EUROPE COULD TEACH AMERICA MUCH ABOUT DRUG POLICY

NEW YORK --- Both at home and abroad, the U.S. government has
attempted to silence critics of its official drug policy.

It has tried to suppress scientific studies that reached politically
inconvenient conclusions, and to block resolutions supporting the
principles of harm reduction.

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 UN 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. 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
effectiveness of various European harm-reduction policies.

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

The European Union 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 commissionet in charge of
consumer policy and health protection, advocated decriminalizing soft
drugs and initiating a broad prescription program for hard drugs.

Last February the monarch of Liechtenstein, Prince Hans-Adarn II, spoke out
in favor of controlled drug legalization. Even Raymond Kendall
secretary-general of Interpol, was quoted in London's Guardian newspaper in
1994 as saying:

"The prosecution 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 President Jacques Chirac's punitive, U.S.-style anti-drug
pronouncements in France.

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.

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 which can be
made less troublesome.

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 U.S. Iegislators 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.

All that remains is mustering the political courage.