IN THE NEWS| DRUG STRATEGY, European cities against drugs, Jan 2007 - Drugs a threat to any democratic society | Drugs - a threat to any democratic society
You can fool some of the people all the time
And all the people some of the time;
But you can't fool all the people all the time
(attributed to Abraham Lincoln)
Fighting organised crime in the modern sense has been on the political
agenda since the beginning of the last century. An absolute majority of
politicians, law enforcement agencies, and citizens in general has
regarded organised crime not only as a threat to any decent society but
lately also to the very fabric of society - to democracy.
Intelligence, law enforcement, and customs agencies worldwide have been
responsible for combating the members of organized crime groups wherever
their ugly faces have shown up. Sometimes they have been successful,
sometimes not. As for the victims of organised crime, they have primarily
been referred to relatives, friends, and voluntary associations to try to
get whatever help and protection society failed to give them. The social
welfare system is a fairly recent invention that in no way combats
organised crime but in this respect, at best, tries to deal with those
afflicted by organised crime.
Drug trafficking has always been a favourite business for organised crime
groups, regardless of their origin or present domicile. The enormous
amount of money involved in the drug trade today makes it one of the
largest businesses in the world and, consequently, the top men of such
enterprises have no intention to give up their business unless a natural
death, a long prison sentence, a bullet in the head, or occasionally, the
death penalty, puts an end to it.
Many years ago, some countries realised that fighting the supply of drugs
was not enough. Hoping to find a successful solution, there was an
increasing interest in trying to find ways to reduce demand for drugs as
well. This "discovery" of a "balanced view" led to a worldwide discussion
about possible measures resulting in various ways to deal with the
problem, including anything from extensive counselling at outpatient
clinics and stays at treatment centres, via distribution of methadone and
subutex and, believe it or not, also heroin to caning and the death
penalty.
So far, the "balanced view" has not solved the drug problem, let alone
other aspects of organised crime. Basically, there is nothing wrong with
this "balanced" view but without proper funding, a comprehensive strategy,
and the establishment of proper instruments to carry out the ideas and the
contents of the "balanced view", it is and will remain a play to the
gallery.
This, in turn, made it possible for a group of "respected" citizens,
supported by active (ab)users, to come forward and give vent to the idea
that the so-called "war on drugs" is lost.
In a resolution, initiated by the George Soros-supported Lindesmith Center
(today the Drug Policy Alliance after a merger between The Drug Policy
Foundation and Lindesmith Center), published in The New York Times in
connection with the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in June
1998, signatories to the resolution said, "We believe that the global war
on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself."
Such a statement gives a clear indication that the signatories lack even
basic knowledge about the mechanisms of the drug scene and the drug trade.
What the signatories to the resolution are in fact saying is that all the
combined effect of work carried out by parents, relatives, social welfare
services, nongovernmental organisations, and law enforcement agencies "are
causing more harm than drug abuse itself." This is an outrageous and
intolerable insult, and a direct attack by the signatories on what they
have been asking for themselves for a long time - a "balanced view" - with
support from and actions by these very groups.
It ought to be obvious to everybody by now that the signatories to the
resolution are as big a part of the drug problem as those who produce and
distribute the drugs. The signatories to the resolution in The New York
Times, of course, have no stated links to organised crime. A majority of
them claim to be well-educated academics, but obviously academic education
is not always a guarantee for knowledge.
What then about the so-called "war on drugs?"
As a matter of fact, the war has not even started yet. To start a war
against drugs you need to know your enemy, you need knowledge about the
issues involved in the "war", strategy, co-ordination and leadership. It
is no good having one without the others. Having a leader without
knowledge of the enemy and issues involved is as bad as having knowledge
without being able to create a proper strategy. Unfortunately, this has
too often been the case. There are too many examples where leaders have
fought a pseudo-war against drugs, neglecting the real issues, due to a
lack of real interest and commitment, and sometimes due to fear of
breakdown in business relations or other financial consequences, of
blocking a personal career, or fearing that links to the criminal groups
they were supposed to fight might be revealed.
Today we are indeed in a situation where the ideas put forward in the
above-mentioned resolution have created a situation where some of the
people are fooled all of the time and all the people some of the time. To
make sure we don't end up in a situation where all the people are fooled
all the time, knowledge is needed - knowledge instead of wishful thinking,
facts instead of myths.
It seems as if we have long since passed the time when getting people off
drugs was the No. 1 issue. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is
advocated that everybody should be "tuned in and turned on", but the
advocates of so-called harm reduction measures certainly not only give the
impression that you should not be afraid to use drugs in what they prefer
to call "a safe way" - they are prepared to give you any advice to promote
their "business" accordingly.
The hitch though is that there is now safe way to use drugs. The "safe
way" message adds up to a gigantic lie presented under disguise of harm
reduction, when instead it should be termed more properly harm production.
How can anybody who is serious about the drug problem even come up with
the idea to wean heroin addicts off heroin by using heroin? It is about as
intelligent as trying to cure an alcoholic with whiskey. Nevertheless,
treating heroin addiction with heroin has now become state-of-the-art
treatment in Switzerland, the Netherlands and some cities in Germany.
This, in combination with extensive needle exchange programmes, taught
techniques about "safe use" of drugs, municipal injection rooms,
distribution of heroin in prisons as practised early in Switzerland - all
this is called harm reduction! Would there really be any reason for any
heroin addict to stop using heroin when the government provides such a
total customer "service?"
Hungarian-born billionaire currency speculator George Soros, generally
referred to as a philanthropist is one of the largest single financial
contributors to efforts to ease drug laws. In his book, Soros on Soros, he
states, "I'll tell you what I would do if it were up to me. I would
establish a strictly-controlled distribution network through which I would
make most drugs, excluding the most dangerous ones like crack, legally
available. Initially, I would keep prices low enough to destroy the drug
trade. Once that objective was attained I would keep raising the prices,
very much like the excise duty on cigarettes, but I would make an
exception for registered addicts in order to discourage crime. I would use
a portion of the income for prevention and treatment. And I would foster
social opprobrium of drug use."
The quote is an excellent example of what happens when lack of knowledge
provide the basis for strategy. It is not too difficult to figure out that
the above strategy has more to do with earning money than caring about
drug addicts. However, it must be pointed out that Soros's strategy would
open up marvellous business opportunities for less fussy business managers
to make money. An enormous amount of money could be made by selling
low-priced drugs to registered customers already dependent on drugs. It is
easy to imagine that such projects would get full support from active drug
(ab)users, but it is important to remember that it wouldn't change
anything for the better for drug addicts. The drug addicts would still be
addicted and dependent on his drug dealer, exactly as in the old, illegal
system. The only difference is that one trafficker has been substituted
for another - the government. The drug(s) would still have the same
effect, maybe even better as the government would be more careful when it
comes to purity - keeping the addict dependent and thereby limiting his
freedom.
Are organised crime groups in favour of or opposed to legalisation of drugs?
There is reason to believe that organised crime groups wouldn't be too
disappointed with Soros's proposed system even if legalisation of drugs
isn't their No. 1 option. Like in any other business, they prefer that
governments tolerate drug use, stay away from any detailed legislation,
and promote "safe use" and harm reduction measures which in turn opens up
additional opportunities for them, not only to continue their dirty
business of selling the drugs, but also to introduce fantastic offers,
including individually tailored customer services, day and evening classes
to teach "safe use", and the production of educational (i.e. promotional)
material etc.
If certain or all drugs were to be legalised, trade regulated and taxed,
this wouldn't present an obstacle to organised crime groups either. Target
new segments of potential customer groups, lower prices and better quality
would be expected measures from organised crime groups to compete with
various governments' "legal" drug dealing.
Today we find ourselves in a situation where the old enemies - drug
producers and distributors - have been joined by new enemies - those who
are in fact promoting drug use by advocating "safe use", easier access to
drugs or legalisation of some or all drugs.
The old enemies have been the targets of law enforcement agencies and
customs worldwide and should remain so, whereas a majority of the ignorant
new enemies have to be dealt with in a variety of ways.
One of the best basic weapons is knowledge. Without knowledge you are an
easy target for disinformation, lies, undue pressure, and corruption.
Knowledge, based on facts - not hearsay, myths or wishful thinking -
should constitute the platform for strategies to deal with organised crime
groups as well as educating those who still nourish the vain hope that
drug addiction can be cured by making illegal drugs legal.
Posted January 16, 2007
|
December 15, 2007
|
ABOUT US
