TRENDS / DEBATES: Should drugs be decriminalized to fight organized crime?

YES! Prohibition and legalization!

WÁLTER MAIEROVITCH. One thing is certain. For centuries, the drug issue has been used to hide economic and geopolitical interests. In 1757, the English monopolized the opium trade. They introduced among the Chinese the habit of mixing it with tobacco, a fact that caused tropism and chemical dependence. China sought prohibition and this resulted in the two Opium Wars (1839-1842 and 1856), which ended with English victory. Recent examples can be recalled. In the 40s and 50s, the CIA supported the Chinese Nationalist Army, the famous Kuomintang, in the fight against the Maoists. It encouraged opium cultivation and sale to buy weapons. The CIA employed the same strategy in Laos in the 60s to annihilate the Pathet Lao guerrilla. The same positioning was verified in Afghanistan in the 80s in the face of the Russian invasion. Worse still was the cover given to crack trafficking in the Los Angeles ghettos, with resources obtained to sustain the Contras in Nicaragua. In the 90s, discourses on prohibition and legalization reached the UN. All to establish the so-called International Law on Prohibited Drugs. In the American way, prohibitionism, repression and criminalization of the user prevailed. In fact, the division between poor and rich countries prevailed. The rich as victims of the poor. Or rather, high consumption due to cultivation and production done in poor countries. On the other hand, UN projects on the introduction of substitute agricultural crops failed. International markets, operated by developed countries, never guaranteed purchase of the new harvest nor price stability. In other words, illicit crops continued as the sole source of subsistence for growers. Given the failure of substitute crops, President George W. Bush decided to implement the Republican Party's anti-drug strategy, that is, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This strategy was well summarized by Republican congressman Bill McCollum: drastic reduction of supply, anywhere on the planet where it is found. In Colombia, President Bush released US$ 170 million for Dainacorp to dump herbicides on Colombia for five years. Thus, it caused impact on the Amazon ecosystem, with chemical pollution, river contamination, destruction of forests and the environment. In Ecuador, the San Miguel River, which passes through Colombia, was affected. The riverside population, poisoned, had to undergo medical treatment, in addition to bearing the loss of crops and domestic animals. From what is known, the second stage will be the dissemination of the fungus Fusarium oxysporum, used experimentally in Uzbekistan. The Europeans, with the exception of the Baltic countries, abandoned the UN conventions line, which to be changed requires unanimity. Countries like Holland, England, Belgium and Spain followed paths of tolerance and liberalization regarding so-called "social drugs". The best path was followed by Portugal, which decriminalized possession for personal use, maintaining prohibition as an administrative offense (non-criminal). All European legislations hardened regarding drug trafficking. So far, no country has moved toward total "liberation" of consumption and trafficking, given the high cost to society. As verified in Canada, the social cost of drugs reached 4% of GDP. Because of this, the "victimless" discourse lost strength, i.e., that the user is a victim of himself and can, privately, freely dispose of his body and health. The more humane positions, such as decriminalization with administrative prohibition and informative and educational programs, rescued the user's self-esteem and opened spaces for sociosanitary practices of harm and risk reduction. With the label of criminal pinned on, even treatment, according to specialists, becomes more difficult. The Americans, as a reaction to decriminalizing trends, adopted, for Latin America and through the mouth of their allies, the technique of blaming the user for the escalation of crime. They appealed to the truism: without demand there would be no supply. A truism that is part of the campaign to maintain criminalization. In Brazil, ex-president FHC's policy followed the rigid and outdated American model. For example, it opted for criminalization of possession for personal use and implemented a form of authoritarian solidarity, adopting the American model of Courts for Chemical Dependents. Worse still. In 1998, at the UN Special Assembly to deal with the drug issue, then unionist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed a document condemning Brazil's adherence to the Americanized UN policy. Last week, the ministers of Education, Culture and Human Rights signed a protocol of intentions with the National Anti-Drug Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic. Besides the unusual practice of ministers with intention to apply the president's policy, the protocol seeks the implementation of the policy inherited from FHC, which, unfortunately, seems to have fallen into President Lula's favor. Wálter Fanganiello Maierovitch, 55, retired judge of the São Paulo Criminal Appellate Court, is president of the Giovanne Falcone Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences. He was National Anti-Drug Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic (1999-2000).

NO: There is much to discuss!

ARTHUR GUERRA DE ANDRADE Drug use is a serious public health problem worldwide, both in developed and developing countries. For all countries the problem is growing, worrying, and despite continuous efforts in different ways, no country presents encouraging results in reducing drug use and consumption, whether in repression, prevention or treatment actions. This is the main reason why currently no country has a national drug policy that includes legalization. In this matter, it is important to conceptualize what legalization is and what decriminalization or depenalization is. Basically, by legalizing the use of illicit drugs, one understands a societal posture similar to that regarding current alcohol consumption. On the other hand, almost all countries discuss more and more intensely what decriminalization or depenalization of drug use is: the fact that a person is caught in possession of illicit drugs, up to a certain amount considered for personal use, is not evaluated as criminal behavior, therefore the individual cannot be arrested for this reason. Brazil has discussed this problem since 1996, when bill no. 105/96 was presented, which became law no. 10.409, of 01/11/02, which replaced prison sentences with alternative measures such as community service and fine payment. What happens in other countries? Let's use examples from three of them, frequently cited as "models" for confronting the problem: Portugal, Holland and Switzerland. There, drug use is not legalized, despite repeated media reports stating the opposite. People are not authorized to produce, sell, or use illicit drugs. In Amsterdam, for example, marijuana use is tolerable in some cafes, with the amount for individual consumption having decreased from 30 g in the past to current 5 g. It is worth remembering that this consumption is carried out almost exclusively by tourists and that marijuana use on streets, in parks and in public places is not permitted. Obviously, public use of other illicit drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines and heroin is not even discussed. In these countries - and this serves as an example for us - conditions were favorable for broad discussion by society of drug depenalization, for example, with the offer of good patient care services for all social classes, in addition to large-scale clarification and prevention campaigns. It is notorious that conditions in our health system, both at public and private levels, are very limited and limiting. Furthermore, the government, main formulator of public policies, suggests the harm reduction model as ideal for confronting the drug problem. Even recognizing the merits of this harm reduction policy in what is called tertiary prevention (avoiding chronicity of diagnosed cases), its effectiveness is much discussed for primary and secondary prevention models (early diagnosis). But where are public policies in the drug area heading currently? Increasingly, alcohol and tobacco consumption is discussed, respecting individual freedoms and enormous financial interests - today's example is tobacco advertising at the Brazilian Formula 1 Grand Prix: despite having been banned by law from sporting events and despite Anvisa's continuous threats to apply daily fines to GP organizers, advertising at the event was released, with the government reversing its initial position). So, the movement of licit drugs will follow the current movement of illicit drugs, summarizing as greater controls. For these reasons, I believe it is very important to immediately discuss drug decriminalization in various forums (schools, companies, NGOs, families). I think that in Brazil, discussion, planning, effective actions in prevention, treatment and repression of drug use are necessary. And currently, legalization is not the path to be taken. The discourse, although attractive and seductive, is dangerous and sterile. Arthur Guerra de Andrade, 48, full professor of Psychiatry at the ABC School of Medicine, is president of the Technical-Administrative Council of Grea (Alcohol and Drug Studies Group), at the FMUSP Institute of Psychiatry).