ILLEGAL DRUGS AND THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Just a month after reading them the riot act, President Gloria-Macapagal
Arroyo has shown how deadly serious she is in winning the war with
terrorists, kidnappers, and drug lords.

Her personal involvement in the anti-crime effort is commendable. Some would
think it to be a mere PR strategy to ensure her victory in the 2004 polls,
but if she does a good job in severely reducing criminality in the country
then she should understandably be rewarded with another term.

The other day she ordered the newly formed Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency to go after 215 local drug syndicates and 11 transnational drug
groups operating in the country.

The doctrine of going against the illegal drug trade "syndicate by
syndicate" down to the level of street pushers is the right one to take and
we look forward to significant results.

Really, I for one don't mind having the President in more photo-ops if she'd
be parading drug lords.

However, the administration must not lose its focus on the anti-poverty
program because it's also linked to the drug problem.

While we agree that law enforcement measures are absolutely necessary at
every stage of the drug cycle, we must put equal emphasis on attacking
poverty, which often plays a key role in the cultivation, trafficking and
abuse of illegal drugs.

The administration thankfully is aware of the fact that we cannot win the
war against drugs without winning the war against poverty.

There is a symbiotic relationship between poverty and drugs.

Sustainable economic development that provides skills and jobs, that
provides roads and communications to open up the countryside is just as
necessary as no-holds barred law enforcement in successfully demolishing the
illegal drug trade.

It's also important to get the support of non-governmental organizations in
the struggle against drugs because the resources of government are limited
compared to that of the networks of drug syndicates that have billions of
dollars at their disposal.

The NGOs can help government confront the problem at the community level.

Collaboration among community groups is crucial in reversing the trend
toward drug abuse, crime and unemployment in poverty-stricken areas.

NGOs regardless of their thrusts can be instrumental in disseminating
information on drug abuse to young people from the small barrios to the
urban centers.

Going back to law enforcement, I wish to reiterate my position of executing
the drug traffickers on death row whose death sentences the Supreme Court
deemed final and executory.

I've written about this matter before.

We have not executed a single drug trafficker since the death penalty was
reimposed. All of the drug traffickers on death row were caught red-handed
and a lot of them are foreigners who are not afraid to make a mockery of our
laws. Really, why should they be afraid?

We haven't given them a reason.

Some people argue that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent
against drug trafficking and drug pushing, but we don't know this because
the law has not been allowed to take its due course.

The execution of Chinese drug dealer Lim Seng by firing squad during the
Martial Law regime in 1972 caused foreign drug dealers to flee the country
- -- that's probably one of the few things Marcos did right.

The refusal to impose the death penalty on drug traffickers is a big blow to
our campaign against drug syndicates. It gives the signal to drug syndicates
that the Philippines is a haven, that they can get away with anything in our
country and live to tell about it. Drug traffickers along with their cohorts
and tacit supporters in and out of government are to blame for the worsening
peace and order situation because 75 percent of all violent crimes committed
in our country are drug-related. Drug traffickers deserve no mercy.

If the President lifted the moratorium on the executions of convicted
kidnappers, the same should be done in the case of convicted drug
traffickers.

I've also written about a Dangerous Drugs Board study which revealed that an
alarming 65 percent of drug users get their drugs from friends, who are not
necessarily pushers in the way we commonly understand the term. This issue
has to do with demand reduction, what I believe is the more difficult aspect
of the drug problem.

There are always two fronts in an anti-drug crusade.

Supply reduction focuses on law enforcement to suppress or stop the
production and distribution of drugs. Demand reduction focuses on the users
and the addicts, it focuses on the prevention and treatment of drug abuse.

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 gives equal emphasis to both
supply and demand reduction because it recognizes that this is the only way
to successfully lick the drug trade (along with poverty reduction as I
mentioned).

Among the figures the government released the other day is the disclosure
that there are 3.4 million drug users in the country.

There are probably more because as far as I know the government bases its
estimate on the number of people enrolled in drug rehabilitation centers.

But anyway, 3.4 million drug users is just a little over four percent of our
population. That may not be so bad but when you consider that the average
drug user is between 15 to 35 years old, the number becomes more significant
in terms of the youth population. This is why I call illegal drugs the Pied
Piper of the new millennium.

The need for demand reduction is obvious because the escalating drug use
continues to take a devastating toll on the country's state of health,
productivity and security.

Based on studies, we have estimates of how many of our barangays our drug
infested.

I think we should also conduct similar studies on schools and workplaces.
These studies need not involve drug testing, just reliable surveys asking
students and workers if they believe that their schools and offices are drug
free. Values education in schools (as part of their curriculum) and workers'
training in workplaces must always involve an anti-drug component.

The escalating rate of drug use among our citizens also calls into question
the effectiveness of the government's drug reduction program and its drug
education and rehabilitation efforts.

I've observed quite a few of these drug education seminars, which teach
participants resistance skills against drugs and the effect of drugs on
their bodies.

We have to know if such an approach really leaves a lasting impression on
the participants. Perhaps we need to involve the participants more in the
process rather than just give very structured lectures.

As far as the rehabilitation centers are concerned, we definitely need more
of them. The common complaint from people who want to commit to
rehabilitation or who have relatives who want to do so is that it's very
hard to get into government rehabilitation centers.

There's a very long waiting list because only the rich people can afford
privately run rehabilitation centers. This is a budget problem that the
President can immediately address.