|
|
February 02, 1997, Sunday, Final Edition
SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 1852 words
HEADLINE: A LOOK AT . . . The Drug War Debate; The Drug War 'Cannot
Be Won';
It's Time to Just Say No To Self-Destructive Prohibition
BYLINE: George Soros
BODY:
Like many people, I was delighted this past November when voters in
California and Arizona approved, by substantial margins, two ballot
initiatives
that represent a change in direction in our drug policies. The California
initiative legalized the cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes. The Arizona initiative went further, allowing doctors to
prescribe any
drug for legitimate medical purposes and mandating treatment, not incarceration,
for those arrested for illegal drug possession. It also stiffened penalties
for
violent crimes committed under the influence of drugs.
These results are significant both in terms of their immediate impact
and
because they suggest that Americans are beginning to recognize both
the futility
of the drug war and the need to think realistically and openly about
alternatives.
Our drug warriors responded by pushing the panic button. The drug czar,
Gen.
Barry McCaffrey, claimed that "these propositions are not about compassion,
they
are about legalizing dangerous drugs." I was severely attacked for
having
supported the initiatives financially. Joseph Califano described me
in The Post
as the "Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization" and accused me of "bamboozling"
the
voters with misleading advertisements. I was denigrated in congressional
hearings chaired by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and in the New York
Times, A.M.
Rosenthal went so far as to imply that I represent a new kind of "drug
money."
I must reject these accusations. I am not for legalizing hard drugs.
I am for
a saner drug policy. I am just as concerned about keeping drugs away
from my
children as any responsible parent. But I firmly believe that the war
on drugs
is doing more harm to our society than drug abuse itself. Let me explain
my
perspective.
I became involved in the drug issue because of my commitment to the
concept
of open society. The open society is based on the recognition that
we act on the
basis of imperfect understanding and our actions have unin tended consequences.
Our mental constructs, as well as our institutions, are all flawed
in one way or
another. Perfection is unattainable but that is no reason to despair.
On the
contrary, our fallibility leaves infinite scope for innovation, invention
and
improvement. An open society that recognizes fallibility is a superior
form of
social organization to a closed society that claims to have found all
the
answers.
I have devoted much of my energies and resources over the past two decades
to
promoting the concept of open society in formerly communist countries.
I have
started to pay more attention to my adopted country, the United States,
because
I feel that the relatively open society we enjoy here is in danger.
(There is
nothing new about this peril; it is a characteristic of open societies
that they
are always endangered.)
Our drug policies offer a prime example of adverse, unintended consequences.
There is perhaps no other field where our public policies have produced
an
outcome so profoundly at odds with what was intended. But those who
are waging a
"war on drugs" refuse to recognize this fact. They consider all criticism
subversive. To suggest the possibility that the war on drugs may be
self-defeating is tantamount to treason in their eyes. This was confirmed
by
their reaction to the approval of the drug policy ballot initiatives
in
California and Arizona.
I should like to set the record straight regarding my role in the ballot
initiatives. I personally contributed approximately $ 1 million, which
represents 25 to 30 percent of overall contributions. I was not involved
in the
planning and execution of either campaign or in the drafting of the
initiatives.
Those who are upset about the role money played in these campaigns
might better
focus their attentions on the substantial sums of taxpayer dollars
spent by
government officials who actively opposed the initiatives.
I can well understand, however, why the drug warriors would be upset
by my
involvement. I have no use for drugs. I tried marijuana and enjoyed
it but it
did not become a habit and I have not tasted it in many years. I have
had my
share of anxieties concerning my children using drugs, but fortunately
it was
not a serious problem. My sole concern is that the war on drugs is
doing untold
damage to the fabric of our society.
I believe that a drug-free America is a utopian dream. Some form of
drug
addiction or substance abuse is endemic in most societies. Insisting
on the
total eradication of drug use can only lead to failure and disappointment.
The
war on drugs cannot be won; but, like the Vietnam War, it has polarized
our
society.
And its adverse effects over time may be even more devastating. Criminalizing
drug abuse does more harm than good, blocking effective treatment and
incarcerating far too many people. Our prison and jail population --
now more
than a million and a half -- has doubled over the past decade and more
than
tripled since 1980. The number of drug law violators behind bars has
increased
eightfold since 1980, to about 400,000 people.
Our drug policies are especially harsh on African Americans. Among young
African American men, the war on drugs has contributed strongly to
a rate of
incarceration so high that it disrupts family structures in our cities
and
increases the number of single-parent families. One out of every seven
black men
has been disenfranchised, permanently or temporarily, by felony convictions.
Among black adults between the ages of 25 and 44, AIDS is now the leading
cause
of death, with half of those cases resulting from drug injections.
At the same time, proper treatment of drug addicts is inhibited by the
fact
that they are regarded as criminals. Tens of thousands sit behind bars
-- at
substantial cost to themselves, their families and taxpayers -- rather
than in
less costly, more effective drug treatment programs. Even methadone
treatment
and needle exchange programs are discouraged.
There are indications that our prohibitionist policies have increased
drug-related disease and death, and had a much-documented impact on
the crime
rate. Restrictions on access to sterile syringes facilitate the spread
of HIV
and other diseases. Drug addicts overdose from street drugs of unknown
purity
and potency, injuring or killing themselves and placing strains on
the health
care system.
Focusing resources in a lopsided manner on the interdiction of supplies
ignores basic economic principles. As long as demand and profits are
high, there
is no way to cut off supply. There will always be large numbers of
people
willing to risk incarceration for the chance of making so much money.
It is, of course, easier to identify what is wrong with present policies
than
to design better ones. I do not pretend to know what the right drug
policy is;
but I do know that the present policy is wrong. A more reasonable approach
would
try to reduce both supply and demand and aim at minimizing the harmful
effects
of drug abuse and drug control. I am aware of at least some of the
steps we
should be taking now: making methadone and sterile syringes readily
available to
addicts; removing criminal prohibitions and other sanctions on the
ability of
doctors and patients to treat pain and nausea with whatever medications
work;
saving our jail and prison cells for violent criminals and predatory
drug
dealers, not nonviolent drug addicts who are willing to undergo treatment;
and
exploring new means of reducing the harms done by drug use and our
prohibitionist policies.
If public opinion were ready for it, I would advocate "hollowing out"
the
black market for drugs by making heroin and certain other illicit drugs
available on prescription to registered drug addicts while discouraging
non-addicts with social opprobrium, the dissemination of reasonable
and
persuasive information on the harms caused by drugs, and, to the extent
necessary, by legal sanctions. If the Swiss and the Dutch and the British
and
increasingly other countries as well can experiment with new approaches,
so can
the United States.
Not all the experiments have been successful. Zurich's unsuccessful
attempt
to regulate an open-air drug market in the early 1990s became known
as "Needle
Park" and gave the city a bad name. But recent initiatives in Switzerland
have
been more successful and generated widespread public support. The national
heroin prescription experiment has proven remarkably effective in reducing
illicit drug use, disease and crime, and helped many addicts to improve
their
lives. Swiss voters approved this initiative in local referendums.
Our first priority should be to discourage children from using drugs.
Even
marijuana can be harmful to the mental and emotional development of
youngsters.
But demonizing drugs can increase their appeal to adolescents, for
whom
rebellion is often an important rite of passage to adulthood. And we
must be
particularly careful not to exaggerate the harmful effects of marijuana
because
it may undermine the credibility of our warnings about harder drugs.
Generally speaking, de-emphasizing the criminal aspect of drug use should
be
accompanied by more, rather than less, social opprobrium for the drug
culture.
Education and social disapproval of cigarette smoking have been much
more
successful than the war on drugs. America is a world leader in cutting
down on
cigarette smoking, and, simultaneously, one of the world's losers in
dealing
with drug abuse.
Unfortunately the present climate is inimical to a well-balanced drug
policy.
Crusading advocates of prohibition and deterrence -- Rosenthal, Califano,
McCaffrey and others -- stand in the way of reasoned discussion. They
insist
that there is only one solution to the drug problem, namely, the "war
on drugs"
and that those who are critical of present policies are enemies of
society. Few
elected officials dare to incur their wrath. Hysteria has replaced
debate in the
public discourse.
It was left to the voters of California and Arizona to introduce a note
of
sanity into our drug policy. Califano asserts that they were bamboozled
but, in
doing so, he reveals a totalitarian mind-set. When he claims that the
voters of
Arizona and California did not know what they were voting for when
they
supported the two initiatives, he reminds me of the way Serbia's President
Slobodan Milosevic reacted to recent election results in that country.
Defenders
of failed policies often claim that they know better than the voters
themselves
what is best for the voters.
The voters in Arizona and California have demonstrated that it is possible
to
support more sensible and compassionate drug policies while still being
tough on
drugs. I hope that other states will follow suit. I shall be happy
to support
(with after-tax dollars) some of these efforts, and I look forward
to the day
when the nation's drug control policies better reflect the ideals of
an open
society.
George Soros is a financier and philanthropist. He supports the Lindesmith
Center, a drug policy research organization in New York City.
