26 May 2003
Stockholm, Sweden
by
Antonio Maria Costa
Executive Director
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Your Majesty Queen Silvia,
Distinguished Members of Parliaments,
Ladies and Gentlemen
Last March, I addressed the Stockholm Symposium on Cannabis. I am back to this wonderful city thanks to the Swedish Government and in particular to the National Drug Policy Coordinator, Mr. Fries, our host.
Our subject is Young people and drug abuse: a compelling subject, so very appropriate for the distinguished members of the many parliaments represented here. My belief is that, working together during the next couple of days, we shall demonstrate that successful (drug) policy, aimed at youth, can have a human touch.
It is about the compassionate heart of drug policy that I wish to speak. And I shall do so, not to launch a new slogan, but as a tribute to you, Queen Silvia, whom I salute as the symbol of Sweden's commitment to save young lives from addiction. Your call for the "right to hope" in a life, both exciting and drug-free, was the wonderful testimonial you brought to political leaders attending the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs in 1998.
Five years since your call, the world drug situation has changed dramatically. To some extent change has been for the better. Yet this undeniable progress has not gone as far or as fast, as we had desired. In part this is because the rules of the drug game kept on changing, at times forcing governments to chase -- rather than to lead -- events. This message I delivered to Ministers last April, during the meeting of the Commission of Narcotic Drugs. But we should not only point to unpredictable changes in external circumstances - they are part of life. We should also have the courage to blame ourselves: our children's "right to hope" is indeed intertwined with our societies' ability to deliver the conditions for that hope to materialize. And, at present, not all societies are equally committed to control the drug problem.
I remain convinced that we shall make better, and faster, progress towards a world not threatened by drug trafficking and drug abuse if, and only if, we stay the course defined by the international Conventions (of 1961, 1971 and 1988) and further mapped out in New York in 1998. Yet, although necessary, staying the course is not a sufficient condition. We also need to make clear the consequences of changing the course -- something not done adequately so far.
We need to communicate louder and clearer that the risks involved in abandoning half a century of drug controls are so high and the resulting public costs and private suffering so big, that the Conventions are not up for negotiation. This was the Ministers' unanimous view in Vienna last month. What is under consideration, starting here, today in Stockholm, are the ways and means to account for the dramatic changes taking place in the world of drugs, so that governments can maintain control of the situation and lead. I look forward to listening to the debate. As a contribution to it, let me consider three issues that deserve, I believe, special attention.
My first proposition is the following: drug abuse among young people, while not a normal occurrence, could become such. The chemical technology of bliss -- namely, the consumption of synthetic substances, like ecstasy and speed -- is blurring the notion of drug addiction as parents and governments alike are confused about the severity of their impact. Not surprisingly, in the last decade, the consumption of bliss substances by young people has become more serious than in the past.
My second proposition follows from the preceding one: while societies' sufferings are similar, governments' responses differ. They range from benign neglect of substance abuse, to robust intervention against it. These differences magnify the misunderstanding in society and facilitate the spread of misinformation about which country is doing what about the drug problem - including the related costs and consequences.
My third proposition brings the argument forward by calling for joint action: drug risks for the young are no longer confined within national borders. Today's culture has abolished time and space. Life styles are shared instantly and internationally. The presence here of parliamentarians from so many countries is an excellent opportunity to realize 1) that the problems your constituencies face are not unique, and 2) that we must therefore develop a shared understanding of what needs to be done.
Bliss technology is on the rise
Let me offer you some facts on the first proposition. There was already some discussion on cannabis during the international symposium held here last March. In the second half of the '90s, cannabis abuse throughout Europe increased dramatically among students. In some countries (Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Italy, to name just a few), lifetime use almost doubled, reaching the 25-35% range. Almost all other European countries registered an increase in the same period (ESPAD survey 1995 and 1999).
Thanks to another variation on the technology of bliss (in this case, genetic engineering of plants), the active ingredients of cannabis have become much stronger. Today, we find up to 20 per cent THC in cannabis compared to a fraction of that amount (2-3%) in the 1960s. (I still remember the smell of the weak marijuana smoked by the "flower kids" in Berkeley, my alma mater.) Even though more research is needed, the increased THC level may result in even more problems for quite a number of young people.
Stronger cannabis is only one item on young people's bliss technology-menu. The increasingly popular dish on the menu is synthetic drugs in general, ecstasy and speed in particular. In the United States, lifetime use of ecstasy among 12th graders has almost doubled (to 10.5%) since 1996 (Monitoring the Future survey, 2002). Ecstasy abuse has also increased considerably in Eastern Europe and Russia. Only in Western Europe has its consumption declined (from a relatively high level), as it has for cannabis (ESPAD surveys 1995 and 1999).
We therefore have a growing number of reports of serious health consequences, even among first-time abusers. Though such consequences may not be immediately visible, ecstasy's neurotoxins impact the brain and hurt major organs (liver and heart).
As synthetic drugs are simple to produce with ordinary chemicals, are simpler to take, and are (erroneously) perceived to be relatively harmless, the threat posed by their consumption is enormous. I have called them "Public Enemy Number 1". They may, in a not too distant future, replace organic drugs at the top of the list.
Although I have mainly spoken about rich countries (which are, as we all know, at the origin of the bliss technology production), manufacturing and addiction are spreading to other parts of the world: for example, to the Far East, where the problem has turned into an alarming epidemic. Slowly, young people in developing countries are catching up with the experience of their northern peers.
Although I have dealt with cannabis and ecstasy separately, they are not separate in young people's minds or experience, as poly-drug abuse is on the rise. It is actually at the origin of an increased number of deaths around the world - a sort of stealth cause of death, as many of them are not attributed to bliss technology products.
My first conclusion is the following: alarm bells should be ringing all over the world. The data about adolescents are especially worrisome, as adolescents are establishing behavioural patterns that will accompany them for a lifetime. On the front, however, news is not so good.
Mixed responses to a common problem
Indeed, and this is my second point, not everyone seems to hear the alarm bells. Responses in various countries have been mixed.
Some countries are maintaining a fatalistic approach, even benign neglect. Somehow, families, educators, and governments alike consider drug abuse as an inevitable part, and not an exception, of growing up.
This attitude has stretched up to the acceptance of policies such as testing of pills in discos to prevent the "unsafe" ingestion of unknown chemicals. The dubious message being sent out is that it is relatively "safe" to use these pills once they are checked. It is ironical that we test people on the road (namely, after alcohol consumption) to prevent drunken driving, and we test pills (namely, before intake), thus condoning driving under drug intoxication. And then we read on Monday's papers about the weekend road massacres!
The wish to "stand outside oneself" (the original meaning of the Greek word ekstasis) has accompanied human beings from the moment they exited the Garden of Eden. Not surprisingly the temptation is still there, and the call still strong. Yet, how different is the ekstasis brought about by one's control of the mind as practiced by ascetics and hermits in the past, and the one induced by the technology of bliss today.
Karen Armstrong has recently described these differences quite aptly (The Guardian, 23 May 2003). "Our desire for transcendence and unfettered bliss has got out of control. Today young people simply swallow a pill and enjoy states of mind that have formerly been the preserve of a few highly talented mystics, but without the traditional safeguards" (first difference). She adds: "the purveyors of ecstasies are no longer well meaning, highly trained priests. They are unscrupulous dealers who have no concern for their victims, many of whom die in the search of joy, liberation and transcendence" (second difference).
At a time when religion is fading, family bonds are weakening and society is splintering, the technology of bliss poses a new, enormous threat. It "promises" young people to become Saturday-night "masters of the universe". Law enforcement alone cannot control this compulsion for ekstasis. Since these changes are societal, society as a whole needs to share the responsibility. I thus invite the parliamentarians in this Hall, true representatives of society, to examine what they can do to help.
The need for a common response
Countries apply the Conventions on drug control in accordance with local conditions. Yet, the increase in abuse among young people is no longer a matter of national variations. It is a global trend, driven by an increasingly global culture and increasingly trans-national crime syndicates. We need a common response. Above all, we should not think of backing down from the overall commitment to protect the health of our youth.
This commitment was unanimously confirmed at the recent Ministerial meeting in Vienna. The Drug Commission confirmed the importance of current international drug control mechanisms. Ministers stressed the need for innovative prevention based on experience. Here lies another gap: prevention efforts do not always speak clearly to youth and to the pressures they are increasingly facing.
For greater impact, we need to:
Above all, society should stop sending conflicting messages to young people. I call for responsible behaviour on the part of media and the music industry: their role models in relation to drug abuse is crucial.
Conclusions
All countries are part of the drug problem. Commitment by all countries is needed for its solution.
I have invited you to think globally, but let me also ask you to act locally. It is important that the United Nations Conventions and their goals are translated into national policies. Your role in this process is fundamental. Drug abuse by youth cannot be addressed in isolation. Questions of education, employment, social inclusion, sexual health, and others need to be considered.
Hopefully, at the end of this meeting, you will return to your constituencies with renewed energy and engage everybody -- voters and fellow legislators alike -- in our common effort: a healthy future for our children also depends on you.