Suppressed report raises questions about drug policy
VANCOUVER SUN JUNE 18, 2009 EDITORIAL
In 1991, an editorial in the British Journal of Addiction condemned theinordinate amount of resources devoted to drug law enforcement, and compared the war on drugs to the witch hunts of the past.
It’s an apt comparison, since drug warriors around the world are influenced more by myths, stereotypes and propaganda than by solid evidence. And when confronted by evidence that conflicts with themyths, stereotypes and propaganda of the drug war, the warriors seek to bury it rather than address it head on.
The 1995 Cocaine Project, a joint effort of the World Health Organization and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, is a case in point.
You might never have heard of the Cocaine Project, and you might wonder why we’re discussing a report that’s 14 years old. The answer is simple: The WHO has never published the report, and even denied its existence, at least until last week when it was leaked to a Netherlands-based think-tank, The Transnational Institute.
This is unfortunate, given that the report sought the advice of experts from around the world, assessed cocaine use fromAustralia to Zimbabwe, and is the largest global study on cocaineever conducted.
But a brief look at some of the study’s conclusions and recommendations reveals why it has been buried for the past 14 years.
For example, the report condemns the ”over-reliance on law enforcement measures,” and recommends that “education, treatment and rehabilitation” programs be increased to re-balance our approach to problematic drug use.
Perhaps because the report was buried, this over-reliance on enforcement continues today, and many experts are saying the same thing the WHO said 14 years ago. But such recommendations don’t sit well with many drug warriors, who remain convinced of the seminal importance of law enforcement in decreasing drug use.
Reasonable people can disagree on how best to deal with drug abuse. But the facts are a different thing entirely, and what bothered the drug warriors the most wasn’t the report’s recommendations, but its statements of fact — that is, its findings about the effects of cocaineuse.
The report notes, for instance, that health problems from “the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use.”
If that weren’t enough, it states that “few experts describe cocaine as invariably harmful to health,” and that problems “are mainly limited to high-dosage users.” Indeed, “occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems . . . a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use.”
To top it off, the report states that the ”use of coca leaves . . . has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations” — a reference to South American aboriginals who have used coca leaves for thousands of years.
Now, however politically incorrect these conclusions are, they are either factually correct or incorrect. If they’re incorrect, they ought to be countered vigorously; if correct, they ought to inform our drug policy.
Instead, the WHO buried the report, largely as a result of pressure from the United States
It’s interesting to note that in 2008, the WHO reported that the U.S.hasthe highest rate of cocaine use in the world. Interesting, but not surprising, for no drug control approach can be “proven” if it is theresult of intentionally ignoring the evidence.
In fact, the U.S. provides a perfect example of the folly of attending tothe evidence one likes, and ignoring the rest.
Now that the WHO report has been published by the Transnational Institute, it’s time for all countries, including Canada, to take a long, hard look at their drug policy, and at the evidence, and to ensure thatthe former is informed by the latter.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/cocaine-study-supressed.html
World Health Organization Global CocaineProject Study Suppressed by the United States for 13 Years
by Devin Powell [Lew Rockwell]
In March 1995, the WHO and UNICRI announced the publication of the results of a global study on cocaine. Information had been collected in 22 cities and 19 countries about the use of the coca leaf and its derivatives, its effects on consumers and thecommunity as a whole, and the answers of the governments concerned to the cocaine problem. Preparations for the research began in 1991. Over more than two years, three sub-projects were developed which “proposed to collect up-to-date information about cocaine at regional and national levels.” The study was never published despite being “the largest study ever on cocaineuse.”
Reference to the study can be found in the UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Institute of Crime Investigation) library, where it is still marked as “RESTRICTED.”
The Director of the PSA, Hans Emblad, sent a copy of theBriefing Kit to the United Nations Drugs Control Programme (UNDCP), where it caused a sensation. Two months later, on 9 May 1995 in Commission B of the forty-eighth General Health Assembly, the destiny of these years of labour was determined bythe intervention of the representative of the United States of America, Mr Boyer. He expressed his government’s concern withthe results of this study:
The representative said that his government considered suspending funds to WHO research if
“activities related to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches.”
”which seem to make a case for the positive uses ofcocaine, claiming that use of the coca leaf did not lead to noticeable damage to mental or physical health, that thepositive health effects of coca leaf chewing might be transferable from traditional settings to other countries and cultures and that coca production provides financial benefits to peasants.”
In reply, the representative of the Director General defended thestudy claiming it was
”an important and objective analyses done by the experts,” which “represented the views of the experts, and did not represent the stated policy position of the WHO, and WHO’s continuing policy, which was to uphold the scheduling underthe convention.” It was not the intention to publish the study in its current form, the representative explained as it might lead to “misunderstanding.” The debate concluded with agreement on a peer review by “genuine experts.”
The United States Government considered that, if WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches, funds for the relevant programmes should be curtailed. In view of the gravity of the matter, he [Boyer] askedthe Director-General for an assurance that “{WHO would dissociate itself from the conclusions of the study and that, in substance abuse activities, an approach would not be adopted that could be used to justify the continued production of coca.”
Peer review is a fundamental part of every scientific study, including those of the WHO. The timeline set for the peer review procedure was programmed in the terms of reference as to be concluded by 30 September 1997. In fact, from March 1995, names of potential researchers were listed and, in accordance with procedure, sent to theUS National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) in charge of selecting thecandidates. Over the course of almost two years, an intensive fax exchange took place whereby the PSA proposed names and NIDA answered by refusing each and every one of them.
There has been no formal end to this “Cocaine Initiative.” The majority of the participating scientists never heard what was done with their work.
See also: “Coca, cocaine and the international conventions,” Transnational Institute UNGASS Review, April 2003.
See also: “The WHO cocaine report the US didn’t want you to see,” Transform Drug Policy Foundation, June 10, 2009.
The document was obtained by the unaligned think tank, theTransnational Institute. This summary was provided on WikiLeaks.
June 24, 2009
3 March 1995 Cocaine Project highlights
• The WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project is the largest study on cocaineever undertaken. The study was made possible through the generous contribution of the Italian Ministry of Interior. The project produced:
Country Profiles on Cocaine from 19 developed and developing countries;
Key Informant Study reports from drug users and others with an extensive
knowledge of cocaine use from 19 cities on almost every continent;
A Natural History Study report on four sites in South America and Africa.
• The research methods developed for the project can now be used to collect information on cocaine in other countries and information on other drugs, and to monitor trends in the future.
• It is not possible to describe an “average cocaine user”. An enormous variety was found in the types of people who use cocaine,the amount of drug used, the frequency of use, the duration and intensity of use, the reasons for using and any associated problems they experience.
• However, three general patterns of use were found across theparticipating countries:
1. The snorting of cocaine hydrochloride (by far the most popular use of coca products worldwide).
2. The smoking of coca paste and crack, and the injection ofcocaine ’ hydrochloride, are minority behaviours, and tend to be found among the socially marginalised.
3. The traditional use of coca leaves among some indigenous populations in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, northern Chile and Argentina as well as some groups inBrazil and Colombia.
• Generally cocaine users consume a range of other drugs as well. There appears to be very little “pure” cocaine use. Overall, fewer people in participating countries have used cocaine than have used alcohol, tobacco or cannabis. Also, in most countries, cocaine is notthe drug associated with the greatest problems.
• Health problem; from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use.
• Few experts describe cocaine as invariably harmful to health.Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dosage users.
• A majority of health consequences may not be directly attributed tococaine use. Cocaine often contributes to or exacerbates theconditions reported, rather than causing them.
• There are widespread myths bet few scientific studies of therelationship between cocaine and sexual behaviour. One finding was that sexual problems seem to occur among high-dosage regularcocaine users.
• A range of mental health problems are associated with cocaine use, though they are mainly limited to high-dosage users.
• There is a complex relationship between cocaine use and crime, particularly theft and violence.
• Use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.
• Responses to cocaine-related health problems are poorly coordinated, inconsistent, often culturally inappropriate and generally ineffective.
• Education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes should be increased to counterbalance the current over-reliance on law enforcement measures. They should not necessarily concentrate exclusively on cocaine, bet should be integrated into a mix of strategies to deal effectively with a range of drugs.
• In many settings, educational and prevention programmes generally do not dispel myths [that] sensationalize, perpetuate stereotyping and misinformation.
• Most treatment services are poorly coordinated, often being culturally inappropriate and ineffective in achieving rehabilitation. Those most likely to be denied access when seeking treatment are the poor and heavily dependent.
• In most settings, people who have enough money to pay for cocaine - and who are familiar with a supplier – are able to obtain the drug despite its illegality.
• In many settings, cocaine users complained about the level of corruption among law enforcement officials and alleged abuses of human rights. Users made it clear that such abuses and exploitation would generally not be effective in changing their drug use behaviour.
• Coca paste use may be increasing in Andean countries and crack, use appears to be increasing in Nigeria and Brazil.
• Cocaine injection rates appear to be relatively stable and at low levels relative to the injection of other drugs.
• Most countries believe there needs to be more assessment of theadverse effects of current drug policies and strategies.
• Some countries have shifted the focus of their drug policy to a broad range of goals in which abstinence is appropriate for non-users and some users of coca products, while other users are encouraged to usethe drug as safely as possible.
Please contact (for further information):
Hans Emblad (Tel: 791 4315)
Mario Argandona (Tel: 791 4309)
Andrew Ball (Tel: 791 4792)
Programme on Substance Abuse
World Health Organization
20, avenue Appia
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
Fax: 791 4851
First Meeting of Project Advisers, Geneva, 24-28 August 1992
Dr Wilson Acuda. Zimbabwe
Mr Anthony Henman, United Kingdom
Professor Francesco Bruno. Italy
Dr David C. Lewis. USA
Dr Peter Cohen. The Netherlands
Dr Michael MacAvoy. Australia
Dr Patricia Erickson. Canada
Professor Michael Olatawura, Nigeria
Dr Erik Fromberg, The Netherlands
Dr John Saunders, Australia
Dr Michael Gossop, United Kingdom
Dra Elvia Velasquez de Pabon. Colombia
The implementation and development of the WHO/UNICRI CocaineProject was under the charge of the following researchers:
Advisory Committee:
Ms Maria Elena Andreotti, UNICRI
Dr David Lewis, Providence. USA
Dr Mario Argandoña, WHO/PSA1
Dr Michael MacAvoy, Sydney, Australia
Dr Andrew Ball, WHO/PSA
Dr Michael Olatawura, Ibadan, Nigeria
Professor Francesco Bruno, Rome, ltaly
Dr Hernan Olivera, Cochabamba, Bolivia
Research Coordinators:
For the Key Informant Study & Country Profile:
For the Natural History Study:
Ms Julie Hando, Sydney, Australia
Mr Aurelio Diaz, Barcelona, Spain
Mr Bruce Flaherty, Sydney, Australia
Ms Mila Barruti, Barcelona, Spain
Dr Ruthbeth Finerman, Memphis, USA
For the Review on Current Knowledge on Cocaine:
Professor Francesco Bruno, Rome. Italy
Dr Gianfranco Costanzo, Rome, ltaly
Dr Giancarlo Bascone, Rome, ltaly
Dr Francesca Fasoli, Rome, Italy
Dr Giuliano Bestiaco, Rome, Italy
Dr Paola Medde, Rome, ltaly
Dr Iliana Bona, Rome, Italy
Dr Paolo Di Pasquale, Rome, Italy
Principal Site Investigators:
Dr Wilson Acuda, Harare, Zimbabwe
Dr Elson Lima, Rio de Janeiro. Brazil
Dr. Bruce Alexander,Vancouver, Canada
Dr Michael MacAvoy, Sydney, Australia
Dr Al Sayed Al Kott, Cairo, Egypt
Dr Vinicio Moreno, Quito, Ecuador
Dr Bengt Andersson, Lund, Sweden
Dr Solange A. Nappo, Sao Paulo. Brazil
Dr Bert Bieleman,Groningen,The Netherlands
Dr Rafael Navarro, Lima, Peru
Dr Marcela Butron. Cochabamba, Bolivia
Dr Michael Olatawura, Ibadan, Nigeria
WHO’s Programme on Substance Abuse:
Dr E.A. Carlini. Sao Paulo. Brazil
Dr Hernan Olivera. Cochabamba. Bolivia
Dr Don Des Jarlais, New York, U.S.A.
Dr Arturo Ortiz, Mexico DF, Mexico
Dr Galina A. Korchagina. St Petersburg, Russian Fed.
Dr Craig Reinarman, San Francisco. U.S.A.
Dr Ibrahim Latheef, Male, Maldives
Dr Tony Toneatto, Toronto. Canada
Dr Ho Young Lee. Seoul, Republic of Korea
Dr Robert Trotter, Flagstaff, U.S.A.
Dr David Lewis. Providence. USA
Dr Kerstin Tunving2, Lund. Sweden
PSA Secretariat Preparation of Brief Summaries:
Mr Hans Emblad, Director, PSA
Mr Dave Burrows, Sydney, Australia
Dr Mario Argandoña, Chief, TAC3
Dr Ruthbeth Finerman, Memphis. USA
Dr Andrew Ball. Medical Officer, TAC
Ms Aimee Gilliland, Memphis. USA
Ms Penny Ward, Secretary, TAC
Ms Hanni Hudson. Memphis, USA
Ms Luz Bancale. Secretary, TAC
Ms Cynthia Martin, Memphis. USA
Mr Scott Rutter, Memphis. USA
This work has only been possible with the collaboration of manycocaine users and keyinformants, whose contributions are very much appreciated.
Comment:
World wide prohibition of illicit drugs is a proven failure.
Many references point to the fact illicit drug production is encouraged and their export facilitated by the U.S. CIA and other “intelligence” orgnaizations. The accrued profits of the drug trade help the financing of CIA, etc., ”black ops” that facilitatethe overthrow of leftist governments that the world’s oligarchs do not like. The United States’ track record of political and economic interference in ‘Third World’ nations speaks for itself.
If the US does not accept the real experts on drug use then why should one accept any “expert” when it is patently obvious that, at least in the eyes of US bureaucrats, a university degree will mean nothing unless recipients support the status quo. So much for ‘peer review’ and the credibility of the WHO.
Croft Woodruff
Coquitlam BC CANADA
Posted via email from The Canadian Activists
