Source: Dallas Morning News Contact: Pubdate: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 Comment: For those that wish to make lengthy replies, in addition to sending them to DMN, please post them to: http://forums.dallasnews.com/dallas Swiss trod down blind alley with heroin By Richard Estrada / The Dallas Morning News The recent decision by Swiss voters to support the state distribution of heroin is unlikely to challenge a growing global perception of the world's most businesslike nation. The perception of a country whose love of expediency has been misinterpreted as a love of principled neutrality. Switzerland's vote of confidence in state heroin distribution merits a reprise of George Santayana's hoary but relevant caveat: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The decision by the Swiss to ignore the record of previous governmental efforts to distribute heroin in Western Europe can't bode well for that nation or its neighbors. More than 20 years ago, Great Britain attempted to make heroin legally available to hardcore addicts. Yet an inability to monitor the resale of the drug, along with rising crime rates, has brought a near end to the misadventure. Westminster's fallback position was the controlled provision of the heroin substitute methadone, which is made available on a prescription basis at drug stores. Though also available in the United States, even methadone programs reflect an expedient approach more concerned with accommodating addiction rather than overcoming it. The enablement of addiction isn't necessarily driven by the quality of mercy toward the addict. Instead, it seems to be a presumed quick fix to social problems stemming from heroin use. According to press reports, the 71 percent of Swiss voters who supported state heroin distribution at the polls in late September wanted to reduce social problems such as property crime and the incidence of AIDS. Drug policy experts place such goals under the umbrella term "harm reduction." But the Swiss study cited by proponents of an experimental heroin distribution program for 1,100 hardcore addicts appears to have been deeply flawed. According to Wayne Roques, a retired Drug Enforcement Administration agent who now works as a consultant on antidrug efforts in South Florida, the study rightly noted a reduction in property crime but failed to note a simultaneous increase in violent crime. "The drug legalization crowd sets up a straw man on the issue of drug use and crime by individuals," says Mr. Roques. "They pretend that hard drugs lead to problems with individual crime only because the users can't obtain the drugs through legal channels." Mr. Roques insists that hardcore heroin addicts typically fall short of role model material. "What is conveniently overlooked is that hardcore addicts are often destitute and will therefore engage in crime in order to meet basic needs such as food and shelter," he notes. Another category of crime that drug "decriminalizers" find convenient to ignore is that of crime in the home. Heroin addicts may be more mellow than hardcore cocaine users because of the inherent properties of heroin. But decreased inhibitions or inattentiveness brought on by sustained heroin use can result in the abuse or criminal neglect of spouses and children. As for HIV, Mr. Roques says the study conducted in Switzerland painted a rosy picture because it relied solely on the word of the heroin users. There was no control group. Fortunately, other European nations are standing firm. Even before the Swiss heroin vote, the federal government in Germany formally rejected a plan by the state of SchleswigHolstein to allow pharmacies to sell limited quantities of marijuana and hashish on a trial basis. Federal officials explained that the state plan had no effective way to prevent the resale of the officially sanctioned drugs to kids "or in larger than permissible quantities." Perhaps Switzerland isn't as far gone as it appears from this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps a genuine desire to do the compassionate thing has temporarily misled its citizens or about 30 percent of all eligible voters. Yet just as surrender will not do in fighting the drug war, neither will "neutrality."