[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION IN HOLLAND HAS INCREASED CRIME AND ADDICTION

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 2, 1995
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend to you the following article 
written by a distinguished doctor and chairman of the International 
Drug Strategy Institute, Eric A. Voth, M.D. Dr. Voth advocates 
retaining tough drug laws to guard against rising crime and 
experimentation. Citing Holland as an example, the legalization of 
drugs has resulted in greatly increased crime and addiction. The only 
way to combat the increase of drug use in this country is to stand firm 
against recent attempt by prodrug groups to mute public awareness. 
These groups attempt to disguise the dangers of drug abuse and 
consequently jeopardize future generations.
                      Repeating History's Mistakes

       The international drug policy debate rages regarding 
     decisions whether to fundamentally change drug policy toward 
     legalization or decriminalization of drug use, or to remain 
     with restrictive policies. If we examine two examples of 
     softening of drug policy, we will find ample reason to 
     continue with restrictive policy.
       In the mid to late 1970's during the Carter administration, 
     drug policy visibly softened. Several states decriminalized 
     marijuana, and in fact Alaska legalized marijuana. Drug 
     policy ``specialists'' in their infinite wisdom supported the 
     flawed concept called ``responsible use'' of drugs as a way 
     that users could maintain personal use of drugs and avoid the 
     ravages of addiction and physical problems.
       Permissive drug policy originated with organizations like 
     the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 
     President Carter's drug policy advisor Peter Bourne, as well 
     as others like Arnold Trebach, Mathea Falco, Peter Reuter, 
     Mark Kleiman helped to press for the lenient policy.
       Interestingly, during that time the use of marijuana and 
     other drugs drastically increased. Use also increased in 
     adolescents despite the fact that drugs never become legal or 
     decriminalized for that age group. The use of marijuana among 
     high school students in Oregon during decriminalization was 
     double that of the national average. National averages of 
     marijuana use among high school seniors increased to 50% of 
     seniors having used in the previous year, and 10.7% used 
     daily.
       Ultimately, parents began to object to the rampant use of 
     drugs, especially marijuana, among their children. In the 
     early 1980's the ``parents''' anti-drug movement began. 
     Because of the drastic failure of lenient drug policies, 
     steady pressure was exerted at national and local levels for 
     restrictive drug policies. A huge national wave of high 
     quality research, grassroots prevention organizations, and 
     tightening of drug laws began.
       Predictably, the use of drugs among ``recreational'' users 
     dropped. High school seniors use of marijuana dropped to 23% 
     of seniors using within the last year and 2% using on a daily 
     basis. The use among hard addicts did not drop.
       Strangely the cry has been sounded by some that the drug 
     war did not work. That outcry, however, was almost 
     exclusively being sounded by individuals who favored 
     legalization or decriminalization back in the 1970's. The 
     same individuals who called for soft policy in the earlier 
     era are calling for the new harm reduction policy today. 
     Hidden within such policy is the intent to gain 
     decriminalization of drugs.
       Holland has decriminalized drugs and tried harm reduction. 
     Since the softening of drug policy there, shootings have 
     increased 40%, robberies 62%, and car thefts 62%. This 
     experiment which was meant to decrease organized crime has 
     resulted in an increase in organized crime families from 3 in 
     1988 to 93 today. The number of registered marijuana addicts 
     has risen 30% and the number of other addicts has risen 22%.
       The major difference between today and the 1970's is that 
     the prolegalization effort is more organized and better 
     funded. The millionaire Richard Dennis from Chicago has given 
     millions to the drug legalization effort. Billionaire George 
     Soros has given $6 million to the Drug Policy Foundation to 
     help seek legalization of drugs. He created the Open Society 
     Fund which in turn funds Mathea Falco's Drug Strategies 
     organization. Steadily, these groups put a happy and 
     acceptable face on the idea of drug legalization or 
     decriminalization. Their public relation campaign has 
     softened public attitudes. Moves such as full page ads in 
     national newspapers suggesting alternatives to drug policy 
     are examples. Organized efforts at such ideas as hemp as a 
     fiber alternative, medical marijuana, needle exchanges, 
     therapeutic LSD, and others pervade the media. The Internet 
     is bristling with pro-drug talk groups discussing recent drug 
     experiences and how and where to obtain drugs.
       In the face of these facts, the holdovers from the 70's 
     drug policy makers are still asking for lenient drug laws. A 
     substantial number of today's addicts started their use under 
     the lenient policies of the 1970's. We have had our 
     experience with decriminalization, and it is time that we 
     recognize it and put that concept to bed.
       The only hope for drug policy is a concerted effort of drug 
     prevention which upholds the notion of no drug use, drug 
     interdiction, and drug treatment. If we soften our hold on an 
     already vexing problem, we will lose the war.
     

                          ____________________