HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/ialfax.2.22

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 23KB | 385 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: ANTIPROHIBITIONIST LEAGUE NEWSLETTER
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 01:14:10 GMT

/** gen.newsletter: 172.0 **/
** Topic: INT'L ANTIPROHIBITIONIST LEAGUE **
** Written  6:55 pm  Dec  3, 1993 by ial in cdp:gen.newsletter **
IALFax is the weekly newsletter of The INTERNATIONAL ANTIPROHIBITIONIST LEAGUE (IAL). A collection of short news about International drug policies, IALFax is regularly sent to more than 300 journalists in Europe as well as several groups and organizations worldwide. The electronic version of IALFax is posted on Agor (agora.stm.it) and now also on Peacenet (december 1993).
For more information on the IAL activities, email: [e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------
IAL-Fax, Year II N. 22, December 3,1993 - Contents:

UNITED STATES: A MORIBUND SYSTEM
Le Monde des Dbats, November 1993

THE WAR ON DRUGS
El Pais, 11.19.93

C.I.A. DRUG STING THAT NEVER WAS
The Independent, 11.22.93

COLOMBIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLS LEGALIZATION "THE ONLY
SOLUTION"

BALTIMORE REPORT
Statement of the First Conference of the INCDP (November 16-17, 1993)


-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES: A MORIBUND SYSTEM
Le Monde des Dbats, November 1993

Mr Peter Reuter is head of the Rand Corporation Center for Drugs Policy,
a private foundation which carries out economic and sociological studies
on drugs. The following is an extract from an article published in "Le
Monde des Dbats".

"Are there less Draconian ways of fighting drugs? Methods which would
protect the community against acts of violence related to the sale of
drugs, which would take account of the reprobation of society but
without producing these undesirable effects? What we need to do is to
worry not about the spread of drug use, the first concern of American
strategies, but about the harm which drugs cause, and which sanctions
can exacerbate. This perspective has emerged in Western Europe, where
drug  addiction is also one of the great social problems, but where drug-
related crime and violence have not reached the redoubtable level that
we see in the United States. In fact the Europeans are more inclined to
worry about the health consequences of drug use, relegating penal
sanctions to a marginal role. Preference is given to measures likely to
increase use but to reduce the effect of diseases such as Aids. The
distribution of syringes, rarely allowed in the United States, even on an
experimental basis, has become common practice in Great Britain, the
Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland.
The Europeans (except for the Scandinavians) opt for less coercive
penalties. The markets which create violence are subject to heavy
penalties directed against this violence. More peaceful markets are not
disturbed; they are used, instead, to work on detoxification and the
prevention of Aids. As long as drug use is considered a synonym of
crime in the minds of the Americans, this pragmatic approach, which is
a lesser evil, has little chance of being adopted in the country. The
success of the "hawks" is partly related to the way in which the problem
is presented in the media. America doesn't like moral ambiguity, and
the war on drugs, as it is played out in front of the TV cameras, points
clearly to the culprits.
The Clinton administration seems to have little sympathy for strong,
institutionalized methods in the fight against drugs, at both federal and
state level. But the other half of the task - to set up an effective
treatment system - is more arduous. The current system doesn't have
the slightest link with the medical and social services that involve the
same clientele. In the last few years there has been a tendency to
increase the number of people in care rather than improve the quality
of treatment. It is not surprising, therefore, that we have a system that
seems, when examined closely, to be moribund. The detoxification
centres have a clientele which causes many problems for society, and
people are not inclined to provide high-quality services to such an
unappealing population. But, at the stage we have now reached, what is
considered a national problem is a matter more for a good system of
detoxification than an increase in prison sentences. Coercion may serve,
first of all, to introduce such necessary forms of treatment into the
system.

-----------------------------------------------------
THE WAR ON DRUGS
El Pais, 11.19.93

In the fight against drugs, countries frequently win important battles,
but this does not mean that the drug-traffickers are losing the war. The
discovery by Spanish police of a money-laundering network belonging
to the powerful Cali cartel is one of these victories. Another, barely a
year ago, was the dismantling of a similar network, belonging to the
same Colombian cartel, during the so-called Operation Green Ice. It is
worrying that, in the time that has passed between one police operation
and the next, the drug-traffickers have not lost their ability to launder
large quantities of money in Spain, and will presumably continue to do
so until the next police strike.
Does this mean that the war on drugs is futile, and that the  drug-
traffickers will continue to prosper despite the success of police
operations? It is clear that the prohibitionist strategy on which the fight
against drugs is based causes the drugs trade, with the prospect of the
considerable profits it generates, to reproduce itself whatever the blows
it receives. This also explains why it is difficult for the battle against the
drugs trade to be anything more than a continuous struggle which will
never completely eradicate the phenomenon. Thus the immediate
efficacy of police operations - arrests, seizures of drugs, the destruction
of money-laundering networks - is accompanied by limited effects on
the profits of drug-trafficking.
Operations such as Green Ice and the latest one, which led to the arrest
of thirty people in various cities around Spain (including a number of
industrialists and four lawyers, alleged to be part of a network which
has laundered between 3,000 and 4,000 million pesetas) sometimes
allow the police to identify more clearly the means of transfering funds
and the laundering mechanisms used by the drug-traffickers. This
naturally makes the response of the law to drug-trafficking more
efficient, and at the same time more costly and risky. This is the
purpose of laws such as that for the prevention of the laundering of
drug profits which is being discussed in parliament, the reflection of
international directives and conventions. But, however difficult it may
be to follow the administrative and financial impediments which are
opposed to drugs, the basic question remains the same: will countries be
capable of creating a legal and financial network so extensive that it will
not be pierced by the drug-traffickers and their new systems of
commercialization and laundering of its profits in the banking system?
The laundering network that has been exposed brings two things to
light: the incapacity of the international financial system to detect the
drug profits which enter its circuits (profits from the sale of cocaine in
Spain have turned up in Colombia and in other countries through the
corresponding bank operations) and the great power of contamination
of drugs - in this case contamination of the business and legal worlds.
The fact that a number of industrialists are alleged to have been part of
the network dismantled recently shows that their business activities
were simply a cover for drug-dealing, or that they allowed themselves
to be seduced by the speed and quantity of profits. In either case, the
fatal attraction of legitimate businesses for drug-dealing is extremely
worrying. As is the corruption of certain members of the legal
profession who turn from defending and counselling to complicity and
concealment of the activities of their clients.

-----------------------------------------------------
C.I.A. DRUG STING THAT NEVER WAS
The Independent, 11.22.93

It was meant to be a classic sting operation against the drug runners -
only they left out the sting. Instead, the US government approved the
import of a ton of almost pure South American cocaine into its domestic
market - funded by the American taxpayer and courtesy of the Central
Intelligence Agency. The bungle happened in 1990, but only became
public last night, when the CBS investigative programme "60 minutes"
told the sorry tale of how an effort to infiltrate the Colombian cocaine-
trafficking cartels ended up as a bonanza for US drug dealers. The idea
was to set up a CIA-run smuggling operation in Venezuela, out of the
agency's own anti-narcotics offices in Caracas. A joint US-Venezuelan
team bought up 3,000lb of Colombian cocaine for clandestine delivery to
the US market. In this way, it was argued, the Colombian suppliers of
the drug would be lured into a trap. Alas the trap was never sprung.
Despite the objections of the Drug Enforcement Agency, another arm of
US government, deliveries took place under the formula of
"uncontrolled shipments" whereby the cocaine would be delivered
without interference, to remove all suspicions. The scheme only stopped
when over-zealous US customs officials, who evidently had not been
informed in advance, inconveniently seized a final shipment of 1,000lb
at Miami Airport in late 1990. But some 2,000lb, with a street value of
$80m or more, had already gone through, to be lost without trace. It
was, a CIA statement acknowledges, "a most regrettable incident". The
head of one agency officer has already rolled, and another has been
reprimanded. Admittedly there is the consolation that, as far as can be
established, nobody in the CIA made money from the affair. But that
alone will do nothing to deflect growing congressional demands for
closer scrutiny of CIA operations, notably of its drug-fighting activities.
Just last week, it emerged that a Haitian intelligence agency created by
the CIA under the very same programme that produced the Venezuelan
fiasco had itself gone heavily into the drugs and terrorism businesses.

-----------------------------------------------------
COLOMBIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLS LEGALIZATION "THE ONLY
SOLUTION"

For the first time in his political career, Colombian Attorney General
Gustavo de Grieff Restreppo publicly supported drug legalization in his
speech during the panel on the Latin American drug issue at the
International Cities on Drug Policy Network Conference (Baltimore,
Maryland, November 16/17).

"The war on drugs is a lost battle," Dr. de Grieff told conference
delegates. "It has been fought on the interdiction level and it has failed.
The profits are so large that it is a delusion to think that jailing or
killing major traffickers will result in a smaller amount of drugs on the
market."
Meanwhile, Dr. de Grieff noted, the drug cartels become more powerful
by the day, as they can count on steady income from their illicit trade.
As a result, the high levels of drug-related crime and violence in his
country and others show no sign of abating. "In the end, the only
solution is legalization, with regulations to control the market," Dr. de
Grieff asserted towards the end of his talk.
Despite this bold statement of his belief, Dr. de Grieff made it quite clear
that for the time being he and his country will not back away from the
drug war. "We should study the possibility of legalization," said the
Attorney General, "but in the meantime we should enforce the drug
laws."
Observers noted that Dr. de Grieff spoke somewhat tentatively,
frequently approaching a pro-legalization position in his remarks, but
then stopping short. He had good reason to be  concerned about the
implications of his remarks. Not only do his statements have the
potential for creating problems in relations with prohibitionist nations,
but his views could also further rile the drug traffickers whom he is
charged with arresting. The cartels, after all, have a lot to fear from
having the power of the state turned against them, but they would have
everything to lose under a new drug distribution regime of which they
would no longer be in charge.

-----------------------------------------------------
BALTIMORE REPORT
Statement of the First Conference of the INCDP (November 16-17, 1993)

Statement of the First Conference of the International Network of Cities
on Drug Policy Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

Key points of agreement among conference delegates:
1. The war on drugs has failed to reduce drug-related problems in the
world's major cities. Meanwhile, the profits from narco-trafficking
constitute an ongoing threat to the stability of civil societies.
2. Heavy commitment to and enforcement of drug prohibition has
exacerbated several of the problems of the cities, disproportionately
affecting children and racial minorities. In particular, drug prohibition
enriches and empowers criminals far beyond the understanding of most
of our citizens, making the crime problem seemingly intractable.
3. It is important for drug control policies to distinguish between the
problems caused by drug use and the problems caused by drug
prohibition.
4. Cities must be the laboratories of changes in drug policy, because
national governments worldwide are still dominated by advocates of
continuing and expanding drug prohibition. New urban drug policies
modeled after those in place in some European and Australian cities
hold the best promise for the future.
5. A new network of cities, to be called the International Network of
Cities on Drug Policy, shall bolster the efforts of city officials worldwide
to craft new, more effective approaches to the problems presented by
drugs in our societies.

Discussion:

The purpose of the First Conference of the International Network of
Cities on Drug Policy has been to provide city representatives from
around the world a chance to learn about alternative approaches to
drug policy. Many of the featured speakers have pioneered progressive
drug control strategies in their cities. These strategies focus on treating
drug use and chemical dependency as health and social issues, not
criminal problems, in marked contrast to the law enforcement-oriented
strategies favored by most urban, national and international
governments and institutions.
This conference encouraged open discussion, debate and disagreement.
The spirit of the conference and of the new International Network of
Cities on Drug Policy is one of seeking effective, politically achievable
new approaches to  drug control. Delegates to the conference included
promoters of harm reduction measures such as those in place in many
European and Australian cities, advocates of outright legalization of
some drugs for adults and also law enforcement officials concerned
primarily with preventing and punishing many types of crime. Their
views were important throughout the conference and they will continue
to be valued in the new cities network.
There was little disagreement, if any, over the fact that the
international war on drugs has failed. Delegates favorably discussed the
main points of the Resolution for a Federal Commission on Drug Policy,1
which describes the drug war's failures and the threats its prosecution
presents to society. In light of this failure, the resolution calls for the
United States government to appoint a special commission of
distinguished experts to examine alternatives to the war approach at
the national level.
While expressing support for the Resolution for a Federal Commission
on Drug Policy, the delegates recognized that the immediate need for
change in drug policy is at the urban level. Therefore, many will return
home to their cities and encourage the development of city-level
commissions to re-examine their drug control policies and to craft new
approaches. It was a widely shared sentiment that change must happen
first at the city level if the national debate on drug policy is to change.
$The delegates expressed concern over the effect of international
treaties on illegal drugs that constrain efforts to implement new policies
that vary from the conventional efforts at drug suppression. It is
believed that these treaties must be re-examined to permit harm
reduction programs and other similar programs sufficient leeway to
operate.
The delegates made it clear that they recognize the many difficulties
faced by the world's cities, including crime, violence, racism, poverty,
lack of education and the spread of deadly disease. Most agree,
however, that the war on drugs exacerbates these problems and creates
others, despite its failure to contain drug-related problems.
Delegates expressed concern that insufficient attention is paid to the
abuse of chemical solvents and inhalants under current strategies.
The delegates do not believe that implementing new drug strategies
will provide a sweeping solution to the problems of the cities. Despite
any new, necessary shifts in policies toward drug users, the criminal
underworld profiting from drug trafficking will continue to grow
stronger under the framework of drug prohibition. Crime and violence
will therefore remain major problems. However, the delegates agree
that moving toward liberalization of previously strict, enforcement-
oriented drug policies can reduce the harms to individuals and society
caused by the use and abuse of drugs. As a result, the cities will be in a
substantially better position to deal with the other problems.
The majority of conference delegates see great promise in some
European and Australian city policies falling under the broad umbrella
of harm reduction policies. Such policies also include elements of
medicalization, or giving doctors and the health care system a dominant
role in drug policy, and placing a lower priority on imposing criminal
penalties for drug consumption and possession of personal use amounts
of banned  drugs.
A track record of success has been developed by progressive drug
policies in key cities in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, England
and Australia. In addition, cities across the United States have adopted
elements of harm reduction programs, with New Haven leading the way
in terms of comprehensive programs. Consistently, the new policies
have reduced crime by drug users, curbed the spread of disease,
increased the numbers of drug users seeking treatment and improved
the quality of life for many residents.
A useful model for urban drug policy within the framework of drug
prohibition was presented to the delegates. Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke of
Baltimore, co-host of the conference with the Washington, D.C.-based
Drug Policy Foundation, unveiled a new drug control plan for his city
that provides a good example of a new direction for cities now operating
under the drug war model, both in the United States and in other
countries. Borrowing from the experiences of other cities, Mayor
Schmoke, acting on recommendations from the Mayor's Working Group
on Drug Policy Reform, would implement the following new drug
policies:
1. Support needle exchange programs.
2. Expand drug treatment and bring doctors and other elements of the
health care system into the array of treatment providers.
3. Expand drug maintenance options by broadening distribution of
methadone, while researching the use of other drugs as alternatives to
black market substances.
4. Review criminal justice priorities to focus on major drug traffickers
and violent crime, not small-scale drug offenses.
5. Create a Drug Court to divert non-violent drug offenders into drug
treatment and away from incarceration.
It was the sense of the delegates that these policies proposed by
Mayor Schmoke represent the right direction for cities moving away
from traditional war strategies. However, the more comprehensive
policies already in place in key European and Australian cities present a
fuller picture of the necessary future of drug policy. Many of these
cities have crafted policies whose principles are either echoed in or
derived from the Frankfurt Resolution. This resolution was begun in
1990 at a conference of European cities afflicted by vast problems
related to drug trafficking and chemical dependency. The Frankfurt
Resolution has served as the basis for the activities of a network, the
European Cities on Drug Policy, which promotes harm reduction and
helps cities move in that direction. Most delegates to this conference
agreed that the Frankfurt Resolution illuminates the path to more
sensible, effective drug strategies for the period in which drug
prohibition remains the dominant paradigm internationally.
Many of the cities represented at this conference will be charter
members of the new International Network of Cities on Drug Policy. This
new network will be built on the experiences of the European Cities on
Drug Policy, and will include ECDP cities as well as cities in Australia and
North and South America.
Through a computer network, annual conferences and an exchange
program of member city officials, the INCDP will help cities devise new
strategies, share information and advocate  for changes in national and
international law to accommodate their harm reduction strategies. The
INCDP plans to attend both the harm reduction conference in Toronto in
March 1994 and the ECDP conference later that fall. The INCDP will then
hold its own annual conferences beginning in 1995.

1- The Resolution for a Federal Commission on Drug Policy was drafted in February 1993 at a meeting of distinguished citizens at the Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. It has
subsequently been signed by hundreds of political leaders, academics,
medical and legal professionals, business leaders and concerned citizens,
demonstrating the wide recognition of the drug war's failure and the
need for change.
It is the desire of many of the conference delegates that the Commission
exist for a limited time to issue recommendations on new directions in
drug policy.




** End of text from cdp:gen.newsletter **


***************************************************************************
This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking
service.  For more information, send a message to [e-mail]
***************************************************************************