Comrades
The latest issue of Voice (Socialist Party newspaper) is out now. Here
are two articles from this issue, on drugs and capitalism and a fact
sheet on the refugee issue:
Who is benefiting from the International Drug Trade?
70% of the world's heroin supply came from Afghanistan until the Taliban
cut production in 1999. This is one reason behind the drought in heroin
supply throughout Australia. Now with the help of the US, the Northern
Alliance look set to again rule Afghanistan and resume mass heroin
production as they did before.
Drug user support workers report that the current low supply of heroin
has not stopped inappropriate drug use. The heroin that is available is
more likely to be mixed with unknown substances. Users have turned to
pills such as speed with no real reduction in related crime as people
steal to fund their habit. In fact speed makes users more aggressive
than heroin and the injection of alternatives to heroin has led to other
health problems including gangerine and amputation. Privately, many drug
support workers will welcome the return of heroin, notwithstanding its
leathal effects.
Now with the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, there is the
possibility that cheap Afghan heroin will flood the Australian market.
Users will not easily adjust to a purer supply. Deaths from overdoses
will continue.
This feature article by DJ Mibrane takes up the question of capitalism
and heroin. He explains that supply can only be cut when poor peasants
have an alternative means of survival and that demand will only ease
when young people are less alienated and more confident in the future.
In the meantime, the state needs to manage the distribution of free
heroin to destroy the black market, stop users having to steal, and also
to ensure a relatively safe supply are crucial. We also need supervised
injecting facilities and more resources for needle exchange and better
drug education.
The only guarantee for these reforms comes from a socialist society. In
the meantime the Socialist Party is the sole political party in
Australia to actively campaign on the issue. Join us now in the struggle
for drug reform as part of the struggle for a socialist future.
By DJ Mibrane
The issues that will find voice through the anti-captialist movement -
struggles against global capitalism, for democratic rights, and with an
internationalist focus - are important ones for the growing drug user
movement.
The flip side of this is that the effects of the drug war are wreaking
havoc on millions of working people, the urban poor and small farmers
internationally and in Australia. We hope to create a far better
understanding of the issues affecting users and the strategies we
propose to deal with them, both amongst the left and the wider community.
International drug policy is dominated by the presence of several United
Nations Treaties, the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,
Convention on Psychotropic Substances in the same year, and the 1971
Convention against Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances.
The US-dominated International Narcotics Control Board enforces these
treaties. With the decline of the Cold War the US has elevated drugs to
the level of "bogey", using it as a justification for the invasion of
Panama.
More recently, the US has turned its eye towards Colombia. Historical
reports estimate that coca, the plant that forms the basis of cocaine
and crack, have been cultivated in South America for several thousand
years. Coca leaves have traditionally been chewed to provide mild
stimulation while working in the fields, or to provide relief from
fatigue and related symptoms like headache, especially on long trips.
Today, the UN's "World Drug Report 2000" states that coca production in
Colombia takes up approximately 350,000 acres, and is the only cash crop
which can provide poor farmers with a decent income. Coca farmers are
able to receive approximately $2000 per acre of coca every year,
providing the average peasant family with an income of between US$6000-
$10000. This compares to an average per capita GDP of $2020. The US has
invested $1.3 billion in Plan Colombia, 20% of the Plan's total. Only
12% of US funds have been set aside for aid to communities who choose to
grow food or other cash crops rather than coca.
Incentives being offered include improvements in agricultural
technology, bridge and road building, and assistance with education and
health care. This amount is completely insufficient. The bulk of the
remaining funds have taken the form of direct military aid, including 16
Black Hawk and 33 Huey gunships. One very disturbing element of the
campaign has been the use of defoliants against coca crops. Monsanto
Corporation, who bought us such great products as Agent Orange are the
producers of the chemical agent being used, Roundup. Monsanto claims
that this product poses no threat to humans or animals. In the US,
however, it is sold with the warning that "it should be used in
such a way as to avoid contact with workers or other persons, either
directly or through drift." In poor farming communities coca is often
grown side by side with staples such as wheat, corn and yucca, and in
spaces where livestock are raised. Following spraying, there have been
reports of deaths of cows and fish, and of people developing fevers.
Another element to the aerial spraying of Roundup is the likelihood that
it will force growers deeper into the rainforest. Approximately 1.75
million acres of rainforest have already been cut down across Latin
America to provide remote locations where coca can be grown. Plan
Colombia is not really about shutting down cocaine production, but
rather about who controls it.
Colombia's Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) have long used profits from
cocaine sales to raise funds. Aerial spraying has been largely centred
in FARC controlled provinces. Right wing paramilitary death squads, and
the Colombian army, have employed a tactic known as "draining the
swamp". They give locals a designated time to evacuate their villages,
and often kill
those who do not comply. These operations are often designed to secure
control of large coca crops and fertile growing areas.
A similar story can be told of Afghanistan. After coming to power, the
Taliban regime openly promoted opium production, took a 10% tax on farmer's
sales, and used the money to buy arms and stabilise their government. By
last year, Afghanistan had become the world's largest producer of opium.
In an effort to stabilise relations with the international community
Mullah Omar issued an edict that opium production be halted. Although
Afghanistan remains a major centre for opium growth, significant numbers of
growers have obeyed the edict. Production dropped from 3.5 tonnes of raw
opium in 1999 to zero in 2000. This has been done in the middle of the
worst drought in a decade which also undermined supply.
Poppies are a viable drought crop, as they require very little water. Most
Afghan farmers can earn around $2000-$4000 annually from opium, while
estimates place the average income for their wheat crops this year at
around $500. Of course these farmers represent one half of the lowest rung
of the drug distribution network.
At the other end street-level dealers also end up with a very small chunk
of the massive pie which is the illicit drug economy. In the US itself, the
drug war plays the dual role of a weapon against civil rights, and a tool
for racial oppression. 79% of all police taps authorised by US state and
federal courts are for drug investigations, while only 0.5% are for kidnap.
The US now has over 2 million prisoners. African-American men are
imprisoned on drug charges at 13 times the rate of whites, although 5 times
as many whites use drugs compared to blacks. Prior to the introduction of
mandatory minimum sentences for crack use in 1986, the average sentence for
drug charges was 11% higher for blacks than whites. This had increased to a
49% longer average term within four years.
At home imprisonment is also one of the most direct forms of oppression of
people who use drugs illicitly (PWUDI) in Australia. Results of a survey of
prisoners quoted by the Victorian Department of Justice in a submission to
the Drug Policy Expert Committee (DPEC) assessed that 75% self-reported
having "a drug or alcohol problem". (Analyses of surveys asking for
self-reporting on behaviours like drug use would suggest that at least
another 10% were unwilling to disclose that information, particularly if
the survey respondents are incarcerated.)
The figure rose to 84% amongst prisoners who were not serving the first
prison term. 38% and 40% of these groups of prisoners indicated that they
had committed the crime for which they had been imprisoned to directly
support their dependency. An Australian Institute of Criminology survey
found that of prisoners serving time for property offences 85% had used
drugs in the previous six months.
When, in the course of my work during 1999, I presented a drug information
workshop to 13 young women at Melbourne Juvenile Justice Centre, 100% were
serving time for crimes related to their heroin use! With an estimated 75%
of Victorian prisoners now being located in private prisons, the misery of
users is filling the pockets of multinationals ever more directly.
One of the key issues which has placed drug issue on the mainstream agenda
has been the horrific snowballing of heroin overdose rates. Approximately
1,000 Victorians have died in the past four years. This is leading to many
users being caught in situations where they are experiencing "multiple
grief", an inability to properly complete the grieving process for one
friend before another dies.
Several of the main factors, which contribute to fatal heroin overdoses,
are directly related to the drug war. Queensland figures indicate that 4
out of 5 users who die from heroin overdoses (ODs) used alone. Many users,
compelled by the illegality of their lifestyle and negative social
attitudes, hide their use from family and friends. They may find a secluded
spot, or simply their empty house, in which to inject. While most OD
victims are alive for at least one hour after consumption, providing ample
opportunity for resuscitation, this cannot occur if no one is around.
About 80% of PWUDI who die from overdose are affected by another
depressant, generally alcohol, sleeping pills (benzos) or both, as well as
heroin. These are drugs which users consume to enhance the effects of poor
quality heroin, when they can't afford a sufficient hit, or as a means to
ease withdrawal symptoms until they can "get on" (buy heroin). Drug related
imprisonment and poly-drug opiate related overdose are both directly linked
to the root issue - economic oppression.
The average heroin-dependent person spends between $50 and $200 daily. An
estimated 30% of dependent drug users are in full-time employment. These
workers are often forced to accept poor conditions as their income stands
between them and sickness. Even with a wage, many of these users would be
spending upwards of 80% of their income on drugs, representing a poverty
trap very difficult to escape from.
Unemployed and student users have often spent their income before they even
receive it, through circulating debt arrangements or through having
received drugs on credit.
Harm Minimisation
The corporate media generally use the terms "harm minimisation" and "harm
reduction" interchangeably. Official policies of harm minimisation, as
outlined in the National Drug Strategy, are supposedly designed to reduce
harmful aspects of drug use.
Harms are defined both for the individual (such as blood borne viruses
like HIV and Hepatitis C, low body weight and poor dental health, vein
collapse, and overdose) and the community more broadly (such as dumped
syringes, and property crime.) It involves a 3-tiered approach - harm
reduction; including programs designed to directly reduce the potential
harmful effects of drug use, like needle exchange; demand reduction,
including school-education programs, stress management courses etc; and
supply-reduction, which involves police and customs efforts.
Many drug user activists argue that the inclusion of supply reduction
invalidates the official harm minimisation strategy. A reduction in supply
of illicit drugs, whether heroin, amphetamines and ecstasy, or cocaine
tends to have the following impacts.
1. Prices go up, which can result in users having to supplement their
income through crime, resulting in increased impact on the community. Users
are forced to go without food, or are unable to meet rental commitments,
leading to a significant degradation in their mental and physical
well-being.
2. Drugs are cut with greater amount of adulterants, leading to increased
vein damage. It also can result in situations where users obtain stuff that
is not cut, and the additional strength can result in overdose. Once market
demand for a drug has been established, there is no evidence that a cut in
supply to that market will result in a reduction in demand. Subsequently,
many drug user activists reject support for governmental harm minimisation
strategies, and are discussing an alternative phrase that can embody the
harm reduction concept, without being so easily confused with official
policy.
The corporate and state-run media try and present the drug debate as being
dominated by two main positions - those supporting the maintenance or
extension of the status quo (prohibition and or zero tolerance) and those
who see drug "addiction" as a medical problem.
In fact those struggling for a change to drug laws and policy occupy a far
broader range of views than that. Many in the drug user movement believe
our struggle is one for a fundamental democratic right - to be able to make
free and informed decisions about what we do with our bodies.
Most of the medical problems currently associated with heroin use are not
inherent, but flow from prohibition. I have already discussed overdose in
this light. 200,000 Australians currently live with the Hepatitis C virus.
A further 10000 Australian drug users contract the virus every year (cases
of sexual transmission are statistically insignificant, and while many
people contracted the virus from blood transfusions prior to screening,
infections of this sort have not occurred since 1992).
While Hep C is a very misunderstood disease, and it is believed that only
a small percentage (around 10%) of infected people will die from the virus,
we are still facing a massive public health crisis in a decade or so.
Hepatitis C Virus is transmitted by blood to blood contact. As it is a very
hardy organism the virus can exist on or in injecting equipment for quite a
while - perhaps several days.
The main factors which tend to create situations where transmission can
take place are users not having access to life-saving information and
services, or when they are forced to rush through their injection process
due to fear of exposure or arrest. Malnutrition, vein collapse and poor
mental health are all related however in Swiss heroin provision programmes
the incidence of mental illness is up to 10% lower than in society in
general. So there are certainly medical issues, but to represent all drug
use as a medical problem fails to address the key issues.
Strategies for Sanity
Prohibition is a bankrupt social policy. The provision of controlled,
legal, regulated doses of all illicit drugs represents a strategy whereby
the democratic rights for control over one's own brain chemistry is
satisfied. Poverty-related health problems are reduced, and core
psychological issues, which may be the result of a particular users'
dependency can be addressed much more effectively.
The impact on the community is reduced significantly - during the Swiss
heroin trials participation in violent crime dropped to 1/7th of its
pre-trial rate, with only 1 participant in every 100 committing violent
acts. Participation in property crime dropped, and fraud and dealing
dropped to 1/3 of its pre-trial rate. These benefits to the community were
vitally important in the decision by the Swiss people, in a referendum, to
institute widespread heroin provision.
Users of many drugs other than heroin could benefit from similar provision
programs. These drugs should be sourced from grower and chemist collectives
which could be established in South America, Central Asia, Indochina, and
Australia, eliminating the very few big dealers making billions out of drug
users and drug producers.
There are certain to be users who will use these drugs in problematic ways.
The redirection of police and customs budget will allow the expansion of
programs designed to help users reduce or end their consumption, or to
address deep-seated physical or psychological issues, which may be
resulting in their problematic use. Why arewe be protesting and getting
involved in things like S11, M1, in support of refugees and against the
war? Are there any reasons not to?!
Refugees: The facts
* Howard claims Australia is the second most generous country per capita in
the taking of refugees (after Canada). He is referring to the 8,000
resettlement ("offshore") places offered to pre-determined refugees from
camps or via Australian consular officials outside Australia. However only
9 countries participate in this programme and the numbers of so-called
offshore refugees are dwarfed by the numbers of refugees who can't wait
patiently outside an embassy. As the Australian said "there are no queues
to join for the vast majority of Afghans waiting in Pakistan for
resettlement in third countries."
Rather than being second best, the real figures show Australia way down the
list. Per capita ratios between refugees and non refugees has Gaza Strip on
1:2, Jordan and West Bank on 1:3, Lebanon on 1:11, Germany on 1:456, Canada
on 1:566 and Australia on 1:1,200!
* In the last financial year Australia had 4450 asylum-seekers arriving by
boat - compare this to the 400,000 Albanians who have fled to Italy. In the
same period Britain had 97,900 and Germany had 95,000 (the year before). As
of December 31st 2000, 58,674 people overstayed their visas in Australia,
the vast majority being tourists from Britain and Ireland
* In 1998-99 2,100 people arrived in Australia 'illegally' by air -
compared with 930 people arriving on 42 boats.
* While the Federal governments cuts back on spending to publ ic hospitals
and state schools, they have spent $3 million a day to keep a few hundreds
refugees out of Australia
* It is cheaper for a refugee to be on the dole, (about $25 a day) than in
a detention center ($105 a day)
Children as young as 10 can be strip-searched and sedated in refugee
detention centers and there is a 5 year jail term for attempted escape.
Today these repressive measures are used against refugees, tomorrow they
could be used against striking trade unionists and protesting students
.
--
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
