BOBBY P. SMYTH, PH.D., JOSEPH BARRY, M.D.
\nDepartment of Public Health & Primary Care,
\nTrinity College Dublin,
\nDublin, Ireland<\/p>\n
| Dear Editor: \nIn recent years, authors of editorials in the Journal of \nStudies on Alcohol and Drugs have taken a strong position \nin highlighting and objecting to potential conflicts of interest \nregarding alcohol policy (e.g., Babor, 2017). Given that there \nis now a legal cannabis industry in some countries, we will \nneed to be vigilant in monitoring that industry\u2019s efforts to \ninfluence cannabis policy (Humphreys et al., 2018). Beyond \nindustry, we have become increasingly concerned regarding \nthe very powerful influence of a small number of extremely \nwealthy individuals who are pushing for an end to the U.N. \ndrug treaties and for the commercialization of drug use. \nAlthough debate is to be welcomed, we are concerned that \none side of the discussion is being drowned out by a highly \ncoordinated and very well-resourced campaign for liberalization of policy. Following its success in North and South \nAmerica, its influence is becoming increasingly evident in \nEurope. \nIn May 2018, the Green Party became the first Irish political party to embrace a policy of cannabis legalisation, which \nincluded support for commercial production, distribution, \nand sale of cannabis. The party backed up its proposal with \na well-constructed policy document that referenced 11 reports (Green Party\u2013Ireland, 2017). In nine cases, the sole or \nprincipal funder of the entities that produced the referenced \nmaterial was the Open Society Foundations (OSF). This \ndemonstrates the success that OSF has had in capturing the \npolitical narrative\u2014of one party at least\u2014while remaining \nvery much in the background itself, as none of the reports \nwere published in its own name. \nOSF is George Soros\u2019s philanthropic vehicle, and it \nsupports an array of social initiatives globally. Many of \nthese initiatives are very admirable and backed up by solid \nscientific evidence, such as its support for increased access \nto medication-assisted treatment of opioid dependence. Mr. \nSoros authored an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal \nin 2010 titled, \u201cWhy I support legal marijuana\u201d (Soros, \n2010), in which he outlined his views on the advantages of \nregulating and taxing marijuana. Forbes magazine described \nMr. Soros as the biggest drug reformer in the United States (Sorvino, 2014). That seems to be a major understatement \nof his global reach. \nTransparify is an organization that evaluates think tanks \non fiscal transparency. When assessing OSF, it was categorized as \u201chighly opaque\u201d (Transparify, 2016, p. 16). \u00a0Their \nreport describes organizations in this lowest category of \ntransparency as those that \u201cstill consider it acceptable to take \nmoney from hidden hands behind closed doors\u201d (p. 6).<\/td>\n | OSF has established a phenomenal and powerful network \nof connections in support of Mr. Soros\u2019s drug policy goals. \nIn Britain, there is an All Party Parliamentary Group for \nDrug Policy Reform (2017). We noticed that OSF is the first \nof just two funders of this group of MPs, thereby nurturing \ninfluence at the very heart of British Parliament. The grandly \ntitled \u201cGlobal Commission on Drugs Policy\u201d is supported by \nOSF. It largely comprises retired very senior politicians, and \nthey advocate for liberalization of drug policies. \nA non-exhaustive list of other nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions funded by OSF to produce \nreports on drug policy includes Transform, Release, the International Drug Policy Consortium, the International Drug \nPolicy Unit in the London School of Economics, the Centre \nfor Public Health and Human Rights at Johns Hopkins, the \nUniversity of Essex\u2019s Institute for Social and Economic \nResearch, the Independent Committee on Drugs (recently \nrebranded as Drug Science), Health Poverty Action, Swansea \nUniversity\u2019s Global Drug Policy Observatory, and the Ana \nLiffey Drug Project (in Ireland). \nIf Forbes is correct in stating that Mr. Soros had given \nmore than $200 million to drug liberalization campaigns \nglobally before 2014, does the influence bought with that \nphenomenal sum not merit some debate and discussion \nwithin the scientific community and in leading addiction \nscience journals (Sorvino, 2014)? Certainly, there has been \nno such open discussion to date. \nWe realize that many policy analysts and academics believe that Mr. Soros is correct on this issue. However, even \nthose groups should be concerned that a single tremendously \nwealthy individual has been able to successfully buy the policy and academic narrative so comprehensively. Perhaps the \nnext multi-billionaire might take a notion that vaccination is bad for public health and fund the \u201canti-vax\u201d movement. \nWould that not be a concern (World Health Organization, \n2019)? Mr. Soros\u2019s money provides a financial incentive for \nscholars, institutions, and nongovernmental organizations \nto support his agenda. This appears to constitute the type of \nconflict of interest previously highlighted in editorials in the \nJournal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (e.g., Babor, 2017). \nAs such, we argue that it should be clearly declared in all \ninstances, and this has certainly not been happening to date. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n FOOTNOTE:<\/p>\n The above letter was released to a wider readership, being considered worthy of greater exposure, by Shane W. Varcoe, Executive Director of the Dalgarno Institute, Australia.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n |