October 1997
 
 
 

There is one issue that Wim Kok and Lee Kuan Yew, Ayatollah Khamenei and Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro and Bill Clinton completely agree on, an issue on which there is a touching international consensus: the necessity to combat drugs. Drugs are the new menace that 'threatens' the world and against which all powers have united in a holy alliance. Where drugs are concerned, everyone suddenly 'joined the temperance movement'. Because who would want to challenge the need to fight drugs?

Drugs: these are, after all, Colombian and Russian millionaires, who - floating in their swimming pools - corrupt the world via their mobile telephones; and on the other end of the line: overgrown psychopaths who make our neighbourhoods unsafe. Drugs - aren't those the needles contaminated with AIDS that our children prick themselves on? Drugs are our children, our sons and daughters who once went to college and now, faded and grey, sell stolen bicycles. Drugs destroy the brain. Drugs are drug deaths. Drug use is loss of control, a society that descends into anarchy. Drugs mean escape. Only sad people use drugs, the non-starters and jobless of this world, they, who do not know happiness without getting high. And above all: drugs = addiction.

But is this not a distorted picture? Can we equate mountain climbing with broken necks and frozen limbs, and alcohol use with delirium tremens? Does a visit to the burn unit in Beverwijk reflect the most realistic image of the consequences of driving? Would it not be much more sensible to differentiate between drug use and drug abuse, instead of equating these to one another? Drug use is not a problem, and should not be combated as such. Only drug abuse presents a problem. If driving on a moped - though only with helmet - is allowed and if even gun enthusiasts may pursue their hobby in a shooting range, if alcohol use - though not while driving - is allowed, is it then not a far-reaching measure by a government to subject drug aficionados to an unconditional ban?

Many may have forgotten by now but there was a time when substances such as heroin, cocaine, opium and cannabis were legally available, and were used medically as well as recreationally. The Netherlands, for instance, has had a great interest in the production and trade of opium and cocaine. In the course of this century, however, and especially by the United States of America, an insane crusade against mind-altering substances has begun. This presently seems to be reaching its climax. The goal of the Committee for Recreational Drug Use can be summarised in two points:

Firstly, all drugs should once more be legalised. In the Netherlands, the use of drugs is not illegal but production, trade and possession is. This in fact, also makes the use of drugs illegal. 'Legalisation' would mean, that - if required - all citizens above a certain age are provided some form of legal access to their drug of choice. This is why production and trade should also be legalised in one form or another. What form legalisation should take is subject to further debate. Very rigid as well as very liberal forms of regulations are possible. The Committee does not have an opinion on that.

In addition, drug use should again be normalised. This means, that it no longer should necessarily be considered a disease or an aberration. Drug users form a normal consumer category of natural and scientific products. The Committee therefore aims to disseminate information on recreational drug use in order to penetrate the one-sided image in public opinion. It further aims to inform people on how drugs can be used in a responsible way, i.e., with as little risks as possible.

For the legalisation and normalisation of drugs, there are at least four decisive arguments:

The prohibition of drugs is an unacceptable violation of a citizen's basic right to self-determination. Who denies individuals the right to use inebriating substances of their own choice, takes away their command over their own body and mind; and this, although the drug use does not infringe on other people's rights. Free choice of intoxicating substances is a basic right with the same significance as, for instance, the right to free speech. Since drug use is a matter of individual consumption, fighting it automatically represents an intrusion into privacy. On an international level, the war on drugs leads to increasing control by governments over citizens and to an extreme hardening of penal laws. In countries such as the United States of America and Sweden, the totalitarian potentials of drug prohibition meanwhile are becoming painfully clear. The war on drugs is a danger to democracy. The prohibition of drugs is a strange element in the constitutional state. We demand the right to a personal high!

In the media, politics and the public conscience, drugs were virtually exclusively connected with misery and pain. This is a totally one-sided and sensation-seeking picture. Heroin addicts merely form a fraction of the so-called 'hard drug users'. The large majority of drug consumers use recreationally, and this also applies to the adolescents among them. Drug use is associated with a certain life style, and it is that life style which is targeted by drug prohibition. For most consumers of drugs such as cocaine or cannabis, drug use is a pleasant addition to an evening's chat, dance, sex, or other form of recreation - just like a glass of wine graces a meal. For some, the use of substances such as LSD or Ecstasy even forms a valuable emotional, spiritual or religious experience. Drugs are not a social evil but a risky social asset comparable to sports like mountain climbing or motor racing.

Meanwhile, the prohibition of drugs is taking on the dimensions of an international catastrophe. It was the breeding ground for a historically unknown growth of the international Mafia. Judiciary and police worldwide are increasingly occupied with the fight against drug-related crime. Corruption is beginning to get a grip on entire countries. Meanwhile, the costs of the war on drugs have risen to astronomical proportions. And in the meantime, the social problems related to drugs are mostly created by prohibition itself. Legalisation would inflict a tremendous blow to the Mafia. The nuisance sometimes experienced by some citizens through other people's drug use, would in no time be drastically reduced.

Finally, legalisation is also required from a health perspective. All drug use - LSD or alcohol, tobacco or heroin, cannabis or Ecstasy - is combined with serious physiological or psychological health risks. And regardless of the system, there will always be someone, bound to fall victim to his/her own drug use. We would be the last to deny those risks. However, for all drugs it also applies that if used responsibly and moderately, these risks are limited. And in a legal situation, the number of consumers that use responsibly would rise. Drugs should be supplied with an information leaflet with data on effects, dosage, side effects, and a warning about who should and who should not use the drug. The production should be placed under the control of the government. The danger of illness and death resulting from overdoses or bad drugs would be considerably reduced. Addicts should be able to lead a normal and dignified life, just like the persons addicted to tobacco and tranquillizers are mostly able to do.

The fear that legalisation would induce an 'epidemic' of addiction among adolescents has meanwhile been found to be groundless:

Even adolescents are responsible beings. The large majority shall - no matter how broad the offer - use in a responsible manner, or even choose not to use drugs. This is also the case now. It is remarkable that the problematic use of heroin has contained itself and this, not because the users of this substance are persecuted harder than consumers of cocaine, for instance. Society has a self-regulating mechanism.

If legalisation should occur, the use of certain substances would probably increase, in isolated cases maybe even drastically. However, there is no reason at all to presume that the legalisation of drugs would lead to an increase in the total need of drug-seeking behaviour in society. And in a legal sense, this need is already accommodated without restrictions. In this way, we are familiar with alcohol, coffee, tobacco, tranquillizers, gambling, eating, risky sports, games, etc. It is possible, that the legalisation of drugs will only lead to a shift from currently legal substances and activities to those, which are still illegal. This is why the legalisation of drugs, on the whole, does not have to lead to more 'abuse' in general, even if the use of presently illegal drugs should increase greatly.

The Committee for Recreational Drug Use is part of a growing international movement against the unjust and disastrous war on drugs. Even if to many it still sounds unrealistic or even impossible, there is no doubt: legalisation is only a matter of time. In fifty years, one will look back in amazement on the historical error of the prohibition of drugs.