WAR ON DRUGS DOES NOT WORK

The fact that the drug war cannot keep drugs out of Bangkok's Bang Khwang
Central Prison, much less schools, is indicative of its inherent failure.
The entrenched interests riding the drug war gravy-train claim they are
fighting crime.

Unfortunately, the zero-tolerance approach to drugs does just the opposite.
Attempts to limit the supply of illegal drugs while demand remains constant
only increase the profitability of drug trafficking. In terms of addictive
drugs like methamphetamines, a spike in street prices leads desperate
addicts to increase criminal activity to feed desperate habits.

The drug war doesn't fight crime, it fuels crime. When alcohol prohibition
was repealed in the United States in 1933, liquor producers stopped killing
each other in turf battles and consumers no longer had to worry about
blindness from drinking unregulated bathtub gin.

While US politicians continue to use the drug war's collateral damage to
justify its intensification, European countries are embracing harm
reduction, a public health alternative based on the principle that both
drug use and drug prohibition have the potential to cause harm.

Examples of harm reduction include needle exchange programmes to stop the
spread of HIV, marijuana regulation aimed at separating the hard and soft
drug markets, and a range of drug treatment alternatives that do not
require incarceration as a prerequisite.

America's bizarre practice of putting drug users in drug-filled prisons is
certainly not cost-effective. Despite the historical precedent in alcohol
prohibition, fear of appearing "soft on crime" compels many US politicians
to support a punitive drug policy that ultimately fuels organised crime and
violence, while failing miserably at preventing use.

Thailand would be wise to ignore tough-on-drugs pressure from the US and
instead adopt the harm reduction policies of Europe.

Robert Sharpe

MPA Programme Officer

The Lindesmith Centre - Drug PolicyFoundation

Washington DC