POLICY AND PUBLIC HEALTH:
A PURPOSE OF A DRUG

1. - Introduction.
A panel appointed by the PNSD-National Drug Plan, prepared a "Report on Cannabis 2004: Situation Analysis and Proposals for Action" (Becoña, 2004)-hereinafter-Report on the basis of the "War on Drugs ", intended for users of cannabis. The idea arose in the previous legislature, with its director Mr. Robles. The current PNSD lists him as his project and its operation will be decided by this Government. It would be useful to ask questions of that report to show some of its premises, and say something about this "War".

2. - A plan against the use of cannabis.
The report contains several principles and two parts: "Situation Analysis" and "Proposals for Action". Based on this story: "In Spain you can see the risk of cannabis use is allowed irresponsibly, but today is more potent substance, and there are more users. This means increased risk at work, road safety, and mental health of the user. Young people are vulnerable. Today there is no prevention to raise awareness, properly. "Cannabis Culture" successfully influence and increases its use. A law is needed less tolerant users, merchants, who allow consumption and sale, and with whom, frivolous or not, encourage consumption. "

The proposals of the Report are:

a) Strategy Information on the damage sustained by the use of cannabis journalists, parents, teachers, health workers, lawyers, and others to "increase the perception of risk" in the population and prevent them from being "as repressive" measures Report (Becoña, 2004, p. 25).
b) Education Strategy. Proposes measures for schools and social agencies with more control, for a school free of drugs and pro-drug influences, and a social network that moves "against the trivialization of consumption" (Becoña, 2004, p. 26-27).
c) Plans variety of inquiry, but does not include the evaluation (Becoña, 2004, p. 30-32).
d) Coercive measures in criminal, administrative and labor (Becoña, 2004, p. 27-30), with these few:

• "Increasing the minimum of the penalty" for selling cannabis, with an aggravating factor if quality is to "2 to 5 years' imprisonment, to avoid the offender not prison. And it penalized "the failure to report" to anyone who knows of the sale and does not report it (Becoña, 2004, p. 28).
• More punishment for possession or use of illicit drugs, regulated by the Law on Protection of Public Safety, LO 1/92, publicizing the penalties, extending to the "permissiveness of consumption, or lack of diligence to prevent, to the center managers education "of entertainment and children attending (Becoña, 2004, p. 28-29).
• Punish any "form of advertising or promotion of widespread or indiscriminate use of illegal," even if no criminal deserves punishment, with particular blame to "activities for children, or with the participation of these, when trading in public places or when means are used to enhance or increase its dissemination "(Becoña, 2004, p. 29). Include written and artistic expression, such as film and literature. The authors attribute the increased consumption of "Cannabis Culture" and its publications (Bobes, 2000b, p. 9; Calafat, 2000).
• In the workplace want to generalize "mandatory preventative controls of consumption" (Becoña, 2004, p. 29), collect urine from the workers, first in riskier jobs, and expand penalties and grounds for dismissal.

In summary, the Report calls for more areas of prosecution and punishment, penalizing some expressions more information on drugs and social mobilization directed at the drug.

3. - First considerations.
The report builds on the foundation of the "War on Drugs" alarmist information about drugs and harsh penalties for the cultivation, trade and consumption. Repress the expression is something new in Spain.
The thesis of the report could be faced with another in a process of deliberation. But the authors disdain other voices, some would be frivolous and sanctionable, and others do not have "sufficient information" to discuss (Becoña, 2004, p. 6). His plan is fully political and suggesting ways of relationship between citizens and the state. It is therefore appropriate to conduct various ethical and political questions.
First, consider a story different from the report: "Banning trade in some drugs, and being in high demand, take on a symbolic and economic value added enormous. Their trade is a factory of illegal money. Many wills working in production, transportation, and sale. Ban modes were set very costly without preventing drug use encourage unhealthy consumption. Efforts to extend this prohibition epidemics like AIDS and Hepatitis, and fatalities of users who can not evaluate it consumed. The money generated funds to purchase weapons, acts of war and terrorism around the globe, and benefits to individuals, banks, terrorists, and states. Health resources in prevention, care to addicts, and associated diseases are a major cost. Yet drugs are everywhere, even in schools and prisons. " This story, wider than the Report, located further occurrences. Acts sad, joyful, poverty, power and war, among others, arise in the transits of these drugs (Labrousse, 1995a; Labrousse, 1994b; Santino, 1990; Napoleoni, 2004; Hamonwy, 1991; Roth, 2000; Schlosser , 2004; OGD, 1996, Barra, 2004).
Recall that the use of a drug is private, which is confined only to the author, and in Spain is legal in any private residence. The sale between adults is also a private act, even illegal. In Spain every year are punished more than 50,000 people for possession or use of substances (PNSD, 2002a. PNSD, 2003a. Galan, 2004; Used, 1997). For this many people and their cars are registered in depth, often in the form of raid, when authority breaks into pubs, dance halls, or next controls. These practices are qualifying as persecution. With different intensity and shape is harassed in other countries, including the death penalty in China, Singapore, and Iran (AI, 1995). Even more are those charged with retail (PNSD, 2002a; PNSD, 2003a; Galan, 2004).
Under a given health authority is required to prosecute citizens for private practices, and to know the reasons we report some questions: 1. - What is the nexus of the data provided with the proposed action? 2. - What is the social space of the consumer according to the report and the "War on Drugs"? 3. - What kind of value is the Public Health Report? and 4. - In what social project can integrate the Report?

4. - From data to the proposals.
Report data are one among many other data (Zymmer, 1997; Markez, 2002; Drugnet, 2004; PNSD, 2003a; PNSD, 2002b; Clements, 1996). He claims that there are more users, that cannabis is more potent, and ensures that getting worse. Is the usual message PNSD.
But the data do not say how significarlos, or do. The authors selected, the mean, attributed risks, perceived as a particular problem, choose the factors involved, and propose measures appropriate to the social model in which they believe. In general, the socio-historical framework of the "War on Drugs" defines the conceptual area and means "drug problem" in a certain direction.
Look what drives the data to the proposals. First we note that there are two ideas, now common, present in the report: a) Using drugs is harmful and reprehensible, that is, its mere use is a problem. b) Using them makes the person sick and socially incapable. These ideas are expanded by millions in campaign maintained over time. The user's image is produced as prejudice, hateful traits assigned to them all.
Along with this, the Report states that "increased permissiveness and disregard for their consumption" (Becoña, 2004, p. 14), "The Spanish legislation is one of the most permissive" (Becoña, 2004, p 16. ) and that they should "intensify the sanctions by the permissiveness of consumption." Suggests tougher laws to the users, which allow the consumer to whom frivolice even in public use. States that the tolerance of the community and the growing use laws (Becoña, 2004, p. 14). The guiding idea is that before the drug is needed intolerance. Report data get meaning in the belief that drug use is not tolerable, and thus justifies the thesis that social bullying is most essential.
Think about tolerance or permissiveness in relational contexts. A behavior is answered by what means or how to impact others. If something is annoying to others be tolerant response, but disapproval or protest. If a behavior is strange but not uncomfortable, dangerous, or useless, you can generate indifference. OK tolerant drug use-pot, in this case means unproblematic coexistence between users and abstainers is possible but can not accept the report and therefore requires social rejection of the users (Becoña, 2004, p. 25-27).
Health opposes tolerance is a basic idea in drug plans. The current director PNSD says that there is much tolerance for use as a problem (Moya, 2004). Dr. Bobes draws this idea in the balance, on a plate of freedom and health in the other: the more freedom less health (Bobes, 1995, p. 120; Bobes, 1997, p. 260). The war on drugs uses the term "Zero Tolerance" with aggressive measures to users (O'Hare, 1995, Heather, 1993; Erickson, 1997). Safety, tolerance, freedom and drug use are often related as follows: more freedom less healthy and more drugs, more drugs to more insecurity, more permissive more insecurity and less health, etc..
The focus of the report is that more intolerant of the use and sale of drugs means more welfare, better health and greater security.

5. - The social space assigned to the drug user.
What social space gave the "War on Drugs" the user is another important question to ask.
The "War on Drugs" presented to the user as a mixture of vicious, sick, irresponsible, antisocial, selfish, and vitally incompetent. Here we expanded that image with expensive campaigns PNSD and FAD (Foundation to Assist Drug Addiction). The ADF shows a road going through heavy traffic without looking. He also says that there are those who control the parachute, "bungee jumping", etc, but not the use of drugs, since there is only unbridled consumption, or reflection, is the image of a being less human than others.
The laws, the Penal Code and the LO 1/92, which categorized the sale as a crime to public health and public consumption as a social menace, chase down the users and sellers. The report proposes tightening the prosecution with penalties in most areas. Want to punish some voices on drugs, punishable by verbal frivolity. Their authors and they said that "Cannabis Culture" was responsible for the increased use in Spain. This report proposes the pursuit of the user in the work [1] , in its social expression, that no public spaces of consumption, etc.. So that only a social space full hiding their user status.
With this social space, and these laws, the user does not need the aid of drugs to go towards marginalization. The mere application of such laws may be sufficient.
This does not happen with all users, as many hide this condition successfully. They may feel tension if his secret is threatened. We have seen people discovered popular as users, with serious consequences, including an infamous social criticism.
Some no longer hide their condition, have been organized and presented to the community, in forums (especially online), books and magazines. Voices are diverse in many ways. There are those looking for a loophole that allows them to grow and use, and there are those who claim a legal trade for all drugs. They talk about them and their stories are voices of those who are constructed as citizens and users are presented and show a different image to stereotype assigned by the ban. His most important idea, shared by all but ignored by the authors of the Report in its deconstruction of the "Cannabis Culture" (Calafat, 2000), is that drug use should not make a social difference: they are as full human with rights.
Another of his message is: "We consume drugs, are well and function as the others." This probably outraged the authors of the report, because what the user is expected to show in the role of human wreck. And plus they say that drugs harm them, held a meeting with them.
Efforts to contact user forums and official institutions have found rejection drugs. The Report proposes to take away the word, after qualifying it as frivolous and harmful. Social space is tight, like other humans subjected to prejudice and persecution.

6. - The Public Health as a value.
The report is justified as a public health goal and therefore would not hurt to examine its meaning.
Public health measures levels of disease and health in a population. As such a situation compared with other previous and current, and with different habits. Their measurements are always relative. Assess risk and protective factors, and can create plans for varying levels of health. In this sense it is a technical discipline. Their efforts are directed to the environment, habits, food preservation, management of epidemics.
In the report the data comes from Public Health in this regard, but not related to those associated with other habits, or in more general perspective, and assesses their impact on the health status of the community.
Public health is shown as a central value in the report, but does not include assessing their own practice. Nor do the memories of PNSD, and after many years there is something that resembles a rigorous assessment of their practice. In the War on Drugs is no standard measure achievement or other effects.
The Public Health Report, as a value, is compared to others. On drugs, usually opposed to tolerance, to citizen security and freedom. The report you want to increase the persecution of a private practice and penalize speech. He opposes the minimum of democratic consensus, which would be tested pursuant to himself (Rorty, 2000). That value has not weighed when designing the report, where public health is associated with intolerance. He opposes the citizen with rights that demands respect (Sádaba, 2003), and are not required to predict the effects of these plans (Wadeley, 1995). The premise of health ethics "first do no harm" is opposed unsuccessfully to humiliate, prosecute and punish.
Tal Public Health is a health discipline, but a higher value, higher than those who support democracy. In short, as absolute values: not confront others, not evaluate their effects, any value is lower opposite and encourages authoritarian and exclusionary policies.

7. - The draft report for what society?
What kind of society aspires to the report, or the War on Drugs, is the question to deal with now. Soslayemos here as created by the business promoted by the ban, and we referred only in passing.
If we think of a Public Health as shown noticed that promotes an ideal of purity associated with no drug use, something so ambitious that does not sound human. Such an ideal and proposed methods to achieve speak of society behind the report, with its public health value. To implement its model of Public Health harassment, punishment, stigmatization of users, and limit their voice, are valid social technologies.
Such a society has the power to dictate what is healthy and what not, and forces people to be healthy as required. Monitors and punishes dissidents and social danger. Here is seen a company with total health, which requires custom or private trials, perceived social enemies by modes of self-care, excluding them from full citizenship. Let the experts to deliver the correct himself lived, and to abide by coercion, is the social model outlined in the "War on Drugs" and the Report.

8. - Some final considerations.
It would be nice to end with some considerations on drug policy.

• a) The concept of Public Health should be seen as a discipline measure, comparing phenomena, which is relative to its context, which helps social welfare, which is in contrast to other finite values, and your proposals should not avoid the subject of deliberations. Dictate that public health is more than the value of citizen rights and inclusive policies classifies it as a fundamentalist concept.
• b) To quantify the "War on Drugs" is important for the community. How many personal efforts, and economic materials are used in pursuit of consumers and sellers? What was the weight of drug plans contagious diseases spreading in our country? What is the weight of the ban in court and the collapse in the overcrowding? What are the Improvements in the last 15 years due to PNSD? Where is the black money from the sale of drugs? What is the level of bribery and corruption in state associated with the ban? What money are financed terrorists, paramilitary and guerrilla groups, including the Jihad? There are still many more questions that are rarely addressed by politicians or health professionals, but citizens should know what it spends so much money so badly in that war. And they should know how to fall under the prohibition, although abstinent, for example in delaying the hearing of his suit for judicial collapse.
• c) To those who ask "because they use drugs castiguémosles" opposes another voice in user groups "use drugs, we do not want to feel good and therefore no difference." The idea that anyone who uses drugs is a social inept is an outrage that extended the ban. While the War on Drugs makes social rejection, the other voice calls for full citizenship. Let's face it, is ethically superior to the last reason, and opting for an inclusive policy.
• d) It is desirable to show all sorts of stories of people humiliated, stigmatized, enfermadas, imprisoned, rich, etc ... anywhere in the chain that now binds to human and drugs. Literature, film and other voices have begun to count them, and come in many types. We need to hear more stories that excite more people to help empathize with harassed. You see the moral progress related drugs such as human-like emotions of others. The publications users, and sometimes the press do, but there is still much to hear.
• f) Another way of looking at drugs is necessary, the current is largely disastrous. With the liability side of the ban are the financing of wars, the spread of disease, increased social exclusion, among other serious events.

Our conceptual framework is embedded in the ban, and not easy to transcend, but the ideas that promote and make the context of planetary upheaval source drugs will not last forever. It would not hurt to listen to all involved in drugs. Although there is a forum for those who choose to talk about harassment and users. Silencing voices is a dream authoritarian frivolous impractical and inconvenient: some ideas were born under the shame and later proved valuable.
We encourage discussion and forums on drugs, and those who work in this field have a responsibility and special encouragement to do so. It is impractical to think about drugs all that happens is seen in the office or in the media. There are even other sciences dealing with drugs. Should listen, think, empathize and even ask what now seems obvious. As this phenomenon becomes more difficult to illegally think looks crystal clear or neutral, but no doubt they are very different events that occur around drugs: some terrible, some of enjoyment or insight ...
We can not, as citizens, not as technicians in health or welfare, to accept that society is better to divide between users and abstainers. Out of the ban and its conceptual apparatus, maybe one day we find a positive potential in the use of drugs. We do not know in advance what kind of changes will have priority when leaving moral abstinence, especially by the state, what relationships and discourses are created in the legal use and sale of drugs. Today we know the principles and purposes of an exclusionary policy that breaks citizenship, and global damage. Urge think drugs include the perspective of its users as full citizens in the public and private spheres.

• AI - Amnesty International (1995): "The death penalty is not the solution to illegal drugs," mimeo, 40 p., Ed Amnesty International, Spain.
• Barra, M. (2004) "Drugs and the spread of AIDS: the forgotten book," The Country Journal, Monday August 2, 2004, p. 24.Becoña, E., Calafat, A., Del Cerro, E. et al. (2004) "Cannabis Report 2004: Situation analysis and proposals for action", Spain, PNSD in http://www.mir.es/pnd/publica/pdf/informe_cannabis2004.pdfBobes, J. (1995) "Ecstasy. Pharmacological aspects, psychiatric and medico-legal ", Barcelona, ​​Ed Citran.
• Bobes, J. et al. (Eds) (1997) "Ecstasy (MDMA): A comprehensive approach", Barcelona, ​​Ed Toray.
• Bobes. J. & Calafat, A. (Eds) (2000a) "Monograph Cannabis", Rev. Addictions, Volume 12, Supplement 2.
• Bobes, J. & Calafat, A. (2000b) "From neurobiology to social psychologists use-abuse of cannabis." In Bobes, J. & Calafat, A. (Eds) (2000a) "Monograph Cannabis", Rev. Addictions, Vol 12, Supplement 2.
• Calafat, A., John, M., Becoña, E., Fernandez, C., Gil, E, & Llopis, JJ (2000) "Strategies and organization of pro-cannabis culture." In Bobes, J. & Calafat, A. (Eds) (2000a) Cannabis Monograph, Rev. Addictions, Volume 12, Supplement 2.
• Clements, I., Cohen, J. & Kay, J. (1996/1992) "Taking drugs seriously. A manual of harm minimising education on drugs ", Liverpool, Ed Wise Health.
• Drugnet, 2004, "Power wins cannabis?", P. 1, Rev. Drugnet July / September 2004, or www.encdda.eu.int.
• Erickson, P., Riley, D., Cheung, Y. & O'Hare, P. (Eds) (1997) "Harm Reduction: A new direction for drugs Policies and programs", University of Toronto Press, Canada.
• Galan. L. (2004) "The Labyrinth of Drugs", p. 1-3., El País, Sunday, 26/9/2004.
• Hamonwy, R. (Ed.) (1991) "Traffic and drug use", Madrid, Union Editorial.
• Heather et al. (Eds.) (1993), "Psychoactive drugs and harm reduction: from faith to science", London, Whurr Ed.
• Labrousse, A. (1995a) "Drugs, money and weapons", Mexico, S. XXI.
• Labrousse, A. Wallon, A. (Eds.) (1994b) The world of drugs, Bilbao, Messenger Publishing.
• Markez, I., Poo, M., Merino, C., & Romera, C. (2002) "Cannabis: From Health and the law", Vitoria, Basque Government.
• Moya Garcia, C., (2004), "Interview with ..."-director of PNSD - Newspaper El Pais, Sunday, September 13, 2004, 6-7.
• Napoleoni, L. (2004) "Jihad. How Terrorism is Financed in the new economy", Barcelona, ​​Ed Uranus.
• OGD - Observatoire des Drogues Géopolitique (1996) "Atlas mondial des drogues", France, Ed Presses Universitaires de France.
• O'Hare, P. et al. (Eds) (1995), "Reducing drug related harm", Barcelona, ​​Ed Igia.
• PNSD (2002a) "National Plan on Drugs: Report 2002", Ed PNSD.
• PNSD (2002b) "Report of treatment, emergency and mortality. 2002, "Ed PNSD.
• PNSD (2003a) "Spanish Observatory on Drugs: Report No. 6", November 2003, Ed PNSD.
• Roth, J. (2000) "Mafia State", 2000, Spain, Plaza & Janes Ed.
• Rorty, R. (1995) "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity", Ed.
• Rorty, R. (2000) "Pragmatism, a version", Barcelona, ​​Ed Ariel.
• Sádaba, J. (2003) "Principles of Bioethics", Spain, Ed Gedisa.
• Santino, U. & The Fiura, G (1990) "Behind the drug," Argentina, Ed Homo Sapiens.
• Used, JC (1997) "Drugs and Public Safety", October No 76 Rev. Keys Practical Reason, Spain.
• Wadeley, A. & Blasco, T. (1995) "Ethics in psychological research and practice", Barcelona, ​​Ed Ariel.
• Zymmer, L. & Morgan, JP (1997) "Marijuana myths, marijuana facts," New York, Lindesmith Center.

By Mikel A. Valverde, Spanish Journal of Addictions, nos. 1 and 2, vol. 30, 2005, p. 128-137 and extracted from the World Anti-Prohibitionist .

[1] Do not forget that this Plan is not a Risk Reduction Program at Work, within which some protective measures can be assessed and implemented, respecting the customs alien to work.