Shultz, then -Surgeon General M.
Joycelyn Elders, and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke pointed to the failure of
current policies and called for new approaches, they were mocked, fired,
and ignored, respectively--and thereafter mischaracterized as advocating
the outright legalization of drugs.

In Europe, in contrast, 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 . . . the policies followed so far
have not been able to prevent the illegal drug trade from flourishing."

The EU 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 for consumer policy, advocated decriminalizing soft
drugs and initiating a broad prescription program for hard drugs. Even
Raymond Kendall, secretary general of Interpol, was quoted in the August
20, 1994, Guardian as saying, "Theprosecution 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 French President Jacques Chirac's punative, U.S.-style antidrug
pronouncements. And the Dutch have had to struggle against French and
other efforts to standardize more punitive drug laws and policies within
the EU.

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. The 1996
victories at the polls for California's Proposition 215, which legalizes
the medicinal use of marijuana, and Arizona's Proposition 200, which allows
doctors to prescribe any drug they deem appropriate and mandates treatment
rather than jail for those arrested for possession, suggest that Americans
are more receptive to drug policy reform than politicians acknowledge.

But Europe and Australia are generally ahead of the United 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 can be made less trouble some.

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 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 the 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.

Like citizens in Europe, the American public has supported such innovations
when they are adequately explained and allowed to prove themselves. As the
evidence comes in, what works is increasingly apparent.

All that remains is mustering the political courage.

Checked-by: Richard Lake