Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Editorial–
THINK of a drug victim and the image that typically comes to mind is a junkie OD’ing in some squalid basement. Kris Eggle was about as far from that stereotype as you can imagine. A former college athlete, he was a ranger at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona. In August 2002, he was gunned down by members of a drug gang who had crossed the border from Mexico.
Eggle’s violent death is a reminder that the consequences of the narcotics trade extend far beyond those who take the stuff. Many of the millions worldwide who are enslaved to drugs resort to crime to feed their habit. Smugglers and dealers protect their trade violently. This lawlessness turns middle-class homes into fortresses and inner-city neighbourhoods into no-go areas. Governments are forced to spend huge sums to protect society. From this perspective, we are all victims of the narcotics trade. So are policies intended to combat this working? In the US, the stark answer is no.
For many years, the US “war on drugs” has been dominated by attempts to reduce supply by intercepting shipments and eradicating illegal crops. Latin American countries receive aid to help catch smugglers. Since 2000, the US has spent $4.7 billion on Plan Colombia, an effort to bust drug labs and destroy crops with herbicides.
In its annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, the US Department of State quotes impressive statistics on crops eradicated and drugs seized, but these numbers hide a depressing reality. In Colombia, drug cultivation has not fallen significantly – growers are simply moving to new areas and planting smaller plots that are harder to find (see page 6). In Mexico, law enforcement has had the unintended effect of destabilising the balance of power between the main drug cartels, provoking an upsurge of violence. With perverse logic, officials have argued that this is a sign of success.
The real measure of progress should be whether efforts to reduce supply are reducing availability. In 2004, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy asserted that cutting supply “makes drugs more expensive, less potent, and less available”. Judged by this yardstick, the war on drugs is a dismal failure. Long term, the prices of cocaine and heroin are falling, street drugs are as readily available as ever and their purity is holding constant.
Any economist reading these indicators would conclude that supply-side interventions are not working, and suggest a change of strategy.
Reducing demand for drugs has always played second fiddle to cutting supply. Today, the US concentrates on one demand-side target: to reduce the total number of people using illegal drugs. Yet picking off “light” users may have little impact. The important task
is to cut consumption by the heavy users who are responsible for the vast majority of drug-related crime and social problems.
There is compelling evidence that treating drug-dependent criminals reduces subsequent drug use and crime, saving $10
or more for every dollar spent (New Scientist, 29 July, p 6.) Yet most of the hundreds of thousands of drug abusers now in US jails will receive no treatment before release.
Extending treatment to addicts who have not yet fallen foul of the law should produce further gains. As far back as 1994, a study by think tank the RAND Corporation showed that when it comes to reducing consumption, treating heavy cocaine users is 23 times more cost-effective than trying to cut the supply at source. Yet this opportunity is being squandered: according to the US government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 600,000 of those who sought treatment for drug abuse in 2004 received no help. School-based prevention programmes can also cut drug use, yet only a third of US school districts follow curricula that have been shown to work.
It would be naive to suppose that demand-side measures are the complete answer, but all the evidence suggests that they should be given greater emphasis. Politicians often fear being seen as soft on drugs. They should present themselves as being both tough and smart, and appeal to the majority of Americans who back treatment for drug-dependent criminals. A poll in February found eight to one in favour of rehabilitation for prisoners, rather than punishment alone. It is time to stop clinging to failed articles of faith, and build an evidence-based drugs policy. ●
“Treating heavy cocaine users is 23 times more cost-effective than trying to cut the supply at source”
While there’s a market…
New Science Publications
Editor Jeremy WebbPersonal Asst & Office Manager Anita StaffExecutive Editor Karl SchneiderAssociate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain
News Editor Matt WalkerEditors Linda Geddes, Rowan Hooper, Anil Ananthaswamy, Helen Knight Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280
ReportersLONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir,Paul Marks, Zeeya [email protected] US Bureau Chief Ivan SemeniukDavid L. [email protected] [email protected] T. [email protected] FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter [email protected] Alison [email protected] Debora [email protected] Editor Rachel [email protected]
Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Michael Brooks, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia GuthrieTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1230 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected]
Opinion Senior Editor Michael BondEditors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George Opinion Coordinator Eleanor CaseTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected] Lucy MiddletonMagazine Assistant Cheryl Forde
Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green
Chief Sub John LiebmannSubeditors Vivienne Greig, Ben Longstaff, Julia Brown, Katharine Comisso, Barbara Kiser
Art Editor Alison LawnDesign Craig Mackie, David Knight Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave JohnstonPictures Adam Goff, Ludivine MorelTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250
Careers Editor Richard [email protected] +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280
Consultants Alun Anderson, Stephen Battersby, Marcus Chown, Fred Pearce, Rob Edwards, Barry Fox, Mick Hamer, Justin Mullins, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Jeff Hecht, Richard Fifield, Bob Holmes, Emma Young, Helen Phillips, Gabrielle Walker
Press OfficeUK Claire BowlesTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1280US OfficeTel +1 617 386 2190
NEWSCIENTIST.COMOnline Publisher John MacFarlaneOnline Editor Damian CarringtonDeputy Online Editor Shaoni BhattacharyaEditors Maggie McKee, Will KnightReporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, Kelly Young, David Shiga [email protected] Reports Editor John PickrellOnline Subeditor Sean O’NeillWeb team Neela Das, Ashis Joshi, Michael Suzuki, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner,Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey
www.newscientist.com 2 September 2006 | NewScientist | 3
Just tackling drug producers won’t banish abuse and its consequences
060902_R_Editorial.indd 3060902_R_Editorial.indd 3 29/8/06 4:26:09 pm29/8/06 4:26:09 pm
