The contents in an article by George P. Schultz and Paul A. Volcker, entitled A Real Debate About Drug Policy published in The Wall Street Journal, doesn´t provide very much of interest if you want to have a “real debate”.

Schultz & Volcker deliberately “forget” to mention several facts that are important if you want to hold a real debate on drug policy.

In a letter to WSJ, Calvina Fay, Executive Director, Drug Free America Foundation Inc., puts the record straight by pointing out several facts omitted by Messrs. Schultz & Volcker

In the letter to the editor at WSJ Calvina Fay writes:

June 14, 2011

Dear Editor:

The article “A Real Debate About Drug Policy” by George Shultz and Paul Volcker is riddled with false statements and misconceptions which must be clarified. It is based upon the false premise that the global war on drugs has failed. Important facts found in the UN Office on Drugs and Crime data, conveniently omitted by the report of the self-proclaimed Global Commission on Drug Policy, show that only 5.7% of the world’s adult population used drugs in the past year; there was a 23% drop in global opium cultivation in the past two years, a 28% drop in coca cultivation in the past decade, and a 75% drop in U.S. cocaine consumption since the 1990s as well as a tremendous drop in methamphetamine use since 2006. At one point, we actually reduced overall drug use in the United States by greater than 50%. Clearly, this type of reduction in any other societal ill would not be considered a failure.

Shultz and Volcker paint a false picture of individuals crowding our prisons for possession of small amounts of drugs with no other criminal offenses, conveniently ignoring the fact that most low level drug offenders actually never serve time in the U.S. but, rather get probation, community service or referral to one of our nation’s very effective drug courts where they receive treatment.

The authors state that it is no accident that members of the so-called commission included former Presidents of Latin American nations. It was no accident indeed since 2 of the 3 former Presidents allowed their countries to be overtaken by murderous drug cartels. One of them blocked the extradition of the head of the notorious Medellin Cartel, Pablo Escobar, to the U.S. to stand trial for drug trafficking. It is not at all surprising that these former leaders participated in this biased group sponsored by George Soros, the Granddaddy Warbucks of drug legalization, and Richard Branson, an admitted drug user.

It is not illegality of drugs that leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials. Weak laws or lack of laws are the culprits. This is very obvious in third world countries that are lawless and in countries where drug laws are ignored, such as The Netherlands where failure to enforce their marijuana laws resulted in the drug cartels moving in and setting up business. We have seen a 50% rise in all drug consumption in Portugal since decriminalization in 2001.

Since the end of Prohibition, the use of cigarettes and alcohol has exploded and addiction has skyrocketed. In spite of their legal status, we have been utterly impotent in keeping these drugs away from our children. Black markets for moonshine and cigarettes still exist with over 600 billion cigarettes sold every year illegally. The drug category of abuse that is growing fastest today is that of prescription drugs and having a legal status clearly has not stopped this epidemic. Why would we expect legalization of any more drugs to work?

We need to return to what we know works. Tremendous progress was made when former Presidents took leadership roles on the issue, when parents got involved, and when employers said no to drugs in workplaces. The answer is a comprehensive one that includes prevention, treatment, and the judicial system – not submission to drugs that destroy our families and communities.

In an other letter to the Editor of WSJ, Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP, Chairman of The Institute on Global Drug Policy and Editor of the The Journal on Global Drug Policy and Practice, writes:

To the Editor of Wall Street Journal

Recently George Shultz and Paul Volker put a stake in the ground supporting discussions of the legalization of drugs. These fine national leaders have been led down a destructive pathway and need to stick to their respective areas of expertise which DOES NOT include drug policy.

To best understand the impact of restrictive drug policies we should compare the use of marijuana and alcohol among adolescents. High school seniors consistently use about twice as much alcohol as they do marijuana, yet both drugs are illegal for their age group. The major difference is that alcohol is legal for adults. This opens the door for more marketing and social acceptance. That may seem odd considering that marijuana is the only illegal drug that has a well-financed and well-organized lobby pushing for its social acceptance and legalization. Sadly, Shultz and Volker have fallen prey to the lobbying of such organizations.

Models of drug legalization or soft policy should pay close attention to the havoc that the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol have caused. Ironically, the reduction in some of this carnage has been through restrictive policies not permissive ones. California has seen a doubling of marijuana-related fatal trauma since the marijuana dispensaries were approved rivaling alcohol as the top cause of traffic fatalities. Experts have projected increases of marijuana use of 30-50% if the legalization efforts there succeeded for marijuana.

One of our greatest challenges in the United States is to take advantage of our existing restrictive drug policy. As examples, we should broaden the implementation of community-based adolescent drug testing programs in schools that are coupled with evaluation and treatment. We should expand our current risk-focused prevention efforts.

National leadership must expose the wholesale manipulation of the public on the part of so-called drug policy reform groups in the same way that the FDA exposed the abuses of the public by the tobacco industry.

Narco-terrorism links must be eliminated instead of quietly accepted out of expedience. An example would be the link between much of the medical excuse marijuana in California that is provided by Mexican drug gangs.

Finally, the voices of parents who cry out for help for their drug-addicted children need to be heard. Whether it is marijuana, alcohol, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, or prescription narcotics, young people and their families suffer the greatest costs of soft drug policy.

Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP
Chairman
The Institute on Global Drug Policy
and
Editor The Journal on


Leave a Reply