June 10, 2001 Please Distribute Widely Narco News to Debate Davidow U.S. Ambassador Explodes vs. Drug Legalization in Mexico A Cyber-Debate: http://www.narconews.com/thegreatdebate.html Narco News Translates Text of June 1 Speech by Jeffrey Davidow Publisher's Note: The Narco News Bulletin has obtained the text of a speech given on June 1 in Mexico by the United States Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, which reveals Washington's worry over the fast-growing drug legalization movement in Mexico. It is a speech filled with errors in fact, falsehoods, long-discredited claims and, above all, one that - by the very fact that Davidow felt he had to overtly lobby Mexicans against drug legalization - shows the great foothold that this movement has now taken in this grand country of 100 million citizens. As The Narco News Bulletin has extensively reported over the past year, the nation's indigenous rights movement, journalists, politicians, human rights workers, law enforcers, diplomats - from the national public safety czar, to the nation's top police officer, to the secretary of state, to the president of Mexico - have spoken openly and favorably about the absolute necessity of ending drug prohibition. Those reports are archived at http://www.narconews.com/ Ambassador Davidow - a career State Department operative who cut his diplomatic teeth in the U.S. Embassy in Chile from 1971-1974 (before, during, and after the US-imposed military coup by General Augusto Pinochet) - chose to make his speech on a date that the Narco Newsroom had already announced that it would be outside of Mexico (at the international Stop The Drug War conference in Albuquerque). However, thanks to the rapid assistance of our correspondents in Mexico, we have obtained the text of his speech, translated it back to English, and publish it today. The Narco News Bulletin invites you, members of Civil Society, to join the debate with U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow. Many of you are experts in your fields that relate to the health, public safety, human rights, free speech, policy and moral leadership on the issue of drug prohibition in our Am�rica. Whether you are academic scholars or rank-and-file members of Civil Society, you have direct knowledge and information on one or more of the themes that Davidow tried to argue last week in Mexico. This is an invitation and a call for you to: A. Read Davidow's speech against drug legalization. B. Pick out the section of the Ambassador's argument that touches upon your area of expertise or your direct experience. C. Correct the Ambassador's facts and logic. D. Write a paragraph or two in response, based on the true facts. E. Send your response, via e-mail, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Narco News Bulletin will publish the most relevant responses - please don't forget to add your name and your title relevant to the theme - and translate many of them to Spanish. We will then send them widely to more than 600 members of the Mexican press corps and other opinion leaders throughout the world. Here are Mr. Davidow's remarks of last week, in his urgent attempt to stop the momentum of the drug policy reform movement in the country that has suffered so much, and gained so little, from the U.S.-imposed prohibition on drugs. Read them, research them, and send your response for publication. A spectre confronts the war on drugs: Mexican Civil Society. Let the all the peoples of our Am�rica hear, especially from citizens of the United States, Holland, England, and Switzerland, places that Davidow cites in his discourse in ways that attempt to erase the real facts and steer the Mexican citizenry away from its own common sense on the drug policy issues of our time. Here, at Narco News, we have stated from our first day of publication that the war on drugs meets its Waterloo in Mexico. Davidow's desperate speech now confirms so much of what we have reported over the past year. Seize the moment. We ask a few minutes from you to offer our expert testimony in response to this dishonest and very revealing speech from Washington's top agent in Mexico. >From somewhere in a country called Am�rica, Al Giordano Publisher The Narco News Bulletin http://www.narconews.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPEECH BY AMBASSADOR OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY DAVIDOW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE VALLEY OF MEXICO San Angel, Mexico City June 1, 2001 M�XICO - UNITED STATES, SHARED GOALS "A Closer Look at the Legalization of Drugs" I'm very happy to be here today with you and to have the opportunity to make reference to the issue of the legalization of drugs, in the context of the goals that our two great nations share. Each of us has listened to somebody say, and even has thought or spoken of it on some occasion, that we should simply legalize drugs with the goal that society would no longer be bothered by the problem of confronting the narco traffickers. Precisely because the credibility of this position could grow in the future, and also because I respect the role that all of you have as important opinion leaders, especially among the youth, I want to address this theme. In the measure in which I analyze the arguments in favor of legalization of drugs, I find two lines of thinking that justify it. In first place, is the philosophical argument that the government does not have the right to say to the citizens how they should conduct their private lives. In second place, is found the allegation that if drugs could be obtained legally, they would cause less damage to society in the number of criminal acts that are related with the commerce of narcotics. Both reasonings seem very weak to me and ignore basic principals and facts. In the libertarian point of view, it is said that the government doesn't have the authority to stop people from damaging themselves. As such, if someone chooses to use drugs, commit suicide, drive a vehicle without putting on a seatbelt or simply refuses to clothe himself in public, he has made personal decisions that should not be regulated by the State. It's a very attractive reasoning, especially in societies like that of the United States that have exalted the role of personal liberty. However, the majority of societies recognize that the authority of the government brings the responsibility to promote and preserve accepted codes of conduct. Although the maximum liberty must be permitted to individuals, the higher interests of society - whether they are safety on the roads or the ethical commitment to protect human life - must be taken into consideration. On the practical level, we must also recognize that evil can use absolute liberty. I myself would have a different point of view with respect to the right of Socrates to drink hemlock, which I sustain in how much and how wise it would be to permit 12-year-old adolescents to be able to acquire alcoholic beverages. If I am disposed to fight to the final consequences to protect my sons and avoid that they become drug addicts, I also must have the same disposition to help avoid that the son of another person becomes a drug addict. A society that adopts the position that it must be permitted that those who want to commit suicide using drug can do it has lost much more than the battle against illicit drugs - it has lost its own moral sense. The philosophical argument is not what those who support drug legalization use the most. A more common reasoning is that the cost to society of trying to control the commerce of illegal drugs is greater than any benefit that is derived from such efforts. It seems to me that to accept this argument implies having ignored, in the first place, some realities. The first and fundamental is the profound damage that the drugs cause to the people who use them. Narcotics are illegal because of the damage they cause, they don't cause damage because they are illegal. Now we will see in more detail some of the basic elements of this issue. The black market in drugs would continue even with legalization. Legalization is frequently presented as an abstract argument, without having analyzed with seriousness the areas of subsequent debate. What should be legalized? Only marijuana? Marijuana and heroin? All drugs? For what ages? Who would sell the drugs - government or private businesses? Who would be responsible for the social costs of the use of drugs? We recall that the existence of a black market depends greatly on the parameters that determine legal use. As such, if only marijuana is legalized, the narco-traffickers will continue their illegal commerce in heroin and cocaine; if the use of drugs were legal for those over 18 years old, the narco-traffickers would try to sell them to minors under 18. The consumption of drugs would rise with legalization. A fundamental element of the debate on legalization is the affirmation that the consumption of drugs and drug addiction would not rise if they are legalized. This is evidently false. The consumption of alcoholic drinks rose in an important way after their prohibition was abolished in the USA. We live in a world of addictions. The number of addicts of nicotine and alcohol in my country counts tens of millions. Does anyone seriously believe that freer access to drugs without any threat of sanction or punishment would have as a consequence a drop in the number of persons that use drugs? I don't think so. In Mexico, the consumption of drugs is rising dramatically, although, of course, it is still not at the level of the United States. Does any serious person want to make it easier for youths to obtain drugs? I don't think so. However, this would be the inevitable result of legalization. Legalization programs have had undesired consequences. Another fallacy among the arguments in favor of legalization is the idea that decriminalization programs have been successful in other nations. The liberal laws of Holland on drugs are an issue of much discussion in the media. However, what is not well known is the fact that in this country, whose size is a little bit smaller than the state of Jalisco, has more than 50 clinics that give methadone to heroin addicts, and those who abuse drugs constitute a great percentage of the prisoners in Dutch prisons. Beyond that, the number of people who use marijuana has grown in that country since its use was decriminalized. England ended its experiment of a decade with respect to giving heroin to addicts, after seeing their number grow. Switzerland had a similar experience. After liberalizing the use and sale of drugs in part of the city of Zurich, called "Needle Park," it attracted drug addicts from all of Europe. The Swiss authorities finally closed the park in 1992, after a rise in violence and deaths. It is calculated that the number of users of drugs had grown from a few hundred to as many as 20,000. A little tolerance toward drugs brings many undesired visitors. Lagalization would create high budgetary costs for governments. Those who are in favor of legalization also present a simple and deceptive reasoning that says that the resources spent in controlling drugs would be employed better in education, the infrastructure and other national priorities. Some have suggested even that the governments should take advantage of the large budget income that legalizing drugs would provide. But these people don't take into consideration that the abuse of drugs would reduce the productivity and, in the long term, affect the tax base. Nor do they consider the costs of putting regulations in place relative to the safety of the drugs nor the long term costs to the health care system. Nor do they take into account the financial costs related to use by spouses or children, the inability to work, the high index of school drop-outs and the general irresponsibility that the use of drugs brings. Drug addition leads to crime. In a very important manner, those who favor the legalization of drugs ignore the devastating social consequences that this would cause. The United States Department of Justice can give testimony to the fact that the use of drugs, especially cocaine, crack, methamphetamines and PCP (angel dust) alters behavior and contributes to delinquency. In 1999, 74 percent of the prisoners in New York City tested positive on drug tests when they were arrested. The crimes, as we know, affect the moral fabric of society and weaken democratic institutions. Victories in the reduction of the demand for drugs. An erroneous perception that those who support the legalization of drugs promote is that the current policy on drugs is failing and simply doesn't work. However, the fact is that currently the use of drugs has diminished considerably in the United States over the past 20 years. In 1979, 25 million U.S. citizens - that is, 14.1 percent of the population over 12 years old and the highest that has ever been registered - had used illicit drugs at least once in the month prior to the date of the public opinion survey. In 1999, the National Household Survey on Drugs found that nearly 14.8 million U.S. citizens, or 7 percent of the opulation, had recently used drugs. In other words, the number of U.S. citizens that use drugs was reduced by almost 50 percent in the past two decades. The most recent United Nations report on illicit drugs also indicates that the consumption of drugs in the United States has been reduced since 1985. With that I'm not saying that we shouldn't do more to reduce the consumption of drugs. Secretary of State Colin Powell has recognized that the demand for drugs is the principal factor responsible for the global commerce in drugs. For this reason, he said, "we must make sure that we are attacking the demand and supporting the treatment of this horrible problem." Also, the problem of consumption of drugs is increasingly affecting more nations, including Mexico. Do we really want to make the situation worse by legalizing drugs? Finally, we must recognize that a great part of the flirtation with the concept of legalization originates in a large sentiment of frustration, a sentiment that we have lost the war and simply must proclaim defeat. We have not won the war against drugs, but neither have we lost it. In fact, I reject the term "war" because all wars have an end, and the fight against drugs should not have one. We could be fighting against the commerce of illicit drugs for much of the future, just as we do against other kinds of crimes. However, the weight of the goal that we confront should not discourage us nor lead us to false solutions. Truthfully, we must advance, and we have done so. But we cannot lose the will to fight. The costs that we would pay for being conformists and resigned would be too high; they would be measured on the basis of the decline of our cultures and would be counted by the number of lives destroyed. Those of us who have something do do with the education of our societies cannot surrender. DISCURSO DEL EMBAJADOR DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS JEFFREY DAVIDOW EN LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL VALLE DE M�XICO San Angel, M�xico, D.F. Junio 1 de 2001 M�XICO - ESTADOS UNIDOS, RETOS COMPARTIDOS "Una mirada m�s de cerca a la legalizaci�n de las drogas" Me da mucho gusto estar hoy con ustedes y tener la oportunidad de referirme al asunto de la legalizaci�n de las drogas, dentro del contexto de los retos que comparten nuestras dos grandes naciones. Cada uno de nosotros ha escuchado a alguna otra persona decir, e incluso quiz� haya pensado o dicho en alguna ocasi�n, que simplemente deber�amos legalizar las drogas, con el fin de que la sociedad ya no estuviera agobiada por el problema de hacer frente a los narcotraficantes. Precisamente porque puede aumentar en el futuro la credibilidad de esta posici�n y tambi�n porque respeto el papel de todos ustedes como importantes l�deres de opini�n, en especial entre los j�venes, quiero abordar este tema. A medida que analizo los argumentos en pro de la legalizaci�n de las drogas, encuentro dos l�neas de pensamiento que la justifican. En primer lugar, est� el argumento filos�fico de que el gobierno no tiene derecho de decir a los ciudadanos c�mo deben conducir su vida privada. En segundo lugar, se encuentra la aseveraci�n de que si se pudieran obtener las drogas de manera legal, causar�an menor da�o a la sociedad que el n�mero de actos delictivos que se relacionan con el comercio de los narc�ticos. Ambos razonamientos me parecen muy d�biles e ignoran hechos y principios b�sicos. El punto de vista libertario, sostiene que el gobierno no tiene la autoridad de evitar que las personas se da�en a s� mismas. Por lo tanto, si alguien eligiera utilizar drogas, suicidarse, conducir un veh�culo sin haberse puesto el cintur�n de seguridad, o simplemente se rehusara a andar vestido en p�blico, habr�a tomado decisiones personales que no deber�an ser reglamentadas por el estado. Se trata de un razonamiento muy atractivo, especialmente en sociedades como la estadounidense, que han exaltado el papel de la libertad personal. Sin embargo, la mayor�a de las sociedades reconocen que la autoridad del gobierno conlleva la responsabilidad de promover y preservar c�digos de conducta aceptados. Aunque debe permitirse a los individuos la libertad m�xima, los intereses mayores de la sociedad - ya sean la seguridad en las carreteras o el compromiso �tico de proteger la vida humana - deben tomarse en consideraci�n. En un nivel pr�ctico, tambi�n debemos reconocer que puede usarse mal la libertad absoluta. Yo mismo podr�a tener un diferente punto de vista con respecto al derecho de S�crates a beber la cicuta, del que sostengo en cuanto a cu�n sabio ser�a permitir que los adolescentes de 12 a�os de edad pudieran adquirir bebidas alcoh�licas. Si estoy dispuesto a luchar hasta las �ltimas consecuencias para proteger a mis hijos y evitar que se conviertan en drogadictos, tambi�n debo tener la misma disposici�n para ayudar a evitar que el hijo de otra persona se convierta en drogadicto. Una sociedad que adopta la posici�n de que debe permitirse que los que quieran suicidarse usando drogas lo hagan, ha perdido mucho m�s que la batalla contra las drogas il�citas - ha perdido su propio sentido moral. El argumento filos�fico no es el que m�s utilizan quienes apoyan la legalizaci�n de las drogas. Un razonamiento m�s com�n es que el costo para la sociedad al tratar de controlar el comercio de las drogas ilegales es mayor que cualquier beneficio que se derive de tales esfuerzos. Me parece que aceptar este argumento implica haber ignorado en primer lugar algunas realidades. La primera y fundamental es el da�o profundo que las drogas causan a las personas que las usan. Los narc�ticos son ilegales por el da�o que causan, no causan da�o porque sean ilegales. Veamos ahora con m�s detenimiento algunos de los elementos b�sicos de este tema. El mercado negro de las drogas persistir�a incluso con la legalizaci�n. La legalizaci�n se presenta con frecuencia como un argumento abstracto, sin haber analizado con seriedad las �reas de debate subsecuentes. �Qu� es lo que debe legalizarse? �Tan s�lo la mariguana? �La mariguana y la hero�na? �Todas las drogas? �Para qu� edades? �Qui�n vender�a las drogas - el gobierno o empresas privadas? �Qui�n ser� responsable por los costos sociales del uso de las drogas? Recordemos que la existencia de un mercado negro depende en gran parte de los par�metros que determinan el uso legal. Por lo tanto, si s�lo se legalizara la mariguana, los narcotraficantes continuar�an su comercio ilegal de hero�na y coca�na; si el uso de drogas fuera legal para los mayores de 18 a�os, los narcotraficantes tratar�an de venderlas a los menores de 18 a�os. El consumo de drogas aumentar�a con la legalizaci�n. Un elemento fundamental del debate sobre la legalizaci�n es la afirmaci�n de que el consumo de las drogas y la drogadicci�n no aumentar�an si se legalizaran. Esto es evidentemente falso. El consumo de bebidas alcoh�licas aument� de manera importante despu�s de que se aboli� la prohibici�n de las mismas en los EUA. Vivimos en un mundo de adicciones. El n�mero de adictos a la nicotina y al alcohol en mi pa�s se cuenta en decenas de millones. �Acaso alguna persona cree con seriedad que el acceso m�s libre a las drogas sin ninguna amenaza de sanci�n o castigo tendr�a como consecuencua una baja en el n�mero de personas que usan drogas? No lo pienso as�. En M�xico est� aumentando de forma dr�m�tica el consumo de drogas, aunque por supuesto no est� a�n al nivel de los Estados Unidos. �Acaso alguna persona seria quiere hacer m�s f�cil que los j�venes obtengan drogas? No creo que as� sea. Sin embargo, �ste ser�a el resultado inevitable de la legalizaci�n. Los programas de legalizaci�n han tenido consequencias no deseadas. Otra falacia en cuanto a los argumentos en pro de la legalizaci�n es la idea de que los programas de descriminalizar han tenido �xito en otras naciones. Las leyes liberales de Holanda en cuanto a las drogas son tema de amplia discusi�n en los medios informativos. No obstante, lo que no se conoce ampliamente es el hecho de que ese pa�s, cuyo tama�o es un poco menor que el estado de Jalisco, tiene m�s de 50 cl�nicas que proporcionan metadona a los adictos a la hero�na, y que quienes abusan de las drogas constituyen un gran porcentaje de los reos en las c�rceles holandesas. Es m�s, el n�mero de personas que usan mariguana ha aumentado en ese pa�s desde que se discriminaliz� su uso. Inglaterra puso fin a su experimento de una d�cada con respecto a proporcionar hero�na a los adictos, al ver que su n�mero aumentaba. Suiza tuvo una experiencia similar. Despu�s de que liberaliz� el uso y venta de drogas en una parte de la ciudad de Zurich llamada "Parque de las agujas", atrajo drogadictos de toda Europa. Las autoridades suizas clausuraron finalmente el parque en 1992, desp�s de que se registr� un aumento de violencia y muertes. Se calculaba entonces que el n�mero de usuarios de drogas hab�a aumentado de unos cuantos cientos hasta 20,000. Un poco de tolerancia hacia las drogas trae a muchos visitantes no deseados. La legalizaci�n crear�a altos costos fiscales para los gobiernos. Quienes est�n a favor de la legalizaci�n tambi�n presentan un razonamiento simple y enga�oso en cuanto a que los recursos gastados en controlar las drogas se emplear�an mejor en la educaci�n , la infraestructura y otras prioridades nacionales. Algunos han sugerido incluso que los gobiernos deber�an aprovechar los grandes ingresos fiscales que provendr�an de legalizar las drogas. Pero estas personas no toman en consideraci�n que el abuso de las drogas reducir�a la productividad y, a la larga, afectar�a la base gravable. Tampoco consideran los costos de poner en vigor normas relativas a la seguridad de las drogas ni la carga a largo plazo en el sistema de salud. Tampoco toman en cuenta los costos financieros relacionados con el abuso conyugal o de los hijos, la incapacidad para trabajar, el alto �ndice de deserci�n escolar y la irresponsabilidad general que conlleva el uso de las drogas. La drogadicci�n conduce al delito. De manera m�s importante, quienes favorecen la legalizaci�n de las drogas ignoran las consecuencias sociales devastadoras que �sta ocasionar�a. El Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos puede dar testimonios del hecho de que el uso de las drogas, en especial la coca�na, el crack, las metamfetamines y el PCP (polvo de �ngel), altera el comportamiento y contribuye a la delincuencia. En 1999, 74 por ciento de los presos en la ciudad de Nueva York dieron resultado positivo en un examen de uso de drogas cuando fueron arrestados. Los delitos, como sabemos, afectan el tejido moral de la sociedad y debilitan las instituciones democr�ticas. Victorias en la reducci�n de la demanda de drogas. Una pecepci�n err�nea que promueven los que apoyan la legalizaci�n de las drogas es que la pol�tica actual acerca de las drogas est� fracasando y simplemente no funciona. Sin embargo, el hecho es que actualmente el uso de las drogas ha disminuido considerablemente en los Estados Unidos durante los �ltimos 20 a�os. En 1979, 25 millones de estadounidenses - o sea, el 14.1 por ciento de la poblaci�n mayor de 12 a�os y el nivel m�s alto que se haya registrado jam�s - hab�a usado drogas il�citas por lo menos una vez en el mes anterior a la fecha en que se realiz� la encuesta. En 1999, la Encuesta Nacional de Hogares sobre las Drogas (National Household Survey on Drugs) encontr� que alrededor de 14.8 millones de estadounidenses, o sea, el 7 por ciento de la poblaci�n, hab�a usado drogas recientemente. En otras palabras, el n�mero de estadounidenses que usan drogas se redujo casi en un 50 por ciento en el transcurso de las �ltimas dos d�cadas. El informe m�s reciente de las Naciones Unidas sobre drogas il�citas tambi�n indica que el consumo de drogas en los Estados Unidos se ha reducido desde 1985. Con lo anterior no quiero decir que no debamos hacer m�s para reducir el consumo de drogas. El Secretario de Estado Colin Powell ha reconocido que la demanda de drogas es el principal factor responsable del comercio mundial de drogas. Por esta raz�n, dijo, "debemos asegurarnos que estamos atacando la demanda y apoyando el tratamiento de este horrendo problema". Adem�s, el problema del consumo de drogas est� afectando crecientemente a m�s naciones, incluido M�xico. �Queremos realmente empeorar la situaci�n mediante la legalizaci�n de las drogas? Finalmente, debemos reconocer que gran parte del flirteo con el concepto de la legalizaci�n se origina en un gran sentimiento de frustraci�n, un sentimiento de que hemos perdido una guerra y simplemente debemos proclamar la derrota. No hemos ganado la guerra contra las drogas, pero tampoco la hemos perdido. De hecho, rechazo el uso del t�rmino "guerra" porque todas las guerras tienen un final, y la lucha contra las drogas bien pudiera no tenerlo. Podr�amos estar luchando contra el comercio de las drogas il�citas durante mucho tiempo en el futuro, al igual que lo hacemos contra otras clases de cr�menes. Sin embargo, el peso del reto que afrontamos no debe desanimarnos ni conducirnos a soluciones falsas. En verdad podemos avanzar, y lo hemos hecho. Pero no podemos perder la determinaci�n de luchar. Los costos que pagar�amos por conformistas y resignados ser�an demasiado altos; se medir�an con base en la declinaci�n de nuestras culturas y se contar�an de acuerdo con el n�mero de vidas destruidas. Los que tenemos que ver con la educaci�n de nuestras sociedades no podemos rendirnos. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
