Sot. Sci. Med. Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 481493, I992 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

Copyright

0277-9536/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Q 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

SECTION I ETHICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CONTROL DRUG ABUSE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING: THE NIGERIAN CASE ISIDORE

Department

of General

OF

S. OBOT

and Applied Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, P.O. Box 10031, Jos, Nigeria

University

of Jos,

Abstract-This paper presents a general review of drug law and policy in Nigeria beginning with the international attempts to control the traffic in liquor during the pre-colonial and colonial periods. The paper assesses the impact of penal policy on trafficking and use of illicit drugs at different stages in the transformation of Nigeria from a colonial outpost to an independent nation. One persistent feature of drug control mechanisms in Nigeria has been the emphasis on the reduction of supply with the imposition of harsh though inconsistent punishment including, at one time, the death penalty for trafficking. Consequently, initiatives aimed at demand reduction through education, treatment and rehabilitation have been neglected. One reason for this is that, to a great extent, drug control strategy in modern Nigeria has been a response to international demands; another is that they were formulated under military regimes with an overriding concern for law and order. Other features of the Nigerian drug problem are presented and the need for the reform of current laws is stressed. It is argued that an enduring solution lies in the implementation of a comprehensive but clearly defined policy aimed both at the control of supply and reduction of demand. While the state has the duty and the right to protect its citizens from drug-related harm, it is an ethical imperative to institute control measures which do no harm to the citizens they are meant to protect. Key words-drug

trafficking,

drug abuse,

Nigeria,

policy,

drug law

The highlight of the seminar was an event that took place on the last day. On this day a debate on the re-introduction of the death penalty for drug offenses (abolished by Decree 22 of 1986) was held. Distinguished legal experts were arrayed on each side of the issue and the session was chaired by a retired Justice of the Supreme Court. At the end of the submissions a vote (obviously non-binding) was taken among participants and those who opposed the death penalty for drug offenses won by a comfortable margin. In an attempt to reflect this victory in the communique that was issued at the end of the conference one item states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1989 the Nigerian government declared a ‘war on drugs’ with the promulgation of Decree No. 48. Among other things the Decree created the eponymous National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) which was saddled with the primary function of ‘enforcement and administration of the provisions of the Decree’. In May 1990 the NDLEA, together with the Ministry of Justice and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), hosted a National Seminar on Drug Law Enforcement at the Nigerian Law School, Lagos. The three-day seminar was attended by local and foreign experts on different aspects of the drug problem, government officials, and members of the public from all walks of life. Papers were presented on treatment, prevention and law enforcement issues (including the role of traditional healers) and impassioned addreses were delivered by government functionaries on what was termed the drug ‘menace’. Market women, reformed addicts, preachers and security agents were in agreement about one thing--drug trafficking and abuse were growing hazards in Nigeria and something needed to be done about it. In scope and content this was the largest conference on drugs ever held in Nigeria up to that time. In December

That while the death penalty may not be the most potent penalty for deterring drug offenders its usefulness and shortcomings have been noted. Government should endeavour to introduce penalties which are in consonance with civilized and contemporary practice elsewhere 11, pp. xv-xvi].

Probably aware that the debate on the death penalty would remain a contentious one (as could be gleaned from the strong showing of the pro-death group), the writers of the communique resorted to equivocation. Moreover, because it was widely rumoured that the death penalty was going to be re-introduced anyway, the ambiguity in the recommendation was understandable. That rumour was unfounded as the death 481

482

ISIDORE

s. OBOT

penalty for drug offences have remained off the books. But the conviction that only draconian laws will solve the Nigerian drug problem is held firmly by many in the country. As Chukkol [2] observed, the “belief in the efficacy of the criminal justice system and popular perception that it is the panacea for all undesirable activities of some of our citizens is still very much in vogue” (2, p. 2121. This belief and the behaviours that emanate from it are central to any consideration of the role of government in controlling drug abuse and drug trafficking. The question is not on whether or not the state has a role to play in drug control but on what that role should be. The purpose of this paper is to provide a situation analysis of Nigeria’s ‘war on drugs’ with emphasis on the dilemmas and ethical conflicts in current drug laws. While what seems like a balanced view is taken in the paper, some suggestions are proffered for the formulation and implementation of a human-centred, non-hysterical, and comprehensive drug policy. There is need for more reason in Nigerian drug law and less dependence on sounds of war masquerading as social policy. THE DRUG PROBLEM

IN NIGERIA

Does Nigeria have a drug problem? This is an old question which, even though it continues to be asked, is giving way to another albeit similar question: what is the extent of the drug problem in Nigeria? Both questions are often asked not out of ignorance but out of an understandable appreciation of the existence of other more pressing problems in the country. Afterall the problems of disease, ignorance and hunger are still very much with us. In this situation the question, therefore, seems to be whether or not Table (A) Highlights

of pre-colonial

the drug problem is serious enough, when there are many other things to worry about. The fact is that drugs (including alcohol) were seen as a problem in Nigeria long before the country became independent from Britain in 1960. In colonial Nigeria the concern for alcohol-related problems was often voiced by the administrators and laws were made to control the booming trade in alcoholic beverages, opium and its derivatives (Table 1). Since after independence different administrations have also reacted to a situation where trafficking in and abuse of almost all types of addictive substances have come to pose a serious danger to health and social welfare [3] by promulgating decrees and enacting laws. The abuse of legal substances

The problem started with trade liquor which colonial administrators tried to control in Africa for economic and social reasons. The fight against alcohol continued for many years and culminated in the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of local gin. But today alcohol is a legal substance and in all its diverse forms remains the most widely consumed drug in Nigeria. Recent surveys show that about 30% of Nigerian adults drink alcohol (especially in the form of beer) regularly and more than one-third of the drinkers drink at least once a day [4]. Alcohol consumption begins early in life and therefore it is not surprising that high proportions of secondary school students describe themselves as drinkers [5]. The cost of alcohol abuse to society in Nigeria, in terms of accidents, health care cost, morbidity and mortality, loss of time from work, violent crimes, and family disruption, is certainly substantial but lacks sufficient documentation.

1.Milestones in alcohol and other drug reaulations in colonial and modern Nigeria and colonial

actions

on alcohol

and drugs

United Committee for the Prevention of the Demoralisation of the Native Races by the Liquor Traffic formed in England. 1890: Slave Trade and Importation into Africa of Firearms, Ammunitions and Spirituous Liquors (General Act of Brussels), League of Nations. l Major aim was to suppress slave trade. . But also to control traffic in arnu and alcohol. l created zones of prohibition against importation and distillation of spiritous liquor. lestablished principle of taxation of liquor imports and payment of excise duty as a means of reducing consumption. 1899, 1906: Brussels Conventions on Liquor Traffic in Africa: Duties; and Liquor Traffic in Africa: Revision of Duties. . to review and raise import duties and excise tax as stipulated in the General Act of Brussels for more effective control of colonial liquor trade. 1909: Committee of Inquiry into the Liquor Trade. aset up by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. l major findings: alcohol-related problems minimal; contact with westerners associated with excessive drinking. 1917: Native Liquor (Sale) Ordinance. . forbade the sale of local/traditional liquor without license. . license holder given power to refuse admitting or turn out disorderly persons. . extension of prohibition zones. . stipulated penalties for offences by license holders. 1918: Native Liquor (Manufacture) Ordinance. . gave power to the Governor in Council to prohibit or restrict the manufacture or possession of native liquor. 1919: Convention on Liquor Traffic in Africa (Saint Gerroain-en-Laye Treaty) . prohibition of importation, distribution, sale, and possession of trade spirits in sub-Saharan colonial Africa . forbade local production of distilled beverages. . forbade importation, distribution, sale and possession of apparatus used in the distillation of gin. 1935: Dangerous Drugs Ordinance . to regulate the importation, exportation, manufacture, sales and use of opium and other dangerous drugs. . regulated substances included coca leaves, cocaine, Cannabis, opium and its derivatives. . power of arrest without warrants conferred on police officers. . Penalty for offences: imprisonment for IO years or fine or both. 1886:

The control (B) Highlights

of Nigerian

drug Legislations,

of

drug abuse and drug trafficking

483

1966-1990

Indian Hemp Decree (Post-Independence; Military regime) l focus on control of cannabis cultivation, exportation, importation and smoking. *death or prison term not less than 21 years for importation or cultivation. l minimum of 10 years imprisonment for exportation. a 10 or more years in jail for smoking or possession or for allowing premises to be used for Indian hemp offence. l 5 years or more for possession of smoking utensils. l corporal punishment (caning) for male offenders under 19 years in addition to or instead of any other punishment. l forfeiture of all articles and any vehicle or vessel used by offender. l rehabilitation of offenders under 17 years of age by probation officer, approved institution, parent, guardian or fit person. 1975: Indian Hemp (Amendment) Act (New military administators) l less severe penalties instituted. l imprisonment not exceeding 10 years for cultivation, importation and sale of cannabis. l term of imprisonment not less than 6 months, fine of N200 or both for smoking or possession. l offence for possession of Indian Hemp paraphernalia abolished. lmaximum of IO years imprisonment for allowing premises to be used for selling or smoking Indian Hemp. 1984: Indian Hemp (Amendment) Decree (Another group of military administrators) l Repealed the 1975 Act. l severe penalties reinstituted l imprisonment of not less than 21 years for sale or trafficking. l imprisonment of not less than 4 years for smoking or possession. l 21 strokes of the cane, 2 years in a borstal or fine of N200 for smoking or possession by under-17. l provisions of decree retroactive. 1984: Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Decree l death penalty by firing squad for dealing in, buying, selling, exposing or offering for sale or inducing any person to buy, sell, smoke or inhale the drug known as cocaine or other similar drug. *retroactive (Decree promulgated 6 July 1984 but with effect from 31 December 1983). 1986: Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) (Amendment) Decree (A new and current group of military leaders) l death penalty abolished. . life imprisonment for importing, manufacturing, producing, processing, planting or growing of cocaine, LSD, heroin, or similar drugs. l imprisonment not exceeding 20 years for exporting, transporting or trafficking. l imprisonment of not less 14 years for selling, buying, exposing for sale or dealing. l imprisonment of not less than 2 years (but not more than IO years) for posession or consumption. l quality of drug important in determining sentence. l forfeiture of assets and passport. especial tribunal set up. 1989: National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Decree l decree established the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). l Agency has I8 functions almost all of which are law enforcement. l life imprisonment for production, transportation, sale of cocaine, LSD, heroin, or any similar drugs. l knowingly possessing or using any of these drugs attracts IS-25 years jail term. l Being an accessory in trafficking attracts 15-25 years jail term. l fines, jail term, forfeiture of properties for those who assist in laundering of funds. 1990: Tobacco Smoking (Control) Decree l control of smoking in public places, i.e. cinemas, offices, schools, medical establishments, theatres or stadia, public transportation, lifts. l prohibits advertisements in the following media: newspapers, magazines, radio and television, cinema, hand bills and billboards, without warning of danger. l packages and advertisements should bear one of the following warnings: “The Federal Ministry of Health warns that tobacco smoking is dangerous to health”, “Smokers are Liable to Die Young”. l offences under the decree attract various fines (C) International conwntions to which Nigeria is a signatory 1961: Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs acontrol of cultivation of opium, coca and cannabis. . consumption prohibited. l provisions made for treatment and rehabilitation. . International Narcotic Control Board formed. 1971: Convention on Psychotropic Substances l new types of substances added to control list: central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, sedative-hypnotics, hallucinogens. 1972: Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs l need to intensify effort to prevent trafficking. l more emphasis on prevention of use, drug information/education; rehabilitation, and reintegration of abusers. 1988: U.N. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. l major purpose is to provide the guidelines for international cooperation in addressing various aspects of the drug problem. l provides the framework for national legislations.

1966:

Source: Relevant Nigerian and United Nations’ Legal Documents; Lynn Pan, Studies, Helsinki, 1975

Another legal substance which is associated with serious health problems is tobacco. In the form of cigarettes, tobacco is consumed by more than 22% of adult Nigerians regularly and occasionally by 4.2% [6]. Similar figures have been reported in studies among post-secondary students [7j and physicians [8]. One of the earliest studies of smoking in Nigeria found that 17.5% of male secondary school students in an urban area were cigarette smokers [9]. There is evidence that tobacco consumption is taking some

Alcohol in Colonial

Africa.

The

Finnish Foundation for Alcohol

toll on the health of Nigerians [lo]. It is some consolation, therefore, that in the realm of public policy a smoking control decree was promulgated in the country in 1990 (see Table 1). The misuse of prescription drugs-stimulants (e.g. amphetamines), tranquillo-sedatives (e.g. Valium), opiod and nonopiod analgesics (e.g. panadol) is an increasing phenomenon and one that is associated with a significant number of medical emergencies [ 111. Prescription drugs are available through unregistered

484

ISID~RE S. OBOT

medicine sellers and can be purchased from licensed pharmacies without prescription or with the repeated use of one prescription. Findings from a recent general population survey have shown that 84.7% of a sample of 1052 adults had used a drug without prescription in the past year; nearly one-third had used the drug for up to twice a month [ll]. An earlier study of stimulant use among students in secondary schools showed a high incidence of the use of Pro-plus (a caffeine concentrate in tablet form) and amphetamines for energy and wakefulness [12]. Complicating the situation is the serious problem of dumping fake, expired and banned pharmaceuticals in the Nigerian market which has often led to the death of infants and others who use these drugs. The use of illegal drugs By the time the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance was passed in Nigeria in 1935 there was no narcotic problem in the then colonial entity. Indian hemp (cannabis) was also not known by the people. Cannabis was brought into Nigeria by soldiers returning from the Asian continent at the end of the Second World War in the 1940s. Soon after its arrival on the scene, the hemp fluorished in several parts of the territory and an indigenous market for the drug was established. At first Indian hemp was consumed by urban, mostly deviant youth [13], but it was not long before its use spread to all ranks of young people in urban and rural areas. Evidence that cannabis was having a negative effect on consumers was provided by retrospective studies of psychiatric hospital admissions [13, 141. High proportions of young people admitted into these hospitals in the Lagos area had histories of cannabis use. More recent findings continue to show that cannabis users are disproportionately represented among drugrelated cases in hospitals. For example, cannabis accounted for 76% of these cases in one study [15] and 60% in another study [Ill. Cannabis was also one of the drugs most often taken in combination with other substances [15]. The complexity of the relationship between cannabis use and mental illness notwithstanding, madness remains the most salient feature of cannabis consumption in the public imagination. This association has helped to shape Indian hemp laws in modern Nigeria and may explain the persistent support for the continuation of strict punishment for offences. The abuse of narcotic drugs and cocaine is a relatively new phenomenon in Nigeria. The first mention of the use of cocaine or heroin in the research or popular literature was made in 1981. Even by then the use of cocaine was said to be limited to expatriates [16]. No evidence that Nigerians were affected was yet available. But soon after, cocaine and heroin became available in the country as Nigerians got involved as couriers in the illicit drug trade between the producing regions of South-East Asia

(heroin) or South America (cocaine) and the consuming markets of North America and Western Europe. What was brought in and could not be taken out for sale in the lucrative markets was served to a local clientele which was beginning to grow. Beginning from the middle 1980s the effect started to show as emergency cases in casualty and psychiatric wards. Anecdotal evidence and recent hospital data reveal a growing incidene of cocaine and heroin abuse, again, by young people in large urban areas [l 1,141. Both cocaine and heroin have become affordable drugs in Nigeria today (costing as little as N5 or less than $1 per dose) hence their use will spread, as in the case of cannabis, to semi-urban and rural areas unless appropriate control measures are taken. THE FRAMEWORK

FOR DRUG POLICY

IN NIGERIA

These disturbing data on the use and abuse of psychotropic substances and related problems, and the fear that if nothing is done the situation will deteriorate, are some of the major influences on drug policies in Nigeria. But there are two other interrelated factors fuelhng Nigeria’s attempts to control the problem of illicit drugs in the country. The first is government’s worry about Nigeria’s image abroad; the second and related factor concerns the role and expectations of western governments, especially that of the United States, in international narcotic control. Drug traficking and Nigeria’s image Much has been said and written in Nigeria and in the international press about the activities of Nigerians in global drug trafficking. The figures seem to bear out the attention this phenomenon has received in recent years. After the first arrest of a cocaine trafficker in a Nigerian airport in 1982, there was a tidal wave of arrests of traffickers and seizures of cocaine and heroin (Fig. 1). Away from home the same pattern was observed. In a period of 10 years, from 1979-1988, 14,883 Nigerian traffickers were arrested with illicit drugs in airports in five continents (Fig. 2). Most of the arrests were made in Britain, The United States and Saudi Arabia. The fall-out from this situation has been what Nigerian leaders and many opinion leaders regard as a serious dent on the country’s image abroad. Nigerians have been stigmatized as the quintessential and apologetic drug couriers. The repercussion of this is that Nigerians, including government officials with diplomatic passports, respected intellectuals and businessmen, have at one time or another been subjected to humiliating searches at international airports. Casualties involving “pregnant women who lost their pregnancies because of the crude manner they were searched” have been reported [17]. But even among those who decry the participation of Nigerians in the drug trade, there is an uneasy

485

The control of drug abuse and drug trafficking 160 140 t

60 60

1982

1963

1985

1986

1987

1969

1906

Year Source: Oyakhilome

(1990)

No.of seizures

I

@

Weight (kg)

Fig. 1. Drug seizures in Nigeria 1982-1989.

feeling that the stigma is undeserved because the role of Nigerians in terms of quantity of drugs is minimal [18]. While many are arrested for trafficking, few of them transport more than 1 kg of cocaine or heroin at a time. Even when Nigeria was ranked third in terms of the number of its citizens arrested for trafficking, the quantity of drugs seized was less than the quantity seized from citizens of a country ranked thirteenth. Speaking at a seminar on drug law enforcement Nigeria’s first ‘drug czar’ pleaded that based on the data available on “quantity of drugs

2500

ascribed to [Nigerians] measured against the overall volume of hard drugs in circulation in the world . . .” it is “unfair for any person anywhere in the world to ascribe to Nigeria the bad name of perpetuating the drug scourge in the world” [18]. It is of course true that Nigerians are engaged more and more in largescale operations which suggest efficient organizations. Yet another worry expressed by Nigerian citizens is that many of those described by the press in western countries and international narcotic agents list as Nigerians may, in fact, not be Nigerians at all. For

.

‘r

2000 t

r

I

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1I986

Year Source: A. U. Kalu and Y. Osinbajo (1990)

0

Arrests

EZI

Convictions

Fig. 2. Arrests of Nigerian t&Tickers abroad, 19794988.

1907

1988

486

k.lDOFtE

example, a former ambassador has observed that “every black arrested in Pakistan for an offence is regarded as a Nigerian” [17]. While this may be the case, it is to be expected that some Nigerian traffickers may also be guilty of travelling with false documents as citizens of other African countries in order to escape the scrutiny reserved for Nigerians. Another dimension of this is that legitimate Nigerian organizations in the US. have had cause to feel that they were often suspected of being drug smuggling rings. An example of this is the Organization of Nigerian Citizens (ONC) in Baltimore, Maryland. In the Third Quarter (1991) Report of the organization it is reported that a “strong reaction has been presented before the Drug Enforcement Agency following recent arrests of Nigerians in the area alleged to be involved in unlawful activities. The DEA in its press release stated that, Nigerian organizations are a new and aggressive heroin trafficking threat . . .” DEA representatives apologized for the general nature of their statement. Another item in the Report made reference to a recent murder of a Nigerian in Baltimore which the media associated with drugs. The ONC “stressed the need for the media to be cautious in condemning Nigerian deaths as being drug-related without waiting for formal investigations.” Official reaction to drug trafficking seems to suggest that while Nigerians and their leaders are aware of the role their fellow citizens are playing in drug trafficking, and are worried about the consequences, they are, out of patriotism, being realistic about the political implications of participating in what is essentially an international offensive against drugs with what some of them view as an undeserved stigma. This is particularly significant in view of the United States’ leading position in the war and the charge that Nigeria is involved in the war to satisfy American expectations. The West and the war on drugs

There is no doubt that the current war on drugs, a war that continues to breed draconian laws, is anchored by the U.S.A. and that many countries are involved in the war for their national interests. But it is also true that one aspect of American drug strategy has been the involvement of other countries. The global nature of the problem demands this. The U.S. has one of the world’s worst drug problems and cocaine and heroin are not even indigenous to the country. It is therefore to be expected that the U.S. should seek the support of producing and trafficking countries in its campaigns. But in doing this the U.S. often uses tactics which go beyond persuasion. For example, the 1984 National Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Traficking [19]: calls for U.S. decisions on foreign aid and other matters, such as refinancing of debt, to be tied to the willingness of the recipient country to execute vigorous enforcement programs against narcotic traffickers [19, p. 1I].

s.

OBOT

In the National Drug Control Strategy of 1991 [20], the international initiatives are less overtly manipulative. They include (1) “the political commitment of drug producer and transit countries to strengthen their laws, legal institutions, and programs to prosecute, punish, and where appropriate, extradite drug traffickers and drug money launderers”; (2) increased law enforcement effectiveness of producer and transit countries; and (3) provision of economic assistance to producing countries for crop substitution. The implication of these actions is that as foreign aid and debt refinancing are increasingly tied to compliance with American drug policy, some producing and trafficking countries, even when not convinced about the rationality of the drug war, will be forced to do what is ‘politically correct’ or what is expected. Non-compliance may, afterall, result in “death by starvation for some of their poorer citizens” [21]. Focussing on the international dimension of the drug problem by developing nations, including Nigeria, may be catastrophic in a different way: Some of the nations being coerced into waging a drug war. may in fact be forced to divert resources away from urgent needs thereby worsening conditions of poverty, destitution, high illiteracy and mortality rates in such societies. Thus the war. against drugs may be manipulated by the developed nations to serve their national interests and to exercise control over the utilization of resources by and in developing societies. Therefore, policies on the control of narcotics trafficking and abuse in the Third World nations must be guided by national interest rather than by foreign coercion [22, p. 141.

But it is true that while American emphasis may be on reduction of supply from Third World countries, demand reduction in these countries receives some attention. For example, American organizations through their missions in Nigeria and in other countries are engaged in public education activities and support the training of manpower for research, treatment and prevention. Unfortunately, America’s leading role in the drug war is subverted by the situation at home. A war that has been fought for many years has not had the desired effect. The availability of drugs has not decreased and, while attitudes may have changed, drug use and abuse in certain age groups have not shown any appreciable decline. Yet the need to lead by example has not escaped American drug policy makers. The 1991 National Drug Control Strategy [20] is clear on this score when it states that: To convince other nations of the need to solve their drug problems, the United States must demonstrate that we are taking the necessary social, economic, and political steps to reduce our own demand for drugs, and that we have made real progress in doing so [20, p. 901.

Whether or not real progress has been made in demand reduction is debatable but conscientious effort in this direction, which includes improved budgetary provisions, is a moral responsibility for the global leader in the movement against illicit drugs.

The control of drug abuse and drug trafficking ALCOHOL

AND OTHER DRUG LAWS IN NIGERIA

Pre -colonial and colonial era

The earliest attempts to curb the abuse of and trade in a psychotropic substance in what is today Nigeria was a response to a war against alcohol in 19th century Britain. Even before Nigeria became a colony of Britain, alcohol was playing a major role in trade as “an article of the barter system through which European goods were exchanged for African slaves” [23]. But, as earlier stated, the substance had a bad reputation in some segments of British society. A temperance movement with worldwide influence soon emerged in Britain as in North America. Through the missionaries and colonial administrators the war against ‘demon rum’ reached the colonies and lasted for many years. Economic considerations also played a part in the control of liquor trade in Africa. Trade liquor was made in Germany but exported from Britain. Therefore, some enemies of the liquor trade in Africa were reacting “against German trade rivalry and in part. . the fear that an increase in liquor imports would mean a decreased demand for British goods, especially cotton goods” [23]. Local voices were also raised against alcohol because of the effect of trade gin on the people. Pan [23] cites one example of local concern: Malike, Mohammedan Emir of Nupe in the Niger, for instance, had written in 1884 to Bishop Samuel Crowther, the first African Christian Bishop in Nigeria, that ‘Rum has ruined my country, it has ruined my people. It has made them become mad’, and had asked the bishop to ‘beg the English Queen to prevent the bringing of rum into this land. to spoil this country’ [23, p. 1I]. The combined efforts of moralists, worried leaders, and people with selfish economic interests resulted in a chapter on liquor control in the General Act of Brussels of 1890. The 1917 and 1918 Native Liquor Ordinances were passed to control the sale and manufacture of local alcohol in all the African colonies (Table 1). Nigerian gin produced from palm wine suddenly became illicit gin by law. The criminalization of a long-entrenched way of life demanded consistent enforcement which was a difficult task to perform in a colonial set-up as it is in more modern settings. Alcohol prohibition was a failure. And as the temperance fervour cooled in Britain and North ‘America early in the 20th century prohibitionist laws were either repealed or became redundant. But in 1926 the Bishop of London continued to express his concern about the danger of alcohol in the colonies [24] by writing to the Secretary of the Colonies to observe the stipulations of the League of Nations. As it is, the problem of alcohol abuse has survived all laws and in Nigeria today alcohol is a favoured commercial product and the only drug without tough laws to control its production, marketing or consumption.

487

Beginning with the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance of 1935 and, in fact, earlier laws which were binding on the colony of Nigeria because Britain was a signatory, other psychotropic substances became regulated in Nigeria. The 1935 Ordinance placed limitations on the manufacture, distribution, and use of cannabis, cocaine, coca leaves, opium and its derivatives at a time when these drugs were unheard-off in the country. Post-independence Nigeria

About 20 years after cannabis became a feature of the Nigerian drug scene and 6 years after independence, the most important drug legislation in the country up to recent times was passed. The Indian Hemp Decree of 1966 (Table 1) was enacted by the first military regime in Nigeria in response to a growing incidence of cannabis abuse among youth as reported earlier. As a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs the government was also bound by international law to do something about drugs in general. Until a few years ago the history of illicit drug regulation in Nigeria had been the history of the Indian hemp decree for the simple reason that Cannabis was the problem drug. And the rollercoaster nature of the law is a reflection of rapid changes in government and the differing characters of leaders in the nation’s post-independence era, a period that has been dominated by military administrations. The most contentious provisions of the 1966 Decree was the death penalty for the cultivation of hemp and long prison terms for other offences. Nobody was killed under the Decree and the stiff penalties later gave way to less severe punishment for similar offences with the 1975 Indian Hemp (Amendment) Act under a new group of military leaders. In 1984 a second amendment of the Decree re-instituted severe penalties again reflecting, more than anything else, the general draconian nature of the rulers. In the same year the Special Tribunal (Miscellanneous Offences) Decree was enacted which brought back the controversial death penalty for drug offences. This Decree covered cocaine and unspecified ‘other similar drugs’ and came at a time when cocaine trafficking had become an issue of national concern. And for the first time in Nigerian history three young men were killed by firing squad for drug trafficking. The scene was a shock to most Nigerians and unleashed a flood of protest letters against what was seen as a barbaric form of punishment by many. In general, the penal policy in respect to cannabis: has been largely incoherent. Both amendments were made without any recourse to empirical findings-and certainly very little attention was given to the statistics of Indian hemp offences between 1975 and 1984 which would have shown that there was no sharp increase in Indian hemp offences to warrant stiffer penalties [25].

Two years later with yet another military group in place, the death penalty for drug offences was abol-

488

hIDORE

ished and in 1989 a comprehensive drug law enforcement decree was promulgated which reflected the provisions of the 1988 United Nations convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (see Table 1). The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Decree is the omnibus drug control legislation in Nigeria today. It differs from all earlier legislation in one significant way. The Decree set up a body with 18 functions, the primary one being the “enforcement and due administration of the provision of this Decree”. In keeping with the spirit and title of the decree all except two of the functions refer to law enforcement (specifically supply reduction) activities. But a counselling unit is, incongruously, one the three units set up by the decree to carry out awareness campaigns and the rehabilitation of addicts. Generally the NDLEA Decree has been applauded as a bold attempt to control drug trafficking in Nigeria but the decree has also attracted its share of criticisms and calls for amendments. Problems with the decree, hence the Agency it set up, are in several areas and have both ethical and legal implications for the control of drug abuse and trafficking. First of all, while the major raison d’etre of the decree is to control trafficking with law enforcement, the Agency is also saddled with responsibilities that are incompatible with law enforcement. Placing a counselling unit in what is essentially a police outfit is, in the word of one critic, abnormal [22]. The danger in this marriage is not only a built-in ineffectiveness due to overburdening the organization but the increasing likelihood of continued association of drug abuse with the criminal justice instead of the health care system. As it is, while the physical placement of the counselling unit in the midst of interdiction and prosecution activities is anomalous, it is also symbolic of the thinking that drug problems are primarily legal. It is, of course, not unusual these days to find law enforcement officers engaged in drug education in schools and in the community. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program of police formations in the U.S. and the demand reduction activities of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.) are notable examples which have attracted the attention of law enforcement officers in other countries. This is an encouraging situation because supply and demand reduction activities should work in tandem and not at odds with each other. Yet that is not justification for placing all drug control initiatives in one organization. What is required is effective coordination of activities of separate bodies with primary responsibilities in defined areas of the problem. An outfit that was set up for the primary responsibility of waging a war on drugs is not in a position to address all the different facets of the drug problem.

s.

OBOT

THE LIMITATIONS

OF THE WAR STRATEGY

Why has a war strategy failed to solve the drug problem either in Nigeria or in other countries where it is the dominant form of control? What is it about current approaches to the control of drug abuse and drug trafficking which have made them ineffective? Proponents of the liberalization of drug control laws, many of whom are in the vanguard of a growing drug law reform movement, argue that there are fundamental flaws in prevailing drug control policies which make them inherently ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. I will present this argument in such a way as to emphasize those points which are applicable to Nigerian drug laws. Disregard of objective information Drug law reformers [26,27] argue that current laws are based on insufficient and often unreliable scientific information. They assert, for example, that the longterm harm, addictiveness, and potency of narcotics are exaggerated. Such harm that exists is the result of a policy that makes drugs illegal hence difficult to get in a form that is safe, and not due to the characteristics of the drugs. As stated earlier, changes in the Nigerian Indian Hemp Decree of 1966 were not based on epidemiological evidence of increased use of the substance but on peculiarities of the military men in power. The death penalty for drug offenses in 1984 was, more than anything else, a reflection of the general repressive tendencies of the military leaders at the time. This was, afterall, a time of ‘War Against Indiscipline’ (WAI) in which jumping the queue or littering the street met with instant punishment from a member of the W.A.I. Brigade. Just like hysteria generated by an uninformed public or interest groups can influence policy, the beliefs and attitudes of influential members of a ruling class can often be what determines a policy direction. Jensen, Gerber and Babcock [28] have argued that the drug war which most of the world is engaged in is not based on the objective conditions of drug use: “a condition can come to be defined as problematic by powerful interests without the prior existence of a social movement” [28, p. 6521. These powerful interests can be political, economic or medical. Creating several problems from one Nadelman [29], Ostrowski [30], Schmoke [31] and other drug law reformers [26,27] all argue that the drug war has done more harm than good. Instead of quenching an epidemic of drug use and abuse, the war has resulted in more crimes, disease and death than would have existed. If drugs were legal property it would not be under the control of criminal elements and therefore crimes associated with trafficking and protection of turf would not exist. Concerning the criminal activities of addicts, recent data seem to suggest that heroin addicts do not commit more crimes than non-addicts. Liberal drug policies would decrease if not eliminate crimes and reduce the inci-

The control

of drug abuse and drug trafficking

Table 2. Prevalence of use and estimated deaths associated with licit and illicit drugs Drue cateeorv Tobacco Alcohol All illicit drugs

Current use Nigeria (%) U.S. (%) 17722 32-43 0.2-2.4

21 51 6.4

Deaths/year (U.S.) 346,000 125,000 IO-20,000

Source: Nigeria Data: Reporl of a Research Project on Substance Abuse in Some Urban and Rural Areas of Nigeria.

International

Council on Alcohol and Addictions, Lausanne, 1988; Obot 1. S. Drinking Betuwiour and Alritudes in Nigeria: The Middlebell Study. Centre for Development Studies, University of Jos. I” press. U.S. Data: National Institute on Drug Abuse National Household Surce~~ on Drug Abuse, 1990. Washington, D.C. 1990.

dence of diseases and death from the consumption of impure drugs and the sharing of contaminated needles. Distinguishing between legal and illegaI drugs The drug war sharpens the distinction between legal drugs (e.g. caffeine, nicotine and alcohol) and the illegal drugs (cocaine, LSD and heroin) unnecessarily. Prosecutors of the war seek to eliminate the illegal substances but embrace and sometimes participate in the production and distribution of the legal drugs. The danger in this false dichotomy, critics assert, is that an inconsistent message is communicated to children about the danger of drugs. Alcohol is O.K. in moderation, the message goes, but any quantity of marijuana or cocaine is harmful. The problem with this is that in terms of harm to consumers and cost to the society at large, tobacco and alcohol are the worst culprits (see Table 2). More people die each year from cigarette smoking than from the abuse of all the illicit drugs, and alcohol is the most criminogenic drug of all yet. In its final report the Canadian Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs concluded that “of all drugs used medically or non-medically, alcohol has the strongest and most consistent relationship to crime” [32]. Yet “society is more eager to stigmatize a heroin-dependent prostitute than a spouse battering problem drinker” [33]. Apart from crime, health and social welfare, the economic costs of alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence far exceed the cost of the illicit drugs. In addition, tobacco use is associated with the initiation of psychoactive drug use because smokers drink and use more illicit drugs than nonsmokers [34]. In Nigeria today the harm to individuals and society caused by pharmaceuticals and alcohol is much more significant than the harm caused by cocaine and heroin. Based on these comparisons it has been argued that a rational drug control policy could be formulated on the basis of relative harm which would mean more attention on tobacco and alcohol than on the illicit drugs [35]. No distinction is made between use and abuse In the frenzy to eliminate illicit drugs, no distinction is made between two different though related

489

behavioursdrug use and drug abuse. Both behaviours are proscribed and punished in the philosophy of zero-tolerance. A man who occasionally uses marijuana to relax in the privacy of his home is as culpable as an addict who drives and operates machinery at work under the influence of the drug. In addition, the productive drug user is exposed to danger when a drug is made illegal because “both abusers and users are then required to gain access to it in the same illicit market” [36, p. 1901. Drug prohibition has a history of failure Probably the most sobering argument against the war on drugs is that we have failed to learn from history. Prohibition has not worked before in the past, is not working now, and is unlikely to work in the future. Alcohol prohibition is only but one example. For various reasons, including the impracticality of consistent law enforcement, the availability of illicit drugs has not been significantly affected by prohibition. As long as the demand (i.e. the market) for drugs exists, there will be sellers. Moreover, most of the illicit drugs have cultural roots and their sources cannot be totally eliminated; the synthetic drugs on the other hand, like the bomb, cannot be dis-invented. A question of rights The most fundamental argument against the war on drugs is the one anchored on civil rights. The argument states that the drug war erodes the rights of individuals to privacy, liberty and freedom. In all free societies of the world these rights are enshrined in the constitution as basic principles for the protection of their citizens. But these principles are often compromised in the zealotry displayed during the arrest, prosecution and punishment of individuals who use or traffic in drugs. Bodily search (which has become a common practice in recent years), random testing of urine samples at work, forced treatment regimes, international travel restrictions, are but some of the examples of abuse of civil liberties which drug law reformers often cite. One of the proponents of the rights of adults to use drugs argues that drugs are like private property and therefore “the right to drugs is a form of property right” [37, p. I]. There is nothing inherently wrong with drugs, and unlike other criminal behaviours drug use is a normal human activity which has only become malaprohibita -wrong by prohibition, bad because the law says it is so. The argument for the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, and any form of liberalization of drug laws on the basis of protection of civil rights derives its philosophical support from the work of John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty, Mill addresses the question of “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” [38, p. 11. He is opposed to any interference with

ISIDORES. OBOT

490

the individual liberty of adults in civilized societies except in cases of harm to others. The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their effort to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest [38, p. 171. Like Mill, most drug reformers recognize the limits of individual liberty hence the need to prohibit certain

people, especially the young, from taking drugs, and the right of the state to punish drug-related crimes. But they insist that the focus should be on the crimes (e.g. murder, traffic offences) and not on the drug. Drug taking by adults is a personal conduct and when the public through their representatives interferes with this, “the odds are that it interferes wrongly and in the wrong place” [38, p, 921. The criminalization of an indigenous drug behaviour like the distillation of native gin by the Ordinance of 1917 was such interference. Advocates of drug law reform include extreme libertarians who call for outright legalization of all psychoactive substances, those who support the decriminalization of possession and use of some quantities of some illicit drugs, and those who are only suggesting a shift in the focus of drug policy from a crime and punishment approach to a public health perspective. All reformers defend their positions by citing what they regard as the success story of drug policy in the Netherlands where cannabis use has been decriminalized under a controlled distribution system. The result is that most of the crimes associated with trafficking in this substance have been eliminated, and the normal fear of an epidemic of cannabis use has not materialized as other studies of decriminalization have shown [39,40]. The Liverpool harm reduction model of heroin addiction has also attracted the attention of reformers. In this model, abstinence is encouraged as an ideal but those who are addicted and therefore must use drugs do so under the control of the public health care scheme. They are encouraged to use drugs in the safest possible ways, for example, taking drugs orally or injecting with clean needles, so as to reduce the incidence of diseases related to the use of contaminated needles [39]. The recognition that illicit drugs can be taken in ways that make them less harmful than is generally known fits into the framework of a public health approach to the control of drug abuse, an approach which seems to hold much promise for the control of drug-related problems all over the world. THE PUBLIC HEALTH

MODEL

As much as the policy of prohibition (or zero tolerance) of drugs is an extreme position, so too is

any policy option that calls for the outright legalization of drugs. In Nigeria, hardly any voices have been raised in support of legalization. Even though freedom of speech is highly valued in the country within the constraints of military rule, any suggestion of legalization of cannabis (not to talk of cocaine and heroin) would be regarded as irresponsible at best. The fact remains that there are stong arguments in support of continued prohibition of the illicit drugs. Alcohol abuse is afterall the number one drug problem in the country as in many countries in the world. While the prohibition of alcohol did not and will not eliminate alcohol-related problems, making it a legal drug has not solved them either except those related to rights of access and the regulation of quality. The counter-argument by some reformers that legalization does not obviate the need for strict control mechanisms as in the case of alcohol and tobacco in many countries is often neglected. Proponents of a public health model subscribe to the idea that illicit drugs can be made available to those who need them [40] within a system that discourages drug use and engages in all the activities necessary to reduce the incidence of use and abuse in the population. The underlying assumption of the public health model is that drug abuse is a multifactorial problem involving the interaction of characteristics of the drug (agent), the person (host) and the environment. Therefore solving the problem requires a clear understanding of the effects of each factor in the triad and programs directed at each. A single activity, for example law enforcement, which focusses on the elimination of drugs (i.e. the regulation of availability) cannot solve the problem. What promises significant success is a combination of efforts directed at the three inter-related factors in drug behaviour. Nevertheless, while drug abuse is not solely a criminal justice problem the enforcement of laws is important especially when criminal activities, e.g. trafficking, are involved. In this light the model also makes the distinction between drug use, abuse, dependence and trafficking and, therefore, makes it possible to formulate relevant control measures for each aspect of the drug problem. CHALLENGES

FOR NlGERIAN

DRUG POLlCY

The general theme of this paper has been that Nigerian drug policies have been historically and overwhelmingly focussed on law enforcement activities. Even when laws have made provisions for rehabilitation of drug offenders (including abusers), this has been done in the context of the criminal justice system. The effectiveness of rehabilitating young drug abusers in a borstal is highly questionable and the implied separation of treatment from rehabilitation has been a source of concern among experts. It is suggested that a review of existing drug policy in Nigeria (including specifically the National Drug Law Enforcement Decree of 1989) is overdue. In this

The control of drug abuse and drug trafficking

review and in the formulation of a comprehensive alcohol and other drug policy for the country the following genera1 challenges should be addressed. A commitment to objective knowledge

Many Nigerian drug abuse experts have at one time or the other decried the neglect of research priorities in drug control in the country [3,22,41,42]. The drug abuse scene is a dynamic one and requires continuous monitoring of patterns of use, the effects of drugs on society and individuals (for example, the neglected area of the role of alcohol and other drugs in road traffic accidents), the introduction of new drugs, and public attitudes to drugs. It is also necessary to study the effectiveness of policy and to make changes on the basis of the knowledge generated and not on the whim of people in power. That in itself implies clear policy objectives to begin with instead of undefinable but well meaning goals which cannot be evaluated. The efficacy of treatment and prevention programmes, especially when these are adapted from western models, as they almost always are, cannot be taken by faith but should be assessed for the purpose of improvement or abandonment. Research does not only need support but co-ordination. It is for this reason that at least one research institute devoted to a research agenda needs to be established soon. But the influence of research information on policy can be limited. Some commentators have bemoaned what they call the ‘quality paradox’. In policy good research is often ignored while inadequate research creates greater impact. In Nigeria as in other countries it is safe to say that popular perceptions will continue to supersede scientific evidence in policy for a long time. Action on alcohol and other licit drugs

In an earlier section of this paper it was stated that the consumption of traditional and western alcoholic beverages and tobacco products have risen steeply in recent years. Individual and social problems associated with alcohol and nicotine misuse have also increased. Yet there is no alcohol control policy in the country and the anti-smoking law has been described as unenforceable by the police. Moreover, official behaviour regarding these two substances serves as a source of confusion to young people because the same government that prohibits the use of other drugs participates in or benefits from the production of and trade in these more damaging drugs. While banning alcohol and tobacco maybe impracticable and ill-advised, at least an attitude of intolerance of use of these drugs in certain circumstances (e.g. alcohol and driving, smoking during pregnancy, etc.) should be cultivated and normalized. In formulating an alcohol policy for Nigeria, it is important to heed the suggestions offered by Grant [44]: Alcohol policies do not drop ready-made from the sky. They have to be stimulated, developed and negotiated afresh

491

for each country. They have to he sensitive to the history of the country, its culture and its drinking practices. They require imagination, tolerance, hard work and a sense of vision. They need to be prepared, formulated and promoted, taking into account a wide variety of legitimate but sometimes competing interests. All this is a formidable task, but a necessary one, if alcohol-related problems are really to be reduced in any worthwhile way [44, p. 11. Provision of prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services

The action suggested above must necessarily include early and consistent education in the community and schools. The provision of demand reduction services requires a committed manpower with adequate training in relevant areas of contribution. At present in Nigeria there is a school for the training of drug law enforcement officers but no similar initiative exists in developing a core of efficient drug abuse counsellors or prevention experts. The availability of personnel and facilities for treatment and rehabilitation is, to say the least, inadequate. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of the pressing challenges to future drug policy in Nigeria. But the issues are critical. It is hoped that as a new civilian and democratically elected government takes over the reins of power from the military administration in 1993 there will be a major review of Nigerian drug policy with the purpose of broadening the scope of drug control activities to include demand reduction programmes and services. Underlying this review should be the lesson from other societies that (1) it is important to establish permanent structures to deal with the drug problem because drugs will always be with us, (2) a single body cannot solve the drug problem because the problem is multifaceted, and (3) present drug laws cannot be enforced without subverting the fundamental principles of democracy. For a country like Nigeria, which has hungered for democratic rule for many years and is just on the threshold of a new era, balancing the pressures of international demands with the ethical responsibility of protecting the rights of its citizens is no trifling challenge on the road to formulating a comprehensive drug policy for the years to come.

CONCLUSION

Judging by present trends, the problems of drug abuse and drug trafficking will get worse in Nigeria in the 1990s. Drug trafficking is a very lucrative business and the risks of being arrested, prosecuted and punished, though increasing, are not high enough to deter most would-be traffickers. More than that, since the main motivation for drug smuggling is economic, the continuing decline of the Nigerian economy will create a larger pool of recruits for the trade. The high value of the dollar or the pound sterling against an emasculated naira, the dream of escape from poverty, and the chance

ISIDORES. OBOT

492

of acquiring the symbols of status in a highly materialistic society, the collaboration of law enforcement officers with traffickers out of fear or the desire for gain, are powerful forces working against a decline in drug trafficking. In a country where money is revered no matter the source, where ruffians can become heroes because of money, and the distinction between glitter and substance has been blurred, drug trafficking will remain an attractive alternative to fast riches. One danger in this is that the response to a losing battle may lead to the escalation of the war. Laws may be made more draconian (more people will call for the death penalty) and policy initiatives may be directed towards a total war. But sober reflection will reveal the obvious-the ‘tough guy’ approach will not work. And yet the government has a duty and the right to protect its citizens against unnecessary harm from drug abuse and trafficking. Drug abuse is a serious matter and a real problem with implications for national development. Left unchecked the problem can deepen the trauma of underdevelopment by creating a ‘wasted generation’ of youth “alienated from society and incapable of productive employment or social relations” [45]. The challenge ahead lies in devising ‘peaceful measures’ to curb the desire by young people to use drugs, and to reduce the harm done by drugs to those dependent on their effects. In trying to control the wrath of drug abuse and drug trafficking, the guiding principle should be to do significantly less harm to individuals and society than can be attributed to drugs. Acknowledgements-I am grateful to Professor Wallace Mandell of The John Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, for his advice and comments; and to Kathleen Price and Charles Nwalimu of the Library of Congress Law Library, Washington, D.C., for opening up the vast resources of the library to me. This paper was completed while the author was- at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health as a NIDA/Humphrey Research Fellow in Substance Abuse.

REFERENCES I. Communique on the National Seminar on Drug Law Enforcement, In Narcotics: Law and Policy in Nigeria (Edited by Kalu A. U. and Osinbajo Y.). pp. xii-xvi. Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos, 1990. 2. Chukkol K. S. Towards a national drug control nohcv-A blue mint. In Narcotics: Law and Policy in ‘Nigeiia (Edited- by A. U. Kalu and Osinbajo Y.), DD. 21 l-222. Federal Ministrv of Justice, Lagos, 1990. 3. b;bot I. S. Substance abuse, health and socialwelfare in Africa: An analysis of the Nigerian experience. Sot. Sci. Med. 31, 699-704, 1990. 4. Obot I. S. Drinking Behaviour and Attitudes in Nigeria: The Middlebelt Study. Centre for Development Studies, University of Jos. In press. 5. Oshodin 0. G. Alcohol abuse among high school students in Benin City, Nigeria. Drug Alcohol Dep. 7, 141-145, 1981. 6. Obot I. S. The use of tobacco products among Nigerian adults: a general population survey. Drug Alcohol Dep. 26, 203-208, 1990.

7. Onadeko B. O., Awotedu A. A. and Onadeko M. 0. Smoking patterns of students in higher institutions of learning in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the Fifih World Conference on Smoking and Health, Vol. 1. (Edited by Forbes W. F., Frecker R. C. and Nostbaken D.). Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, Ottawa, 1983. J. A. Attitudes and 8. Bandele E. 0. and Osadiaye smoking habits of physicians at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital. J. Natn. Med. Assoc. Nigeria 19, 430-432, 1987. D. Incidence and 9. Elegbeleye 0. 0. and Femi-Pearse variables contributing to onset of cigarette smoking among secondary school children and medical students in Lagos, Nigeria. Br. J. prev. sot. Med. 30,60-70, 1976. B. 0. The Health of the Public Servant 10. Osuntokun and the Nation’s Destiny (The Distinguished Annual Lecture Series No. 3). National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies. Kuru. Nigeria. 1987. 11. International Council on -Alcohol and Addictions. Report of a Research on Substance Abuse in Some Urban and Rural Areas of Nigeria. ICAA, Lausanne, 1988. 12. Oviasu V. 0. Abuse of stimulant drugs in Nigeria. Br. J. Addict. 71, 51-63, 1976. 13. Lambo T. A. Medical and social problems of drug addiction in West Africa. West Afr. Med. J. 14, 2366254, 1965. 14. Asuni T. Socio-psychiatric problems of Cannabis in Nigeria. Bull. Narcotics 16, 27, 1964. psychiatric 15. Obot I. S. and Olaniyi A. A. Drug-induced disorders in four Nigerian hospitals, Unpublished manuscript, University of Jos, 1989. 16. Ebie J. C. and Pela A. 0. Drug abuse in Nigeria: a review of epidemiological studies. Bull. Narcotics 34, 91-99, 1982. 17 Atta A. I. Drug trafficking and its implications for Nigeria and its image abroad. In Narcotics: Law and Policy in Nigeria (Edited by Kalu A. U. and Osinbajo Y.), pp. 250-261. Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos, 1990. F. F. Keynote address, In Narcotics: Law, 18 Oyakhilome and Policy in Nigeriu (Edited by Kalu A. U. and Osinbajo Y.), pp. I-16. Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos, 1990. 19 Drug Abuse Policy Office (The White House). National strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Trajicking. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1984. Drug Control Policy (Executive 20 Office of National Office of the President). National Drug Control Policy. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1991. 21. Alexander B. K. Peaceful Measures: Canada’s Way Out of the “War on Drugs”. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1990. I E. E. 0. Narcotic trafficking, abuse and 22. Alemika, control in Nigeria. Paper presented at National Conference on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse in Nigeria, Universitv of Jos. Nigeria, 1991. 23. Pan L. Ahohol in Colonial Africa. The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies, Helsinki, 1975. revived: The Bishop of 24. Daily Times. Old controversy London and prohibition. Daily Times, 1 June 1926. framework for 25. Osinbaio Y. The legal and institutional the eradication of drug trafficking in Nigeria. In Narcotics: Law and Policy in Nigeria (Edited by Kalu A. U. and Osinbajo Y.), pp. 2231249. Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos, 1990. B. K. When experimental psychology is 26. Alexander not experimental enough: The case of the exposure orientation. In Illicit Drugs in Canada: A Risky Business (Edited by Blackwell J. C. and Erickson P. G.),

The control ~;8~139-157.

Nelson

Canada,

Scarborough,

of drug abuse and drug trafficking Ontario,

21. Trebach A. S. The Great Drug War: And Radical Proposals that Could Make America Safe Again. MacMillan, New York, 1987. 28. Jensen E. L., Gerber J. and Babcock G. M. The new war on drugs: Grassroots movement or politial construction? J. Drug Issues 21, 651-667, 1991. 29. Nadelman E. A. The case for legalization. Publ. Inferesr 92, 3-31, 1988. 30. Ostrowski J. Thinking about drug legalization. Cato Institute Policv Paner. No. 121. 25 Mav 1989. 31. Schmoke K. L. Drugs: A problem of health and economics In The Crisis in Drug Rehabilitation (Edited by Boaz D.), pp. 9912. Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 1990. 32. Le Dain Commission, Canada. Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs: Final Report. Information Canada, Ottawa, 1973. Cited in Alexander B. Peaceful Measures: Canada’s Way out of the “War on Drugs”. University of toronto Press, Toronto, 1990. 33. Blackwell J. Sin, sickness, or social problem? In Zllicif Drugs in Canada: A Risky Business (Edited by Blackwell J. C. and Erickson P. G.), pp. 158-161. Nelson Canada, Scarborough, Ontario, 1988. 34. Henningfield J. E., Clayton R. C. and Pollin W. Involvement of tobacco in alcoholism and illicit drug abuse. Br. J. Addicf. 85, 2799292, 1990. 35. Green M. Towards rational drug scheduling. In Illicit Drugs in Canada: A Risky Business (Edited by Blackwell J. C. and Erickson P. G.). Nelson Canada, Scarborough, Ontario, 1988.

493

P., Beyerstein B. L. and Youdale J. V. M. 36. Hadaway Canadian drug policies: Irrational, futile and unjust. J. Drug Issues 21, 183-197, 1991. In New Frontiers in Drug 31. Szasz T. Drugs as property. Policy (Edited by Trebach A. S. and Zeese K. B.), pp. l-5. The Drug Policy Foundation, Washington, DC, 1991. 38. Mill J. S. On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991. Johns Hopkins 39. Trebach A. S. Personal communication. University, November, 1991. 40. Single E. The imoact of mariiuana decriminalization. In Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, Vol. 6 (Edited by Israel Y., Glaser F. B., Kalant H., Popham R. F., Schmidt W. and Smart R. G.). Plenum, New York, 1981. 41 Okagbue I. Death penalty as an effective deterrent to drug abuse and drug trafficking. In Narcotics: Law and Policy in Nigeria (Edited by Kalu A. U. and Osinbajo Y.), pp. 317-341. Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos, 1990. 42 Asuni T. Drugs and mental illness. National Conference on Alcoholand Other Drug Abuse. Universitv of Jos. Jos. 43. Ahire P. Drug abuse in Nigeria: Facts, causes and remedies. In Narcotics: Law and Policy in Nigeria (Edited by Kalu A. U. and Osinbajo Y.), pp. 139-156. Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos, 1990. 44. Grant M. Alcohol Policies. W.H.O. Regional Publication, European Office No. 18, 1985. 45. Lyman P. (U. S. Ambassador). Speech delivered at the Conference of the Nigerian Society of International Law, Jos, 1987.