Lorenz Böllinger (Ed.), published in print in 1994 by Peter Lang
Publishers ISBN 3-631-47426-1
As early as 1875 the U.S.A. were the first industrialized nation to pass and implement a criminal law against the use of Opium. Retrospective analysis shows that it was basically part of an array of legal measures aimed at discriminating the Chinese ethnic minority during severe economic crisis. The Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) and the Harrison Act (1914) were also declared to be of pure concern about public health in view of increasing Opium use even though decrease in use due to enhanced knowledge about the risks was already well visible. These acts mark the beginning of harsh worldwide repression of narcotic and psychotropic drug use lasting until today. The basic underlying double bind pattern is still being used today: the drug scare serves as a symbolic vehicle for hidden political purposes which cannot be openly attained.
It was largely by US dominance that criminal law repression as well as the underlying pattern resulted in the international accords of Shanghai (1909), The Hague (1912) and Geneva (1931). Germany in its Opium Laws of 1920 and 1929 submissively adhered to these. This adherence started to be slavish with the implementation of the Single Convention of 1961 and the International Accord of 1971 by the German Narcotics Law (Betaubungsmittel-Gesetz) of 1971. The latest stage of factual submission and over-accomplishment came by the Narcotics Law revision of 1981 which postulated a dual strategy of treatment for users and harsh repression for dealers. All this culminated when in 1989 the German government in a very superficial move of political maneuvering produced the "Nationaler Rauschgiftbekampfungsplan" (National Plan for the Fight Against Drugs) which was by and large an imitation of Reagan s "War on Drugs". It contained nothing but "More of the Same!" in terms of previous drug policy. The implementation of that "plan" got stuck before the treatment system was really improved and after a lot of money was poured into increasing police resources and numerous law changes were made implying yet more repression: e.g. a maximum sentence of up to 15 years for mere possession of Cannabis containing more than 7,5 grams of THC. Even more repression was installed in 1992 by a law labeled "Fight against Organized Crime" and yet another law serving to implement the 1988 UN Vienna Convention. The other European Counties more or less adopted the militant USA and UN strategies - except the Netherlands which managed to stick to their specific middle-of-the-road line.
It seems characteristic of a stern and authoritarian mentality that the only genuinely German addition to its imported drug policy "Made in U.S.A." was that of compulsive drug free treatment and fenish exclusion of any kind of maintenance to abstinence treatment. The medical and psychotherapy professions willingly took over the task - and the spoils - of this kind of "soft" social control. The widespread U.S. practice and theory of "maintenance to abstinence" methadone treatment was virtually ignored. The therapeutical field willingly succumbed to the ideology of pain inflicting by punishment serving as a tool to cause "suffering pressure" and thereby initiate therapeutical motivation within the drug convict.
Those recent developments took place all the while the total failure of this kind of "sugar-and-whip" drug policy becaxne more and more evident in rising figures of drug use and soaring negadve outcomes of criminality, morbidity and mortality. These nevertheless continued to be causally ascribed solely to the use of illegal drugs. The very first questioning of U.S. hegemony in drug policy took place when, starting in the early 1980s, informations and insights from the Netherlands about accepting drug use, liberal maintenance treatment, decriminalization and a shrewd policy of "market separation" could not be thwarted any more.
The facade was that of a solid consensus about abstinence as the only legitimate aim of drug policy and as a precondition for any "real" help. But behind that facade an erosive process started within the justice, police and treatment systems. Grounding for this was the increasing "front line" experience with junkies and - ironically - the AIDS scare where the necessity of help while tolerating continued drug use was most evident. This so-called "acceptance paradigm" has since started to gain ground, if not prevail over the "abstinence paradigm". But at any rate the declared "ultimate goal" of any kind of intervention still has to be abstinence. In fact it can be observed that the control system has rearranged itself on a new level: the "acceptance principle" has been partially usurped and is being instrumentalized for even more efficient control mechanisms. One striking example is the application and registering procedure for methadone recipients where there remains hardly any protection of personal data. The medical field has been successfully integrated into the control and the vested interests of the treatment field are guaranteed. The basic repressive philosophy of German drug policy thus remains unharmed. So on the surface German Drug Policy is as Americanized as ever. The puzzling question is how in spite of erosive processes, rational insight and favorable experience with acceptance and decriminalization this irrational and extremely costly drug control system can persist.
The most important underlying factor for this probably is the increasingly well organized vested interest of European law enforcement agencies of all levels and all kinds. They are more than ever instrumentalizing the drug problem as a legitimizing pretext and political vehicle for continuously intensifying law enforcement and social control. This has to be seen in the light of the end of the Cold War as much as of the new economic war between North and South. Drug users thus are - like the Chinese in the U.S. of 1875 - symbolically ready scapegoats for a hidden curriculum beyond the drug problem. That is to perpetuate and increase the relative social power of the law enforcement system, which by increasingly clandestine practices more and more resembles secret services and the pertaining dangers of a "state in the state".
But on the other side "subterranean" erosion continues, now in the direction of legalization and in a fundamental qualitative swing away from American dominance and toward a genuine European drug policy. Forerunners of such rational, pragmatic and human rights oriented approaches are Holland, Great Britain and Switzerland. In Europe - as it seems more than in the U.S.A. - the drive for legalization is essentially put forward from four different bases of argument:
The German Supreme Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) decision on the constitutionality of banning Cannabis of March 1994 brought no real change as it only condoned a cautious liberalization by decriminalizing personal acquisition and use of cannabis while insisting on harshly repressing cannabis traffic. There remains the normative contradiction though it does not necessarily exclude sudden switches and changes in drug policy and law making for ever. But for the time being things are not moving in Germany as the year of 1994 will be one string of regional and state elections ahead of national elections in October. There are indications that the Social Democratic Party, should it come to power, is ready to debate liberalization of drug policy - but only after the elections. Anyway, time is ripe for a thorough re-thinking of drug policy. In the Netherlands the issue seems even further progressed according to the profound experience in using non-paternalistic, liberal acceptance approaches.
Now in the open situation we have this book tries to fill information and interpretation gaps. Those gaps keep the abstinence facade from eroding and crumbling even faster: many myths and ideologies about illegal drugs and the ways and means how to fight them in Germany have an amazing stability even among intellectuals. The papers assembled in this reader are therefore aiming primarily at the German audience, but also at the other European Union countries. This is why it is being published in English. Most of the papers assembled in this book were presented by the authors during the course of a fascinating series of conferences and lectures staged in 1993 by the Bremen Institute of Drug Research (BISDRO) which ist part of the Social Science and Law Faculties of Bremen University.
The first part of the book focusses on the U.S.A. as the pioneer of prohibition and the protagonist of "Drug War" hegemony. The first article by Craig Reinarman and Harry Levine From Prohibition to Regulation: Lessons from Alcohol Policy for Drug Policy is a profound analysis of universal mechanisms and processes to be expected from prohibition policies. It is shown how in a generalizable manner specific interactions of vested interests, political symbolism and power managing dramaturgy lead into a deadlock where the only way out was legalization and regulation. The same co-authors exemplify one essential segment of that process in their second paper, The Construction of America's Crack Crisis. The relative recency of the Crack scare makes it possible to vividly show the making, staging and instrumentalizing of a myth, based on ample proof and evidence. Diana Gordon in her piece Drugs, Race, and the "Dangerous Classes": Policy Politics in American Drug Prohibition presents a plethora of evidence for her theoretical approach: cumulative discrimination and overcontrol of certain subcultures defined by ethnicity, drug use etc. in the interest of socio-economic power stability. Her contribution puts special weight into the legal theory discourse.
Following this are two examples of drug related harm not so commonly known to drug policy research: Having observed and throughly studied an especially repressive drug control venture in an inner-city Lynn Zimmer in her piece "American Inner-Cities and Drug Policing: Strategies That Maximize Harm to Individuals and Communities" concludes that such measures not only cause maximum harm to users but also maximize harm in the broader community. John Morgan subsequently shows that the criminal policy attempt to minimize drug use systematically and inevitably results in extreme kinds of harm. In his article "Poisons and Prohibition: The Persistance of Folly" he proves this by a historic and by a recent example of deadly contaminations of illicit drugs.
The second part of the reader focusses on the Dutch situation and perspective. Otto Janssen in his talk Normalization of the Drugs Problem: An Outline of the Dutch Drugs Policy briefly and clearly summarizes the relevant features of the Dutch Drugs Policy. The implementation of a liberal and pragmatic approach can well be understood in its contrast to and conflict with the other European countries. In his piece About Netherweed and Coffieshops. An Essay on Cannabis in Durch Society now and in the Future Mario Lap then takes a close and critical look at the controversial Dutch Coffie-Shops. He thoroughly analyses and criticises their present functions and in a theoretical manner deducts certain perspectives and necessary future actions and developments. Freek Polak and Mario Lap then present their Response to the Report 1992 by the INCB (International Narcotics Control Board). This is of great importance as the highly official and efficient myths of the U.N. which were held against the Netherlands during a visit of the INCB to that country are being thoroughly analysed.
In the third part of the book I have grouped pieces with future perspectives based on fundamental historic and normative thinking. Freek Polak analyses The Medicalization of (Problematic) Intoxicant Use and the Medical Provision of Psychoactive Drugs as a possible way of regulation. What makes his article extremely important is that he shows the "dark sides" of medicalization especially the vast potential of controlling the most intimate sphere of the individual. This can be dangerous under the democratic and human rights aspect. Peter Cohen in his article Rethinking Drug Control Policy: Historical Perspectives and conceptual tools devises concepts and regulative instruments for an alternative global drug control policy based on historic analysis and grounded theory. He also shows ways and means of political procedure to arrive at sound results.
Lorenz Bollinger in German Drug Laws, Supranational European Developments and the Question of Constitutionality adds a comprehensive legal analysis from the basic human rights as well as the social and democratic structure perspective. This pertains to the German legal system but is of universa1 meaning as a normative legitimation of drug policy changes based on empirical and theoretical analysis. The conclusion of the volume is marked by the very integrative text of Ethan Nadelman: Thinking Seriously About Alternatives to Drug Prohibition, which encompasses in a sense of positive pragmatism possible options of future regulation of psy-chotropic drugs.
From Prohibition to Regulation: Lessons from Alcohol Policy
for Drug Policy
Harry G. Levine and Craig Rainerman
The Construction of America's Crack Crisis
Craig Rainerman and Harry G. Levine
Drugs, Race, and the "Dangerous Classes": Policy
Politics in American Drug Prohibition
Diana R. Gordon
American Inner-Cities and Drug Policing: Strategies That
Maximize Harm to Individuals and Communities
Lynn Zimmer
Poisons and Prohibitions: The Persistance of Folly
John P. Morgan
Normalization of the Drugs Problem: an Outline of the Dutch
Drugs Policy
Otto Janssen
About Netherweed and Coffeeshops. An Essay on Cannabis in
Dutch Society now and in the future
Mario Lap
Response to the 1992 & 1993 reports by the INCB (International
Narcotics Control Board)
Freek Polak and Mario Lap
The Medicalization of (Problematic) Intoxicant Use and the
Medical Provision of Psychoactive Drugs
Freek Polak
Re-thinking
Drug Control Policy: Historical Perspectives and Conceptual
Tools
Peter Cohen
German Drug Laws Supra-national European Developments and the
question of Constitutionality
Lorenz Böllinger
Thinking
Seriously about Alternatives to Drug Prohibition
Ethan A. Nadelmann
Dr. Lorenz BöLLINGER is a professor of Criminal Law and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of Bremen University, Germany; he also bolds a MA in Psychology and practises als a Psychoanalyst (member of the IPA); he has predominantly done research and published in the follo-wing fields: social and criminal control of terrorism, sexual deviance and illicit drugs.
Dr. Peter COHEN, PhD, educated as a social psychologist and sociologist, is a drug use and drug policy researcher in the School of Environmental Studies, University of Amsterdam. Published on diffferent topics in the field of drugs, like history of drug policy, the role of science in the construction of tbe drug problem, epidemiology and lately, patterns of cocaine use with experienced community based cocain users in Amsterdam. He directed a five year project, the Amsterdam Drug Research Program, 1984-1988.
Dr. Diane GORDON is a professor of political science at the City Col-lege of New York, City University of New York. Her areas of research and teaching are in American politics, law, public policy, law and society, and criminology. She has been acting president of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and editor/writer with Justice Watch, newsletter on national justice policy.
Dr. Otto JANSSEN is a professor of criminology and youth criminology at the Rijksuniversiteit of Groningen/Holland. His general research and teaching is in the field of social control, policy outcome and determinants of policy changes. As reflected in a number of publications he is one of the Dutch experts in the field of drug policy research.
Mario LAP is responsible for policy and legal matters at the NIAD, Netherlands Institute on Alcohol and Drugs, Utrecht. Furthermore he is the editor on policy and legislation within the Dutch Focal Point of the European Monitoring Center on Drugs and Drug Addiction and the author of a draft of a cannabis law.
Dr. Harry LEVINE is a professor of sociology at Queens College and at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He has published widely on the social history of alcohol as well as drug issues in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Milbank Quarterly, The British Journal of Addiction, Journal of Gastronomy, Zeitschrift fur Suchtforschung, Alkohol politik and Kriminalsoziologische Bibliographie. He is currently completing a history of the alcohol problems in America for Basic Books.
Dr. John P. MORGAN is a physician and Professor of Pharmacology at the Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education als City College, City University of New York. Dr. Morgan recieved his medical degree from the University of Cincinatti, was trained in internal medicine at Upstate Medical Center, and was trained in clinical pharmacology at the John Hopkins. He has written extensively on the topic of alcohol, drugs, and public policy. Current projects include studies of marjuana toxicity, the use of marijuana as medicine, the social pharmacology of crack/cocaine, and the impact of drug prohibition on drug policy und purity.
Dr. Ethan NADELMAN has until 1994 been an associate professor of political science at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. He now heads the Open Society Institute at New York City. His research deals with general patterns and strategies of steering social conflicts and with specific aspects of present and future, national and international drug control. He has widely published and appeared in the media regarding drug policy.
Dr. Freek POLAK is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. In addition to his private practice, he has worked at the Amsterdam and the Zaanstreek/Waterland Institutes for Medical Psychotherapy, and since 1990 in the Mental Health Service and the Drugs Department of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service. He has written on various aspects of psychotherapy in Tydschrift voor Psychotherapie [Journal of Psychotherapy] and Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid [Public Mental Health Monthly]. Together with Mario Lap he has written "Response to the report on 1992 by the INCB (International Narcotics Control Board)", 1992, Tijdschrift voor Alcohol, Drugs en Psychotrope Stoffen, 18, 4, 216-224. (Not yet published in english.)
Dr. Craig REINARMAN is a professor of sociology and (adjunct) Legal Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He is co-author of Cocaine Changes (Temple University Press, 1991), and has published widely on drug issues in The British Journal of Addiction, Theory and Society, Contemporary Drug Problems, Journal of Drug issues and the International Journal of Drug Policy. He is currently conducting comparative-historical research on Dutch political culture and drug law and completing, with Harry G. Levine, an edited book on crack cocaine and public policy.
Dr. Lynn ZIMMER is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Queens College, City University of New York. She received her PhD in Sociology from Cornell University in 1982. Her recent research includes studies of street-level drug enforcement, workplace drug testing, the role of rhetoric in drug-war politics, and the impact of implementation of die 21-drinking age for alcoholic beverages in the United States.