April 4, Vanderbilt Hall, Law School, NYU. "Is the War on Drugs
Over?" A Panel Discussion on the Drug War's Effects on Human Rights and US
Policies.
Three panel members (the fourth cancelled in unfortunate but almost
humorous circumstances) were very actively chaired by Mattathias Schwartz.
Kathleen Frydl is an award-winning historian of US policies. Her most recent book, Drug Wars in America
1940-1973, was hailed by SUNY Professor Paul Gootenberg as "the most
compelling scholarly book to date written on … America's post-war transition to punitive
domestic drug policy".
Hamilton Morris is a research chemist and an expert on synthetic
and psychedelic drug and contributes to Harper's and is science editor at Vice,
where he hosts "Hamilton's Pharmacopeia", a video series.
Cesar Gaviraia served as President of Colombia from 1990 to 1994
and Secretary General of the Organisation of American States from 1994 to
2004. He is a member of the Global
Commission on Drug Policy, which has advocated a shift towards
de-criminalization, harm reduction, and demandside anti-drug programs.
Vice drug ‘czar’ Mr Michael Botticelli was missing in action
having apparently had an underling call the moderator earlier to cancel. We were told an amusing description of the
chain of events. Moderator Mr Swartz
asked if another drug office person might fill in and when that was declined,
even the staffer, who seemed to be very knowledgeable about the subject
himself, was asked if he would like to attend and represent the
Government. No go.
This chain of events is hardly surprising in the current climate where
popular opinion and science are diametrically opposed to long-time official
Washington policy. One of the pertinent
comments of the evening was a question as to how one might get members of a
prohibitionist orientated administration “into the same room” as the activists, doctors and public health
experts. My answer from Australian
experience would be to wait until a member of one of the high profile families
is affected by drugs or, even more likely, affected adversely by current drugs
policy in America.
The moderator was highly effective young journalist Mattathias Schwartz
who writes on national security and state power for The New Yorker, the London
Review of Books, and other publications.
"A Mission Gone Wrong," his most recent New Yorker story,
gives a history of the drug war as waged abroad. [A rather long-winded but fascinating article
available on http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/06/140106fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=all ]
This meeting was one of the most enlightening I have been to in some
time. It was held in the beautiful and
high-tech Vanderbilt lecture hall at NYU Law School near Washington
Square. Three eminent speakers and an ‘on-side’ (the side of reason) moderator were unanimous in
agreeing that the drug war was not yet over, although signs were present that
an end might be in sight, at least for some aspects of that long, expensive and
unproductive conflict/noble experiment.
Mr Schwartz asked ex-President Gavaria if he would still condone his
government’s
pursuit and assassination of Pablo Escobar in 1993. Schwartz repeated his proposition that
Escobar might have just been replaced by another king-pin anyway and asked if
it was therefore right to go ahead with his killing. Gavaria had no hesitation is saying that as a
fugitive and acting against the country’s rule of law that ‘of course action had to be taken against him’.
However, the ex-President followed up by saying that the breaking of the
Escobar cartel made little if any difference to the flow of drugs northwards
which continues to this day unabated. Mr
Gavaria emphasised that only measures which affect demand in the consumer
countries can have any meaningful effect on this.
El ex-Presidente then spoke at length about numerous issues, belabouring
and berating journalists and politicians especially for their lack of attention
to drug related matters. He described
modern journalism as the ‘art of the unusual’, (making quite a lot of sense to my mind). He said that nobody wanted to hear about
public health statistics but anecdotes, even those contrary to trends, are more
likely to be published prominently than small changes elsewhere which might
save hundreds of lives. He gave an
example of legalisation of cannabis in which a teenager has a car accident and
kills a family while intoxicated even though the ‘main game’ of crime, corruption and medical consequences are
far more significant to the country.
He then told us that one of the worst consequences of being placed on ‘schedule one’ meant effectively that scientific research
on that drug was effectively prevented as the drugs could only be obtained in
exceptional circumstances with enormous paperwork and safeguards. Hamilton mentioned that this was a ‘disaster’, especially for LSD and numerous other drugs which
had shown promise in certain diverse medical and clinical fields, migraine
being just one he mentioned.
Morris Hamilton then mentioned that just one day before the seminar,
naloxone had been approved by the FDA for public dispensing. An off-label nasal formulation of the opioid
reversal agent has been widely circulated already in some states. ‘Evzio’ will be marketed by Kaleo but it is
not clear who will pay the estimated
$200 for each unit - which will include audible instructions once the unit is
opened, rather like a defibrillator. http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/04/03/fda-approves-user-friendly-device-reverse-opioid-drug-overdoses/aPUzTAmmY0uMGQn3PwMR7H/story.html
In addition, we were given some intriguing information about the
leglisation of all synthetic cannabinoids in New Zealand, contrary to trends
elsewhere to continue banning anything which appeared to be popular (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/new-zealand-drug-law_n_3696809.html )
Other panellists pointed out the fallacy of banning a relatively safe
drug like cannabis when legal alternatives may turn out to be far more
dangerous and are only or largely used because of prohibition of the
progenitor. ‘Spice’, ‘bath salts’
and other designer drugs were mentioned.
More than once the Presidente made a statement which was highly
controversial with the other panellists and some audience members: “All drugs are bad”. He
defended this, but after much goading, finally admitted that it was just
necessary politically to make such statements. Yet others pointed out that all drugs could
be bad and all drugs could be good and it was the ‘set and setting’ which made the difference. It was Paracelsus who wrote (in Latin) that
the difference between a poison and a drug was just the dose. That might apply to homeopathy as well.
Ms Frydl made the point that she was ‘agnostic’ about good and bad with drugs. When it comes to what should be more strongly
regulated she said that such decisions should be based on evidence of actual
harms, and the consequences of regulation.
So often it was said that the bans were more harmful than the drug
itself. She mentioned work of the DPA
and the legalization issues and an audience member pointed out that DPA supremo
Ethan Nadelmann was present in the room.
He had in fact just been in New Zealand giving a keynote address to a
conference partly devoted to the new synthetic drug laws.
It was pointed out that prohibition did sometimes work as with
methaqualone and some analgesics. Yet
the flat balloon analogy was used by El Presidente that if you restrict one
popular drug then another will take its place very quickly, sometimes with
disastrous consequences. One panel
member said that recent changes in availability of prescribed opioids in places
like Vermont had cause them to be largely replaced with street heroin which in
turn had been associated with very high numbers of overdoses … every one preventable. Vermont has one single methadone program
which is totally inadequate for a state which has a rural population and long
distances for most residents to reach such a facility. Fortunately buprenorphine is available for
some who can afford it.
In question time I made a comment about the lamentable reluctance of
Americans to allow their doctors to prescribe methadone and of their
pharmacists to supervise its administration.
Ms Frydl interjected that methadone is always available in clinics in
this country (a rather pusillanimous sentiment considering waiting lists and
high costs to consumers). I was
surprised but touched that the Colombian ex-President said that some of the
most sensible comments and arguments he had heard had come from Australian
physicians (probably including Dr Alex Wodak who often speaks common sense at
international forums on the subject).
We were told that one major factor in the repeal of alcohol prohibition
in America was the fear of the general population that they would be subjected
to income tax, something which only affected the very rich in that era. Legalising alcohol again would ensure a flow
of excise funds to government to use for schools, hospitals, etc. I had never heard of this before, always
assuming that it was the ‘mothers of America’ who were campaigning against the
occurrence of truancy and drunken
school children who were the main force against the prohibition of the
1920s. Maybe it was both.
Very brief and
incomplete summary of this informative talkfest - written by Andrew Byrne ..
